David Papineau

Representation and Explanation

Functionalism faces a problem in accounting for the semantic powers of beliefs and other mental states. Simple causal considerations will not solve this problem, nor will any appeal to the social utility of semantic interpretations. The correct analysis of semantic representation is a teleological one, in terms of the biological purposes of mental states: whereas functionalism focuses, so to speak, only on the structure of the cognitive mechanism, the semantic perspective requires in addition that we consider the purposes of the cognitive mechanisms parts.

Theory-Dependent Terms

The main puzzle about theoretical definitions is that nothing seems to decide which assumptions contribute to such definitions and which do not. I argue that theoretical definitions are indeed imprecise, but that this does not normally matter, since the definitional imprecision does not normally produce indeterminacy of referential value. Sometimes, however, the definitional imprecision is less benign, and does generate referential indeterminacy. In these special cases, but not otherwise, it is necessary to refine the terms definition.

The Status of Teleosemantics, or How to Stop Worrying about Swampman

In the ‘The Teleological Theory of Content’ [1] David Braddon-Mitchell and Frank Jackson mount two objections to the teleosemantic approach to content. I shall argue below that neither of these objections is effective. In showing this, I hope to clarify the status of teleosemantic theories. I hope also to show why, contrary to popular opinion, ‘Swampman’ is not even the start of an objection to teleosemantics.

I–David Papineau

This paper disputes the common assumption that the normativity of conceptual judgement poses a problem for naturalism. My overall strategy is to argue that norms of judgement derive from moral or personal values, particularly when such values are attached to the end of truth. While there are philosophical problems associated with both moral and personal values, they are not special to the realm of judgement, nor peculiar to naturalist philosophies. This approach to the normativity of judgement is made possible by naturalist views of truth, that is, views which do not presuppose normativity in explaining truth.

Is representation rife

This paper applies a teleosemantic perspective to the question of whether there is genuine representation outside the familiar realm of belief-desire psychology. I first explain how teleosemantics accounts for the representational powers of beliefs and desires themselves. I then ask whether biological states which are simpler than beliefs and desires can also have representational powers. My conclusion is that such biologically simple states can be ascribed representational contents, but only in a system-relative way: such states must be ascribed varying contents when viewed as components in different biological systems. I conclude by arguing that ‘the genetic code’ does not even embody this kind of system-relative representation.

In the Zone

On the Friday afternoon of the 3 rd test at Trent Bridge in 2001, the series was in the balance. The Australians had won the first two tests easily, but England now found themselves in a position of some strength. They had restricted Australia to a first-innings lead of just 5 runs, and had built a lead of 120 with six wickets in hand. Mark Ramprakash was in and had been batting steadily for well over an hour. Even though this Australian side was as strong as any in cricket history, England had real hopes of getting back into the series.

Does the Sociology of Science Discredit Science

Why should we believe the findings of science? The traditional answer is that there are good arguments for those findings. Scientists start from the evidence of their senses, and then proceed by valid inferences to their conclusions. The scientific community is the rational community par excellence, and the findings of science are simply the conclusions forced on scientists by the dictates of reason.

Can we be harmed after we are dead

Philosophers from antiquity onwards have asked whether we are harmed by death itself [1,2]. My question is different. I want to know whether we can be harmed by further events that happen after we are dead. While connected, the two questions are clearly distinct. Someone might think that death is normally a very bad thing for the deceased, yet hold that, once you are gone, you are beyond the reach of any further harms. This is not my view. I shall be arguing that, even after we are dead, we can be further harmed by subsequent events. This is not because I think that we somehow survive our deaths. I am quite convinced that once we are dead, we cease to exist in any sense. But even so I hold that events subsequent to our death can harm us. What happens after we are gone can make a genuine difference to our good or bad fortune. Note how my question has practical implications that are not raised by the more familiar question about death itself. On my view, we can well have reason to influence posthumous events so as to benefit the dead. For those who deny that people can be harmed after they are dead, their interests will cease to matter to others once they are gone. I disagree. I think that we can have reason to protect the interests of dead people.

Could there be a science of consciousness

In this paper I want to consider the implications of materialism about the human mind for a scientific understanding of consciousness. I shall argue that, while science can tell us many exciting things about human consciousness, it won’t be able to pinpoint any specific material property that constitutes seeing something red, say, or being in pain, or indeed that constitutes being conscious (that is, feeling like something rather than nothing). Not that this means there are definite facts about consciousness about which science must permanently remain silent. Rather the difficulty lies with our concepts of conscious properties, which are vague in certain crucial respects.

The cultural origins of cognitive adaptations

According to an influential view in contemporary cognitive science, many human cognitive capacities are innate. The primary support for this view comes from ‘poverty of stimulus’ arguments. In general outline, such arguments contrast the meagre informational input to cognitive development with its rich informational output. Consider the ease with which humans acquire languages, become facile at attributing psychological states (‘folk psychology’), gain knowledge of biological kinds (‘folk biology’), or come to understand basic physical processes (‘folk physics’). In all these cases, the evidence available to a growing child is far too thin and noisy for it to be plausible that the underlying principles involved are derived from general learning mechanisms. This only alternative hypothesis seems to be that the child’s grasp of these principles is innate. (Cf. Laurence and Margolis, 2001.)