Abstract
AbstractThe concept of mental representation has long been considered to be central concept of philosophy of mind and cognitive science. But not everyone agrees. Neo-behaviorists aim to explain the mind (or some subset thereof) without positing any representations. My aim here is not to assess the merits and demerits of neo-behaviorism, but to take their challenge seriously and ask the question: What justifies the attribution of representations to an agent? Both representationalists and neo-behaviorists tend to take it for granted that the real question about representations is whether we should be realist about the theory of representationalism. This paper is an attempt to shift the emphasis from the debate concerning realism about theories to the one concerning realism about entities. My claim is that regardless of whether we are realist about representational theories of the mind, we have compelling reasons to endorse entity realism about mental representations.
Funder
H2020 European Research Council
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference85 articles.
1. Bach, K. (1978). A representational theory of action. Philosophical Studies, 34, 361–379.
2. Ballard, D. H. (1996). On the function of visual representation. In K. Akins (Ed.), Perception (pp. 111–131). New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Bechtel, W. (2016). Investigating neural representations: The tale of place cells. Synthese, 193, 1287–1321.
4. Borchers, S., & Himmelbach, M. (2012). The recognition of everyday objects changes grasp scaling. Vision Research, 67, 8–13.
5. Borchers, S. A., Christensen, L. Ziegler, & Himmelbach, M. (2011). Visual action control does not rely on strangers—Effects of pictorial cues under monocular and binocular vision. Neuropsychologia, 49, 556–563.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献