Neither neural networks nor the language-of-thought alone make a complete game

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46:e285 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Cognitive science has evolved since early disputes between radical empiricism and radical nativism. The authors are reacting to the revival of radical empiricism spurred by recent successes in deep neural network (NN) models. We agree that language-like mental representations (language-of-thoughts [LoTs]) are part of the best game in town, but they cannot be understood independent of the other players.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Some Neural Networks Compute, Others Don't.Gualtiero Piccinini - 2008 - Neural Networks 21 (2-3):311-321.
Tic-Tac-Toe Learning Using Artificial Neural Networks.Mohaned Abu Dalffa, Bassem S. Abu-Nasser & Samy S. Abu-Naser - 2019 - International Journal of Engineering and Information Systems (IJEAIS) 3 (2):9-19.
Out of their minds: Legal theory in neural networks. [REVIEW]Dan Hunter - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):129-151.
Symbolic connectionism in natural language disambiguation.James Franklin & S. W. K. Chan - 1998 - IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 9:739-755.
Overlapping coalitions, bargaining and networks.Messan Agbaglah - 2017 - Theory and Decision 82 (3):435-459.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-09-29

Downloads
10 (#1,193,888)

6 months
10 (#268,644)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Iris Oved
University of Arizona
James Pustejovsky
Brandeis University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations