more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 12646

[filed under theme 19. Language / C. Assigning Meanings / 2. Semantics ]

Full Idea

Semantics is about constitutive relations between representations and the world. There is, as a matter of principle, no such thing as a psychological theory of meaning.

Gist of Idea

Semantics relates to the world, so it is never just psychological

Source

Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.5)

Book Ref

Fodor,Jerry A.: 'LOT 2: the Language of Thought Revisited' [OUP 2008], p.88


A Reaction

The second sentence is in capital letters, but I am still not convinced. The classic difficulty seems to be that you have to use language to pick out the things in the world that are being referred to. Of course, at some point you just see the objects.


The 170 ideas from Jerry A. Fodor

Fodor is now less keen on the innateness of concepts [Fodor, by Lowe]
I prefer psychological atomism - that concepts are independent of epistemic capacities [Fodor]
Mental representations are the old 'Ideas', but without images [Fodor]
Empiricists use dispositions reductively, as 'possibility of sensation' or 'possibility of experimental result' [Fodor]
Associationism can't explain how truth is preserved [Fodor]
English has no semantic theory, just associations between sentences and thoughts [Fodor]
It is essential to the concept CAT that it be satisfied by cats [Fodor]
We have no successful definitions, because they all use indefinable words [Fodor]
If 'exist' is ambiguous in 'chairs and numbers exist', that mirrors the difference between chairs and numbers [Fodor]
Many concepts lack prototypes, and complex prototypes aren't built from simple ones [Fodor]
The theory theory can't actually tell us what concepts are [Fodor]
Definable concepts have constituents, which are necessary, individuate them, and demonstrate possession [Fodor]
Maybe explaining the mechanics of perception will explain the concepts involved [Fodor]
The world is full of messy small things producing stable large-scale properties (e.g. mountains) [Fodor]
Functionalists see pains as properties involving relations and causation [Fodor]
Type physicalism is a stronger claim than token physicalism [Fodor]
Are concepts best seen as capacities? [Fodor]
For Pragmatists having a concept means being able to do something [Fodor]
Transcendental arguments move from knowing Q to knowing P because it depends on Q [Fodor]
Analysis is impossible without the analytic/synthetic distinction [Fodor]
It seems likely that analysis of concepts is impossible, but justification can survive without it [Fodor]
Don't define something by a good instance of it; a good example is a special case of the ordinary example [Fodor]
The goal of thought is to understand the world, not instantly sort it into conceptual categories [Fodor]
If to understand "fish" you must know facts about them, where does that end? [Fodor]
The theory of the content of thought as 'Mentalese' explains why the Private Language Argument doesn't work [Fodor]
Mentalese may also incorporate some natural language [Fodor]
Mentalese doesn't require a theory of meaning [Fodor]
It seems unlikely that meaning can be reduced to communicative intentions, or any mental states [Fodor]
Despite all the efforts of philosophers, nothing can ever be reduced to anything [Fodor]
Content can't be causal role, because causal role is decided by content [Fodor]
Language is ambiguous, but thought isn't [Fodor]
Do intentional states explain our behaviour? [Fodor]
Why bother with neurons? You don't explain bird flight by examining feathers [Fodor]
Modern connectionism is just Hume's theory of the 'association' of 'ideas' [Fodor]
Modules have encapsulation, inaccessibility, private concepts, innateness [Fodor]
Experience can't explain itself; the concepts needed must originate outside experience [Fodor]
According to empiricists abstraction is the fundamental mental process [Fodor]
Rationalists say there is more to a concept than the experience that prompts it [Fodor]
Modules analyse stimuli, they don't tell you what to do [Fodor]
Blindness doesn't destroy spatial concepts [Fodor]
Modules make the world manageable [Fodor]
Something must take an overview of the modules [Fodor]
Obvious modules are language and commonsense explanation [Fodor]
Babies talk in consistent patterns [Fodor]
How do you count beliefs? [Fodor]
Berkeley seems to have mistakenly thought that chairs are the same as after-images [Fodor]
Rationalism can be based on an evolved computational brain with innate structure [Fodor]
Empirical approaches see mind connections as mirrors/maps of reality [Fodor]
If I have a set of mental modules, someone had better be in charge of them! [Fodor]
The function of a mind is obvious [Fodor]
Turing invented the idea of mechanical rationality (just based on syntax) [Fodor]
Modules have in-built specialist information [Fodor]
Rationality rises above modules [Fodor]
Is content basically information, fixed externally? [Fodor]
Broad semantics holds that the basic semantic properties are truth and denotation [Fodor]
For holists no two thoughts are ever quite the same, which destroys faith in meaning [Fodor]
It is claimed that reference doesn't fix sense (Jocasta), and sense doesn't fix reference (Twin Earth) [Fodor]
Psychology has to include the idea that mental processes are typically truth-preserving [Fodor]
XYZ (Twin Earth 'water') is an impossibility [Fodor]
Semantic externalism says the concept 'elm' needs no further beliefs or inferences [Fodor]
In the information view, concepts are potentials for making distinctions [Fodor]
Truth conditions require a broad concept of content [Fodor]
Propositional attitudes are propositions presented in a certain way [Fodor]
Inferences are surely part of the causal structure of the world [Fodor]
A standard naturalist view is realist, externalist, and computationalist, and believes in rationality [Fodor]
An experiment is a deliberate version of what informal thinking does all the time [Fodor]
Externalist semantics are necessary to connect the contents of beliefs with how the world is [Fodor]
Cartesians consider interaction to be a miracle [Fodor]
Semantics v syntax is the interaction problem all over again [Fodor]
I say psychology is intentional, semantics is informational, and thinking is computation [Fodor]
We are probably the only creatures that can think about our own thoughts [Fodor]
Control of belief is possible if you know truth conditions and what causes beliefs [Fodor]
Theories are links in the causal chain between the environment and our beliefs [Fodor]
Participation in an experiment requires agreement about what the outcome will mean [Fodor]
We can deliberately cause ourselves to have true thoughts - hence the value of experiments [Fodor]
Interrogation and experiment submit us to having beliefs caused [Fodor]
Hume has no theory of the co-ordination of the mind [Fodor]
Rationality has mental properties - autonomy, productivity, experiment [Fodor]
Knowing the cause of a thought is almost knowing its content [Fodor]
If meaning is information, that establishes the causal link between the state of the world and our beliefs [Fodor]
To know the content of a thought is to know what would make it true [Fodor]
Type physicalism equates mental kinds with physical kinds [Fodor]
Concepts aren't linked to stuff; they are what is caused by stuff [Fodor]
If concept-learning is hypothesis-testing, that needs innate concepts to get started [Fodor, by Margolis/Laurence]
Since the language of thought is the same for all, it must be something like logical form [Fodor, by Devlin]
Only the labels of nodes have semantic content in connectionism, and they play no role [Fodor]
If concept content is reference, then my Twin and I are referring to the same stuff [Fodor]
For the referential view of thought, the content of a concept is just its reference [Fodor]
Pragmatism is the worst idea ever [Fodor]
Knowing that must come before knowing how [Fodor]
Before you can plan action, you must decide on the truth of your estimate of success [Fodor]
Cartesians put concept individuation before concept possession [Fodor]
In the Representational view, concepts play the key linking role [Fodor]
Definitions often give necessary but not sufficient conditions for an extension [Fodor]
'Inferential-role semantics' says meaning is determined by role in inference [Fodor]
Having a concept isn't a pragmatic matter, but being able to think about the concept [Fodor]
Mental states have causal powers [Fodor]
We think in file names [Fodor]
Names in thought afford a primitive way to bring John before the mind [Fodor]
'Paderewski' has two names in mentalese, for his pianist file and his politician file [Fodor]
Some beliefs are only inferred when needed, like 'Shakespeare had not telephone' [Fodor]
Concepts have two sides; they are files that face thought, and also face subject-matter [Fodor]
Mental representations name things in the world, but also files in our memory [Fodor]
Frege's puzzles suggest to many that concepts have sense as well as reference [Fodor]
If concepts have sense, we can't see the connection to their causal powers [Fodor]
Belief in 'senses' may explain intentionality, but not mental processes [Fodor]
Co-referring terms differ if they have different causal powers [Fodor]
Associative thinking avoids syntax, but can't preserve sense, reference or truth [Fodor]
Connectionism gives no account of how constituents make complex concepts [Fodor]
Who cares what 'philosophy' is? Most pre-1950 thought doesn't now count as philosophy [Fodor]
Ambiguities in English are the classic reason for claiming that we don't think in English [Fodor]
Semantics (esp. referential semantics) allows inferences from utterances to the world [Fodor]
Semantics relates to the world, so it is never just psychological [Fodor]
There's statistical, logical, nomological, conceptual and metaphysical possibility [Fodor]
You can't think 'brown dog' without thinking 'brown' and 'dog' [Fodor]
Frame Problem: how to eliminate most beliefs as irrelevant, without searching them? [Fodor]
P-and-Q gets its truth from the truth of P and truth of Q, but consistency isn't like that [Fodor]
Abstractionism claims that instances provide criteria for what is shared [Fodor]
Maybe stereotypes are a stage in concept acquisition (rather than a by-product) [Fodor]
One stereotype might be a paradigm for two difference concepts [Fodor]
We have an innate capacity to form a concept, once we have grasped the stereotype [Fodor]
Nobody knows how concepts are acquired [Fodor]
The different types of resemblance don't resemble one another [Fodor]
A truth-table, not inferential role, defines 'and' [Fodor]
We refer to individuals and to properties, and we use singular terms and predicates [Fodor]
Compositionality requires that concepts be atomic [Fodor]
Contrary to the 'anomalous monist' view, there may well be intentional causal laws [Fodor]
Lots of physical properties are multiply realisable, so why shouldn't beliefs be? [Fodor]
Either intentionality causes things, or epiphenomenalism is true [Fodor]
Mental modules are specialised, automatic, and isolated [Fodor, by Okasha]
Folk psychology explains behaviour by reference to intentional states like belief and desire [Fodor]
Intentional science needs objects with semantic and causal properties, and which obey laws [Fodor]
Laws are true generalisations which support counterfactuals and are confirmed by instances [Fodor]
Intentional states and processes may be causal relations among mental symbols [Fodor]
Associations are held to connect Ideas together in the way the world is connected together [Fodor]
Most psychological properties seem to be multiply realisable [Fodor]
How could the extrinsic properties of thoughts supervene on their intrinsic properties? [Fodor]
We must have expressive power BEFORE we learn language [Fodor]
Mind is a set of hierarchical 'homunculi', which are made up in turn from subcomponents [Fodor, by Lycan]
Intentionality doesn't go deep enough to appear on the physicists' ultimate list of things [Fodor]
A particle and a coin heads-or-tails pick out to perfectly well-defined predicates and properties [Fodor]
We can't use propositions to explain intentional attitudes, because they would need explaining [Fodor]
Contrary to commonsense, most of what is in the mind seems to be unlearned [Fodor]
Hume's associationism offers no explanation at all of rational thought [Fodor]
We may be able to explain rationality mechanically [Fodor]
Any piece of software can always be hard-wired [Fodor]
In CRTT thought may be represented, content must be [Fodor]
Supervenience gives good support for mental causation [Fodor]
Mental states may have the same content but different extensions [Fodor]
Grice thinks meaning is inherited from the propositional attitudes which sentences express [Fodor]
Obsession with narrow content leads to various sorts of hopeless anti-realism [Fodor]
Meaning holism is a crazy doctrine [Fodor]
If mind is just physical, how can it follow the rules required for intelligent thought? [Fodor]
Behaviourism has no theory of mental causation [Fodor]
Very different mental states can share their contents, so content doesn't seem to be constructed from functional role [Fodor]
The meaning of a sentence derives from its use in expressing an attitude [Fodor]
'Jocasta' needs to be distinguished from 'Oedipus's mother' because they are connected by different properties [Fodor]
Whatever in the mind delivers falsehood is parasitic on what delivers truth [Fodor]
Many different verification procedures can reach 'star', but it only has one semantic value [Fodor]
Evolution suggests that innate knowledge of human psychology would be beneficial [Fodor]
Sticklebacks have an innate idea that red things are rivals [Fodor]
Belief and desire are structured states, which need mentalese [Fodor]
Causal powers must be a crucial feature of mental states [Fodor]
Do identical thoughts have identical causal roles? [Fodor]
Folk psychology is the only explanation of behaviour we have [Fodor]
Is thought a syntactic computation using representations? [Fodor, by Rey]
Are beliefs brains states, but picked out at a "higher level"? [Lyons on Fodor]
Maybe narrow content is physical, broad content less so [Lyons on Fodor]
How does anything get outside itself? [Fodor, by Martin,CB]
Is intentionality outwardly folk psychology, inwardly mentalese? [Lyons on Fodor]