Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Language of Thought
BRENT SILBY
Unlimited (UPT)
Language of thought theorists claim that mind operates according
to rules concerning manipulation of symbols
In this course I will argue that Pinker is wrong. I’ll show that we
must draw a line between linguistic and non linguistic creatures.
Importantly, the symbols that make “grass is green” are like words
in English…their meanings are constant.
There must be mental symbols because ... only symbols have syntax,
and ... the only available theory of mental processes ... needs the picture
of the mind as a syntax-driven machine (Fodor 1990a: pg 23).
Explaining the mind through symbol manipulation can show us
how reasoning takes place.
And…
And…
Same words, but different meaning because of the way the words
have been combined.
This is an important point, which Fodor calls the systematicity
of language.
In fact, with a finite set of syntactic rules and finite words I could
generate an infinite number of sentences. For example.
I think that Romeo loves both Juliet and his pet dog
John knows that I think that Romeo loves both Juliet and his pet dog
Nobody cares that John knows that I think that Romeo loves both Juliet
and his pet dog
One sign may contain a picture of a car sliding across the road. It
carries the meaning: WARNING! ICE ON ROAD.
For example:
If black holes exist, then Roger Penrose was correct.
Black holes exist.
Therefore: Roger Penrose was correct.
If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q
Next time, we will look at some problems with the idea that Language of
Thought operates behind the scenes and is innate.
Then we will work towards the idea that natural language can do all the
work of mentalese.
Powerpoint by BRENT SILBY
Produced at UPT
Christchurch, New Zealand
www.unlimited.school.nz