How Frogs See the World: Putting Millikan's Teleosemantics to the Test

Philosophia 40 (3):483-496 (2012)
Abstract
How do frogs represent their prey? This question has been the focus of many debates among proponents of naturalistic theories of content, especially among proponents of teleosemantics. This is because alternative versions of the teleosemantic approach have different implications for the content of frog representations, and it is still controversial which of these content ascriptions (if any) is the most adequate. Theorists often appeal to intuitions here, but this is a dubious strategy. In this paper, I suggest an alternative, empirical test for theories of content. I propose that we should examine whether a theory generates content ascriptions that fit with our best scientific explanations of animal behavior. I then focus on the most prominent version of teleosemantics, Ruth Millikan’s consumer-oriented approach, and argue that it fails the empirical test in the frog case, since it yields a content ascription that (i) does not include properties that should be included (namely, being small, dark and moving ) and (ii) includes a property that should not be included (namely, being frog food ). This is an important result in itself, but it also demonstrates by way of example how progress can be made in the complex debate about theories of content
Keywords Teleosemantics  Animal cognition  Perception  Mental content  Intentionality
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,561
External links
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
Nicholas Agar (1993). What Do Frogs Really Believe? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71 (1):1-12.
Colin Allen (2001). A Tale of Two Froggies. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 31 (Supplement):105-115.
Colin Allen (1992). Mental Content. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (4):537-553.

View all 27 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Manolo Martinez (2013). Teleosemantics and Productivity. Philosophical Psychology 26 (1):47-68.
Ruth G. Millikan (2006). Useless Content. In Graham F. Macdonald & David Papineau (eds.), Teleosemantics. Oxford University Press.
Pierre Jacob (2000). Can Selection Explain Content? The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 9:91-102.
Nicholas Shea (2013). Millikan's Isomorphism Requirement. In Dan Ryder, Justine Kingsbury & Kenneth Williford (eds.), Millikan and Her Critics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Colin Allen (2001). A Tale of Two Froggies. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 31 (Supplement):105-115.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-01-11

Total downloads

67 ( #20,927 of 1,098,129 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #56,973 of 1,098,129 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.