I 246
Purpose/means/thinking/animal/evolution/Fodor/Papineau: newer direction: Fodor: the adoption of purpose-built modules selected for certain tasks.
>
J. Fodor, >
Language of thought.
Problem: this bypasses the actual thinking, especially the consideration of the means.
>
Thinking, >
Animal language.
Papineau: nevertheless, pro module. But as a later addition in evolution, for the coordination of perception and action.
I 247
Purpose-Means-Thinking: is a very special mechanism, not a "universal pocket knife".
>
Rationality/Papineau.
I 254
Thinking/Knowledge/Animal/Papineau: Levels:
Purpose-Means-Thinking/Papineau:
Level 0: "Monomats": do V
Level 1: "Opportunists": If B, do V
I 248
Level 2: "people in need": If B and T, do V
Level 3: "Voter": If B1 and T1, do V1, IF T1 is the dominant need
A comparative mechanism is needed here.
Level 4: "Learners": AFTER experience has shown that B1, T1, and V1 result in a reward, then ... (like 3).
Level 0 - 4 apply to simple living beings. Nowhere is general information of the form "all A's or B's" or generic, causal information "A's cause B's".
I 255
Or even conditionals about present circumstances, "If A occurs, B will also occur."
I 259
Purpose-Means-Thinking/Papineau: requires explicit representation of general information so that it can be processed to provide new items of general information.
Thesis: this is a biological adaptation that specifically applies to human beings.
Vs: 1. Purpose-means-thinking is too simple, and therefore widespread in the animal kingdom.
2. Purpose-means-thinking is too difficult and therefore not an essential component...
I 261
... of our evolutionary heritage.
Then the purpose-means-thinking is a by-product.
Papineau: that does not mean that they cannot take over any function.
I 276
Purpose-means-thinking/Papineau: must also use non-egocentric causal facts. (> Map,
Map-Example).
I 273
Cognition/space/spatial orientation/content/animal/Papineau: many birds and insects do not have egocentric maps of their environments. Nevertheless, this is not necessary purpose-means-thinking. It depends on how they use these maps!
>
Map-example.
For example, they might just simply draw a straight line from their respective position to the destination, which would be no purpose-means-thinking.
For example, it would be purpose-means-thinking if they were to use cognition to imagine a continuous path, which avoids all obstacles, from their initial position within the non-egocentric map, and then plan on taking the path. This would be a combination of causal individual information.
