David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In David Papineau & Graham MacDonald (eds.), Teleosemantics: New Philosophical Essays. Oup. 1-22 (2006)
Reductive, naturalistic psychosemantic theories do not have a good track record when it comes to accommodating the representation of kinds. In this paper, I will suggest a particular teleosemantic strategy to solve this problem, grounded in the neurocomputational details of the cerebral cortex. It is a strategy with some parallels to one that Ruth Millikan has suggested, but to which insufficient attention has been paid. This lack of attention is perhaps due to a lack of appreciation for the severity of the problem, so I begin by explaining why the situation is indeed a dire one. One of the main tasks for a naturalistic psychosemantic theory is to describe how the extensions of mental representations are determined. (Such a theory may also attempt to account for other aspects of the “meaning” of mental representations, if there are any.) Some mental representations, e.g. the concept of water, denote kinds (I shall be assuming this is non-negotiable). How is this possible? Unfortunately, I haven’t the space to canvass all the theories out there and show that each one fails to accommodate the representation of kinds, but I will point out the major types of problems that arise for the kinds of theories that, judging by the literature, are considered viable contenders.1 In general, the theories either attempt and fail to account for the representation of kinds, or they fall back on something like an intention to refer to a kind – not exactly the most auspicious move for a reductive theory. There are a number of problems that prevent non-teleosemantic theories from explaining how it is possible to represent kinds. A concept of a kind K must..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Reydon (2009). How to Fix Kind Membership: A Problem for Hpc Theory and a Solution. Philosophy of Science 76 (5):724-736.
Ingo Brigandt (2009). Natural Kinds in Evolution and Systematics: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations. Acta Biotheoretica 57:77-97.
Stefan Dragulinescu (2012). The Problem of Processes and Transitions: Are Diseases Phase Kinds? [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (1):79-89.
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (2010). Interactive Kinds. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (2):335-360.
Thomas A. C. Reydon (2009). Do the Life Sciences Need Natural Kinds? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (2):167-190.
Paul Bloom (1996). Intention, History, and Artifact Concepts. Cognition 60 (1):1-29.
Paul Thagard (2003). Conceptual Change. In L. Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Nature Publishing Group.
Gualtiero Piccinini & Sam Scott (2006). Splitting Concepts. Philosophy of Science 73 (4):390-409.
Thomas W. Polger (2009). Identity Theories. Philosophy Compass 4 (5):822-834.
Bartlomiej Swiatczak (2011). Conscious Representations: An Intractable Problem for the Computational Theory of Mind. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 21 (1):19-32.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #90,306 of 1,088,623 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,623 )
How can I increase my downloads?