It is claimed by a lot of philosophers that because we are normative creatures, it is impossible to explain our minds in purely causal terms. Jerry Fodor writes (in LOT2)
... contents of symbols emerge from conventions that control their use, thereby determining what it is to use them correctly. Since causation per se is neither correct nor incorrect, content can't reduce to causation
I can't seem to understand this line of thought. A computer can be programmed to learn a language by use. it can even be hardcoded that "no" means a negative response (hence "normative") and "yes" means a positive response. The computer, a purely causal machine, can then have norms. Why doesn't the argument from normativity accept it?