structure for 'Thought'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

18. Thought / D. Concepts / 4. Structure of Concepts / a. Conceptual structure

[whether concepts have structure or are atomic]

9 ideas
Unlike objects, concepts are inherently incomplete [Frege, by George/Velleman]
     Full Idea: For Frege, concepts differ from objects in being inherently incomplete in nature.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2
     A reaction: This is because they are 'unsaturated', needing a quantified variable to complete the sentence. This could be a pointer towards Quine's view of properties, as simply an intrinsic feature of predication about objects, with no separate identity.
You can't think 'brown dog' without thinking 'brown' and 'dog' [Fodor]
     Full Idea: You can think 'brown dog' without thinking 'cat', but you can't think 'brown dog' without thinking 'brown' and 'dog'.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.4.3)
     A reaction: Fodor is talking about concepts in thought, not about words. The claim is that such concepts have to be compositional, and it is hard to disagree.
Concepts have distinctive reasons and norms [Peacocke]
     Full Idea: For each concept, there will be some reasons or norms distinctive of that concept.
     From: Christopher Peacocke (Truly Understood [2008], 2.3)
     A reaction: This is Peacocke's bold Fregean thesis (and it sounds rather Kantian to me). I dislike the word 'norms' (long story), but reasons are interesting. The trouble is the distinction between being a reason for something (its cause) and being a reason for me.
Causal properties are seen as more central to category concepts [Gelman]
     Full Idea: Properties that enter into causally meaningful links are better remembered and are treated as more central to the category than properties that are not causally meaningful.
     From: Susan A. Gelman (The Essential Child [2003], 05 'Causation2')
     A reaction: This is a summary of considerable psychological research. This account not only sounds plausible, but would fit better withy why we form concepts and categories in the first place. We are trying to relate to the causations of nature.
Concept-structure explains typicality, categories, development, reference and composition [Margolis/Laurence]
     Full Idea: The structures of concepts are invoked to explain typicality effects, reflective categorization, cognitive development, reference determination, and compositionality.
     From: E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 2.5)
Concepts should contain working memory, not long-term, because they control behaviour [Machery]
     Full Idea: We ought to reserve the term 'concept' for the bodies of knowledge in working memory, and not for our knowledge of long-term memory, because the former, and not the latter, 'control behaviour'.
     From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.4.1)
     A reaction: [He cites the psychologist Barsalou 1993] Some more theoretical concepts can only be recalled with difficulty, and control our theorising rather than our behaviour. But we act on some theories, so there is no clear borderline.
One hybrid theory combines a core definition with a prototype for identification [Machery]
     Full Idea: One hybrid theory of concepts says they have both a core and an identification procedure. The core is a definition (necessary and sufficient conditions), while the identification procedure consists of a prototype (the properties typical of a category).
     From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 3.3.1)
     A reaction: This combines the classical and prototype theories of concepts. I like it because it fits the idea of 'mental files' nicely (see Recanati). If concepts are files (as in a database) they will have aspects like labels, basic info, and further details.
Heterogeneous concepts might have conflicting judgements, where hybrid theories will not [Machery]
     Full Idea: The Heterogeneity Hypothesis, but not the hybrid theory of concepts, predicts that the coreferential bodies of knowledge it posits will occasionally lead to conflicting outcomes, such as inconsistent judgements.
     From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 3.3.2)
     A reaction: Machery's book champions the Heterogeneous Hypothesis. Hybrid views say the aspects of a concept are integrated, but Heterogeneity says there are separate processes. My preferred 'file' approach would favour integration.
Concepts as definitions was rejected, and concepts as prototypes, exemplars or theories proposed [Machery]
     Full Idea: Since the rejection of the classical theory of concepts (that they are definitions), three paradigms have successively emerged in the psychology of concepts: the prototype paradigm, the exemplar paradigm, and the theory paradigm.
     From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4)
     A reaction: I am becoming a fan of the 'theory theory' proposal, because the concepts centre around what explains the phenomenon, which fits my explanatory account of essentialism. Not that it's right because it agrees with me, of course.....