22 ideas
21339 | We want the ontology of relations, not just a formal way of specifying them [Heil] |
21349 | Two people are indirectly related by height; the direct relation is internal, between properties [Heil] |
21340 | Maybe all the other features of the world can be reduced to relations [Heil] |
21348 | In the case of 5 and 6, their relational truthmaker is just the numbers [Heil] |
21351 | Truthmaking is a clear example of an internal relation [Heil] |
21344 | If R internally relates a and b, and you have a and b, you thereby have R [Heil] |
21350 | If properties are powers, then causal relations are internal relations [Heil] |
23805 | Some explanations offer to explain a mystery by a greater mystery [Schulte] |
23796 | Naturalists must explain both representation, and what is represented [Schulte] |
23793 | On the whole, referential content is seen as broad, and sense content as narrow [Schulte] |
23806 | Naturalist accounts of representation must match the views of cognitive science [Schulte] |
23804 | Maybe we can explain mental content in terms of phenomenal properties [Schulte] |
23792 | Phenomenal and representational character may have links, or even be united [Schulte] |
23795 | Naturalistic accounts of content cannot rely on primitive mental or normative notions [Schulte] |
23802 | Conceptual role semantics says content is determined by cognitive role [Schulte] |
23797 | Cause won't explain content, because one cause can produce several contents [Schulte] |
23799 | Teleosemantics explains content in terms of successful and unsuccessful functioning [Schulte] |
23800 | Teleosemantic explanations say content is the causal result of naturally selected functions [Schulte] |
23798 | Information theories say content is information, such as smoke making fire probable [Schulte] |
17371 | Some kinds are very explanatory, but others less so, and some not at all [Devitt] |
17373 | Species pluralism says there are several good accounts of what a species is [Devitt] |
17372 | The higher categories are not natural kinds, so the Linnaean hierarchy should be given up [Devitt] |