There are dozens of arguments against the Computational Theory of the Mind. The defendants propose answers and the attackers counteracts. It is my personal opinion that some answers of CTM throw the baby out with the bathwater and leaves us with an impoverished description of the phenomena. However, today I have a simpler question. We know that the brain can generate inputs from outputs. So it is natural that we use the Function metaphor. Putting complications aside, the mind could be described as the function that takes inputs from the senses and generates motor outputs. This is fine. But why should we assume that this function is computable? We know that there is a hell more functions than computable functions. Indeed, if we define the probability of a function being computable as the division of the number of computable functions (countable infinite) by the number of non-computable functions (uncountable infinite), with such definition the probability of an arbitrary function being computable it is zero. Against such odds, why some people fanatically assume that the brain works like a computable function and refuses vehemently any phenomena or theory that contradics the properties of a computable function? Sometimes it seems to me that the answer for this is that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Posted on: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:33:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015