Dialogue 28 (03):391- (1989)
Ken Warmbrod thinks Quine agrees that translation is determinate if it is determinate what speakers would say in all possible circumstances; that what things would do in merely possible circumstances is determined by what their subvisible constituent mechanisms would dispose them to do on the evidence of what alike actual mechanisms make alike actual things do actually; and that what speakers say is determined by their neural mechanisms. Warmbrod infers that people's neural mechanisms make translation of what people say determinate. I argue that the evidence of what alike actual mechanisms make alike actual things do actually, underdetermines what our neural mechanisms would make us say in merely possible circumstances. So translation is indeterminate. And so too are the dispositions of physical mechanisms.
|Keywords||Quine Indeterminacy of Translation dispositions mechanisms language meaning counterfactuals Warmbrod neuronal mechanism meaning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Esoteric Quine? Belief Attribution and the Significance of the Indeterminacy Thesis in Quine’s Kant Lectures.H. G. Callaway - 2003 - In W.V. Quine, Wissenschaft und Empfindung. Frommann-Holzboog.
How Many Mechanisms Are Needed to Analyze Speech? A Connectionist Simulation of Structural Rule Learning in Artificial Language Acquisition.Aarre Laakso & Paco Calvo - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (7):1243-1281.
Intension and Representation: Quine's Indeterminacy Thesis Revisited.Itay Shani - 2005 - Philosophical Psychology 18 (4):415 – 440.
The Bifurcation of Scientific Theories and Indeterminacy of Translation.Donald Hockney - 1975 - Philosophy of Science 42 (4):411-427.
Added to index2010-09-25
Total downloads23 ( #214,283 of 2,152,644 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #399,611 of 2,152,644 )
How can I increase my downloads?