Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:04:27.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Empiricism and State Space Semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Jesse J. Prinz
Edited by
Brian L. Keeley
Jesse J. Prinz
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Brian L. Keeley
Affiliation:
Pitzer College, Claremont
Get access

Summary

For some time now, Paul Churchland has been defending a connectionist theory of mental content, alliteratively labeled state-space semantics. The theory is at once holistic, prototype-based, and neurally reductionist. If you mix those ideas into a single theory, one thing is guaranteed: you will hear from Jerry Fodor and Earnest Lepore. The exchange between Churchland and the Rutgers duo has spanned several papers, and several voices have been chiming in from the sidelines. Both sides have claimed victory, but these declarations are premature. I think Churchland has been successful in addressing some of the objections levied by Fodor and Lepore, but others remain. Fodor and Lepore recognize that there may be a way out for Churchland. He could overcome some of their more pressing concerns if he embraced an extreme form of concept empiricism. In pointing this out, they intend to highlight the fatality of their objections. Empiricist theories of concepts are unacceptable on other grounds. No one, not even Paul Churchland, wants to resurrect Hume. If empiricism is the only way to navigate state space, it's time to give up on that program and set course for another semantic theory. This is a rare point of agreement between Churchland and his critics.

I will argue that empiricism isn't as unworkable as it appears. If I am right, then state-space semantics may be able to withstand the objections of Fodor and Lepore. But that does not mean Churchland wins the debate. Empiricism raises further concerns about state-space semantics.

Type
Chapter
Information
Paul Churchland , pp. 88 - 112
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). “Perceptual symbol systems.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–609Google ScholarPubMed
Cummins, R. (1991). Meaning and mental representationsCambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1996a). Fodor and Lepore: State space semantics and meaning holism. In McCauley, R. (ed.), The Churchlands and their Critics (pp. 273–7). Oxford: Blackwell
Churchland, P. M. (1996b). Second reply to Fodor and Lepore. In McCauley, R. (ed.), The Churchlands and their Critics (pp. 278–283). Oxford: Blackwell
Churchland, P. M. (1998). “Conceptual similarity across sensory and neural diversity: The Fodor/Lepore challenge answered.” Journal of Philosophy 95: 5–32Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R. (1989). “Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition.” Cognition 33: 25–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. (1990). A theory of concept and other essays. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford, Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. & Lepore, E. (1996a). Churchland on state space semantics. In McCauley, R. (ed.), The Churchlands and their Critics (pp. 145–58). Oxford: Blackwell
Fodor, J. & Lepore, E. (1996b). Reply to Churcland. In McCauley, R. (ed.), The Churchlands and their Critics (pp. 159–62). Oxford, Blackwell
Fodor, J. & Lepore, E. (1999). “All at sea in semantic space: Churchland on meaning similarity.” J. Phil. 96(8): 381–403
Fodor, J. & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). “Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis.” Cognition 28: 3–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garzón, Francisco Calvo (2003). “Connectionist semantics and the collateral information challenge.” Mind & Language 18: 77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, A. & Cottrell, G. (1998). How can I know what you think?: Assessing representational similarity in neural systems. In Gernsbacher, M. A. and Deny, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Cognitive Science Conference. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Laakso, A. & Cottrell, G. (2000). “Content and cluster analysis: Assessing representational similarity in neural systems.” Philosophical Psychology 13: 47–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). “Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs.” Psychological Science 14: 119–124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prinz, J. J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1953). “Two dogmas of empiricism.” In From a logical point of view (pp. 20–46). Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
Sejnowski, T. J. & Rosenberg, C. R. (1988). “NETtalk: A parallel network that learns to read aloud.” In Anderson, J. A. and Rosenfeld, E. (eds.) Neurocomputing: Foundations of research (pp. 661–72). Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Smolensky, P. (1990). Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist networks. Artificial Intelligence 46: 59–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiffany, E. (1999). Semantics San Diego Style. Journal of Philosophy 96: 416–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×