David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 110 (3):343-55 (1997)
Proponents of the language of thought (LOT) thesis are realists when it comes to syntactically structured representations, and must defend their view against instrumentalists, who would claim that syntactic structures may be useful in describing cognition, but have no more causal powers in governing cognition than do the equations of physics in guiding the planets. This paper explores what it will take to provide an argument for LOT that can defend its conclusion from instrumentalism. I illustrate a difficulty in this project by discussing arguments for LOT put forward by Horgan and Tienson. When their evidence is viewed in the light of results in connectionist research, it is hard to see how a realist conception of syntax can be formulated and defended
|Keywords||Brain Language Metaphysics Representation Syntax Thought Horgan, T Tienson, 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
Murat Aydede (1997). Language of Thought: The Connectionist Contribution. Minds and Machines 7 (1):57-101.
Gerard O'Brien (1989). Connectionism, Analogicity and Mental Content. Acta Analytica 22 (22):111-31.
Paul J. M. Jorion (1999). Syntax, or, the Embryogenesis of Meaning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1027-1028.
Terence E. Horgan & John L. Tienson (1991). Structured Representations in Connectionist Systems? In S. Davis (ed.), Connectionism: Theorye and Practice. Oup.
James W. Garson (1998). Chaotic Emergence and the Language of Thought. Philosophical Psychology 11 (3):303-315.
Charles E. M. Dunlop (1990). Conceptual Dependency as the Language of Thought. Synthese 82 (2):275-96.
John R. Searle (1990). Is the Brain a Digital Computer? Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 64 (November):21-37.
Maritza Rivera-Gaxiola & Juan Felipe Silva-Pereyra (2002). Is Syntax a Representation in Itself? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):352-353.
Terence E. Horgan & John L. Tienson (2006). Cognition Needs Syntax but Not Rules. In Robert J. Stainton (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing. 147--158.
Kenneth Aizawa (1994). Representations Without Rules, Connectionism, and the Syntactic Argument. Synthese 101 (3):465-92.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #180,814 of 1,679,362 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,761 of 1,679,362 )
How can I increase my downloads?