Abstract
The primary purpose of this article is to reply to the central point of (1988) critique of connectionism. The direct reply to their critique comprises Section 2 of this paper. In short, I argue that Fodor and Pylyshyn are simply mistaken in their claim that connectionist mental states lack the necessary constituent structure, and that the basis of this mistake is a failure to appreciate the significance of distributed representations in connectionist models. Section 3 is a broader response to the bottom line of their critique, which is that connectionists should re-orient their work towards implementation of the classical symbolic cognitive architecture. I argue instead that connectionist research should develop new formalizations of the fundamental computational notions that have been given one particular formal shape in the traditional symbolic paradigm.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
