Why not LF for false belief reasoning?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):682-683 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We argue that natural language has the right degree of representational richness for false belief reasoning, especially the complements under verbs of communication and belief. Language may indeed be necessary synchronically for cross-modular reasoning, but certain achievements in language seem necessary at least diachronically for explicit reasoning about false beliefs.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 77,985

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Normative practical reasoning: John Broome.John Broome - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):175–193.
Belief Revision, Non-Monotonic Reasoning, and the Ramsey Test.Charles B. Cross - 1990 - In Kyburg Henry E., Loui Ronald P. & Carlson Greg N. (eds.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 223--244.
Normative Practical Reasoning.Christian Piller - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):175 - 216.
Linguistic Practice and False-belief Tasks.Matthew Van Cleave - 2010 - Mind and Language 25 (3):298-328.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
41 (#292,232)

6 months
1 (#485,467)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references