David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Human beings think of themselves in terms of a privileged non-descriptive designator — a mental “I”. Such thoughts are called “de se” thoughts. The mind/body problem is the problem of deciding what kind of thing I am, and it can be regarded as arising from the fact that we think of ourselves non-descriptively. Why do we think of ourselves in this way? We investigate the functional role of “I” (and also “here” and “now”) in cognition, arguing that the use of such non-descriptive “reflexive” designators is essential for making sophisticated cognition work in a general-purpose cognitive agent. If we were to build a robot capable of similar cognitive tasks as humans, it would have to be equipped with such designators. Once we understand the functional role of reflexive designators in cognition, we will see that to make cognition work properly, an agent must use a de se designator in specific ways in its reasoning. Rather simple arguments based upon how “I” works in reasoning lead to the conclusion that it cannot designate the body or part of the body. If it designates anything, it must be something non-physical. However, for the purpose of making the reasoning work correctly, it makes no difference whether “I” actually designates anything. If we were to build a robot that more or less duplicated human cognition, we would not have to equip it with anything for “I” to designate, and general physicalist inclinations suggest that there would be nothing for “I” to designate in the robot. In particular, it cannot designate the physical contraption. So the robot would believe “I exist”, but it would be wrong. Why should we think we are any different?
|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
John L. Pollock & Jenann Ismael (2006). So You Think You Exist? — In Defense of Nolipsism. In Thomas M. Crisp, Matthew Davidson & David Vander Laan (eds.), Knowledge and Reality: Essays in Honor of Alvin Plantinga. Springer.
Robert A. Wilson & Lucia Foglia (2011). Embodied Cognition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
DongKai Li (2008). 黑格尔认识论和本体论的根本错 误以及我的新的本体论和认识论. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 34:73-84.
John L. Pollock (2008). Irrationality and Cognition. In Quentin Smith (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays. Oxford University Press.
John L. Pollock (1999). Rational Cognition in Oscar. Agent Theories.
Shoji Nagataki & Satoru Hirose (2007). Phenomenology and the Third Generation of Cognitive Science: Towards a Cognitive Phenomenology of the Body. [REVIEW] Human Studies 30 (3):219 - 232.
Michael Devitt (2005). Rigid Application. Philosophical Studies 125 (2):139--165.
Shaun Gallagher (2013). You and I, Robot. AI and Society 28 (4):455-460.
Raymond W. Gibbs (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York ;Cambridge University Press.
John McCarthy (1996). Making Robots Conscious of Their Mental States. In S. Muggleton (ed.), Machine Intelligence 15. Oxford University Press.
Keith Frankish & William Ramsey (eds.) (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press.
Daniel C. Dennett (1994). The Practical Requirements for Making a Conscious Robot. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 349:133-46.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads31 ( #81,317 of 1,696,600 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #64,102 of 1,696,600 )
How can I increase my downloads?