Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #24  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jan 28th, 2004, 07:50 PM       
Mentalese, in my view, assumes that there is a symbolic language in the mind, deep in the unconscious, that is logical and the generator of thought. This language is the same for everyone, so everyone thinks the same way. You do not need to go to the level of neuroscience to figure out what thought is - if you can figure out the language, you are set.

I have about a dozen problems with this view. First of all, it is insiduously Cartesian - some executive in the brain is using this mentalese to think, and translating between English etc. and mentalese all the time. Then there's the evolutionary problem - how did this mental language develop? Then there's the fact that this approach has failed in AI.

I think connectionism holds quite a bit more promise for developing a theory of thought.
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:26 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.