more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 2467

[filed under theme 17. Mind and Body / C. Functionalism / 1. Functionalism ]

Full Idea

Functionalists claim that pains and the like are higher-order, relational properties that things have in virtue of the pattern of causal interactions that they (can or do) enter into.

Gist of Idea

Functionalists see pains as properties involving relations and causation

Source

Jerry A. Fodor (In a Critical Condition [2000], Ch. 2)

Book Ref

Fodor,Jerry A.: 'In Critical Condition' [MIT 2000], p.13


A Reaction

The whole idea of a property being purely 'relational' strikes me as dubious (or even nonsense). "Is north of" is a relation, but it is totally derived from more basical physical geographical properties.


The 41 ideas from 'In a Critical Condition'

Maybe explaining the mechanics of perception will explain the concepts involved [Fodor]
The world is full of messy small things producing stable large-scale properties (e.g. mountains) [Fodor]
Functionalists see pains as properties involving relations and causation [Fodor]
Type physicalism is a stronger claim than token physicalism [Fodor]
For Pragmatists having a concept means being able to do something [Fodor]
Transcendental arguments move from knowing Q to knowing P because it depends on Q [Fodor]
Are concepts best seen as capacities? [Fodor]
Analysis is impossible without the analytic/synthetic distinction [Fodor]
It seems likely that analysis of concepts is impossible, but justification can survive without it [Fodor]
Don't define something by a good instance of it; a good example is a special case of the ordinary example [Fodor]
The goal of thought is to understand the world, not instantly sort it into conceptual categories [Fodor]
If to understand "fish" you must know facts about them, where does that end? [Fodor]
The theory of the content of thought as 'Mentalese' explains why the Private Language Argument doesn't work [Fodor]
It seems unlikely that meaning can be reduced to communicative intentions, or any mental states [Fodor]
Mentalese doesn't require a theory of meaning [Fodor]
Do intentional states explain our behaviour? [Fodor]
Despite all the efforts of philosophers, nothing can ever be reduced to anything [Fodor]
Content can't be causal role, because causal role is decided by content [Fodor]
Language is ambiguous, but thought isn't [Fodor]
Mentalese may also incorporate some natural language [Fodor]
Modern connectionism is just Hume's theory of the 'association' of 'ideas' [Fodor]
Why bother with neurons? You don't explain bird flight by examining feathers [Fodor]
Modules have encapsulation, inaccessibility, private concepts, innateness [Fodor]
Experience can't explain itself; the concepts needed must originate outside experience [Fodor]
According to empiricists abstraction is the fundamental mental process [Fodor]
Rationalists say there is more to a concept than the experience that prompts it [Fodor]
Modules make the world manageable [Fodor]
Obvious modules are language and commonsense explanation [Fodor]
Modules analyse stimuli, they don't tell you what to do [Fodor]
Blindness doesn't destroy spatial concepts [Fodor]
Something must take an overview of the modules [Fodor]
Babies talk in consistent patterns [Fodor]
How do you count beliefs? [Fodor]
Berkeley seems to have mistakenly thought that chairs are the same as after-images [Fodor]
If I have a set of mental modules, someone had better be in charge of them! [Fodor]
Modules have in-built specialist information [Fodor]
Rationalism can be based on an evolved computational brain with innate structure [Fodor]
Turing invented the idea of mechanical rationality (just based on syntax) [Fodor]
The function of a mind is obvious [Fodor]
Rationality rises above modules [Fodor]
Empirical approaches see mind connections as mirrors/maps of reality [Fodor]