Advertisement

Cognitive Representation: A Psychology in Search of Mentality

  • Leendert P. Mos
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)

Summary

A critique of representational theory in contemporary cognitive psychology from a phenomenological viewpoint. It is concluded that representational, cognitive, theory as a naturalistic, causal, theory of meaning and reference fails as a psychology of the mental.

Keywords

Cognitive Theory Intentional Object Transcendental Philosophy Causal Framework Cognitive Penetrability 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brentano, F. (1973). Psychology from an empirical standpoint. (Edited by L. L. McAlister and translated by A. C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell, & L. L. McAlister.) New York: Humanities Press. (Original 1874 ).Google Scholar
  2. Davidson, L. (in Press). Husserl’s refutation of psychologism and possibility of a phenomenological psychology. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 19(1).Google Scholar
  3. Dreyfus, H. L. (1982). Introduction. In H. L. Dreyfus (Ed.), Husserl, intentionality, and cognitive science (pp. 1–27 ). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fodor, J. A. (1982). Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology. In H. L. Dreyfus (Ed.), Husserl, intentionality, and cognitive science (pp. 277–303 ). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. A. (1986). Why paramecia don’t have mental representations. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, X, 3–23.Google Scholar
  7. Frege, G. (1966). On sense and reference. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78 ). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Husserl, E. (1970). Logical investigations. (Translated by J. N. Findlay.) New York: Humanities Press. (Original 1900–1901 )Google Scholar
  9. Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: general introduction to pure phenomenology. (Translated by W. R. Boyce Gibson.) London: Geroge Allen & Unwin. (Original 1913 )Google Scholar
  10. Mohanty, J. N. (1981). Intentionality and noema. Journal of Philosophy, LXVIII, 706–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mohanty, J. N. (1985). Husserl, Frege and the overcoming of psychologism. In J. N. Mohanty (Ed.), The possibility of transcendental philosophy (pp. 1–11 ). Dordrecht, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  12. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980). Computation and cognition: issues in the foundations of cognitive science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 111–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rozeboom, W. W. (1972). Problems in the psycho-philosophy of knowledge. In J. R. Royce & W. W. Rozeboom (Eds.), The psychology of knowing (pp. 25–93 ). New York: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, D. W. & McIntyre, R. (1982). Husserl and intentionality. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  15. Weimer, W. B. (1980). Cognition is not computation, for reasons that computers don’t solve mind-body problems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 152–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leendert P. Mos
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations