The Neurobiological Bases for the Computational Theory of Mind
C. Gallistel
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190464783.003.0013
Abstract:When we were young, Jerry Fodor and I, so, too, was the computational theory of mind, the central doctrine of cognitive science. It broke the theoretical fetters imposed by the mindless behaviorism that had dominated psychology, philosophy, and behavioral neuroscience for decades. Fodor was making major contributions to cognitive science by spelling out its implications. Some of the implications seemed to me, then and now, to be obvious, but only after Fodor had spelled them out. One such implication was that the mind must possess (unconscious) symbols and (equally unconscious) rules for manipulating them. That is, it must have a language of thought (Fodor, 1975), just as do computing machines. Because the symbols are, on the one hand, objects of principled manipulation— they are the stuff of computation— and because, on the other hand, some of them refer to things outside the mind, it follows that the language of thought has a syntax and a semantics. When Fodor pointed this out, it seemed to me beyond reasonable dispute, although it has in fact been disputed, even unto the present day (Aydede, 1977; Laurence & Margolis, 1997: Schneider, 2009). What I found thought provoking about Fodor’s insight was just what connectionists objected to: its neuroscientific implications. If one believed in the computational theory of mind, then the symbols and the machinery for manipulating them must have a material realization in the brain. The problem was that no one knew what it might be. If there were symbols, then they must reside in memory, because the basic function of a symbol in a computing machine is to carry information forward in time in a computationally accessible form (Gallistel & King, 2010). Most neuroscientists were and are OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Mon Jun 19 2017, NEWGEN