Ideas from 'What is innate and why' by Hilary Putnam [1980], by Theme Structure

[found in 'The Philosophy of Mind' (ed/tr Beakley,B /Ludlow P) [MIT 1992,0-262-52167-9]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas


18. Thought / B. Mechanics of Thought / 4. Language of Thought
If everything uses mentalese, ALL concepts must be innate!
                        Full Idea: Fodor concludes that every predicate that a brain could learn to use must have a translation into the computer language of that brain. So no "new" concepts can be acquired: all concepts are innate!
                        From: Hilary Putnam (What is innate and why [1980], p.407)
                        A reaction: Some misunderstanding, surely? No one could be so daft as to think that everyone has an innate idea of an iPod. More basic innate building blocks for thought are quite plausible.
No machine language can express generalisations
                        Full Idea: Computers have a built-in language, but not a language that contains quantifiers (that is, the words "all" and "some"). …So generalizations (containing "all") cannot ever be stated in machine language.
                        From: Hilary Putnam (What is innate and why [1980], p.408)
                        A reaction: Computers are too sophisticated to need quantification (which is crude). Computers can work with very precise and complex specifications of the domain of a given variable.