Minds and Machines

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 423–434 | Cite as

Does Classicism Explain Universality?

  • Steven Phillips
Article
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

One of the hallmarks of human cognition is the capacity to generalize over arbitrary constituents. Recently, Marcus (1998, 1998a, b; Cognition 66, p. 153; Cognitive Psychology 37, p. 243) argued that this capacity, called “universal generalization” (universality), is not supported by Connectionist models. Instead, universality is best explained by Classical symbol systems, with Connectionism as its implementation. Here it is argued that universality is also a problem for Classicism in that the syntax-sensitive rules that are supposed to provide causal explanations of mental processes are either too strict, precluding possible generalizations; or too lax, providing no information as to the appropriate alternative. Consequently, universality is not explained by a Classical theory.

Associativism Classicism Connectionism isomorphism structural consistency systematicity universality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, S. (1996), ‘Statistical Methods and Linguistics’, in J. L. Klavans and P. Resnik, eds., The Balancing Act: Combining Symbolic and Statistical Approaches to Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  2. Boden, M. and Niklasson, L. (2000), ‘Semantic Systematicity and Context in Connectionist Networks’, Connection Science 12(2), pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
  3. Christiansen, M. H. and Chater, N. (1999), ‘Toward a Connectionist Model of Recursion in Human Linguistic Performance’, Cognitive Science 23, pp. 157–205.Google Scholar
  4. Fodor, J. A. (1983), The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fodor, J. A. (2000), The Mind Doesn't Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Cognitive Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. A. and McLaughlin, B. P. (1990), ‘Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity: Why Smolensky's Solution Doesn't Work’, Cognition 35, pp. 183–204.Google Scholar
  7. Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988), ‘Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis’, Cognition 28, pp. 3–71.Google Scholar
  8. Gentner, D. (1983), ‘Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy’, Cognitive Science 7, pp. 47–59.Google Scholar
  9. Hadley, R. F. (1994), ‘Systematicity in Connectionist Language Learning’, Mind and Language 9(3), pp. 247–272.Google Scholar
  10. Hadley, R. F. and Hayward, M. B. (1997), ‘Strong Semantic Systematicity from Hebbian Connectionist Learning’, Minds and Machines 7, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
  11. Halford, G. S., Phillips, S. and Wilson, W. H. (submitted), ‘Structural Complexity in Non-Symbolic and Symbolic Cognitive Processes: The Concept of Representational Rank’.Google Scholar
  12. Halford, G. S. and Wilson, W. H. (1980), ‘A Category Theory Approach to Cognitive Development’, Cognitive Psychology 12, pp. 356–411.Google Scholar
  13. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H. and Phillips, S. (1998), ‘Processing Capacity Defined by Relational Complexity: Implications for Comparative, Developmental, and Cognitive Psychology’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21(6), pp. 803–831.Google Scholar
  14. Hummel, J. E. and Holyoak, K. J. (1997), ‘Distributed Representations of Structure: A Theory of Analogical Access and Mapping’, Psychological Review 104(3), pp. 427–466.Google Scholar
  15. Marcus, G. F. (1998a), ‘Can Connectionism Save Constructivism?’ Cognition 66, pp. 153–182.Google Scholar
  16. Marcus, G. F. (1998b), ‘Rethinking Eliminative Connectionism’, Cognitive Psychology 37, pp. 243–282.Google Scholar
  17. Marcus, G. F. (1999), ‘Connectionism: With or Without Rules? Response to J.L. McClelland and D.C. Plaut (1999)’, Trends in Cognitive Science 3(5), pp. 168–170.Google Scholar
  18. Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Rao, S. B. and Vishton, P. M. (1999), ‘Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants’, Science 283, pp. 77–80.Google Scholar
  19. McClelland, J. L. and Plaut, D. C. (1999), Does Generalization in Infant Learning Implicate Abstract Algebra-Like Rules? Trends in Cognitive Science 3(5), pp. 166–168.Google Scholar
  20. Phillips, S. (1995), ‘Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity’, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  21. Phillips, S. (1998), ‘Are Feedforward and Recurrent Networks Systematic? Analysis and Implications for a Connectionist Cognitive Architecture’, Connection Science 10(2), pp. 137–160.Google Scholar
  22. Phillips, S. (1999), ‘Systematic Minds, Unsystematic Models: Learning Transfer in Humans and Networks’, Minds and Machines 9(3), pp. 383–398.Google Scholar
  23. Phillips, S. (2000), ‘Constituent Similarity and Systematicity: The Limits of First-Order Connectionism’, Connection Science 12(1), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  24. Pinker, S. (1994), The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language, New York, NY: Harper PerennialGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson, W. H., Halford, G. S., Gray, B. and Phillips, S. (2001), ‘The STAR-2 Model for Mapping Hierarchically Structured Analogs’, in D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak and B. Kokinov, eds., The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 125–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Phillips
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences Group, Neuroscience Research InstituteAISTTsukuba, IbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations