it's getting funny. :) Anyway,
I absolutely agree, that
> "he wrote in detail about the abduction problem
> w.r.t. connectionism to refute this latter approach, not to discuss the
> problem itself in more detail".
I think you misunderstood me. What I do
miss is the same argumented (!) "refutation" of connectionism with regards
to the input problem.
Kristof
P. S. again (as a reminder):
Still Kovacs: I do not agree with Judit becaue in the case of abduction,
where Fodor also showed that computationalism doesn't work, he nevertheless
took the effort and wrote several pages why an empiricist (connectionist)
alternative doesn't work either - even if he "did mean massive
computionalism". The simple fact that he didn't do the same in the case of
the input problem (rather he neglected the empiricist view a priori) simply
suggested to me that he didn't have counterarguments at all.
P. S. No. 2. (about "Still Kovacs"):
> Gervain:
> Ok, I understand why you put it the way you did and I accept it. However,
> what you write in the second, "Still Kovacs" comment is not quite clear to
> me. I think he wrote in detail about the abduction problem
> w.r.t. connectionism to refute this latter approach, not to discuss the
> problem itself in more detail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jun 13 2001 - 18:38:04 BST