Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!ucsd!ucsbcsl!silber@sbphy.ucsb.edu
From: silber@sbphy.ucsb.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: "Connectionism and Symbols", Pinker and Mehler, ed. MIT 1988
Message-ID: <1221@hub.ucsb.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 89 19:09:23 GMT
Sender: news@hub.ucsb.edu
Organization: UC, Santa Barbara. Physics Computer Services
Lines: 13

I have been reading "Connectionism and Symbols" (MIT Press 1988) which
contains critical essays re: connectionism and cognitive systems.  In
their contribution, Fodor and Pylyshyn stress the inability of many
connectionist models to accomodate "constituency relations". E.G.
In a connectionist model with a NODE labeled "A & B" which is connected
to a NODE labeled "A" and a NODE labeled "B", neither A nor B is 
A PART OF (constituent) of the node "A & B", WHEREAS in the classical
approach using logical EXPRESSIONS CONTAINING CONSTITUENT TERMS, A and B
ARE "parts" of the EXPRESSION "A & B".

The cited book contains many interesting footnotes in the smallest font
this side of a legal contract!  I am interested in any comments/evaluations
by others re:the issues raised by the contributors to that book...