Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Fodor IV 197
Sensation/Representation/Qualia/Semantics/Meaning/Fodor/Lepore: the question arises by itself: when are S1 and S2 the same state (in the semantic state space)?
But with the frequencies the old problem simply comes back.
---
IV 198
If we do not know what it is for two words to mean "marriageable", then we also do not know, for the same reason, how it is for two semantic spaces, if both have the dimension of marriageability.
Empiricism Tradition: has explained the semantic network by reference to what is fixed there. The dimensions should express observation characteristics and an externalistic (e.g. causal) theory should explain the relation. This is independent from the interpretation of the rest of the vocabulary.
Churchland: his suggestion is that the dimensions of the semantic space do not generally correspond to the observation properties. They can correspond to whatever the brain may represent.
Fodor/LeporeVsChurchland: but then again the question arises as to how the identity of the state spaces is fixed.
We have no other identity criterion than observation properties. Suppose we had one, the question of the semantic identity would be there again.
State spaces: we have a criterion for their identity only if we have one for the identity of their dimensions.
And we have a non-empirical criterion for the dimensions only if we have one for "the property expressed by a dimension of the state space" which applies to arbitrary properties, not only for observational properties.
---
IV 199
But that would be a criterion for equality of meaning.
Fodor/LeporeVsChurchland: already assumes an interpersonal concept for the identity of state spaces before it can reach its goal of explaining the concept of "content equality" (similarity).
He has presupposed the designations of the dimensions without permission.
The label of a dimension tells how to interpret it, e.g. Degree of F-ness. Why should a dimension then express F-ness and not rather G-ness? What makes it that the dimension in my state space expresses the same property as in yours? > Connectivity.
Fodor IV 205
---
Note
11. IV 205
Empiricism/Tradition: our concepts are functions of our sensory concepts.
We have seen that Churchland's treatment of Qualia depends on mixing sensory and psychophysical terms.
(s) Sensory: (one aspect - but as a "sensory concept" again two aspects, but with the claim of providing the psychological explanation).
---
IV 248
Note 13 IV 205
But it does not follow from this that organisms with the same sensory equipment must also have the same concepts. They would only have to do so if their concepts occupied the same or similar positions in the semantic space.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.