Mind 106 (422):279-304 (1997)

Authors
Mark Rowlands
University of Miami
Abstract
Teleological theories of content are thought to suffer from two related difficulties. According to the problem of indeterminacy, biological function is indeterminate in the sense that, in the case of two competing interpretations of the function of an evolved mechanism, there is often no fact of the matter capable of determining which function is the correct one. Therefore, any attempts to construct content out of biological function entail the indeterminacy of content. According to the problem of transparency, statements of biological function are transparent in that a statement of the form 'the function of evolved mechanism M is to represent Fs' can be substituted salva veritate by a statement of the form 'the function of evolved mechanism M is to represent Gs' provided that the statement 'F iff G' is counterfactual supporting. Therefore, any attempt to construct content out of biological function must fail to capture the intensionality of psychological ascriptions. This paper argues that the teleological account is undermined by neither of these problems. Failure to appreciate this point stems from a conflation of two types of proper function - organismic and algorithmic - possessed by an evolved mechanism. These functions underwrite attributions of content to distinct objects. The algorithmic proper function of a mechanism underwrites attributions of content to the mechanism itself, while the organismic proper function of a mechanism underwrites attribution of content to the organism that possesses the mechanism. However the problems of indeterminacy and transparency arise only if the attributions of content attach to the same object
Keywords Content  Epistemology  Indeterminacy  Semantics  Teleology
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/mind/106.422.279
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,682
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Teleosemantics and Indeterminacy.Manolo Martínez - 2013 - Dialectica 67 (4):427-453.
Arguing About Representation.Mark Rowlands - 2017 - Synthese 194 (11):4215-4232.
Reformed and Evolutionary Epistemology and the Noetic Effects of Sin.Helen De Cruz & Johan De Smedt - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):49-66.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Does Representational Content Arise From Biological Function?Richard J. Hall - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:193 - 199.
Wide Content Individualism.Denis M. Walsh - 1998 - Mind 107 (427):625-652.
?From Natural Function to Indeterminate Content?Sonja R. Sullivan - 1993 - Philosophical Studies 69 (2-3):129-37.
Biological Functions and Perceptual Content.Mohan Matthen - 1988 - Journal of Philosophy 85 (January):5-27.
The Idea of Mechanism.Stathis Psillos - 2011 - In Phyllis McKay Illari Federica Russo (ed.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press. pp. 771--788.
Function and Content Words Evoke Different Brain Potentials.Robert M. Chapman - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):282-284.
A Proper Understanding of Millikan.Justine Kingsbury - 2006 - Acta Analytica 21 (40):23-40.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
111 ( #84,478 of 2,349,382 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #239,083 of 2,349,382 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes