The Modal—Amodal Distinction in the Debate on Conceptual Format

Philosophies 3 (2):7 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I review the main criteria offered for distinguishing the modal and amodal approaches to conceptual format: the type of input to which the representations respond, the relation they bear to perceptual states, and the specific neural systems to which they belong. I evaluate different interpretations of them and argue that they all face difficulties. I further show that they lead to cross-classifications of certain types of representations, using approximate number representations as an example.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,667

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-03-29

Downloads
47 (#507,106)

6 months
10 (#345,698)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sabrina Haimovici
University of Buenos Aires

Citations of this work

Overcoming the modal/amodal dichotomy of concepts.Christian Michel - 2021 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 20 (4):655-677.
The Conceptual Format Debate and the Challenge from (Global) Supramodality.Fabrizio Calzavarini - 2025 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 76 (1):45-74.
Mapas, lenguaje y conceptos: hacia una teoría pluralista del formato de los conceptos.Mariela Aguilera - 2020 - Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology 24 (1):121-146.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.Ludwig Wittgenstein - 2023 - Nordic Wittgenstein Review 11.
The Language of Thought.J. A. Fodor - 1978 - Critica 10 (28):140-143.
Perceptual symbol systems.Lawrence W. Barsalou - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):577-660.

View all 20 references / Add more references