Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T06:42:22.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Folk Psychology and Cognitive Architecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Frances Egan
Frances Egan*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has recently been argued that the success of the connectionist program in cognitive science would threaten folk psychology. I articulate and defend a “minimalist” construal of folk psychology that comports well with empirical evidence on the folk understanding of belief and is compatible with even the most radical developments in cognitive science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 179 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks to William Bechtel, David Davies, Paul Lodge, Robert Matthews, Robert McCauley, and William Ramsey for helpful comments and criticism.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA.

References

Astington, J., Harris, P., and Olsen, D. (1988), Developing Theories of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1981), “Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes”, Journal of Philosophy 78: 67–90.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (1991), “Concepts, Connectionism, and the Language of Thought”, in Ramsey, Stich, and Rumelhart (1991), pp. 229–257.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1987), The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1991), “Real Patterns”, Journal of Philosophy 88: 27–51.10.2307/2027085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1975), The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1987), Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5684.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988), “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture”, Cognition 28: 3–71.10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forguson, L. and Gopnik, A. (1988), “The Ontogeny of Common Sense”, in Astington, Harris, and Olsen (1988), pp. 226–243.Google Scholar
Forster, M. and Saidel, E. (forthcoming), “Connectionism and the Fate of Folk Psychology”, Philosophical Psychology.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.10.1037/10628-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, G. E., McClelland, J. L., and Rumelhart, D. E. (1986), “Distributed Representations”, in Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research Group (eds.), D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 77–109.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. and Graham, G. (1991), “In Defense of Southern Fundamentalism”, Philosophical Studies 62: 107–134.10.1007/BF00419048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, T. and Tienson, J. (eds.) (1991), Connectionism and the Philosophy of Mind. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3524-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. and Pettit, P. (1990), “In Defense of Folk Psychology”, Philosophical Studies 59: 31–54.10.1007/BF00368390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, M. (1992), “Reasons and Reductionism”, The Philosophical Review 101: 589–618.10.2307/2186058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, H. H. and Michela, J. (1980), “Attribution Theory and Research”, Annual Review of Psychology 31: 457–501.10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lycan, W. (1991), “PDP meets Humuncular Functionalism”, in Ramsey, Stich, and Rumelhart (1991), pp. 259–286.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. (1983), Sense and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. and Seligman, M. E. P. (1984), “Causal Explanations as a Risk Factor for Depression: Theory and Evidence”, Psychological Review 91: 347–374.10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramsey, W., Stich, S., and Garon, J. (1991), “Connectionism, Eliminativism, and the Future of Folk Psychology”, in Ramsey, Stich, and Rumelhart (1991), pp. 199–228.Google Scholar
Ramsey, W., Stich, S., and Rumelhart, D. (eds.) (1991), Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rey, G. (1991), “An Explanatory Budget for Connectionism and Eliminativism”, in Horgan and Tienson (1991), pp. 219–237.10.1007/978-94-011-3524-5_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1988), “On the Proper Treatment of Connectionism”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11: 1–74.10.1017/S0140525X00052432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. P. (1983), From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, T. (1991), “What is the ‘D’ in ‘PDP‘? A Survey of the Concept of Distribution”, in Ramsey, Stich, and Rumelhart (1991), pp. 33–59.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, T. (forthcoming), “Connectionism and the Mind-Body Problem.”Google Scholar
Weiner, B. (1990), “Attribution in Personality Psychology”, in Pervin, L. A. (ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 465–485.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (1990), The Child's Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilkes, K. (1986), “Nemo Psychologus nisi Physiologus”, Inquiry 29: 169–185.10.1080/00201748608602085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkes, K. (1991), “The Long Past and Short History”, in Bogdan, R. (ed.), Mind and Common Sense. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 144–160.10.1017/CBO9780511551659.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, H. and Perner, J. (1983), “Beliefs about Beliefs: Representation and Constraining Function of Wrong Beliefs in Young Children's Understanding of Deception”, Cognition 13: 103–128.10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar