The Historical Evolution of the Notion of Representation in the Philosophy of Mind
What is it that gives concepts and propositional attitudes their content? There are two alternative strategies that have been developed for giving an answer to this question. One strategy, defended by Jerry Fodor among others, assumes that propositional attitudes are realized by the storage (in the "belief box", using the popular metaphor) of sentences of a language of thought. This view maintains that concepts are mental states which have both representational and causal properties. The author of the article defends a different strategy, which is based on the cognitive conception of language and which accounts for the content of beliefs in terms of the content of the sentences of the public language to which the agent is disposed to assent. The Fodorian strategy needs a distinction between explicit or "core" beliefs and implicit beliefs because it would not be plausible to say that everything believed is explicitly stored. Fodor uses this problem, which was labeled the Frame Problem, to bolster the view that processes that are involved in fixing belief are holistic. A former proponent of computationalism, Fodor later gives it up largely because of the alleged phenomenon that he himself has given the label isotropy. Analogical reasoning is an example of isotropy: it is a process which depends upon the transfer of information among cognitive domains previously assumed to be irrelevant. The author of the article holds that the problem can be solved if to assume that representations or concepts are abilities that are peculiar to cognitive agents rather than mental particulars. He suggests that one's concepts are multi-track dispositions a la Ryle. We can use ordinary language as a guide for distinguishing dispositions from occurrent states. The obvious way to avoid the problem is by appealing to the attention-focusing power of what Marvin Minsky called frames: descriptions of typical situations like going to a birthday party. These data structures list and organize those facts that would normally be relevant. Some variant of the "sleeping dog" solution is adopted: only those parts of the frame that represent facets of the world that have changed are updated, and the rest is simply left as it is. So one can account for one's apparent ability to make decisions on the basis only of what reflects a change in the ongoing situation without having explicitly to consider every part of the frame system.
Keywords
проблема релевантности,
глобальное рабочее пространство,
массовая модулярность,
многомерная диспозиция,
репрезентация,
язык мышления,
relevance problem,
global workspace,
massive modularity,
multi-track disposition,
representation,
language of thoughtAuthors
Korobkov Leonid G. | Novosibirsk State University | 5in7in5@gmail.com |
Всего: 1
References
Burge T. Origins of Objectivity. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Carruthers P. The cognitive functions of language // The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2002. Vol. 25, № 6. P. 657-674.
Stalnaker R. Propositional Attitudes // The MIT Encyclopedia of The Cognitive Sciences / ed. by R.A. Wilson, F.C. Keil. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 1999. P. 678-679.
Fodor J. Why there still has to be a language of thought // Computers, Brains and Minds / ed. by P. Slezak. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989. P. 23-46.
Fodor J. In Critical Condition. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 2000.
Newell A., Simon H. Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search // Communications of the ACM. 1976. Vol. 19, № 3. P. 113-126.
Schneider S. Direct Reference, Psychological Explanation, and Frege Cases // Mind & Languge. 2005. Vol. 20, № 4. P. 423-447.
Fodor J. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 1983.
Johnson-Laird P. The mental representation of the meaning of words // Cognition. 1987. Vol. 25. P. 189-211.
Samuels R. Massive Modularity // The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science / ed. by E. Margolis, R. Samuels, S.P. Stich. Oxford University Press, 2012. P. 60-92.
Dennett D. Cognitive wheels: the frame problem of AI // Minds, Machines and Evolution / ed. by C. Hookway. Cambridge University Press, 1984. P. 129-150.
Ludwig K., Schneider S. Fodor's Challenge to the Classical Computational Theory of Mind // Mind & Language. 2008. Vol. 23, № 1. P. 123-143.
Schneider S. Yes, It Does: a Diatribe on Jerry Fodor's The Mind Doesn't Work that Way // Psyche. 2007. Vol. 13, № 1. P. 1-15.
Carruthers P. Animal Minds Are Real // American Philosophical Quarterly. 2013. Vol. 50, № 3. P. 233-248.
Baars B. In The Theatre Of Consciousness // Journal of Consciousness Studies. 1997. Vol. 4, № 4. P. 292-309.
Dehaene S., Changeux J.-P. Neural Mechanisms for Access to Consciousness // The Cognitive Neurosciences / ed. by M.S. Gazzaniga. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 2004. P. 1145-1157.
Rey G. Review of S.Schneider, The Language of Thought, MIT Press, 2011 // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2011. 12 June. URL: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-language-of-thought-a-new-philosophical-direction-2/ (accessed: 30.09.2018).
Singh P. Examining the Society of Mind // Computers and Artificial Intelligence. 2003. Vol. 22, № 6. P. 521-543.
Baars B., Shanahan M. Applying global workspace theory to the frame problem // Cognition. 2005. Vol. 98. P. 157-176.
Sperber D. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? // The Innate Mind: Structure and Content / ed. by P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, S. Stich. Oxford University Press, 2005. P. 53-68.
Minsky M. Conscious Machines // Machinery of Consciousness. Proceedings of National Research Council of Canada, 75th Anniversary Symposium on Science in Society, June 1991.
Margolis E., Laurence S. The Ontology of Concepts-Abstract Objects or Mental Representations? // NOUS. 2007. Vol. 41, № 4. P. 561-593.
Ryle G. The Concept of Mind. New York : Routledge, 2009.
Minsky M. Logical versus analogical // AI Magazine. 1991. Vol. 12, № 2. P. 34-51.
Wilson D. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future // Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives / ed. by V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti, A. Ahern. Emerald Group Publishing, 2011. P. 3-31.
Hayes P.J. The Logic of Frames // Readings in Artificial Intelligence / ed. by R.J. Brachman., H.J. Levesque. Los Altos, CA : Morgan Kaufmann, 1979. P. 287-295.
Dreyfus H. How Representational Cognitivism Failed and is Being Replaced by Body/World Coupling // After Cognitivism. A Reassessment of Cognitive Science and Philosophy / ed. by K. Leidlmair. Springer Netherlands, 2009. P. 39-74.
Minsky M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306. 1974. June. URL: http://courses.media.mit.edu/2004spring/mas966/Minsky%201974%20Frame-work%20for %20knowledge.pdf (accessed: 30.09.2018).
Pezzulo G. How Can a Massively Modular Mind Be Context-Sensitive? // Proceedings of the International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. 2006. URL: https://sites.google.com/site/gio-vannipezzulo/home/publications/filecabinet/ICCM2005.pdf (accessed: 30.09.2018).