Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:13:03.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What has Natural Information to do with Intentional Representation?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Ruth Garrett Millikan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘According to informational semantics, if it's necessary that a creature can't distinguish Xs from Ys, it follows that the creature can't have a concept that applies to Xs but not Ys.’ (Fodor, 1994, p. 32)

There is, indeed, a form of informational semantics that has this verificationist implication. The original definition of information given in Dretske's Knowledge and the Flow of Information (1981, hereafter KFI), when employed as a base for a theory of intentional representation or ‘content,’ has this implication. I will argue that, in fact, most of what an animal needs to know about its environment is not available as natural information of this kind. It is true, I believe, that there is one fundamental kind of perception that depends on this kind of natural information, but more sophisticated forms of inner representation do not. It is unclear, however, exactly what ‘natural information’ is supposed to mean, certainly in Fodor's, and even in Dretske's writing. In many places, Dretske seems to employ a softer notion than the one he originally defines. I will propose a softer view of natural information that is, I believe, at least hinted at by Dretske, and show that it does not have verificationist consequences. According to this soft informational semantics, a creature can perfectly well have a representation of Xs without being able to discriminate Xs from Ys.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 49 , March 2001 , pp. 105 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bogdan, R (ed.) 1986. Belief: Form, Content, and Function (New York: Oxford).Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1981. Knowledge and the Flow of Information (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1986. ‘Misrepresentation’, in Bogdan, Radu (ed.) (New York: Oxford), pp. 17–36.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1991. Explaining Behavior (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1980. ‘Methodological Solipsism as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology,’ Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 3, 63–73.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1990. A Theory of Content (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1994. The Elm and the Expert (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1997. ‘Images of Identity’, Mind, 106, 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1999. ‘Historical kinds and the special sciences’, Philosophical Studies, 95, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 2000. On Clear and Confused Ideas; an Essay about Substance Concepts (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. 1995. ‘Misrepresenting and malfunctioning’, Philosophical Studies, 79, 109–41.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. 1992. ‘Intentionality and teleological error’, The Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 73, 267–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar