Fodor's Computational Theory of Mind
A Definition of CTM - How the Brain is a Formal System
May 10, 2009
Symbols have two types of properties, known as semantic and syntactic properties. The semantic properties are physical properties; what the belief / thought etc. is about, or what it represents. The syntactic properties of a thought / belief are its attributes (i.e. it is red and round and has a stalk coming out of the top of it.)
What is CTM?
Computational theory of the mind makes the claim that intelligence incorporates symbols that are manipulated to a set of rules. The syntactic properties of these symbols are manipulated to affect its semantic properties. Human beings think in an inner language (known as mentalese) using symbols to show how thinking is represented in the material world.
Jerry Alan Fodor's theory of CTM holds that, "symbol manipulation is what lies behind all forms of human intelligence, since cognitive activity consists of the manipulation of symbols inside our heads, manipulation that constitutes the rational transformation of mental states." (P.81, Language and Thought).
The computational theory of mind is a theory that the human brain is an information processing system in the same way as a computer processor, the brain being the computer hardware.
Haugeland - Formal Systems
John Haugeland, a philosopher of the metaphysics of the mind, describes the brain as a "formal" system, instead of as a "syntactic theory," as Haugeland stipulated that physical characteristics are not always syntactic properties.
In Haugeland's view, the formal system of mind is similar to a game where tokens are manipulated following specific rules. Haugeland believes that, "A computer is an automatic formal system…A formal system consists of uninterpreted symbols (or "tokens" as Haugeland calls them) that, from a starting position, can be manipulated using rules, roughly like the rules for making a move in a board game."
"Two formal systems can be made of very different material," (P.95, Language and Thought) and for two formal systems to be formally equivalent, they must be able to be translated back and forward in the same way. Also, they must have the same starting and finishing positions, and whatever "moves" you make in one system, must have a corresponding "move" in the other system.
Arguments for CTM
A strong point (and argument "for") the computational theory of mind holds that humans are given an explanation of the workings of the mind, and the ideas of cognitive science. "The maxim that the person (or formal system) being interpreted should come out with mostly true and relevant beliefs has a certain plausibility. After all, if a system of interpretation makes most of what a person believes false or irrelevant, it will probably not be of much use in the explanation of their intelligence." (P.98, Language and Thought).
The system of the computational theory of mind must be of some use, but that does not necessarily mean that it is true that the transformations that make up human intelligence, or the transformation of mental states are in fact physical transformations of mentalese symbols within the brain.
The theory being that mentalese symbols are manipulated into other mentalese symbols (e.g. symbols that mean 1 + 2 are transformed into a symbol that means 3 using mentalese, otherwise known as the language of thought); a linguistic structure using symbols as a means of representation. This type of symbol transformation is the basis of intelligence due to the way in which it can transform mental states, beliefs and desires.
The brain is therefore an extremely complex symbol manipualtion device, which interprets information to reach a conclusion, in the same way as a computerised machine.
Related Reading
Readers may also enjoy Problems with Fodor's Computational Theory of Mind.
Sources:
- Barber, Alex (2005), Language and Thought, The Open University.
