David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In E. Machery, M. Werning & G. Schurz (eds.), The Compositionality of Meaning and Content Volume Ii: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology and Neuroscience. Ontos Verlag 229-250 (2005)
Is thinking necessarily linguistic? Do we _think with words_, to use Bermudez’s phrase? Or does thinking occur in some other, yet to be determined, representational format? Or again do we think in various formats, switching from one to the other as tasks demand? In virtue perhaps of the ambiguous na- ture of ﬁrst-person introspective data on the matter, philosophers have tradition- ally disagreed on this question, some thinking that thought had to be pictorial, other insisting that it could not be but linguistic. When any problem divides a community of otherwise intelligent rational thinkers, one suspects some deep conceptual confusion is at play. Indeed, we believe that the conceptual cate- gories used to frame these and related questions are so hopelessly muddled that one could honestly answer “both simultaneously”, or “neither”, depending one what is meant by the alternatives. But let’s get our priorities straight. This paper ﬁrst and foremost aims at defending what we believe to be a step in that direc- tion of the proper view of thinking, a view we call the spatial -motor view. In order to do so, however, we have found it essential to start by addressing the conceptual confusion just alluded to. Accordingly, the paper proceeds in two steps. First a conceptual step, in which we reconsider some of the traditional categories brought into play when thinking about thinking. Then an empirical step, in which we offer empirical evidence for one of the views conceptually isolated during the ﬁrst part of the work. Future version of this collaborative work will include a speculative step in which we spin out an evolutionary and developmental scenario whose function it is justify the spatial -motor view by showing how it ﬁts into current evolutionary and developmental theories.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Aaron Z. Zimmerman (2005). Self-Verification and the Content of Thought. Synthese 149 (1):59 - 75.
Daniel A. Weiskopf (2010). Embodied Cognition and Linguistic Comprehension. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):294-304.
Peter Carruthers (2002). The Cognitive Functions of Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):657-674.
Tim Lewens (2009). What is Wrong with Typological Thinking? Philosophy of Science 76 (3):355-371.
José Luis Bermúdez (2011). The Force-Field Puzzle and Mindreading in Non-Human Primates. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (3):397-410.
Greg Johnson (2002). The Situated Self and Utopian Thinking. Hypatia 17 (3):20-44.
B. Hardy-Vallee & Pierre Poirier (2006). Embodied Thoughts. Concepts and Compositionality Without Language. Theoria Et Historia Scientarum 1:53-72.
Benoit Hardy-Vallée & Pierre Poirier (2005). Structured Thoughts: The Spatial-Motor View. In Gerhard Schurz, Edouard Machery & Markus Werning (eds.), Applications to Linguistics, Psychology and Neuroscience. De Gruyter 229-250.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads67 ( #67,319 of 1,935,154 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #58,844 of 1,935,154 )
How can I increase my downloads?