Abstract
Teleosemantics attempts to explain the content of mental representations through an appeal to functions, and typically attributes function to selection history. The narrowest cases focus on only evolutionary fitness benefit through natural selection, while broader theories have come to accept multiple levels of selection, including those over the course of a lifetime such as neural selection. The precise way to define function has given rise to many debates over the content of hypothetical mental representations. In this paper, I argue that defining function through the lens of Nikolas Tinbergen’s levels of analysis provides a valuable framework in organizing and analyzing teleological theories of function, and can advance the debate into a more organized discourse. In particular, after defining and defending them on theoretical grounds, I go through three classic teleosemantic debates about content ascription and function and attempt to organize them in a Tinbergian framework in order to demonstrate their general applicability, followed by two more examples from humans and primates in order to give insight on the role of each level of analysis in cases where we have more direct internal access to the content of such representations. I finally suggest that a pluralist viewpoint of the content of representations in complex organisms may be justified. I argue that in light of Tinbergen’s levels of analysis framework, teleosemantic theories of mental content can be more clearly discussed and advanced.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen G (1879) The colour sense. Turbner 10:97–117
Bateson P, Laland KN (2013) Tinbergen’s four questions: an appreciation and an update. Trends Ecol Evol 28:712–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2013.09.013
Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. J Philos 72:741–64
Dretske F (1986) Misrepresentation. In: Bogdan R (ed) Belief: Form, Content, and Function. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Garson J (2012) Function, selection, and construction in the brain. Synthese 189(3):451–481
Garson J (2018) How to Be a Function Pluralist. Br J Philos Sci 69:1101–1122. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx007
Garson J, Papineau D (2019) Teleosemantics selection and novel contents. Biol Philos 34:36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9689-8
Krebs JR (2009) The gourmet ape: evolution and human food preferences. Am J Clin Nutr 90:707S-711S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.27462B
Millikan RG (1984) Language, thought, and other biological categories: New foundations for realism. MIT press, Cambridge
Millikan RG (1991) Speaking up for Darwin. In: Loewer BM, Rey G (eds) Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics. Blackwell, UK
Millikan RG (2000) On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay About Substance Concepts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Neander K (1995) Misrepresenting & malfunctioning. Philos Stud 79:109–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989706
Neander K (2006) Content for Cognitive Science. In: Macdonald G, Papineau D (eds) Teleosemantics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Neander K (2017) A mark of the mental: In defense of informational teleosemantics. MIT Press, Cambridge
Papineau D (1984) Representation and explanation. Philos Sci 51(4):550–572
Pietroski PM (1992) Intentinality and teleological error. Pacific Philos Q 73:267–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1992.tb00339.x
Regan BC, Julliot C, Simmen B et al (2001) Fruits, foliage and the evolution of primate colour vision. Phil Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 356:229–283. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2000.0773
Sherman PW, Billing J (1999) Darwinian gastronomy: why we use spices. Bioscience 49:453–463. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313553
Tinbergen N (1963) On aims and methods of Ethology. Z Tierpsychol 20:410–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.x
Wouters AG (2003) Four notions of biological function. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 34:633–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SHPSC.2003.09.006
Wright L (1973) Functions. Philos Rev 82:139–168
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Alex Côté for engaging discussion and important revisions to the manuscript. Thank you also to Drs. Karen Neander and Carlotta Pavese for valuable discussions in developing the ideas in this paper in their course Special Fields Seminar at Duke University. Thank you especially to Dr. Neander for sparking my interest in the topic and her tremendous contributions to the field.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JB developed the ideas and drafted the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflicts of interest.
Consent for publication
All authors consent to publication.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brooks, J. Function and representational content through Tinbergen’s levels of analysis. Biol Philos 36, 7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-021-09783-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-021-09783-5