Beyond interpretation: Reply to Cummins' response
Minds and Machines 2 (1) (1992)
| Abstract | In his response to my Why There Are No Mental Representations, Robert Cummins accused me of having misinterpreted his views, and attempted to undermine a crucial premise of my argument, which claimed that one could only define a semantic type non-semantically by stipulating which tokens should receive a uniform interpretation. I respond to the charge and defend the premise | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRobert C. Cummins (1977). Reply to Hugly and Sayward. Journal of Philosophical Logic 6 (1):353-354.
Robert C. Cummins, James Blackmon & David Byrd (2005). What Systematicity Isn't. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:405-408.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1977). Theories of Truth and Semantical Primitives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 6 (1):349 - 354.
Ron Amundson & Laurence D. Smith (1984). Clark Hull, Robert Cummins, and Functional Analysis. Philosophy of Science 51 (December):657-666.
Paul G. Skokowski (1994). Can Computers Carry Content "Inexplicitly"? Minds and Machines 4 (3):333-44.
M. Morris (1991). Why There Are No Mental Representations. Minds and Machines 1 (1):1-30.
Robert C. Cummins (1991). Form, Interpretation, and the Uniqueness of Content: A Response to Morris. Minds and Machines 1 (1):31-42.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads10 ( #106,438 of 549,594 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,303 of 549,594 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
