Rethinking learning: comments on Rethinking innateness
Rethinking learning: comments on Rethinking innateness
复制标题
重新思考学习：对重新思考先天性的评论
DOI：
10.1017/s0305000998293743
复制
发表时间：
1999
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Virginia Valian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Virginia Valian
在他对《反思先天性》（Elman，Bates，约翰逊，Karmiloff-Smith，Parisi & Plunkett，1996;此后，RI）的评论中，Rispoli（本卷）对RI第4章中提出的动态变化模型给予了好评。我认为应该采取更严厉的立场。特别是，我会认为，动态变化模型不能在原则上参考心理表征，该模型是规定性的，他们不能作为行为的描述。(For更广泛的讨论，见Valian，在印刷中。动态变化模型和联结主义网络之间的关系在RI中没有详细说明，所以我对动态变化模型的批评中有哪些也适用于联结主义模型并不清楚。
In his review of Rethinking innateness (Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff-Smith, Parisi & Plunkett, 1996; henceforth, RI), Rispoli (this volume) comments favourably on the dynamical change models presented in RI's Chapter 4. I think a more critical stance is warranted. In particular, I will argue that dynamical change models cannot in principle make reference to mental representation, that the models are stipulative, and that they fail as descriptions of behaviour. (For more extensive discussion, see Valian, in press.) The relation between dynamical change models and connectionist networks is not spelled out in RI, so it is not clear which of the criticisms that I direct at dynamical change models also hold for connectionist models.