Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T21:22:42.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representation and Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

David Papineau
David Papineau*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Functionalism faces a problem in accounting for the semantic powers of beliefs and other mental states. Simple causal considerations will not solve this problem, nor will any appeal to the social utility of semantic interpretations. The correct analysis of semantic representation is a teleological one, in terms of the biological purposes of mental states: whereas functionalism focuses, so to speak, only on the structure of the cognitive mechanism, the semantic perspective requires in addition that we consider the purposes of the cognitive mechanism's parts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1984 , pp. 550 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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

Dennett, D. (1978), Brainstorms. Montgomery, Vermont: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (1981), “Three Kinds of Intentional Psychology”, in Reduction, Time and Reality, Healey, R. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (1982), “Beyond Belief”, in Thought and Object, Woodfield, A. (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism”, in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. vol. III. Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Field, H. (1978), “Mental Representation”, Erkenntnis 13: 9–61.10.1007/BF00160888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeds, S. (1978), “Theories of Reference and Truth”, Erkenntnis 13: 111–29.10.1007/BF00160890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1972), “Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications”, Australian Journal of Philosophy 50: 249–58.10.1080/00048407212341301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loar, B. (1981), Mind and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. (1982), “The Structure of Content”, in Thought and Object, Woodfield, A. (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. (1981), “Demonstrative Thought and Psychological Explanation”, Synthese 49: 187–217.10.1007/BF01064298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. (1978), For Science in the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-09583-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. (1979), Theory and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245858.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. (1984), “Social Facts and Psychological Facts”, in Popper and the Human Sciences, Currie, G. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967), “Psychological Predicates”, in Art, Mind and Religion, Capitan, W. and Merrill, D., (eds.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1973), “Functions”, Philosophical Review 82: 139–68.10.2307/2183766CrossRefGoogle Scholar