Systematicity redux

  title={Systematicity redux},
  author={Brian P. McLaughlin},
One of the main challenges that Jerry Fodor and Zenon Pylyshyn (Cognition 28:3–71, 1988) posed for any connectionist theory of cognitive architecture is to explain the systematicity of thought without implementing a Language of Thought (LOT) architecture. The systematicity challenge presents a dilemma: if connectionism cannot explain the systematicity of thought, then it fails to offer an adequate theory of cognitive architecture; and if it explains the systematicity of thought by implementing… CONTINUE READING
Highly Cited
This paper has 18 citations. REVIEW CITATIONS

From This Paper

Topics from this paper.
14 Citations
19 References
Similar Papers


Publications citing this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 14 extracted citations


Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 19 references

The varieties of reference

  • G. Erlbaum Associates. Evans
  • Oxford: Clarendon. Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (1992…
  • 1982
Highly Influential
11 Excerpts

Systematicity, conceptual truth, and evolution

  • B. P. McLaughlin
  • C. Hookway & D. Peterson, Philosophy and…
  • 1993
Highly Influential
4 Excerpts

The connectionism/classicism battle to win souls

  • B. P. 185–193. McLaughlin
  • 1993
Highly Influential
6 Excerpts

The systematicity arguments

  • K. Aizawa
  • Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.. Braddon…
  • 2003
3 Excerpts

Classical constituents in Smolensky’s

  • B. P. McLaughlin
  • ICS architecture,
  • 1997
3 Excerpts

Reply: Constituent structure and explanation in an integrated connectionist/symbolic cognitive architecture

  • P. Smolensky
  • C. Macdonald & G. Macdonald (Eds.), Connectionism…
  • 1995
3 Excerpts

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…