Philosophy and Technology 24 (1):35-53 (2011)
AbstractWe compare the role of Cartesian assumptions in the symbol grounding problem and in the Myth of the Given: We argue that the Sellars–McDowell critique of the Myth of the Given and, in particular, its use of the concept of normativity can provide useful resources for responding to the symbol grounding problem. We also describe the concepts of normativity at work in computer science and cognitive science: We argue that normative concepts are pervasive in the sciences and that, in particular, McDowell’s dichotomy between the normative space of reasons and the realm of nature is somewhat problematic
Similar books and articles
Genuine Normativity, Expressive Bootstrapping, and Normative Phenomenalism.David Lauer - 2009 - Etica and Politica / Ethics & Politics 11 (1):321-350.
Introduction: Science, naturalism, and the problem of normativity.Mario de Caro & David Macarthur - 2010 - In Mario de Caro & David Macarthur (eds.), Naturalism and Normativity. Columbia University Press.
Hypothetical and Categorical Epistemic Normativity.Chase B. Wrenn - 2004 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):273-290.
Feature learning, multiresolution analysis, and symbol grounding.Karl F. MacDorman - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):32-33.
Voluntarist reasons and the sources of normativity.Ruth Chang - 2009 - In David Sobel & Steven Wall (eds.), Reasons for Action. Cambridge University Press. pp. 243-71.
Naturalistic Epistemologies and Normativity.Elisabeth Pacherie - 2002 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):299-317.
The Philosophy of Normativity, or How to Try Clearing Things Up a Little.Christine Tappolet & Alan Voizard - 2011 - Dialogue 50 (2):233-238.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism.Ruth Garrett Millikan - 1984 - MIT Press.