Vortragstext:
1: Buss: Strategies of Human Mating
Als Zusatzlektüre für Hintergrundinformationen
- Tooby & Cosmides: Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer
Ergänzung:
Kritik an der "Mind-is-lika-a-computer-hypothesis" wie sie im Zusatztext auftaucht. Weitere Gegenargumente finden sich im Kommentar unten. Vielen Dank an Biljana!
"Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program? No. A program merely manipulates symbols, whereas a brain attaches meaning to them" von John Searle
Abonnieren
Kommentare zum Post (Atom)
Hello everybody,
AntwortenLöschenich beziehe mich auf den Text von Tooby & Cosmides "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer" und habe einige Gegenargumente betreffend Prinzipien der Evolutionspsychologen gefunden.
Gegenargumente betreffend Prinzip Nr. 1:
"Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program? No. A program merely manipulates symbols, whereas a brain attaches meaning to them" von John Searle http://sils.shoin.ac.jp/~gunji/AI/CR/Is_The_Brains_Mind_A_Computer_Program.pdf
Gegenargumente betreffend Prinzipien 4 und 5:
Tomasello, Michael “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” Harvard University Press (1999, p. 55)
“We have at most only 6 million years, but much more likely only one-quarter of a million years, to create uniquely human cognition, and this is simply not sufficient, under any plausible evolutionary scenario, for genetic variation and natural selection to have created many different and independent uniquely human cognitive modules.”
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark “The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities” Basic Books (2002, p. 175)
“The prehistoric picture we are left with is one of mysterious singularities: explosions, some perhaps simultaneous, in new human performances. We also have, for all these singularities, the problem that there is essentially no record of intermediate stages between the absence of the ability and its full flowering. And this prehistoric story has, at least for language, its contemporary parallel: We find no human groups, however isolated, that have only rudimentary language. We find no primates with rudimentary language. At first glance, this seems completely abnormal situation. We find no parallels in evolution of species, for example – no complex organisms that leap without precursors out of the slime. What kind of theory do we need, then, in order to account for such a strange and unprecedented picture?”
Danke! Den ersten Link poste ich zur Sicherheit gleich nochmals oben.
AntwortenLöschen