Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:05:24.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Computations (Still, Still) Can't Do: Jerry Fodor on Computation and Modularity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Robert A. Wilson
Get access

Extract

Jerry Fodor's The Mind Doesn't Work That Way (2000; hereafter Mind) purports to do a number of things. To name three: First, it aims to show what is problematic about recent evolutionary psychology, especially as popularized in Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works (1997). Fodor's particular target here is the rose-coloured view of evolutionary psychology as offering a “new synthesis” in integrating computational psychology with evolutionary theory. Second, Fodor's book poses a series of related, in-principle problems for any cognitive theory that revolve around the putative tension between the local nature of computational processing and the global nature of at least some cognitive processing. And third, it reiterates Fodor's earlier argument, in The Modularity of Mind, for the hopelessness of trying to extend the notion of modularity from “input systems” to “central systems.“

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 30: New Essays in The Philosophy of Language and Mind , 2004 , pp. 407 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buller, D. and Hardcastle, V.G. 2000. “Evolutionary Psychology, Meet the Developing Brain: Combating Promiscuous Modularity.” Brain and Mind 1:307-25.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1997. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. 2001. “Reasons, Robots and the Extended Mind.” Mind and Language 16: 121-45.Google Scholar
Cowie, F. 1999. What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D.C. 1991. “Granny's Campaign for Safe Science.” In Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics, ed. Loewer, B. and Rey, G.87–94. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dietterich, T.G. 1990. “Machine Learning.” Annual Review of Computer Science 4: 255–306.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H.L. 1972. What Computers Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H.L. 1992. What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Finlay, B. and Niederer, J.K. 1999. “Neural Development.” In The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, ed. Wilson, R.A. and Keil, F.C.594-96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1981. Representations. Sussex, England: Harvester Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1987. Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1990. A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1991. “Replies.” In Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics, ed. Loewer, B. and Rey, G.255–319. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1994. The Elm and the Expert. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1998a. In Critical Condition: Polemical Essays on Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1998b. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 2000. The Mind Doesn't Work That Way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. eds. 2001. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Glimcher, P.W. 2003. Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain: The Science of Neuroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grush, R. 2003. “In Defense of Some ‘Cartesian’ Assumptions Concerning the Brain and its Operation.” Biology and Philosophy 18: 53–93.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. and Gelman, S. eds. 1994. Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horst, S. 1996. Symbols, Computation, and Intentionality: A Critique of the Computational Theory of Mind. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Review of The Mind Doesn't Work That Way. Language 78:164-70.Google Scholar
Jordan, M. and Russell, S. 1999. “Computational Intelligence.” In The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, ed. Wilson, R. A. and Keil, F.C. lxxiii-xc. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, P.M.Barbe, F. and Eagleson, K.L. 1997. “Patterning and Specification of the Cerebral Cortex.” Annual Review of Neuroscience 17: 109-32.Google Scholar
Lewis, D.K. 1986. Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. 2000, “Terra Cognita: From Functional Neuroimaging to the Map of the Mind”, Brain and Mind 1: 93–116.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1991. The Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Okasha, S. 2003. “Fodor on Cognition, Modularity, and Adaptationism.” Philosophy of Science 70: 68–88.Google Scholar
Orzack, S. and Sober, E. eds. 2001. Adaptationism and Optimality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1997, How the Mind Works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Port, R. and van Gelder, T. eds. 1995. Mind as Motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quartz, S. 2003. “Innateness and the Brain.” Biology and Philosophy 18: 13–40.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. 1992. Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 1994. “The Modularity of Thought and the Epidemiology of Representations.” In Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. Hirschfeld, L.A. and Gelman, S.A.39–67. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2001. “In Defense of Massive Modularity.” In Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, ed. Dupoux, E.47–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D.Premack, D. and Premack, A. eds. 1995. Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. 2000. Coherence in Thought and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uttal, W.R. 2001. The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Valiant, L. 1984. “A Theory of the Learnable.” Communications of the ACM 27: 1134–1142.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.A. 1994. “Wide Computationalism.” Mind 103:351-72.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.A. 1995. Cartesian Psychology and Physical Minds: Individualism and the Sciences of the Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.A. 1999. “The Individual in Biology and Psychology.” In Where Biology Meets Psychology: Philosophical Essays, ed. Hardcastle, V.G.357-74. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.A. 2001. “Two Views of Realization.” Philosophical Studies 104: 1–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.A. 2004. Boundaries of the Mind: The Individual in the Fragile Science: Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar