Functions Of The Mind Essay, Research Paper

The complexity of the mind has intrigued and inspired philosophers for as long as humanity. How does it work? This question is not answered by equations and such as most conventional problem solving machines. Our own thought processes can be used to explain input and output responses from our senses to our reactions to those senses. This particular function of the mind, input/output capabilities, is one complexity that can be compared and related to real world machines that function in such a manner. This essay will examine whether it is plausible to compare the mind s computational process to a conventional machine whose similar function is to manage input/output information.

A revolutionary invention by engineer James Watt in the 18th century was a governor control that regulated steam output so an engine may maintain a constant and steady speed. The governor is able to regulate consistency by decreasing or increasing steam output simultaneously as the engine speeds or slows. Attached to the rotating part of the engine, the governor spins so that the centrifugal force will either cause the governor to decrease or increase steam output proportional to the engine speed. The similarity in input/output response to that of the mind is worth a closer examination to determine whether the processes of these two are indeed comparable.

Tim Van Gelder is a philosopher who examines this question. He describes two types of governors. One is the centrifugal as described above and the other is computational like the mind. A computational governor receives input and through a step by step process, it then formulates an output response that corresponds appropriately to the input. This is how the regulation of steam was done before Watt s invention. As the steam pressure increased, a steam valve would have to be manually decreased to regulate the increased engine speed. This is where the difference between the two processes becomes more apparent.

A computational governor s most defining property is its reliance on representation. Van Gelder explains that representation is the manner in which one bit of information influences a part of a cycle. In other words, each part of the process is dependent upon the previous parts. In the case of a manual governor, not Watt s, the amount to increase or decrease the steam valve is represented by the speed of the engine. A process is cyclical like this: 1. Engine speed increases 2. Decrease steam output, 3. Regulation of engine speed. This is essentially the same process the mind carries out when we receive information. We receive inputs from our senses and our mind interprets those inputs and then we are able to output the appropriate reaction. As Van Gelder argues, this governor is nothing like the workings of Watt s centrifugal governor.

The mind functions computationally and this characteristic entails the use of representation and symbols. Information is received and is then represented throughout the cyclical process so that each step of the process can work from the previous step. This functioning can be termed as homuncular because each step is dependent upon the previous. If you omit any step of the computational process, the system will not be able to complete its cycle. Therefore the mind s process is termed homuncular since it is essential for each representation to be present for an appropriate output response. Watt s governor does not have this dependence on representations since there is not a starting point to the cycle of information. Imagine when the engine slows then the centrifugal force decreases so that the adjustment is already in motion to allow more steam. As soon as it is detected that there is an inconstancy in steam flow, the problem is already being adjusted. The mind does not have this ability and that is why it is computational.

Now that the differences between the two have been established, let s take a step back and examine whether it can indeed be suggested that the mind exhibits some of the qualities of the centrifugal governor. I don t believe that the mind s computational functioning can have any actual similarity to Watt s governor.

The output responses from the mind are direct functions of the environment from which we experience. In order to say that the mind is not computational is to imply that the environment is in perfect synchronization with our actions. I don t think this is valid since we are constantly reacting and adjusting to our surroundings whether it is voluntary or involuntary. The only argument that could be presented opposing this idea is if someone were to suggest that one s environment is what he or she makes of it. In other words, you are constantly making your surroundings and situations so you have already created your environment before you can even react to it. Consider a world where your actions and your surroundings are in real time so that neither one influences the other. This is the only situation where the mind could not be considered computational since it is not interpreting input information. Yes, this is impossible since we are only able to react and adjust to our environment because of our processing of inputs. Rather the mind would be like the Watt governor whose input information is always being interpreted simultaneously as the response. It would mean you are making your environment instead of reacting to it and surely that is not the case. Upon review, it can be understood that this argument is invalid.

The fundamental element of the mind is the ability to interpret symbols. This ability is not unique to humans as exhibited by every form of life with a brain. Everything we do requires a computational thought process whether we realize it or not. Though our reactions to our environment may seem instantaneous, there is always an input/output process that regulates our reactions. It can be concluded that the computational behavior of the mind cannot be similar to the processing of the Watt governor since to say so would mean we are one with the environment. Our ability to adapt and evolve is the result of our gift to interpret and respond to our surroundings. This reaction enables us to understand our environment and this is why we can experience what we call life.