Interactive Knowing: The Metaphysics of Intentionality

Chapter

Abstract

I argue that the Parmenidean argument against the possibility of change initiated a metaphysical response that (1) has dominated Western thought since, and (2) creates aporia for understanding mental phenomena. A return to a process framework is consistent with historical trends, consistent with contemporary physics, and permits metaphysical emergence – most especially the emergence of normative function and representation: intentionality. I show that contemporary alternative models of representation are still caught in the classic assumptions and, in consequence, cannot model or account for the inherent normative issues (Bickhard 2010).

Keywords

Causal Power Process Framework Implicit Definition Normative Phenomenon Causal Closure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bickhard, M.H. 1980. Cognition, convention, and communication. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bickhard, M.H. 1993. Representational content in humans and machines. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 5:285–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickhard, M.H. 2000. Emergence. In Downward causation, eds. P.B. Andersen, C. Emmeche, N.O. Finnemann, and P.V. Christiansen, 322–348. Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bickhard, M.H. 2002. Critical principles: On the negative side of rationality. New Ideas in Psychology 20:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickhard, M.H. 2003. An integration of motivation and cognition. In Development and motivation: Joint perspectives, eds. L. Smith, C. Rogers, and P. Tomlinson, 41–56. Monograph Series II. Leicester: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
  6. Bickhard, M.H. 2004a. Process and emergence: Normative function and representation. Axiomathes – An International Journal in Ontology and Cognitive Systems 14:135–169. Reprinted from: Bickhard, M.H. 2003. Process and emergence: Normative function and representation. In Process theories: Crossdisciplinary studies in dynamic categories, ed. J. Seibt, 121–155. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Bickhard, M.H. 2004b. The social ontology of persons. In Social interaction and the development of knowledge, eds. J.I.M. Carpendale, and U. Muller, 111–132. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Bickhard, M.H. 2005. Consciousness and reflective consciousness. Philosophical Psychology18(2):205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bickhard, M.H. 2006. Developmental normativity and normative development. In Norms in human development, eds. L. Smith, and J. Voneche, 57–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bickhard, M.H. 2009. The interactivist model. Synthese 166(3): 547–591.Google Scholar
  11. Bickhard, M.H. (in preparation). The whole person: Toward a naturalism of persons – contributions to an ontological psychology.Google Scholar
  12. Bickhard, M.H., and R.L. Campbell. 1989. Interactivism and genetic epistemology. Archives de Psychologie 57(221):99–121.Google Scholar
  13. Bickhard, M.H., and D.M. Richie. 1983. On the nature of representation: A case study of James Gibson’s theory of perception. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Bickhard, M.H., and L. Terveen. 1995. Foundational issues in artificial intelligence and cognitive science: Impasse and solution. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, H.R., and R. Harré. 1988. Philosophical foundations of quantum field theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, D.T. 1974. Evolutionary epistemology. In The philosophy of Karl Popper, ed. P.A. Schilpp, 413–463. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, R.J. 1992. Truth and historicity. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, R.J. in preparation. Doing the truth.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell, R.J., and M.H. Bickhard. in preparation. Physicalism, Emergence and Downward Causation.Google Scholar
  20. Campbell, R.L., and M.H. Bickhard. 1986. Knowing levels and developmental stages. Contri- butions to Human Development. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
  21. Cao, T.Y. 1999. Introduction: Conceptual issues in quantum field theory. In Conceptual foundations of quantum field theory, ed. T.Y. Cao, 1–27. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chang, C.C., and H.J. Keisler. 1990. Model theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  23. Christensen, W.D., and M.H. Bickhard. 2002. The process dynamics of normative function. Monist 85(1):3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cummins, R. 1996. Representations, targets, and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Davies, P.C.W. 1984. Particles do not exist. In Quantum theory of gravity, ed. S.M. Christensen, 66–77. Bristol: Adam Hilger.Google Scholar
  26. Doyle, J. 1985. Circumscription and implicit definability. Journal of Automated Reasoning 1:391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dretske, F.I. 1988. Explaining behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fodor, J. 1987. A situated grandmother? Mind and Language 2:64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fodor, J.A. 1990a. A theory of content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fodor, J.A. 1990b. Information and representation. In Information, language, and cognition, ed. P.P. Hanson, 175–190. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press (now Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  31. Fodor, J.A. 1998. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  32. Fodor, J.A. 2003. Hume variations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gill, M.-L. 1989. Aristotle on substance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Godfrey-Smith, P. 1994. A modern history theory of functions. Nous 28(3):344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guthrie, W.K.C. 1965. A history of greek philosophy vol. II: The presocratic tradition from Parmenides to Democritus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hale, B., and C. Wright. 2000. Implicit definition and the a priori. In New essays on the a priori, eds. P. Boghossian, and C. Peacocke, 286–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hilbert, D. 1971. The foundations of geometry. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  38. Huggett, N. 2000. Philosophical foundations of quantum field theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51(supplement):617–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hume, D. 1978. A treatise of human nature. Index by L. A. Selby-Bigge; Notes by P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford Unioversity Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hylton, P. 1990. Russell, idealism, and the emergence of analytic philosophy. Clarendon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, J. 1993. Epiphenomenal and supervenient causation. In Supervenience and mind, ed. J. Kim, 92–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, J. 1998. Mind in a physical world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kolaitis, Ph.G. 1990. Implicit definability on finite structures and unambiguous computations. In Proceedings of fifth IEEE annual conference on logic in computer science. Philadelphia, PA, 168–180.Google Scholar
  44. Larmore, C. 1998. Scepticism. In The cambridge history of seventeenth-century philosophy, Vol. II, eds. D. Garber, and M. Ayers, 1145–1192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Levine, A., and Bickhard, M.H. 1999. Concepts: Where Fodor went wrong. Philosophical Psychology 12(1):5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Millikan, R.G. 1984. Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Millikan, R.G. 1993. White queen psychology and other essays for alice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Millikan, R.G. 2005. Language: A biological model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mostepanenko, V.M., N.N. Trunov, and R.L. Znajek. 1997. The Casimir effect and its applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Piaget, J. 1954. The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Quine, W.V.O. 1966. Implicit definition sustained. In The ways of paradox, ed. W.V.O. Quine, 195–198. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  52. Rescher, N. 1980. Scepticism. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  53. Rosenthal, S.B. 1983. Meaning as habit: Some systematic implications of Peirce’s pragmatism. In The relevance of Charles Peirce, ed. E. Freeman, 312–327. La Salle, IL: Monist.Google Scholar
  54. Sanches, F. 1988/1581. That nothing is known. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Saunders, S., and H.R. Brown. 1991. The philosophy of vacuum. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schurz, G. 1997. The is-ought problem : An investigation in philosophical logic. Trends in Logic, vol. 1. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  57. Taylor, C.C.W. ed. 1997. From the beginning to plato. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Teller, P. 1992. A contemporary look at emergence. In Emergence or reduction? Essays on the prospects of nonreductive physicalism, eds. A. Beckermann, H. Flohr, and J. Kim, 139–153. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  59. Weinberg, S. 1977. The search for unity, notes for a history of quantum field theory. Daedalus 106(4):17–35.Google Scholar
  60. Weinberg, S. 1995. The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Weinberg, S. 1996. The quantum theory of fields. Vol. II: Modern applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Weinberg, S. 2000. The quantum theory of fields. Vol. III: Supersymmetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Woodward, J. 2003. Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wright, M.R. 1997. Empedocles. In From the beginning to plato, ed. C.C.W. Taylor, 175–207. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehigh UniversityBethlehemPA

Personalised recommendations