Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind ( Explorations in Cognitive Science) [Jerry A. Fodor] on *FREE* shipping on. FODOR’S PSYCHOSEMANTICS Jerry Fodor. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy ofMind. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press,. very long manuscript called “Psychosemantics,” and a somewhat shorter one called Reply to Jerry Fodor’s IIndividualism and Supervenience.’ ” Paper.
|Published (Last):||6 October 2016|
|PDF File Size:||11.27 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
My sense was that you seemed rather dismissive of this problem of informational specificity. Whereas Millikan is trying to show how human mental representations belong to a very broad type that goes from very simple organisms to human language.
Besides, psycosemantics is surely not up to the program in naturalized semantics to solve the realism-antirealism debate.
Review of Fodor, Psychosemantics. With some sadness and much caution, I suggest that things have not gone well for the Dretske-Fodor program. Not sure I accept it — I criticize the move in the afore-linked-to paper — but I think it is probably the best response.
I remember discussing this stuff on the Brain Hammer blog like a psychosemantic years ago.
Jerry A. Fodor, Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind – PhilPapers
So I think it is time to start looking at different approaches to the network of questions surrounding belief and representation. And we can say this because the most natural causal-explanatory account of the selection of this system mentions objects, not undetached object parts.
My take was that she was unimpressed by the criticism, but that Fodor was exasperated by this lack of impression. These states may be language-like, as Fodor has argued since his famous book, Language of Thought If not, I would have thought that standard antibehaviorist arguments serve to discredit the notion.
One could be that a teleosemantic theory assigns only generic content, like fitness or nutritious. The focus on what you call perception, both in your comments and in much contemporary neuroscience has advantages, but also drawbacks.
But it will depend on the psychosemxntics, of course. There is, in the teleosemantic literature, this idea that the facial symmetry kind of story like the black dot story is somehow bad evolutionary biology.
These are the sorts of details for this case ierry are important. I will definitely check these out. My hunch is that many readers here are sympathetic to this view, so I am being a bit brusque in my language. Indeed, it is natural fodkr think about it in informational terms. Ecological psychology seems to me to have serious theoretical problems, but there are plenty of folks working on it. The only way to make progress that I know of involves making really strong, arguably non-naturalistic, assumptions about the kinds of properties that can enter into content-making relations.
Yes, the symmetry detection system may well track mate fitness, and it may even have the function of doing so. The carburetor in my car ultimately helps my car move, but that would be a myopic view of its function it makes my car move because it psychosemanttics the local causal role of the carb where are its inputs coming from, what are its consumers.
I look forward to reading your papers. I psychosemmantics to wonder, though, what dire consequences follow if there is some residual indeterminacy in the systems proposed by Dan, Manolo, and others.
Yup, this is right. Rather, the relevant contents will just be determined by the standard representations of the symmetry detector and face jerfy, taken separately.
You have some great clever arguments and ideas, but are in such an empirically impoverished state that most of what you say will end up looking either antiquated or lucky. But I take your point—the worries have their standing with or without Fodor. Thinking of them informationally helps explain their behavioral accuracy and orients our thinking about what features of the neuronal spike trains to look at as potentially causally potent for downstream neurons e.
It can only produce a correspondence to a specific kind of fitness enhancer, namely symmetrical ones. Given that every experimental condition that has rabbits present is also going to have URPs present, and vice versa, what basis is there for distinguishing their alleged causal differences?
Was Psychosemantics a Failure? – The Brains Blog
I skimmed the paper quickly and was quite pleased to discover a blob named after me! Psychosemanics be sure, there are more stringent unpackings of the notion of tracking, but let us concede that this is the relevant one. This non-correlation would then form part of an extremely poor explanation for why this producer-consumer system was selected.
Think of it like attention, which can increase the signal-to-noise ratio of a sensory region.