Abstract

In this paper I shall critically examine a rather bizarre view which Prof. Nobuhara has recently propounded concerning connectionism. The thrust of his view is this: In the Classicist-Connectionist debate, Classicists are definitely the winner, since Connectionists cannot solve the 'Systematicity of cognitive abilities' problem posed by Fodor and others.; nevertheless, our brain is a wholly connectionist cognitive system, since every cognitive activity that shows the 'Systematicity' in question (typically, thinking activity) needs symbols external to our brain and therefore is performed totally outside it. Against this view, I first point out that Prof. Nobuhara fails to give some Connectionists ('Approximationists') their due in his appraisal of the Classicist-Connectonist debate. Secondly, I argue that he can't be a Connectionist with regard to our brain, while endorsing the Classicist's solution to the 'Systematicity' problem.