Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T23:51:54.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against Positing Central Systems in the Mind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Don Ross
Don Ross*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is concerned with a recent argument of Jerry Fodor's to the effect that the frame problem in artificial intelligence is in principle insoluble. Fodor's argument is based on his contention that the mind is divided between encapsulated modular systems for information processing and ‘central systems’ for non-demonstrative inference. I argue that positing central systems is methodologically unsound, and in fact involves a muddle that bears a strong family resemblance to the basic error in dualism. I therefore conclude that Fodor's position on the frame problem should be rejected.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 297 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Bruce Freed, Chantale LaCasse, Ausonio Marras and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. I also gratefully acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant #453-88-0279).

References

REFERENCES

Dennett, D. C. (1971), “Intentional Systems”, The Journal of Philosophy 60: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1987a), “Cognitive Wheels”, in Z. Pylyshyn (ed.), The Robot's Dilemma. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 41–64.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1987b), The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1980), “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983), The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1987), “Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs and the Music of the Spheres”, in Z. Pylyshyn (ed.), The Robot's Dilemma. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 139–149.Google Scholar
Hayes, P. (1987), “What the Frame Problem Is and Isn't”, in Z. Pylyshyn (ed.), The Robot's Dilemma. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 123–137.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R. (1985), Metamagical Themas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Janlert, L.-E. (1987), “Modeling Change—The Frame Problem”, in Z. Pylyshyn (ed.), The Robot's Dilemma. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marras, A. (1987), “Mental Images and the Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence”, unpublished manuscript, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
McDermott, D. (1987), “We've Been Framed: Or, Why AI is Innocent of the Frame Problem”, in Z. Pylyshyn (ed.), The Robot's Dilemma. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1974), A Framework For Representing Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT AI Lab Memo #306.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1985), The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. (ed.) (1987), The Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar