Journal of Philosophy 98 (4):167 - 185 (2001)
The current debate over systematicity concerns the formal conditions a scheme of mental representation must satisfy in order to explain the systematicity of thought.1 The systematicity of thought is assumed to be a pervasive property of minds, and can be characterized (roughly) as follows: anyone who can think T can think systematic variants of T, where the systematic variants of T are found by permuting T’s constituents. So, for example, it is an alleged fact that anyone who can think the thought that John loves Mary can think the thought that Mary loves John, where the latter thought is a systematic variant of the former.
|Keywords||systematicity language of thought Fodor connectionism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Language as an Instrument of Thought.Eran Asoulin - 2016 - Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1 (1):1-23.
On Representing Information: A Characterization of the Analog/Digital Distinction.Aldo Frigerio, Alessandro Giordani & Luca Mari - 2013 - Dialectica 67 (4):455-483.
Levels of Explanation Vindicated.Víctor M. Verdejo & Daniel Quesada - 2011 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (1):77-88.
The Systematicity Challenge to Anti-Representational Dynamicism.Víctor Verdejo - 2015 - Synthese 192 (3):701-722.
Similar books and articles
On Begging the Systematicity Question.Wayne A. Davis - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Research 30:399-404.
Are Feedforward and Recurrent Networks Systematic? Analysis and Implications for a Connectionist Cognitive Architecture.S. Phillips - 1998 - Philosophical Explorations.
What Systematicity Isn't.Robert C. Cummins, James Blackmon & David Byrd - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Research 30:405-408.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads428 ( #5,142 of 2,158,481 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #132,914 of 2,158,481 )
How can I increase my downloads?