David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia 40 (3):483-496 (2012)
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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Marshall Abrams (2005). Teleosemantics Without Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 20 (1):97-116.
Ulrich E. Stegmann (2009). A Consumer‐Based Teleosemantics for Animal Signals. Philosophy of Science 76 (5):864-875.
Justine Kingsbury (2006). A Proper Understanding of Millikan. Acta Analytica 21 (40):23-40.
Neil Sinclair (2012). Metaethics, Teleosemantics and the Function of Moral Judgements. Biology and Philosophy 27 (5):639-662.
Manolo Martinez (2013). Teleosemantics and Productivity. Philosophical Psychology 26 (1):47-68.
James Blackmon, David Byrd, Robert C. Cummins, Alexa Lee & Martin Roth (2006). Representation and Unexploited Content. In Graham F. Macdonald & David Papineau (eds.), Teleosemantics. Oxford University Press.
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.
Graham Macdonald & David Papineau (eds.) (2006). Teleosemantics: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nicholas Shea (2013). Millikan's Isomorphism Requirement. In Dan Ryder, Justine Kingsbury & Kenneth Williford (eds.), Millikan and Her Critics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (2004). Mental Representation, Naturalism, and Teleosemantics. In David Papineau & Graham MacDonald (eds.), Teleosemantics: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press.
Pierre Jacob (2000). Can Selection Explain Content? In Bernard Elevitch (ed.), Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Volume 9. Philosophy Doc Ctr. 91-102.
Colin Allen (2001). A Tale of Two Froggies. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 31 (Supplement):105-115.
Nicholas Shea (2007). Consumers Need Information: Supplementing Teleosemantics with an Input Condition. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (2):404-435.
Added to index2012-01-11
Total downloads63 ( #19,134 of 1,008,729 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #22,147 of 1,008,729 )
How can I increase my downloads?