CRLFI think this is a start, but there is much debate about the use of computational analogies (for example, "working memory") in cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology - now decades old, and hardly recent - has split into a number of distinct approaches, the most important being computational and non-computational models of cognition. It may surprise people to learn that, as a connectionist, I fall into the non-computational camp, and therefore view a structure such as "working memory" to be a very rough and in important ways inaccurate analogy for cognitive learning processes. That's not to object to Clark's depiction per se, but to suggest that more precise formulations should be forthcoming.
Today: 2 Total: 1370 [Direct link] [Share]
