Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T22:24:41.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tensor Products and Split-Level Architecture: Foundational Issues in The Classicism-Connectionism Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Marcello Guarini
Marcello Guarini*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Philosophical Issues in Cognitive Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1996. , 1996 , pp. S239 - S247
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I thank Ausonio Marras for comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support, award 752–94–1127.

‡

Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 3K7.

References

Fodor, J. and McLaughlin, B. P. (1990), “Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity: Why Smolensky's Solution Doesn't Work”, Cognition 35: 183–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988), “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis”, Cognition 28: 3–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horgan, T. and Tienson, J. (1992), “Structured Representations in Connectionist Systems?”, in Davis, S. (ed.), Connectionism: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 195–228.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1990), “Tensor Product Variable Binding and the Representation of Symbolic Structures in Connectionist Systems”, Artificial Intelligence 46: 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1991), “Connectionism, Constituency, and the Language of Thought”, in Loewer, B. and Rey, G. (eds.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics. Cambridge MA: Blackwell, pp. 201–227.Google Scholar