evolutionary and computational theories of mind

Count Artby Count_Artblay at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 16 08:04:51 EST 2002


Anno Domini 2001, verba hic et nunc in publicae tabellae collectae , in foro
atque YKY dixit et Artby revocatur :

	The very problem, ten years ago was between the cognitive approach and
the neurologists approach. 
Both conceiled on the over-radical utterance of experimentalists like Bhurrus
Ferdinald Skinner and Watson.
Then, the cognitives didn't want to attach a 'soul' to a neurologists 'dead
body' and the neurologists wouldn't accept the dead theories of a soul to their
progressing knowledge of the functionning brain and mind.
	Now, many work has been done from both sides on the subject :  Mind
But a third part came in (since Berg, Jackobson, Saussure, Börg) the Linguists.
As you state it yourself ; 'computational theories' of mind started to florish
in combination of those three sciences.
The very war now is that some consider the brain as a n a l o g  to a computer
and some as  i d e n t i c a l as a computer by wich :
- the mind is able to parse tasks like a computer in very abstract 'binary' type
disassembled fragments and able to replicate and recompile on command like a
processor.
- the mind is able in multitasking but only with exact copies and items of
coherent information, grasp by grasp  like the inner ear and cochlear cells copy
sound into electrochemic values without disassembling them like a computer's
processor.

	Off course, the brain is a machine ... but not Mind,
it would be horrible !

>The brain has acquired the capacity of language and thinking as
>a result of evolution. There should be no doubt about this.
>"Everything in nature does not make sense except under the
>light of evolution." I have no doubts about that. Is that what
>you're asking about?
>
>More interesting would be the question of what exactly are
>the circuits in the brain that have evolved.
>
>YKY
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>From: "mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com>
>> what are people's views on the darwinian and computational approaches
>> to explaining the mind?  Evolutionary psychology is very popular these
>> days, with the way our minds work explained in terms of how they
>> provided survival advantage over the eons. Computational theories
>> suggest that there is a syntax or language of thought using which our
>> minds can extract meaning an construct ideas about the world.  Usually
>> these two approaches are viewed as approximately the same.  Evolution
>> has honed the computational 'modules' of our mind.  I just wonder what
>> other people's views are on this.
>
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list