Skip to main content
Log in

Ahistorical intentional content

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

One of the main problems of current theory of intentionality concerns the possibility of ahistorical intentional content, that is, content in the absence of any developmental history of the respective item. Biosemanticists like Millikan (1984) argue that content is essentially historical, while computationalists like Cummins (1989) hold that a system's current ahistorical state alone determines content. In the present paper, this problem is discussed in terms of some popular ‘cosmic accident’ thought experiments, and the conceptual framework of these experiments is enriched by some new versions like accidental ‘duplicates’ without any preexisting original. As a result of these evaluations, it is argued that for an item to bear intentional content it is necessary to have a ‘function’ in the forward-looking sense introduced by Bigelow & Pargetter (1987). Since historicity is not necessary for functionality, ahistorical states can be intentional as long as they have functions. This result does not support computationalism, since functionality cannot be determined in terms of current ashistorical state alone, but only with reference to the present and future environmental context of the cognitive system that harbours these states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bigelow, J. and Pargetter, R.: 1987, ‘Functions’,Journal of Philosophy 84, 181–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, N.: 1986, ‘Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology’,Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10, 615–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. J.: 1989, ‘Does Semantics Run the Psyche?’,Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 44, 687–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R.: 1989,Meaning and Mental Representation, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D.: 1987, ‘Knowing One's Own Mind’,Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 1987, 441–458.

  • Dretske, F. 1988,Explaining Behavior, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A.: 1987,Psychosemantics, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A.: 1991, ‘Reply to Millikan’, in Loewer, B. and Rey, G. (eds.),Meaning in Mind. Fodor and His Critics, Blackwell, Cambridge, 293–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, T.: 1991, ‘Actions, Reasons, and the Explanatory Role of Content’ in McLaughlin, B. P. (ed.),Dretske and His Critics, Blackwell, Cambridge, 73–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurthen, M.: 1992,Neurosemantik, Enke, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. G.: 1984,Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, W.: 1979,Naturalism and Ontology, Ridgeview, Reseda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stich, S.: 1983,From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kurthen, M. Ahistorical intentional content. J Gen Philos Sci 25, 241–259 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00763823

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00763823

Key words

Navigation