Systematicity : An Overview
Systematicity : An Overview
复制标题
系统性：概述
DOI：
10.7551/mitpress/9559.003.0003
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Calvo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Symons;P. Calvo
1988年，Jerry Fodor和Zenon Pylyshyn出版了《联结主义与认知建筑：批判性分析》。他们的文章对认知神经网络模型的解释相关性提出了强有力的、极具影响力的批评。当时，联结主义重新成为一个受欢迎和令人兴奋的新研究领域，但根据福多和皮雷辛的说法，这种方法建立在一个有缺陷的人类思维模型上。联结主义认为，心智可以被理解为一个由简单机制组成的相互连接的网络。它的支持者认为，认知和行为属性可以建模和解释，从简单的互动和适应机制的集体行为的出现。根据Fodor和Pylyshyn的观点，联结主义的方法忽略了思维的一个基本特征--它的系统性。在他们看来，如果一个人否认表征是以句法和语义上经典的组合方式构建的，那么思想与其他一些思想以系统的方式内在相关的基本心理学事实就变得无法解释了。[1]他们认为，联结主义不可避免地无法对认知提供有意义的解释，因为它把思维的内在系统性与联想系统混为一谈。[2]联结主义可能会对认知结构在大脑中的实现方式有所启发，但认知的解释并不发生在生物学或硬件的层面上。认知架构必须是系统的核心，以揭示认知的内在系统性。他们文章中的一个重要信息是，认知架构必须解释系统性才能解释人类认知，这被称为系统性挑战。
In 1988 Jerry Fodor and Zenon Pylyshyn published “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis.” Their article presented a forceful and highly influential criticism of the explanatory relevance of neural network models of cognition. At the time, connectionism was reemerging as a popular and exciting new field of research, but according to Fodor and Pylyshyn, the approach rested on a flawed model of the human mind. Connectionism is the view that the mind can be understood in terms of an interconnected network of simple mechanisms. Its proponents contend that cognitive and behavioral properties can be modeled and explained in terms of their emergence from the collective behavior of simple interacting and adaptive mechanisms. According to Fodor and Pylyshyn, connectionist approaches neglect an essential feature of thought – its systematic nature. On their view, the basic psychological fact that thoughts are intrinsically related to some other thoughts in systematic ways becomes inexplicable if one denies that representations are structured in a syntactically and semantically classical combinatorial manner. 1 Connectionism, they argued, inevitably fails to provide a meaningful explanation of cognition insofar as it confuses the intrinsically systematic nature of thought with a system of associations. 2 Connectionism might shed some light on the way that cognitive architectures happen to be implemented in brains, but the explanation of cognition does not take place at the level of biology or hardware. A cognitive architecture must be systematic to the core in order to shed light on the intrinsically systematic character of cognition. One prominent message of their article, that a cognitive architecture must explain systematicity in order to explain human cognition, came to be called the systematicity challenge.