David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 18 (1):13-40 (2003)
The philosophical innateness debate has long relied onpsychological evidence. For a century, however, a parallel debate hastaken place within neuroscience. In this paper, I consider theimplications of this neuroscience debate for the philosophicalinnateness debate. By combining the tools of theoretical neurobiologyand learning theory, I introduce the ``problem of development'' that alladaptive systems must solve, and suggest how responses to this problemcan demarcate a number of innateness proposals. From this perspective, Isuggest that the majority of natural systems are in fact innate. Lastly,I consider the acquistion strategies implemented by the human brain andsuggest that there is a rigorous way of characterizing these ``neuralconstructivist'' strategies as not being strongly innate. Alternatives toinnateness are thus both rigorously definable and empirically supported.
|Keywords||Brain Innateness Learning Neural Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Victoria McGeer (2007). Why Neuroscience Matters to Cognitive Neuropsychology. Synthese 159 (3):347 - 371.
Gert Westermann, Sylvain Sirois, Thomas R. Shultz & Denis Mareschal (2006). Modeling Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (5):227-232.
John Sarnecki (2007). Developmental Objections to Evolutionary Modularity. Biology and Philosophy 22 (4):529-546.
Robert A. Wilson (2004). What Computations Can't Do: Jerry Fodor on Computation and Modularity. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34 (sup1):407-425.
Similar books and articles
Ron Mallon & Jonathan M. Weinberg (2006). Innateness as Closed Process Invariance. Philosophy of Science 73 (3):323-344.
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (2009). Should We Eliminate the Innate? Reply to Griffiths and Machery. Philosophical Psychology 22 (4):505 – 519.
Jonathan M. Weinberg & Ron Mallon (2006). Innateness as Closed Process Invariance. Philosophy of Science 73 (3):323–344.
Brian J. Scholl (2005). Innateness and (Bayesian) Visual Perception: Reconciling Nativism and Development. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York
Henry Rosemont (1978). Gathering Evidence for Linguistic Innateness. Synthese 38 (May):127-148.
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (2001). Innateness and Domain-Specificity. Philosophical Studies 105 (2):191-210.
Paul Griffiths (2002). What is Innateness? The Monist 85 (1):70-85.
David Wendler (1996). Innateness as an Explanatory Concept. Biology and Philosophy 11 (1):89-116.
Steven Gross & Georges Rey (forthcoming). Innateness. In Eric Margolis, Richard Samuels & Stephen Stich (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #145,003 of 1,906,958 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,378 of 1,906,958 )
How can I increase my downloads?