3-CONCEPT MONTE - EXPLANATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND SYSTEMATICITY

Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988), Fodor and McLaughlin (1990) and McLaughlin (1993) challenge connectionists to explain systematicity without simpl y implementing a classical architecture. In this paper I argue that wh at makes the challenge difficult for connectionists to meet has less t o do with what is to be explained than with what is to count as an exp lanation. Fodor et al. are prepared to admit as explanatory, accounts of a sort that only classical models can provide. If connectionists ar e to meet the challenge, they are going to have to insist on the propr iety of changing what counts as an explanation of systematicity. Once that is done, there would seem to be as yet no reason to suppose that connectionists are unable to explain systematicity.