Can Constancy Mechanisms Draw the Limits of Intentionality?

IF 0.1 Q3 Arts and Humanities Disputatio (Spain) Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.2478/disp-2022-0008
Sérgio Farias de Souza Filho
{"title":"Can Constancy Mechanisms Draw the Limits of Intentionality?","authors":"Sérgio Farias de Souza Filho","doi":"10.2478/disp-2022-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What are the minimal conditions for intentionality that a sensory state should satisfy for it to constitute a representational state? That is, what are the limits of intentionality? This is the problem of demarcation. The goal of this paper is to assess a specific demarcation proposal for the minimal conditions of intentionality—the constancy mechanism proposal. Accordingly, it is a minimal condition for the intentionality of a given state that the sensory system should employ a constancy mechanism in the production of this state. First of all, I introduce the problem of demarcation and show its relevance for the debate on the viability of naturalist theories of mental representation. After that, I present the explanatory role requirement for the positing of representational states by intentional explanations of behaviour and show how it constitutes a criterion for the assessment of demarcation proposals for the limits of intentionality. Finally, I assess the constancy mechanism proposal and show that its viability is seriously jeopardised by the minimal distance problem.","PeriodicalId":52369,"journal":{"name":"Disputatio (Spain)","volume":"2 1","pages":"133 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disputatio (Spain)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2022-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract What are the minimal conditions for intentionality that a sensory state should satisfy for it to constitute a representational state? That is, what are the limits of intentionality? This is the problem of demarcation. The goal of this paper is to assess a specific demarcation proposal for the minimal conditions of intentionality—the constancy mechanism proposal. Accordingly, it is a minimal condition for the intentionality of a given state that the sensory system should employ a constancy mechanism in the production of this state. First of all, I introduce the problem of demarcation and show its relevance for the debate on the viability of naturalist theories of mental representation. After that, I present the explanatory role requirement for the positing of representational states by intentional explanations of behaviour and show how it constitutes a criterion for the assessment of demarcation proposals for the limits of intentionality. Finally, I assess the constancy mechanism proposal and show that its viability is seriously jeopardised by the minimal distance problem.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
恒常机制能否划定意向性的界限?
一个感觉状态要构成表征状态,意向性的最低条件是什么?也就是说,意向性的极限在哪里?这是划界的问题。本文的目的是评估一种针对意向性最小条件的具体划界建议-恒常机制建议。因此,对于给定状态的意向性来说,感觉系统应该在产生这种状态时采用恒常性机制,这是一个最小条件。首先,我介绍了划分问题,并展示了它与关于心理表征的自然主义理论可行性的辩论的相关性。在此之后,我提出了通过对行为的有意解释来设定表征状态的解释性角色要求,并展示了它如何构成评估意向性界限划分建议的标准。最后,我评估了恒常机制的建议,并表明其可行性受到最小距离问题的严重危害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Disputatio (Spain)
Disputatio (Spain) Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
35 weeks
期刊最新文献
Indexicals in Fiction Comparatives in Context Introduction: Varieties of Context-Sensitivity in a Pluri-Propositionalist Reflexive Semantic Framework First-Person Plural Indexicals Formalizing English Contextuals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1