Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:46:00.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Content-Externalism to Vehicle-Externalism1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

Crystal L’hote
Crystal L’hote*
Affiliation:
St. Michael’s College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Consensus has it that Putnam-Burge style arguments for content-externalism do not strengthen the case for vehicle-externalism, i.e., the thesis that some mental states include as their parts notebooks, iPhones, and other extra-bodily phenomena. Rowlands and Sprevak, among others, argue that vehicle-externalism gets stronger support from Clark and Chalmers’s parity principle and functionalism, generally. I contest this assessment and thereby give reason to reconsider the support that content-externalism provides the extended mind thesis: although content-externalism does not entail vehicle-externalism, as Rowlands argues, neither does functionalism. The functionalist cannot reject the content-externalist argument for vehicle-externalism on these grounds without undercutting her own.

RÉSUMÉ : Le consensus veut que l’argument de Putnam-Burge concernant l’externalisme sémantique ne permette pas d’étayer l’argument de l’externalisme des véhicules, c’est-à-dire la thèse selon laquelle certains états mentaux ont pour partie prenante des cahiers de notes, iPhones et autres phénomènes extra-corporels. Rowlands et Sprevak, parmi d’autres, soutiennent que l’externalisme des véhicules trouve un meilleur appui dans le principe de parité, et plus généralement, dans le fonctionnalisme de Clark et Chalmers. Je conteste cette conclusion en invitant à repenser l’appui que l’externalisme sémantique peut apporter à la thèse de l’esprit étendu. Rowlands soutient que l’externalisme sémantique n’implique pas l’externalisme des véhicules; l’argument vaut pour le fonctionnalisme. Le fonctionnaliste ne peut nier la thèse de l’externalisme sémantique sans affaiblir sa propre argumentation.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 275 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2012

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.)

Footnotes

1

I thank the generous participants at the 2009 Cognitive Systems and Extended Mind conference at the University of Osnabrueck for their comments on an early version on this paper, especially Robert Rupert and Ken Aizawa. Any persisting confusion is wholly my own. I also owe thanks to John Izzi for his assistance in the preparation of this manuscript and to the Office of the VPAA at St. Michael’s College for a summer research fellowship that facilitated a project of which this work is a part.

References

Adams, F. and Aizawa, K. 2008 The Bounds of Cognition. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Adams, F. and Aizawa, K. 2001 “The Bounds of Cognition.” Philosophical Psychology 14: 43–64.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1979 “Individualism and the Mental.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 73–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. 2008 Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2005 “Intrinsic Content, Active Memory, and the Extended Mind.” Analysis 65: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. 1998 Being There: Putting Mind, Body, and World Back Together Again. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. 1998 “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58.1: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1987 “Knowing One’s Own Mind.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 60: 441–48.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. 2001 Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Hurley, S. 1998 “Vehicles, Contents, Conceptual Structure and Internalism.” Analysis 58: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1979 “Dthat.” Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, ed. Cole, P.. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in The Philosophy of Language.Ed. A. P. Martinich. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 1982 “Criteria Defeasibility and Knowledge.” Proceedings of the British Academy: 455–79.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1989 Mental Content. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. 1991 “Perceptual Content and Fregean Myth.” Mind 100.4: 441–460.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. 1989 “Biosemantics.” Journal of Philosophy 86: 281–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. 1987 Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Noe, A. 2009 Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975 “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. VII. Ed. Gunderson, K.. University of Minnesota Press. 131–93.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M. 2008 The Body in Mind: Understanding Cognitive Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M. 2003 Externalism: Putting Mind and World Back Together Again. McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Rupert, R. 2009 Cognitive Systems and the Extended Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rupert, R. 2004 “Challenges to the Thesis of Extended Cognition.” Journal of Philosophy 101.8: 389–428.Google Scholar
Snowdon, P. 1981 “Perception, Vision and Causation.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81: 175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprevak, M. 2009 “Extended Cognition and Functionalism.” The Journal of Philosophy 106: 503–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar