Reference no: EM133595584

Question: Clarity of exposition and clear argument are the basis for grading. If you want an example look at the way Jose Bermudez explains things in the textbook. A tip is to structure your argument around an example and show how it supports the point you are trying to make. An awareness of and cogent response to alternative arguments is icing on the cake. For example you might say that an advantage of classical (LOT) architectures is Systematicity and give an example that makes the point. But such an answer would be even better if you explained whether and how non-classical architectures could mimic or achieve that kind of Systematicity. (Hint GPT4 and the arguments over whether it really understands language)
1. Is the concept of mental representation necessary to explain intelligent behaviour? How does your answer fit with the "refutation of behaviourism".
2. What is the Language of Thought hypothesis? What are its essential features in your view. How do they contribute to advantages of the LOT.
3. What is the Frame Problem? Is it only or mainly a problem for classical architectures? Why?
4. Is Language a Modularised ability? What is the relationship between Chomsky's argument for the modularity of language acquisition and the Frame Problem?
5. Is Theory of Mind a modularised ability. In what sense of modularity?