4.7 Review

Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds

Journal

BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 109-+

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X08003543

Keywords

analogy; animal cognition; causal learning; connectionism; Darwin; discontinuity; evolution; human mind; language; language of thought; physical symbol system; reasoning; same-different; theory of mind

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH072613] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R03MH072613] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as one of degree and not of kind (Darwin 1871). In the present target article, we argue that Darwin was mistaken: the profound biological continuity between human and nonhuman animals masks an equally profound discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain. We propose a representational-level specification as to where human and nonhuman animals' abilities to approximate a PSS are similar and where they differ. We conclude by suggesting that recent symbolic-connectionist models of cognition shed new light on the mechanisms that underlie the gap between human and nonhuman minds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available