Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 195, Issue 12, pp 5403–5429 | Cite as

Mindless accuracy: on the ubiquity of content in nature

  • Alex Morgan
S.I.: Neuroscience and Its Philosophy

Abstract

It is widely held in contemporary philosophy of mind that states with underived representational content are ipso facto psychological states. This view—the Content View—underlies a number of interesting philosophical projects, such as the attempt to pick out a psychological level of explanation, to demarcate genuinely psychological from non-psychological states, and to limn the class of states with phenomenal character. The most detailed and influential theories of underived representation in philosophy are the tracking theories developed by Fodor, Dretske, Millikan and others. Tracking theorists initially hoped to ‘naturalize’ underived representation by showing that although it is distinctively psychological it is not irreducibly so, yet they ended up developing theories of representation that by their own lights don’t pick out a distinctively psychological phenomenon at all. Burge (Origins of objectivity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) sets out to develop a theory of underived representation that does pick out a distinctively psychological phenomenon. His theory promises to vindicate the Content View and the various philosophical projects that depend on it. In this paper I argue that Burge’s theory dementalizes representation for the same reason tracking theories do: These theories hold that representations are states with underived accuracy conditions, yet such states are found in all sorts of mindless systems, like plants.

Keywords

Accuracy conditions Circadian clocks Intentionality Mental representation Objectivity Perceptual constancy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many of the ideas in this paper percolated under the auspices of the Philosophy of Neuroscience Group at the University of Tübingen. I would like to thank the members of that group, and especially the group leader Hong Yu Wong, for helpful discussion. I have presented this material at Rice University, the University of Graz, and the University of São Paulo, and I am grateful to audiences there for helpful feedback. I am especially grateful to Michael Barkasi, Tyler Burge, Gualtiero Piccinini, Charles Siewert, and two anonymous referees for comments and/or discussion that led to substantial improvements in the text.

References

  1. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (1994). Fodorian semantics. In S. Stich & T. Warfield (Eds.), Mental representation: A reader (pp. 223–242). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2008). The bounds of cognition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Afraz, S., Kiani, R., & Esteky, H. (2006). Microstimulation of inferotemporal cortex influences face categorization. Nature, 442(7103), 692–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, C., & Hauser, M. (1993). Communication and cognition: Is information the connection? Philosophy of Science, 2(8), 81–91.Google Scholar
  5. Andersen, R., & Cui, H. (2009). Intention, action planning, and decision making in parietal–frontal circuits. Neuron, 63(5), 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechtel, W. (2007a). Biological mechanisms: Organized to maintain autonomy. In F. Boogerd, F. Bruggeman, J. Hofmeyr, & H. Westerhoff (Eds.), Systems biology: Philosophical foundations (pp. 269–302). New York, NY: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bechtel, W. (2007b). Reducing psychology while maintaining its autonomy via mechanistic explanation. In M. Schouten & D. Jong (Eds.), The matter of the mind: Philosophical essays on psychology, neuroscience, and reduction (pp. 172–198). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Bechtel, W. (2011). Representing time of day in circadian clocks. In A. Newell, A. Bartels, & E. Jung (Eds.), Knowledge and representation. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Bermúdez, J. (1995). Nonconceptual content: From perceptual experience to subpersonal computational states. Mind and Language, 10(4), 333–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blakemore, R., & Frankel, R. (1981). Magnetic navigation in bacteria. Scientific American, 245(6), 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourget, D. (2010). Consciousness is underived intentionality. Noûs, 44(1), 32–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brentano, F. (1874 [1995]). Psychology from an empirical standpoint. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Brewer, B. (2006). Perception and content. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(2), 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burge, T. (2014). Perception: Where mind begins. Philosophy, 89(3), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calvo Garzón, P., & Keijzer, F. (2011). Plants: Adaptive behavior, root-brains, and minimal cognition. Adaptive Behavior, 19(3), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cavallari, N., Frigato, E., Vallone, D., Fröhlich, N., Lopez-Olmeda, J., Foà, A., et al. (2011). A blind circadian clock in cavefish reveals that opsins mediate peripheral clock photoreception. PLoS Biology, 9(9), e1001142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen, Y., & Andersen, R. (2002). A common reference frame for movement plans in the posterior parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(7), 553–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Regt, H. (2009). The epistemic value of understanding. Philosophy of Science, 76(5), 585–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diéguez, A. (2013). Life as a homeostatic property cluster. Biological Theory, 7(2), 180–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Dretske, F. (1986). Misrepresentation. In R. Bogdan (Ed.), Belief: Form, content, and function (pp. 157–173). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  24. Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior: Reasons in a world of causes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ebner, M. (2007). Color constancy. Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fodor, J. (1990). A theory of content and other essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gagliano, M. (2017). The mind of plants: Thinking the unthinkable. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 10(2), e1288333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gagliano, M., Vyazovskiy, V., Borbély, A., Grimonprez, M., & Depczynski, M. (2016). Learning by association in plants. Scientific Reports, 6, 38427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ganson, T., Bronner, B., & Kerr, A. (2012). Burge’s defense of perceptual content. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(3), 556–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gardner, M., Hubbard, K., Hotta, C., Dodd, A., & Webb, A. (2006). How plants tell the time. Biochemical Journal, 397(1), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Godfrey-Smith, P. (1992). Indication and adaptation. Synthese, 92(2), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goodspeed, D., Chehab, E., Min-Venditti, A., Braam, J., & Covington, M. (2012). Arabidopsis synchronizes jasmonate-mediated defense with insect circadian behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(12), 4674–4677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gould, P., Diaz, P., Hogben, C., Kusakina, J., Salem, R., Hartwell, J., et al. (2009). Delayed fluorescence as a universal tool for the measurement of circadian rhythms in higher plants. The Plant Journal, 58(5), 893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gregory, R. (1980). Perceptions as hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 290(1038), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grush, R. (2007). Skill theory v2. 0: Dispositions, emulation, and spatial perception. Synthese, 159(3), 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hatfield, G. (2002). Perception as unconscious inference. In D. Heyer & R. Mausfeld (Eds.), Perception and the Physical World (pp. 113–143). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Hurlbert, A., & Wolf, C. (2002). Contribution of local and global cone-contrasts to color appearance: A retinex-like model. Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VII, 4662, 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jacob, P. (1997). What minds can do: Intentionality in a non-intentional world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knill, D., & Richards, W. (Eds.). (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kriegel, U. (2002). Panic theory and the prospects for a representational theory of phenomenal consciousness. Philosophical Psychology, 15(1), 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kriegel, U. (2012). Personal-level representation. Protosociology, 28, 77–114.Google Scholar
  44. Land, E., & McCann, J. (1971). Lightness and retinex theory. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 61(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maclennan, B. (2004). Natural computation and non-Turing models of computation. Theoretical Computer Science, 317(1–3), 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maher, C. (2017). Plant minds: A philosophical defense. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Más, P. (2005). Circadian clock signaling in arabidopsis thaliana: From gene expression to physiology and development. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 49(5–6), 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McDowell, J. (1994). The content of perceptual experience. Philosophical Quarterly, 44(175), 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mendelovici, A. (2013). Reliable misrepresentation and tracking theories of mental representation. Philosophical Studies, 165(2), 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Millikan, R. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Millikan, R. (1989). Biosemantics. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(6), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Millikan, R. (2000). Naturalizing intentionality. In B. Elevitch (Ed.) The proceedings of the twentieth world congress of philosophy, vol. 9, (pp. 83–90). Philosophy Documentation Center.Google Scholar
  53. Morgan, A. (2014). Representations gone mental. Synthese, 191(2), 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morsella, E. (2005). The function of phenomenal states: Supramodular interaction theory. Psychological Review, 112(4), 1000–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York, NY: Harcourt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Palmer, S. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Peacocke, C. (1992). Scenarios, concepts and perception. In T. Crane (Ed.), The contents of experience: Essays on perception (pp. 105–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ramsey, W. (2007). Representation reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Schwartz, A., & Koller, D. (1986). Diurnal phototropism in solar tracking leaves of lavatera cretica. Plant Physiology, 80(3), 778–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shea, N. (2007). Consumers need information: Supplementing teleosemantics with an input condition. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75(2), 404–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shepard, N. (2001). Perceptual-cognitive universals as reflections of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(4), 581–601.Google Scholar
  63. Siegel, S. (2006). Subject and object in the contents of visual experience. Philosophical Review, 115(3), 355–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sterelny, K. (1995). Basic minds. Philosophical Perspectives, 9, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strawson, P. (1959). Individuals: An essay in descriptive metaphysics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Travis, C. (2004). The silence of the senses. Mind, 113(449), 57–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, color, and content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. van Gelder, T. (1995). What might cognition be, if not computation. The Journal of Philosophy, 92(7), 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. von Helmholtz, H. (1866 [1924]). Concerning the perceptions in general. In J. Southall (Ed.) Treatise on Physiological Optics (3rd ed.), vol. 3, (pp. 143–172). Rochester, NY: Optical Society of America.Google Scholar
  70. Wu, W. (2011). Confronting many-many problems: Attention and agentive control. Noûs, 45(1), 50–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations