Abstract
In the paper I present an application of Jerzy Pelc’s functional semiotics to contemporary cognitive science. I argue that, even though the original theory addressed only linguistic representations, it can be fruitfully applied to mental representations. I show how Pelc’s distinction between use and usage helps us clarify the notion of mental representations and how it makes it immune to skeptical challenges presented in contemporary cognitive science literature.
References
Anderson, Michael & Gregg Rosenberg. 2008. Content and action: The guidance theory of representation. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 29. 55–86.Search in Google Scholar
Bartels, Andreas. 2006. Defending the structural concept of representation. Theoria 55. 7–19.10.1387/theoria.550Search in Google Scholar
Beer, Randall D. 1997. The dynamics of adaptive behavior: A research program. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 20. 257–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8890(96)00063-2.Search in Google Scholar
Bickhard, Mark H. 2004a. The dynamic emergence of representation. In Hugh Clapin, Phillip Staines & Slezak Peter (eds.), Representation in mind: New approaches to mental representation, 71–90. Oxford: Elsevier Science.10.1016/B978-008044394-2/50007-5Search in Google Scholar
Bickhard, Mark H. 2004b. Process and emergence: Normative function and representation. Axiomathes 14. 135–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:axio.0000006791.23077.b1.10.1007/978-94-007-1044-3_6Search in Google Scholar
Bickhard, Mark H. 2009. The interactivist model. Synthese 166. 547–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9375-x.Search in Google Scholar
Ciecierski, Tadeusz. 2021. Indexicality, meaning, use. Semiotica 238(1/4). 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0056.Search in Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert C. 1989. Meaning and mental representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert C. 1991. The role of representation in connectionist explanations of cognitive capacities. In W. Ramsey, S. Stich & D. Rumelhart (eds.), Philosophy and connectionist theory, 91–114. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Elbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert C. 2010. The world in the head. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199548033.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred. 1988. Explaining behavior: Reasons in the world of causes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1987. Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5684.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Garzon, Francisco Calvo & Angel Garcia Rodriguez. 2009. Where is cognitive science heading? Minds and Machines 19. 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-009-9157-3.Search in Google Scholar
Gładziejewski, Paweł. 2015. Wyjaśnianie za pomocą reprezentacji mentalnych: Perspektywa mechanistyczna. Warszawa-Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.Search in Google Scholar
Haugeland, John. 1991. Representational genera. In W. Ramsey, S. Stich & D. Rumelhart (eds.), Philosophy and connectionist theory, 61–90. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Isaac, Alistair. 2013. Objective similarity and mental representation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91(4). 683–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2012.728233.Search in Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. 1984. Language, thought and other biological categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.7551/mitpress/4124.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Morgan, Alex. 2014. Representations gone mental. Synthese 191(2). 213–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0328-7.Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1967. Funkcjonalne podejście do semiotyki logicznej języka naturalnego. Studia Filozoficzne 2. 109–134.Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1971a. Studies in functional logical semiotics of natural language. Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110828375Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1971b. Meaning as an instrument. In Studies in functional logical semiotics of natural language, 54–83. Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110828375-004Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1992. The methodological status of semiotics: Signs, semiosis, interpretation and the limits of semiotics. In Michel Balat, Janice Deledalle-Rhodes & Gérard Deledalle (eds.), Signs of humanity/L’homme et ses signes: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of the IASS/Actes du IVe Congrès Mondial de ’AIS, Barcelona/Perpignan, 23–34. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1993. Semiosis, cognition, interpretation. In René J. Jorna, Barend van Heusden & Roland Posner (eds.), Signs, search and communication: Semiotic aspects of artifical intelligence, 25–38. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110871579.25Search in Google Scholar
Ramsey, William. 2010. Representation reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shagrir, Oron. 2012. Structural representations and the brain. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 6. 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axr038.Search in Google Scholar
Shepard, Roger N. & Susan Chipman. 1970. Second-order isomorphism of internal representations: Shapes of states. Cognitive Psychology 1. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(70)90002-2.Search in Google Scholar
Swoyer, Chris. 1991. Structural representation and surrogative reasoning. Synthese 87(3). 449–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00499820.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
