Cognitivist thinking has come into a lot of prominence of late and not least because of some popular science literature, particularly from Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett. Noam Chomsky made a strong departure from the conditioning based learning paradigm when he proposed that humans are born with the "Language Instinct". As neural sciences progress, more evidence is mounting that favours theories which suggest that the mind is not really a "blank slate" or tabula rasa that John Locke thought it to be and that influenced many generations of philosophers, psychologists and mind theorists.
Over the last few years, I read a few books by Pinker - largely because he made theories of how the mind works accessible to me. It is very clear that like Dawkins, he has embraced the route of popular science. The trouble with popular science is that matters of such gravity are presented without scientific rigour. In The Blank Slate, Pinker takes up the cause of cognitivism and critiques years of philosophical and political motivations for the "denial of human nature". That the brain is completely algorithmic and like a digital computer may be the absurd extrapolation of the cognitivist view point. However, many, including Roger Penrose, the mathematician-physicist and John Searle, the philosopher have written extensively about why the algorithmic / computational theory of the mind may not be feasible. Some very interesting debate is alive in this area.
Be that as it may, and the debate is far from settled, no matter what Pinker believes, it is still true that morality and ethics cannot be the underpinnings of physical science just as empirical physics or biology cannot be the basis for morality and ethics. I think that his point is well illustrated by Dawkins. He points to the philosophy of David Hume and of his separation of the realm of morality from that of scientific enquiry.
I think that the understanding of the working of the brain (there is a very interesting podcast that I chanced upon of a radio-show called "All in the Mind" from Australian Broadcasting Corp. - a beautiful exploration of such issues) is going to be the next biggest challenge for science - and this includes not just neural scientists and psychologists but may take the thinking of mathematicians and physicists to unravel. It is certainly an area that has a lot of debates, strong opinions, a smattering of data and very few profound theories. It is of tremendous interest for computer scientists too because the von Nuemann model of computation that has been the bedrock for all theory of computation may well yield place of privilege to newer models of computation.
The intent of this slightly pretentious post is to really annotate some bookmarks in this area:
John Searle's APA Presidential Address: "Is the Brain a Digital Computer" in which he continues from his Chinese Room Argument (1980) to argue against the mind as a computer program. He posits four difficulties with the thesis of the brain being a digital computer -
- Syntax is not intrinsic to physics
- The Homunculus Fallacy is Endemic to Cognitivism
- Syntax has to Causal Powers
- The Brain Does Not Do Information Processing
Read on...A very interesting essay by the Philosophy professor D. C. Mathur on the similar positions by three quite unrelated historical figures:
The historical Buddha (Gotama), Hume, and James on the self: Comparisons and evaluations This may not be terribly germane to a theory of the mind as much as it is to a theory of ethics that dissociates itself from the reductionist Western science
Consciousness is the biggest mysery in the already complex mystery of the functioning of the mind. An interesting school of theorists belive in a quantum theory of the mind. This is of course very speculative at this point. There are many links at the following Wikipedia
link.
"
All in the Mind", an absolutely wonderful radio program with podcast and transcripts available.
Finally, Steven Pinker's
home on the web.
It is a gripping story of how the plot unravels. A bit like "Sophie's World" and the little subplot in it.