A reply to Jerry Fodor on how the mind works

Mind and Language 20 (1):33-38 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In my book How the Mind Works, I defended the theory that the human mind is a naturally selected system of organs of computation. Jerry Fodor claims that ‘the mind doesn’t work that way’(in a book with that title) because (1) Turing Machines cannot duplicate humans’ ability to perform abduction (inference to the best explanation); (2) though a massively modular system could succeed at abduction, such a system is implausible on other grounds; and (3) evolution adds nothing to our understanding of the mind. In this review I show that these arguments are flawed. First, my claim that the mind is a computational system is different from the claim Fodor attacks (that the mind has the architecture of a Turing Machine); therefore the practical limitations of Turing Machines are irrelevant. Second, Fodor identifies abduction with the cumulative accomplishments of the scientific community over millennia. This is very different from the accomplishments of human common sense, so the supposed gap between human cognition and computational models may be illusory. Third, my claim about biological specialization, as seen in organ systems, is distinct from Fodor's own notion of encapsulated modules, so the limitations of the latter are irrelevant. Fourth, Fodor's arguments dismissing of the relevance of evolution to psychology are unsound.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On the input problem for massive modularity.John M. Collins - 2004 - Minds and Machines 15 (1):1-22.
Reply to Steven Pinker So How Does the Mind Work?.Jerry Fodor - 2005 - Mind and Language 20 (1):25-32.
On Fodor's The Mind Doesn't Work That Way.Daniel A. Weiskopf - 2002 - Philosophical Psychology 15 (4):551-562.
So how does the mind work?Steven Pinker - 2005 - Mind and Language 20 (1):1-38.
Is the mind really modular?Jesse J. Prinz - 2006 - In Robert J. Stainton (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Blackwell. pp. 22--36.
Fodor on cognition, modularity, and adaptationism.Samir Okasha - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (1):68-88.
Lot 2: The Language of Thought Revisited.Jerry A. Fodor - 2008 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Jerry A. Fodor.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
347 (#52,346)

6 months
14 (#114,233)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Shame and Other Cases of Modularity without Modules.Ruwen Ogien - 2006 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (sup1):231-254.
Steven Pinker.Steven Pinker - 2002 - Cognitive Science 1991 (1996).

Add more citations

References found in this work

Computing machinery and intelligence.Alan M. Turing - 1950 - Mind 59 (October):433-60.
The Language of Thought.J. A. Fodor - 1978 - Critica 10 (28):140-143.
Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart.Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M. Todd & A. B. C. Research Group - 1999 - New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press USA. Edited by Peter M. Todd.

View all 18 references / Add more references