Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Unconscious Cerebral Initiative', 'Semiology and Grammatology' and 'Jerry A. Fodor on himself'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


10 ideas

12. Knowledge Sources / D. Empiricism / 2. Associationism
Associations are held to connect Ideas together in the way the world is connected together [Fodor]
     Full Idea: The laws of associations were held to explicate the semantic coherence of intentional processes, which adjust the causal relations among Ideas to reflect corresponding relations among the things that they're ideas of.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (Jerry A. Fodor on himself [1994], p.296)
     A reaction: With the support of evolution, and the backing of a correspondence theory of truth, plus more sophistication in the associations, this might work.
15. Nature of Minds / B. Features of Minds / 4. Intentionality / b. Intentionality theories
Intentional science needs objects with semantic and causal properties, and which obey laws [Fodor]
     Full Idea: If there is to be an intentional science, there must be semantically evaluable things which have causal powers, and there must be laws relating beliefs and desires to one another, and to actions.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (Jerry A. Fodor on himself [1994], p.293)
     A reaction: The semantics and causation sound fair enough, but the prospect of finding laws looks bleak (though, contrary to Davidson, I don't see why they can't exist).
Intentional states and processes may be causal relations among mental symbols [Fodor]
     Full Idea: It may be that intentional states are relations to mental symbols, and mental processes are implemented by causal relations among these symbols.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (Jerry A. Fodor on himself [1994], p.296)
     A reaction: It is hard to see how something could have causal powers just by being a symbol. The theory needs something else to drive the causation.
17. Mind and Body / E. Mind as Physical / 7. Anti-Physicalism / b. Multiple realisability
Most psychological properties seem to be multiply realisable [Fodor]
     Full Idea: These days most philosophers of mind suppose that most psychological properties are multiply realisable.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (Jerry A. Fodor on himself [1994], p.298)
     A reaction: This is just speculation. The physical part may seem very different, but turn out to be identical in the ways that matter (like a knife made of two different metals).
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 4. Folk Psychology
Folk psychology explains behaviour by reference to intentional states like belief and desire [Fodor]
     Full Idea: Folk psychology is primarily intentional explanation; it's the idea that people's behaviour can be explained by reference to the contents of their beliefs and desires.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (Jerry A. Fodor on himself [1994], p.292)
     A reaction: Sounds good. To reject folk psychology (as reductivists tend to) is to reject the existence of significant intentional states which have causal properties
18. Thought / C. Content / 6. Broad Content
How could the extrinsic properties of thoughts supervene on their intrinsic properties? [Fodor]
     Full Idea: It is hard to see how the extrinsic properties of thoughts could supervene on their intrinsic properties.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (Jerry A. Fodor on himself [1994], p.299)
     A reaction: This doesn't seem a big problem. Sometimes represented experiences establish the match; sometimes the match is not very good, or even wrong.
19. Language / A. Nature of Meaning / 2. Meaning as Mental
Everything that is experienced in consciousness is meaning [Derrida]
     Full Idea: All experience is the experience of meaning (Sinn). Everything that appears to consciousness, everything that is for consciousness in general, is meaning.
     From: Jacques Derrida (Semiology and Grammatology [1968], p.26)
     A reaction: This an assertion, from a quite different philosophical tradition, of the centrality of linguistic meaning in philosophy. It links with the centrality of intentionality in our understanding of the mind.
20. Action / B. Preliminaries of Action / 2. Willed Action / a. Will to Act
Libet says the processes initiated in the cortex can still be consciously changed [Libet, by Papineau]
     Full Idea: Libet himself points out that the conscious decisions still have the power to 'endorse' or 'cancel', so to speak, the processes initiated by the earlier cortical activity: no action will result if the action's execution is consciously countermanded.
     From: report of Benjamin Libet (Unconscious Cerebral Initiative [1985]) by David Papineau - Thinking about Consciousness 1.4
     A reaction: This is why Libet's findings do not imply 'epiphenomenalism'. It seems that part of a decisive action is non-conscious, undermining the all-or-nothing view of consciousness. Searle tries to smuggle in free will at this point (Idea 3817).
Libet found conscious choice 0.2 secs before movement, well after unconscious 'readiness potential' [Libet, by Lowe]
     Full Idea: Libet found that a subject's conscious choice to move was about a fifth of a second before movement, and thus later than the onset of the brain's so-called 'readiness potential', which seems to imply that unconscious processes initiates action.
     From: report of Benjamin Libet (Unconscious Cerebral Initiative [1985]) by E.J. Lowe - Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind Ch.9
     A reaction: Of great interest to philosophers! It seems to make conscious choices epiphenomenal. The key move, I think, is to give up the idea of consciousness as being all-or-nothing. My actions are still initiated by 'me', but 'me' shades off into unconsciousness.
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 9. Counterfactual Claims
Laws are true generalisations which support counterfactuals and are confirmed by instances [Fodor]
     Full Idea: Laws are true generalisations that support counterfactuals and are confirmed by their instances.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (Jerry A. Fodor on himself [1994], p.293)
     A reaction: This seems correct, but it doesn't disentangle laws as mental states from laws as features of nature