Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 57 (2):297-312 (1990)
|Abstract||This paper is concerned with a recent argument of Jerry Fodor's to the effect that the frame problem in artificial intelligence is in principle insoluble. Fodor's argument is based on his contention that the mind is divided between encapsulated modular systems for information processing and 'central systems' for non-demonstrative inference. I argue that positing central systems is methodologically unsound, and in fact involves a muddle that bears a strong family resemblance to the basic error in dualism. I therefore conclude that Fodor's position on the frame problem should be rejected|
|Keywords||Artificial Intelligence Dualism Mind Science Fodor, J|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Haugeland (ed.) (1997). Mind Design II: Philosophy, Psychology, Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Steven Pinker (2005). So How Does the Mind Work? Mind and Language 20 (1):1-38.
Daniel A. Weiskopf (2002). On Fodor's The Mind Doesn't Work That Way. Philosophical Psychology 15 (4):551-562.
Andrew beedle (1998). Sixteen Years of Artificial Intelligence: Mind Design and Mind Design II. Philosophical Psychology 11 (2):243 – 250.
Benny Shanon (1988). Remarks on the Modularity of Mind. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (September):331-52.
Dominic Murphy (2006). On Fodor's Analogy: Why Psychology is Like Philosophy of Science After All. Mind and Language 21 (5):553-564.
Jesse J. Prinz (2006). Is the Mind Really Modular? In Robert J. Stainton (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Blackwell.
Daniel Weiskopf (2002). A Critical Review of Jerry A. Fodor's the Mind Doesn't Work That Way. [REVIEW] Philosophical Psychology 15 (4):551 – 562.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #132,105 of 753,130 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?