Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Therefore the inference from 'requires linguistic competence' to 'only humans qualify' conflates the vehicle of thought with its functional role.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Linguistic competence may require embodied, evolutionary, and social development that only humans or biologically similar animals naturally possess.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Functional equivalence in isolated tasks doesn't guarantee the holistic, integrated competence that supports genuine linguistic understanding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between vehicle and role assumes implementational independence, which may not hold for linguistic thought tied to human cognition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Functional roles (representing propositions, inferring consequences) can be implemented in different physical substrates, not just biological brains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A system instantiating the same computational or functional patterns exhibits the relevant cognitive capacity regardless of its material composition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Confusing the medium (language, neurons) with the capacity (reasoning, understanding) leads to unfounded exclusions of non-human systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42