Skip to main content
Log in

More on the Interactive Indexing Semantic Theory

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article further explains and develops a recent, comprehensive semantic naturalization theory, namely the interactive indexing (II) theory as described in my 2008 Minds and Machines article “Semantic Naturalization via Interactive Perceptual Causality” (Vol. 18, pp. 527–546). Folk views postulate a concrete intentional relation between cognitive states and the worldly states they are about. The II theory eliminates any such concrete intentionality, replacing it with purely causal relations based on the interactive theory of perception. But intentionality is preserved via purely abstract propositions about the world that index, or correlate with, appropriate cognitive states. Further reasons as to why intentionality must be abstract are provided, along with more details of an II-style account of representation, language use and propositional attitudes. All cognitive representation is explained in terms of classification or sorting dispositions indexed by appropriate propositions. The theory is also related to Fodor’s representational theory of mind, with some surprisingly close parallels being found in spite of the purely dispositional basis of the II theory. In particular, Fodor’s insistence that thinking about an item cannot be reduced to sorting dispositions is supported via a novel two-level account of cognition—upper level propositional attitudes involve significant intermediate processing of a broadly normative epistemic kind prior to the formation of sorting dispositions. To conclude, the weak intentional realism of the II theory—which makes intentional descriptions of the world dispensable—is related to Dennett’s ‘intentional stance’ view, and distinguished from strong (indispensable) intentional realist views. II-style dispositions are also defended.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Chisholm, R. (1957). Perceiving. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colyvan, M. (2008). Indispensability arguments in the philosophy of mathematics. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/mathphil-indis/.

  • Crane, T. (2008) The problem of perception. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/perception-problem/.

  • Cummins, R. (1996). Representations, targets and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlbom, B. (Ed.). (1995). Dennett and his critics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2004). Naturalized perception without information. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 25, 349–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2005a). The reflexive theory of perception. Behavior and Philosophy, 33, 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2005b). Perceptual causality problems reflexively resolved. Acta Analytica, 20, 11–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2005c). A naturalistic, reflexive dispositional approach to perception. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 43, 583–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2006a). A reflexive dispositional analysis of mechanistic perception. Minds and Machines, 16, 479–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2006b). Perception, introspection and functional consonance. Theoria, 4, 299–318.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2008a). Semantic naturalization via interactive perceptual causality. Minds and Machines, 18, 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2008b). The propositional challenge to aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 48, 115–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2008c). The abstractness of artworks and its implications for aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 66, 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2009). Semantics naturalized: Propositional indexing plus interactive perception. Language and Communication, 29, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth, J. (2010). Realistic virtual reality and perception. Philosophical Psychology, 23, 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1987). Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1990). A theory of content and other essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (2008). Lot 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (2002). The compositionality papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handfield, T. (Ed.). (2009). Dispositions and causes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1997). Finkish dispositions. Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKitrick, J. (2003). A case for extrinsic dispositions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81, 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, G. (1999). Are dispositions reducible? Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 1–17.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. (1980). On what there is. Reprinted in From a logical point of view, 2nd ed. (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Ramsey, W. (2007). Representation reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, D., Brook, A., & Thompson, D. (2000). Dennett’s philosophy: A comprehensive assessment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, E., & Kim, J. (2000). Epistemology: An anthology. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steup, M. (2008). The analysis of knowledge. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/knowledge-analysis/.

  • Thagard, P. (2008). Cognitive science. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/cognitive-science/.

  • Wilson, R., & Keil, F. (2001). The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Dilworth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dilworth, J. More on the Interactive Indexing Semantic Theory. Minds & Machines 20, 455–474 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-010-9204-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-010-9204-0

Keywords

Navigation