This paper has a two-fold aim. First, it reinforces a version of the "syntactic argument"
given in Aizawa (1994). This argument shows that connectionist networks do not provide
a means of implementing representations without rules. Horgan and Tlenson have responded
to the syntactic argument in their book and in another paper (Horgan & Tlenson,
1993), but their responses do not meet the challenge posed by my formulation of the
syntactic argument. My second aim is to describe a kind of cognitive architecture. This
architecture might be called a computational architecture, but it is not a rules and
representations architecture nor the representations without rules architecture that Horgan
and Tlenson wish to endorse.