Cargando…

Neural Networks Track the Logical Complexity of Boolean Concepts

The language of thought hypothesis and connectionism provide two main accounts of category acquisition in the cognitive sciences. However, it is unclear to what extent their predictions agree. In this article, we tackle this problem by comparing the two accounts with respect to a common set of predi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carcassi, Fausto, Szymanik, Jakub
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MIT Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9692055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36439063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00059
_version_ 1784837175166107648
author Carcassi, Fausto
Szymanik, Jakub
author_facet Carcassi, Fausto
Szymanik, Jakub
author_sort Carcassi, Fausto
collection PubMed
description The language of thought hypothesis and connectionism provide two main accounts of category acquisition in the cognitive sciences. However, it is unclear to what extent their predictions agree. In this article, we tackle this problem by comparing the two accounts with respect to a common set of predictions about the effort required to acquire categories. We find that the two accounts produce similar predictions in the domain of Boolean categorization, however, with substantial variation depending on the operators in the language of thought.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9692055
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MIT Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96920552022-11-25 Neural Networks Track the Logical Complexity of Boolean Concepts Carcassi, Fausto Szymanik, Jakub Open Mind (Camb) Research Article The language of thought hypothesis and connectionism provide two main accounts of category acquisition in the cognitive sciences. However, it is unclear to what extent their predictions agree. In this article, we tackle this problem by comparing the two accounts with respect to a common set of predictions about the effort required to acquire categories. We find that the two accounts produce similar predictions in the domain of Boolean categorization, however, with substantial variation depending on the operators in the language of thought. MIT Press 2022-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9692055/ /pubmed/36439063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00059 Text en © 2022 Massachusetts Institute of Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For a full description of the license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Article
Carcassi, Fausto
Szymanik, Jakub
Neural Networks Track the Logical Complexity of Boolean Concepts
title Neural Networks Track the Logical Complexity of Boolean Concepts
title_full Neural Networks Track the Logical Complexity of Boolean Concepts
title_fullStr Neural Networks Track the Logical Complexity of Boolean Concepts
title_full_unstemmed Neural Networks Track the Logical Complexity of Boolean Concepts
title_short Neural Networks Track the Logical Complexity of Boolean Concepts
title_sort neural networks track the logical complexity of boolean concepts
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9692055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36439063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00059
work_keys_str_mv AT carcassifausto neuralnetworkstrackthelogicalcomplexityofbooleanconcepts
AT szymanikjakub neuralnetworkstrackthelogicalcomplexityofbooleanconcepts