Haugeland on representation and intentionality
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Hugh Clapin (ed.), Philosophy of Mental Representation. Oxford University Press (2002)
Haugeland doesn’t have what I would call a theory of mental representation. Indeed, it isn’t clear that he believes there is such a thing. But he does have a theory of intentionality and a correlative theory of objectivity, and it is this material that I will be discussing in what follows. It will facilitate the discussion that follows to have at hand some distinctions and accompanying terminology I introduced in Representations, Targets and Attitudes (Cummins, 1996; RTA hereafter). Couching the discussion in these terms will, I hope, help to identify points of agreement and disagreement between Haugaland and myself. In RTA, I distinguished between the target a representation has on a given occasion of its application, and its content. RTA takes representation deployment to be the business of intenders: mechanisms whose business it is to represent some particular class of targets. Thus, on standard stories about speech perception, there is a mechanism (called a parser) whose business it is to represent the phrase structure of the linguistic input currently being processed. When this intender passes a representation R to the consumers of its products, those consumers will take R to be a representation of the phrase structure of the current input. There is no explicit vocabulary to mark the target-content distinction in ordinary language. Expressions like "what I referred to," "what I meant," and the like, are ambiguous. Sometimes they mean targets, sometimes contents. Consider the following dialogue
|Keywords||Intentionality Representation Haugeland, J|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hubert L. Dreyfus (2000). A Merleau-Pontyian Critique of Husserl's and Searle's Representationalist Accounts of Action. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (3):287–302.
Erwin Tegtmeier (2005). Intentionality is Not Representation. Metaphysica 6 (1):77-84.
John Haugeland (2002). Andy Clark on Cognition and Representation. In Philosophy of Mental Representation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Uriah Kriegel (2013). Two Notions of Mental Representation. In U. Kriegel (ed.), Current Controversies in Philosophy of Mind. Routledge. 161-179.
Nicholas Georgalis (1986). Intentionality and Representation. International Studies in Philosophy 18 (3):45-58.
Robert C. Richardson (1981). Internal Representation: Prologue to a Theory of Intentionality. Philosophical Topics 12 (1):171-212.
Gregg H. Rosenberg & Michael L. Anderson (2008). Content and Action: The Guidance Theory of Representation. Journal of Mind and Behavior 29 (1-2):55-86.
Hugh Clapin (ed.) (2002). Philosophy of Mental Representation. Oxford University Press.
Jennifer Hudin (2006). Motor Intentionality and its Primordiality. Inquiry 49 (6):573 – 590.
Matteo Colombo (2010). How Authentic Intentionality Can Be Enabled: A Neurocomputational Hypothesis. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 20 (2):183-202.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads52 ( #37,917 of 1,679,339 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,792 of 1,679,339 )
How can I increase my downloads?