Tuesday, October 2, 2007
is functionalism really THAT problematic?
according to one of the criticisms against functionalism, if we are reducing thought (concious experience) to being a function of the body then it has to be taken under consideration the fact that a function doesnt really have to UNDERSTAND whatever the funtion is. the entity 'looses' its ability to identify and process meaning. This is the Syntactical approach against functionalism. the fact that the entity has no intentionality, or that it doesn't matter if it does, as long as it remains doing its function, is problematic for any kind of conciousness talk. So, should it matter? having intentionality gives us our 'humanity', our choices, our desires, our beliefs. however, arent this just reactions to qualitative experiences?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
well, you where talking about the syntactical approach to this. the hardwired speech apparatus inside the head can give you the ability process and distinguish between utterances that a speaker might make. so in my opinion having that intentionality does provide for communication, i believe it is the case that it is stretching it a bit, when you talk about function and its intentionality giving us desire and the such, for it is proven that a person with no syntax, hardwired in their head, can form those thoughts of desire and beliefs. :s
Post a Comment