|Abstract||As part of the ongoing attempt to fully naturalize the concept of human being--and, more specifically, to re-center it around the notion of agency--this essay discusses an approach to defining the content of representations in terms ultimately derived from their central, evolved function of providing guidance for action. This 'guidance theory' of representation is discussed in the context of, and evaluated with respect to, two other biologically inspired theories of representation: Dan Lloyd's dialectical theory of representation and Ruth Millikan's biosemantics.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mauricio Suarez (2003). Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (3):225-244.
Dr Wayne Christensen (2010). The Decoupled Representation Theory of the Evolution of Cognition--A Critical Assessment. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (2):361-405.
Ruth G. Millikan (2009). Biosemantics. In Brian P. McLaughlin & Ansgar Beckerman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind. Oxford University Press.
Glenn Carruthers (2008). Types of Body Representation and the Sense of Embodiment. Consciousness and Cognition 17 (1302):1316.
Christophe Menant, Evolution of Representations. From Basic Life to Self-Representation and Self-Consciousness (2006).
Ruth G. Millikan (1989). Biosemantics. Journal of Philosophy 86 (July):281-97.
Michael L. Anderson & Gregg H. Rosenberg, Content and Action: The Guidance Theory of Representation.
Gregg H. Rosenberg & Michael L. Anderson, A Brief Introduction to the Guidance Theory of Representation.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads65 ( #13,937 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,729 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?