Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1996

Publication Title

Philosophy of Science

Volume

63

Issue

3 (Supplement)

First Page

239

Last Page

247

DOI

stable/188532

Abstract

This paper responds to criticisms levelled by Fodor, Pylyshyn and McLaughlin against connectionism. Specifically, I will rebut the charge that connectionists cannot account for representational systematicity without implementing a classical architecture. This will be accomplished by drawing on Paul Smolensky's Tensor Product model of representation and on his insights about split-level architectures.

Comments

This article was originally published in Philosophy of Science, 1996. Copyright Philosophy of Science Association.

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS