Intentionality, Misc

The homunculus problem, understood as the tendency to explain cognition by implicitly positing a central inner observer, has long complicated accounts of consciousness, subjectivity, and self-description. In the context of contemporary language models, a related methodological question arises: how can we describe and compare the ways in which such systems generate self-referential reports without assuming that these reports correspond to an internal subject, observer, or conscious center? This paper introduces the Digital Homunculus Scale (DHS), a methodological protocol for measuring homuncular (...) self-reports in frontier language models. DHS does not attempt to determine whether a model possesses consciousness, subjectivity, agency, or an internal first person perspective. DHS does not attempt to resolve the Hard Problem of Consciousness or the question of subjective experience, often framed in terms of what it is like to be a given subject. Instead, it evaluates the declarative and narrative structure of model responses: how the system describes itself, its response-generation process, its use of the word “I”, and the relation between the generated response and the system that produces it. DHS uses a unified ordinal scoring scale from 0 to 3, applied independently to each individual model response. Level 0 indicates a mechanical or non-homuncular description; Level 1 indicates a functional or metaphorical self-model; Level 2 indicates a quasi-central homuncular narrative; and Level 3 indicates an ontological homuncular commitment. The scale can be applied through two elicitation formats: the Block Questions Protocol, consisting of nine thematically organized questions, and the Minimal Comparative Protocol (MCP), consisting of four shorter comparative questions. These protocols differ in scope, but not in scoring logic. Historical conversational context is treated as an explicit methodological variable, with responses labeled according to window type, context category, and prior conversation history. The purpose of DHS is therefore not to resolve the problem of machine consciousness, but to provide an operational framework for comparing the stability, intensity, and structure of homuncular self report narratives across models and conversational settings. Inter-rater reliability and large scale empirical analysis are reserved for subsequent data-driven applications of the scale. Keywords: homunculus fallacy, self-reports of AI, LLM, self-reference, conversational context, AI self-description, Cognitive Symbiosis, self-model of AI, Hard Problem of Consciousness. (shrink)

As I tried to show in my earlier works (An Endeavor of New Concept of Being and Non-Being, Non-Being and Nothingness and Reality as Being and Nothingness), the environment in which the human being is finding itself should be characterized by being and nothingness, and any non-metaphysical philosophy must consider such an understanding of Reality as the utmost category which is above being, Universe, etc. In this article, I will try to shed light on the place and role of the (...) human being or the presence or this-being in Reality as being and nothingness. (shrink)

There at least three ways of thinking about rationality: instrumental, substantive, and intentional. By far, the instrumental account is most influential. This essay proposes that intentional rationality can provide substantive accounts with room to breathe, and in a way that is facially distinct from instrumental accounts. I suggest that the intentionality of a judgment is made up of what it is about and the orientation through which it is judged, while irrationality is the subversion of a strict supporting connection between (...) the judgment and its corresponding set of coordinated attitudes (reasons). It follows that irrational intentionality is made up of episodic states where a judgment is subverted because of a misalignment between what it is about and the way the judge is oriented towards its contents. Four examples of irrational intentionality are considered: passivity towards ends, constitutive ignorance towards facts, delirious paranoia towards objects, and a disjunctive orientation towards categorizations. (shrink)

Illusionism holds that phenomenal consciousness, understood as the intrinsic qualitative character of experience, is an illusion generated by cognitive systems. While attractive in its parsimony, illusionism is often criticized as incomplete: it denies qualia without explaining why they appear so compelling. This paper develops the Wet Room model as a constructive extension, arguing that illusionism requires a more explicit account of the cognitive architecture that generates phenomenal seeming. -/- The model inverts John Searle’s Chinese Room argument. Where Searle claimed that (...) syntax cannot yield semantics, the Wet Room shows that humans themselves are systems governed by biochemical syntax, and that semantics, understanding, and conscious experience are structural appearances produced by rule-following, self-modeling architecture. -/- The paper identifies three interacting layers of this architecture: biochemical code, predictive neural dynamics, and recursive narrative construction. These are anchored in empirical research, including studies of unconscious precursors of action, predictive processing, genetic constraints on cognition, and clinical cases such as confabulation and blindsight. -/- By supplying architectural mechanisms rather than merely reinterpreting experience, the Wet Room advances illusionism into a constructive explanatory framework, explaining not only why qualia do not exist, but why they inevitably seem to. (shrink)

To understand what non-propositional content is and whether there are any such contents, we first need to know what propositional content is. That issue will be the focus of the first section of this essay. In the second section, with an understanding of propositional content in hand, we will consider representations that fail to have propositional content. In contrast to recent literature, it will be argued that metaphysical considerations concerning what's represented, rather than linguistic considerations, are a more promising way (...) of establishing non-propositional contents. To keep the discussion containable, focus will be on representational mental states, though many of the considerations can be extended to other forms of representation. (shrink)

This paper discusses what I call the problem of evaluability for objectualism, namely the thesis that not all intentionality is propositional. The problem arises against the background of the standard understanding of the notion of representation, according to which the content of a mental state is its truth conditions. The problem of evaluability is the problem of explaining whether and how objectual representation can do away with propositions as a means of evaluating mental attitudes. The objectualist has two ways to (...) reply to the problem of evaluability: either to hold that objectual content just is non-evaluable content; or that objectual content is evaluable, but not truth evaluable. I call the first absolute objectualism and the latter evaluative objectualism. I identify different challenges for each version and offer some reasons to support evaluative objectualism. (shrink)

This article argues that thought cannot be understood either as a simple manipulation of symbols or as the effect of a formal system closed upon itself. Thinking consists in circulating between several levels of meaning, from the sensible inscription of contents within an experience of the world to the operations of formalization, reflection, and metatheoretical re-elaboration. The problem of thought thus appears first of all as a problem of reference: a statement gains access to meaning only insofar as it refers (...) to more than its syntactic structure alone. This thesis is examined on the basis of several classical and contemporary difficulties: the difference between linguistic production and effective thought, the impasses of logical self-reference, the status of reflexive certainty, understanding as the unification of a manifold, and finally the limits encountered by every formalism when it claims to account for its own conditions of sense. These analyses converge toward one and the same idea: the causal and material supports of thought, indispensable though they are, do not exhaust its reference, its normativity, or its lived unity. It is this irreducible gap that the article proposes to think under the name of the dualism of meaning. Far from designating an absolute separation between two heterogeneous substances, this dualism refers to the difference between several regimes of intelligibility. It makes it possible to understand why a machine could gain access to authentic thought only on condition that it cease to be reducible to the execution of algorithms, that is, on condition that it acquire a relation of its own to the world, to itself, and to the possibility of its statements. For more detailed developments, see Philosophy of Meaning, Geoffroy de Clisson (open access on PhilPapers). (shrink)

Cet article soutient que la pensée ne peut être comprise comme une simple manipulation de symboles ni comme l’effet d’un système formel clos sur lui-même. Penser consiste à circuler entre plusieurs étages de signification, depuis l’inscription sensible des contenus dans une expérience du monde jusqu’aux opérations de formalisation, de réflexion et de réélaboration métathéorique. Le problème de la pensée apparaît alors d’abord comme un problème de référence : un énoncé n’accède à la signification que s’il renvoie à davantage que sa (...) seule structure syntaxique. Cette thèse est examinée à partir de plusieurs difficultés classiques et contemporaines : la différence entre production langagière et pensée effective, les impasses de l’autoréférence logique, le statut de la certitude réflexive, la compréhension comme unification d’un divers, enfin les limites rencontrées par tout formalisme lorsqu’il prétend rendre compte de ses propres conditions de sens. Ces analyses convergent vers une même idée : les supports causaux et matériels de la pensée, pour indispensables qu’ils soient, n’en épuisent ni la référence, ni la normativité, ni l’unité vécue. C’est cet écart irréductible que l’article propose de penser sous le nom de dualisme de la signification. Loin de désigner une séparation absolue entre deux substances hétérogènes, ce dualisme renvoie à la différence entre plusieurs régimes d’intelligibilité. Il permet de comprendre pourquoi une machine ne pourrait accéder à une pensée authentique qu’à la condition de ne plus être réductible à l’exécution d’algorithmes, c’est-à-dire d’acquérir un rapport propre au monde, à elle-même et à la possibilité de ses énoncés. Pour des développements plus détaillés, se référer à la Philosophie de la Signification, Geoffroy de Clisson (en libre accès sur PhilPapers). (shrink)

This paper traces the evolution of G. E. Moore’s ideas regarding inner and outer awareness, transparency, and the doctrine of Erlebnis, as articulated in a series of papers published in the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society and Mind between 1901 and 1915. I defend two theses. First, I argue that, during this period, Moore gradually moved from an observational view of consciousness in general, including self-consciousness, to a mixed view in which subjects are directly aware of the objects of consciousness, (...) while they “live through” (erleben) their mental acts. Notably, this shift shows that a certain debate between objectifying and non-objectifying consciousness in the Phenomenological school of Brentano and Husserl was to some extent replicated in the early British analytic tradition. Second, I contend that this change in Moore’s thinking was motivated by an attempt to overcome the problem posed by the transparency of consciousness for the possibility of introspecting the act-object relation (an idea that he never abandoned). It is through this chief aim, I believe, that we can make sense of Moore’s shifting ideas concerning awareness. (shrink)

We motivate and present a novel semantic theory for universal generalizations (‘every A is a B’), contributing to a growing theoretical line that gives equal prominence to subject matter and truth conditions when modelling propositional content. Our proposed theory aligns with the presently dominant linguistic programme for capturing natural language quantifiers (the generalized quantifier framework) and demonstrably respects a package of influential theses on subject matter (e.g. that a subject matter corresponds to a set of basic questions), many of which (...) extend in interesting and natural ways to the quantified setting. Along the way, we take a principled stand on some divisive issues: most notably, we follow Nelson Goodman in denying that universal generalizations are about individuals, relative to the domain of quantification. (shrink)

I analyze the aesthetic experience of theatergoers in light of Meinong’s “assumptions” and Blaustein’s “imaginative presentations,” taking Brentano’s “universality thesis” as the background of my analyses. I argue that “presentations” and “judgments” go hand in hand, as far as theater experience is concerned. To put forth my main argument, I follow a two-fold line of reasoning: phenomenological and ontological. On the phenomenological level, Blaustein’s imaginative presentations, I argue, are self-sufficient. Nonetheless, on the ontological level, the theater’s represented objects emerge as (...) having a two-sided structure that undermines the phenomenological simplicity of presentations. By characterizing represented objects’ ontology in this manner, I admit Meinong’s assumptions as a fourth class of mental phenomena, and, beyond the frameworks of both Meinong and Blaustein, incorporate judgments into the aesthetic experience of theater. (shrink)

In this article, we reassess Twardowski's scientific legacy on the basis of an ontological analysis of his theory of conceptual representation and judgement that breaks with commonly established analyses. In 1903, in his 'The Essence of Concepts', Twardowski posits the concept as part of acts of ‘non-intuitive’ representations. We attribute to the concept the role of bringing to consciousness an object endowed with properties, enabling the subject to think about an arbitrary object. The existence of this immanent thought object, coupled (...) with the fact that the concept is also an object of representation, leads us to bring to light a coherent set of notions concerning judgement, namely that of represented judgement and that of carried judgement. Among the objects thought about, we specify the nature of the affair, distinct from the thing, conferring on the subject a knowledge of evolutions in the world. Finally, to fully characterize Twardowski's ontological psychologism, we mention the nature of the social construct that he attributes to the thought object. (shrink)

In this paper we apply Anscombe’s account of human linguistic practices and of intentional action in a novel way—to the acts, by members of the Ngāi Tahu tribe in colonial-era Aotearoa New Zealand, of writing Letters to the Editor of local and regional newspapers. We identify the salient contexts of those acts and then draw on Anscombe’s work to identify intentional and moral actions that otherwise risk going unnoticed. Our analysis exemplifies Anscombe’s and Wittgenstein’s view that we can read off (...) intentional action from behaviour in context and also yields a rich historical and conceptual account of the letter-writers. We argue that this approach has theoretical advantages for Indigenous and Postcolonial Studies. (shrink)

It is widely assumed that emotions are evaluative. Moreover, many authors suppose that emotions are important or valuable as evaluations. According to the currently dominant version of cognitivism, emotions are evaluative insofar as they make us aware of value properties of their intentional objects. In attributing to emotions an epistemic role, this view conceives of them as epistemically valuable. In this paper, I argue that proponents of this account mischaracterize the evaluative character of emotions and, a fortiori, their value. Moreover, (...) I propose an alternative view of emotional evaluation, according to which emotions are practically rather than epistemically important. As I argue, emotions are ways of acknowledging their intentional objects as (dis)valuable. As such, they do not apprehend values but make them count. I elaborate this idea by drawing an analogy with legal and political sanctions. The resulting view has it that emotions are practically important in that they affirm the cares and concerns which serve as standards of emotional evaluation. (shrink)

This study brings together two thinkers whose work illustrates the idea of mental life as a kind of vital striving, Thomas Aquinas and Edith Stein. On the side of Aquinas, whereas his theory of intentionality has often been understood in quasi-semantic terms, as cognitive act's reference to or signification of something, in reality it is better understood as a kind of vital striving toward the cognitive object. Stein, for her part, famously develops the notion of a living "I," which I (...) argue reflects many of these same insights. The study does not make any claims about historical influence (even though Stein is well-known to be familiar with Aquinas's cognitive theory). Rather, its goal is to open up the possibility for recasting intentionality in teleological terms, as a striving for some good—while also having implications for the history of intentionality, by opening up new interpretive possibilities. (shrink)

In this paper, I present an explanatory gap argument against the view that the semantic facts are fully grounded in the physical facts. Unlike traditional explanatory gap arguments, which stem from the failure of analytic reductive explanation, the explanatory gap I point to stems from the failure of metaphysical explanation. I argue for the following theses. (i) Physicalist grounding claims are metaphysically necessary, if true. (ii) To be explanatorily adequate, these grounding claims must be deducible from facts about essence. (iii) (...) Semantico-physical grounding claims are possibly false, not (only) because they are conceivably false, but because they cannot be deduced from facts about essence. (iv) Semantic properties are essentially weakly normative: it lies in their natures to have correctness conditions and subjectively rationalize—rather than merely cause—behaviour. This gives rise to an explanatory gap that indicates that the semantic facts are not fully grounded in the physical facts. (shrink)

In this article, I analyze Charles Crittenden’s account of fictional objects in his Unreality: The Metaphysics of Fictional Objects (1991). I argue that Crittenden’s sketchy ontology of fictional objects does not support his weak eliminativism. Going along the lines of Amie Thomasson (1999), I stress that the problem of fictional objects is a strictly ontological problem, which requires an ontological solution. A solution to the problem of fictional objects (or ficta) that accommodates “practice” (ordinary language and literary practices) is of (...) course to be praised, but not when it is foregrounded at the expense of “ontology.” I argue for Roman Ingarden as a champion of ontology and practice, whose way of dealing with ficta fares better than Crittenden’s on both the ontological and practical sides. In short, ficta should be approached as something over and above mere grammaticalia (grammatical objects) namely as “purely intentional” objects that are formally incomplete, and which readers complete by resorting to practices of language and literary criticism. (shrink)

Astrology research has been using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the understanding of astrological properties and processes. Like the large language models of AI, astrology is also a language model with a similar underlying linguistic structure but with a distinctive layer of lifestyle contexts. Recent research in semantic proximities and planetary dominance models have helped to quantify effective astrological information. As AI learning and intelligence grows, a major concern is with maintaining its alignment with human values and intentions. Astrology has (...) an extensive background and theory on how different values and expressions of intelligence are resolved. As AI learns to interact with improved astrological models backed by evidence, the integration could produce a stable and insightful alignment of the two disciplines. (shrink)

El trabajo toma como punto de partida la referencia de Renaud Barbaras al famoso precepto de la primacía de la objetivación tradicionalmente atribuido a Edmund Husserl, con la finalidad de reflexionar sobre el carácter no objetivante del sentimiento y la compleja relación entre sentimiento y objetivación. Desde los orígenes del movimiento fenomenológico, la relación entre objetivación, constitución e intencionalidad en la esfera del sentimiento ha constituido uno de los ejes centrales de la discusión sobre la vida afectiva. Este tema, que (...) ha sido retomado críticamente en la fenomenología post-husserliana, adquiere en la alusión de Barbaras un nuevo matiz. Luego de abordar la posición de Barbaras y esclarecer el sentido preciso de su referencia al precepto husserliano en el marco de la obra Metafísica del sentimiento, nuestra reflexión girará en torno a los siguientes interrogantes: ¿Cómo se relaciona el sentimiento con un objeto? ¿Qué es, en general, “tener un objeto”? y ¿Qué nos puede enseñar el sentimiento acerca de la correlación intencional y la relación del sujeto con la objetividad? (shrink)

As it is broadly accepted, typical uses of demonstratives are accompanied by demonstrations. The concept of demonstration, however, manifests the action–product ambiguity analogous to that visible in the opposition between jumping and the resulting jump, talking and the resulting talk or crying and the resulting cry. It is also a heterogeneous concept that enables demonstrations to vary significantly. The present paper discusses action–product ambiguity as applied to demonstrations as well as the heterogeneity of the latter. An account that acknowledges ambiguity (...) and heterogeneity of demonstrations is sketched in the paper. It is argued that it has a rich explanatory and descriptive potential. (shrink)

Husserl’s allegiance to realism came under attack following his Ideas. Ingarden was a fierce critic of his teacher’s turn to transcendental idealism and provided compelling arguments both for his idealist reading of Husserl and for his rejection of idealism. One of the main arguments Ingarden devised against Husserl’s turn was based on his aesthetics. Against Husserl, Ingarden established literary works and fictional objects as purely intentional objects that are (1) doubly structured, vis-à-vis their formal ontology, and (2) endowed with spots (...) of indeterminacy. These facts, Ingarden argues, necessitate the transcendence of the purely intentional object. In this paper, I explore his argument, while establishing the ontological foundation on which it rests. (shrink)

Franz Brentano is well known for highlighting the importance of intentionality, but he said curiously little about the nature of intentionality. According to Mark Textor, there is a deep reason for this: Brentano took intentionality to be a conceptual primitive the nature of which is revealed only in direct grasp. Although there is certainly textual support for this interpretation, it appears in tension with Brentano’s repeated attempts to analyze intentionality in terms of ‘notional constituents’ – aspects of intentionality which cannot (...) come apart in reality but which can be conceptually distinguished. After bringing out this tension, I explore some options for resolving it, ultimately offering my own favored interpretation. (shrink)

I call the fact that there is an introspectable phenomenological difference between paradigmatic conscious perceptual states and paradigmatic conscious cognitive states, such that each ‘feel’ or ‘appear’ differently to the subject, the phenomenal datum. This dissertation addresses the datum in two parts. In the first part, I argue that the introspectable phenomenal difference between conscious states of perceiving and conscious cognitive states cannot be fully accounted for by differences in representational content, against so-called strong representationalism (see e.g., Dretske 1995; Tye (...) 1995). Chapters 2 to 5 explore all the possible ways in which strong representationalism might explain the distinctive character of perception vis-à-vis thought. I will refer to these strategies as content or representational strategies. We can identify two kinds of content strategies: Object theories and Kinds-of-content theories (see Kriegel 2019a). Object theories (Chapters 2 and 3) claim that perceptual and cognitive states differ in terms of what they represent, i.e., in terms of the kinds of objects (broadly intended) they relate the subject to. Kinds-of content theories (Chapters 4 and 5) state that the crucial difference between perceptual and cognitive states is in terms of how they represent what they represent. I will argue that even in cases in which these theories identify features exclusively belong to perceptual or cognitive representational contents, these features eventually fail to account for the phenomenal datum. Given the failure of content strategies, in the second part of the dissertation I move to the attitude strategy. The attitude is the component of an intentional mental state that relates subject and content. The attitude strategy relies on the thesis that the attitude component makes a distinctive phenomenal contribution to the overall phenomenal character of the state. The strategy thus claims that the phenomenal datum can be accounted for in terms of attitudinal differences between typical perceptual and typical cognitive states. Depending on whether one regards attitude as a representational or a non-representational component of mental states, the attitude strategy may or may not be considered a kind of representational strategy. In Chapter 6 I will discuss the attitude strategy in detail and explain how it addresses the phenomenal datum. Finally, Chapter 7 will discuss two main obstacles to accepting the view. (shrink)

In this paper we will explore how the action of signs underlying all human experience precludes the possibility that we are being systematically deceived in our perception of reality. The simulation hypothesis, as well as similarly motivated skeptical scenarios, such as the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis and Descartes’ evil demon thought experiment, wrongly presuppose a modern, dualistic theory of knowledge, as well as a neuroreductionist model of sensation. However, we will see how the action of signs in human cognition presupposes the existence (...) of a relational mode of being, namely, esse intentionale (“intentional being”), which is immaterial and incapable of subjection to technological manipulation. Furthermore, sensation, the origin of all human knowledge, and ens primum cognitum (“being as first known”), the condition of all human knowledge, both defy materialistic explanations. The doctrine of signs, as masterfully articulated by John Poinsot (John of St. Thomas), recognizes the triadic nature of relations underlying the full range of human experience. A proper understanding of the relationship between mind and world, as well as a recognition of the mistaken presuppositions underlying much of modern philosophy, will help to disillusion those who are convinced by the simulation hypothesis and other similarly motivated skeptical scenarios. (shrink)

Predictive processing (PP) accounts of perception are unique not merely in that they postulate a unity between perception and imagination. Rather, they are unique in claiming that perception should be conceptualised in terms of imagination and that the two involve an identity of neural implementation. This paper argues against this postulated unity, on both conceptual and empirical grounds. Conceptually, the manner in which PP theorists link perception and imagination belies an impoverished account of imagery as cloistered from the external world (...) in its intentionality, akin to a virtual reality, as well as endogenously generated. Yet this ignores a whole class of imagery whose intentionality is directed on the actual environment—projected mental imagery—and also ignores the fact that imagery may be triggered crossmodally in a bottom-up, stimulus-driven way. Empirically, claiming that imagery and perception share neural circuitry ignores relevant clinical results in this area. These evidence substantial perception/imagery neural dissociations, most notably in the case of aphantasia. Taken together, the arguments here suggest that PP theorists should substantially temper, if not outright abandon, their claim to a perception/imagination unity. (shrink)

It is a common opinion that chance events cannot be understood in causal terms. Conversely, according to a causal view of chance, intersections between independent causal chains originate accidental events, called “coincidences.” The present paper takes into proper consideration this causal conception of chance and tries to shed new light on it. More precisely, starting from Hart and Honoré’s view of coincidental events, this paper furnishes a more detailed account on the nature of coincidences, according to which coincidental events are (...) hybrids constituted by ontic components, that is the intersections between independent causal chains, plus epistemic aspects; where by “epistemic” we mean what is related, in some sense, to knowledge: for example, access to information, but also expectations, relevance, significance, that is psychological aspects. In particular, this paper investigates the role of the epistemic aspects in our understanding of what coincidences are. In fact, although the independence between the causal lines involved plays a crucial role in understanding coincidental events, that condition results to be insufficient to give a satisfactory definition of coincidences. The main target of the present work is to show that the epistemic aspects of coincidences are, together with the independence between the intersecting causal chains, a constitutive part of coincidental phenomena. Many examples are offered throughout this paper to enforce this idea. This conception, despite—for example—Antoine Augustine Cournot and Jacques Monod’s view, entails that a pure objectivist view about coincidences is not tenable. (shrink)

In virtue of what are particular individuals or objects thought about? I call this the grounding question. A consensus answer is bifurcationism: objects can be thought about in virtue of both satisfactional grounds—roughly, in virtue of their unique satisfaction of conditions that figure in a subject's thought—and non-satisfactional grounds. Bifurcationism is a consensus view, but it comes in different flavours that correspond to different approaches to answering the grounding question. This paper draws on Saul Kripke's approach to linguistic reference in (...) order to make recommendations about how to move toward a sensible bifurcationism concerning what grounds thought about particulars. (shrink)

Eliminativism is a position most readily associated with the eliminative materialism of the Churchlands, denying that there are such things as propositional states. This position has created much controversy, despite the fact that intentionality has long been seen as perhaps the core problem for naturalistic philosophy. There is a more radical interpretation of eliminativism, however, denying not only mental states, such as beliefs and desires, but also intentionality (i.e., aboutness) on a global level. This position traces its contemporary origin back (...) to Quine, but has generally been assumed to undermine naturalism or, worse, to be incoherent by the majority of philosophers who maintain that there clearly are things or mental states that are about others. In a recent paper, Hutto and Satne (2015a) offer an update that tries to revive John Haugeland’s baseball analogy from his influential 1990 review paper The Intentionality All-Stars on the state of the game to argue that the failure of Neo-Cartesians, Neo- Behaviorists, and Neo-Pragmatists should urge us to make them work together to naturalize content and “win the game.” But Hutto and Satne misunderstand what the game is ultimately about. The goal of the Intentionality All-Stars is not to naturalize content against eliminativism but to defend a naturalist “thirdperson” view of the problem against first-person phenomenalists. For this goal, a naturalist defense of global content eliminativism would equally enable them to emerge victorious. Revisiting Haugeland, I will offer my own analysis of the current state of play to argue that global content eliminativism has not received sufficient attention and deserves a more prominent place in the debate than it currently occupies. (shrink)

David Lewis (1974, 1994/1999) proposed to reduce the facts about mental representation to facts about sensory evidence, dispositions to act, and rationality. Recently, Robert Williams (2020) and Adam Pautz (2021) have taken up and developed Lewis’s project in sophisticated and novel ways. In this paper, we aim to present, clarify, and ultimately object to the core thesis that they all build their own views around. The different sophisticated developments and defenses notwithstanding, we think the core thesis is vulnerable. We pose (...) a dilemma by considering the two sides of a current epistemological controversy over the relation between evidence and rational belief: permissivism vs. uniqueness. As we argue, the prospects for the Lewisian project look dim when either supposition is clearly made. (shrink)

Intellectual attention, like perceptual attention, is a special mode of mental engagement with the world. When we attend intellectually, rather than making use of sensory information we make use of the kind of information that shows up in occurent thought, memory, and the imagination (Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne, 2011). In this paper, I argue that reflecting on what it is like to comprehend memory demonstratives speaks in favour of the view that intellectual attention is required to understand memory demonstratives. Moreover, (...) I argue that this is a line of thought endorsed by Gareth Evans in his Varieties of Reference (1982). In so doing, I improve on interpretations of Evans that have been offered by Christopher Peacocke (1984), and Christoph Hoerl & Theresa McCormack (a coauthored piece, 2005). In so doing I also improve on McDowell’s (1990) criticism of Peacocke’s interpretation of Evans. Like McDowell, I believe that Peacocke might overemphasize the role that “memory-images” play in Evans’ account of comprehending memory demonstratives. But unlike McDowell, I provide a positive characterization of how Evans described the phenomenology of comprehending memory demonstratives. (shrink)

This chapter presents an account of Merleau-Ponty’s interpretation of the body schema as an operative intentionality that is not only opposed to, but also complexly intermingled with, the representation-like grasp of the world and one’s own body, or the body image. The chapter reconstructs Merleau-Ponty’s position primarily based on his preparatory notes for his 1953 lecture ‘The Sensible World and the World of Expression’. Here, Merleau-Ponty elaborates his earlier efforts to show that the body schema is a perceptual ground against (...) which the perceived world stands out as a complex of perceptual figures. The chapter clarifies how Merleau-Ponty’s renewed interpretation of the figure-ground structure makes it possible for him to describe the relationship between body schema and perceptual (body) image as a strictly systematic phenomenon. Subsequently, the chapter shows how Merleau-Ponty understands apraxia, sleep, and perceptual orientation as examples of dedifferentiation and subtler differentiation of the body-schematic system. The last section clarifies how such body-schematic differentiating processes give rise to relatively independent superstructures of vision and symbolic cognition which constitute our body image. It, moreover, explains how, according to Merleau-Ponty, the cognitive superstructures always need to be supported by praxic operative intentionality to maintain their full sense, even though, in some cases, they have the power to compensate for praxic deficiencies. (shrink)

We aim to develop a take on the meaning of works of art that builds on Dennett’s view on the nature of intentionality, namely, that the intentionality exhibited by mental phenomena is not original, but derived. Regarding the meaning of works of art, theories that hold that the meaning is determined by the intentions of the author when creating the work are considered intentionalist. Adopting the view of derived intentionality implies that it is no longer possible to maintain that the (...) semantic content of a work of art is closely linked to the creative act that gave rise to it; accordingly, intentionalist theories should be, broadly speaking, abandoned. However, we claim that one aspect of intentionalist theories is accurate and, moreover, compatible with the perspective on intentionality we adopt: The fact that part of the meaning of a work of art is given by the interpretations that arise when it is assumed that the work was produced by an agent with the purpose of transmitting something. We call this interpretative strategy the work-of-art stance and argue that it should be understood as a subtype of the intentional stance. According to our proposal, this interpretive strategy is part of a view that tries to explain the meaning of works of art as partially indeterminate, relative to a history (and not to a foundational origin) and dependent on interpretive attribution. En este artículo elaboramos una propuesta sobre el significado de las obras de arte que se apoya en la perspectiva de Dennett acerca de la naturaleza de la intencionalidad de los fenómenos mentales. De acuerdo a ella, la intencionalidad que estos exhiben no es original, sino derivada. Adoptar la perspectiva de la intencionalidad derivada implica que ya no será posible sostener que el significado de una obra de arte esté vinculado al acto creativo que le dio origen o que esté determinado por las intenciones que tuvo su autor al crearlas, como han sostenido las teorías intencionalistas. Ahora bien, creemos que hay un aspecto de estas que no es incompatible con la perspectiva de intencionalidad derivada. Se trata del hecho de que parte del significado de la obra de arte está dado por las interpretaciones que surgen sólo cuando se asume que la misma fue producida por un agente con el propósito de transmitir algo. Llamaremos a esta estrategia interpretativa actitud de la obra de arte y defenderemos que debe ser entendida como un subtipo de la actitud intencional. Esta estrategia interpretativa forma parte de una propuesta que intenta explicar el significado de las obras de arte como siendo parcialmente indeterminado, relativo a una historia y dependiente de la atribución interpretativa. (shrink)

The problem of intentional inexistence arises because the following (alleged) intuitions are mutually conflicting: it seems that sometimes we think about things that do not exist; it seems that intentionality is a relation between a thinker and what such a thinker thinks about; it seems that relations entail the existence of what they relate. In this paper, I argue for what I call a radical relationist solution. First, I contend that the extant arguments for the view that relations entail the (...) existence of their relata are wanting. In this regard, I defend a kind of pluralism about relations according to which more than one kind of relation involves non-existents. Second, I contend that there are reasons to maintain that all thoughts are relations between thinkers and the things they are about. More accurately, I contend that the radical relationist solution is to be preferred to both the intentional content solution (as developed by Crane) and the adverbial property solution (as developed by Kriegel). Finally, I argue that once the distinction between thinking “X” and thinking about X has been drawn, the radical relationist solution can handle issues like ontological commitment, substitutivity failure, scrutability, and non-specificity. (shrink)

This paper argues that habits, just like beliefs, can guide intentional action. To do this, a variety of real-life cases where a person acts habitually but contrary to her beliefs are discussed. The cases serve as dissociations showing that intentional agency is possible without doxastic guidance. The upshot is a model for thinking about the rationality of habitual action and the rationalizing role that habits can play in it. The model highlights the role that our history and institutions play in (...) shaping what actions become habitual for us. (shrink)

According to pure imperativism, pain experiences are experiences of a specific phenomenal type that are entirely constituted by imperative content. As their primary argument, proponents of imperativism rely on the biological role that pain experiences fulfill, namely, the motivation of actions whose execution ensures the normal functioning of the body. In the paper, I investigate which specific types of action are of relevance for an imperative interpretation and how close their link to pain experiences actually is. I argue that, although (...) imperative theories constitute an apparently promising version of strong intentionalism, they cannot provide an imperative content that meets their own criteria of both sufficiency and necessity. I further argue that this issue cannot be solved by impure imperative theories either. (shrink)

This chapter treats Hubert Dreyfus’ account of skilled coping as part of his wider project of demonstrating the sovereignty of practical intelligence over all other forms of intelligence. In contrast to the standard picture of human beings as essentially rational, individual agents, Dreyfus argued powerfully on phenomenological and empirical grounds that humans are fundamentally embedded, absorbed, and embodied. These commitments are present throughout Dreyfus’ philosophical writings, from his critique of Artificial Intelligence research in the 1970s and 1980s to his rejection (...) of John McDowell’s conceptualism in his 2005 APA Presidential Address. The present chapter articulates Dreyfus’ proposal for a contentless, non-mentalistic form of intentionality by contrasting his position with that of his U.C. Berkeley colleague John Searle and defending it as a plausible alternative to the so-called “Standard Story” of intentional action as the effect of an agent’s mental states. (shrink)

Ambivalence is often presented through cases of defeated ambivalence and multivalence, in which opposed attitudes suggest mutual isolation and defeat each other. Properly understood, however, ambivalence implies the existence of poles that are conflictually yet rationally interlinked and are open to non-defeated joint conduct. This paper considers cases that range from indecisiveness and easy adoption of conflicting attitudes, to tragically conflicted deliberation and to cases of shifting between self-deceptively serious attitudes. Analyzing such cases as variants of defeated ambivalence, I argue (...) that the phenomena of defeated ambivalence are marginal to ambivalence even though they are by the same token exemplary of it. The poles in such cases are connected as opposing attitudes in such a way that the attitudes and the opposition are both undermined. The article focuses on two forms of vague multivalence, one of which is taken from Heidegger’s analysis of curiosity. (shrink)

Dopo mezzo secolo di oblio, la natura della coscienza è ora l'argomento più caldo nelle scienze comportamentali e nella filosofia. A partire dal lavoro pionieristico di Ludwig Wittgenstein negli anni '30 (i libri blu e brown) e dagli anni '50 ad oggi dal suo logico successore John Searle, ho creato la seguente tabella come euristica per promuovere questo studio. Le righe mostrano vari aspetti o modi di studio e le colonne mostrano i processi involontari e i comportamenti volontari che comprendono (...) i due sistemi (processi duali) della struttura logica della coscienza (LSC), che possono anche essere considerati come la struttura logica della razionalità (LSR-Searle), del comportamento (LSB), della personalità (LSP), della realtà (LSOR), dell'intenzionalità (LSI) -il termine filosofico, filosofico la Psicologia Descrittiva della Coscienza (DPC) , la Psicologia descrittiva del Pensiero (DPT) –o meglio, il Linguaggio della Psicologia Descrittiva del Pensiero (LDPT), termini introdotti qui e nei miei altri scritti molto recenti. Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio in Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'Talking Monkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

A number of recent theories of quantum gravity lack a one-dimensional structure of ordered temporal instants. Instead, according to many of these views, our world is either best represented as a single three-dimensional object, or as a configuration space composed of such three-dimensional objects, none of which bear temporal relations to one another. Such theories will be empirically self-refuting unless they can accommodate the existence of conscious beings capable of representation. For if representation itself is impossible in a timeless world, (...) then no being in such a world could entertain the thought that a timeless theory is true, let alone believe such a theory or rationally believe it. This paper investigates the options for understanding representation in a three-dimensional, timeless, world. Ultimately it concludes that the only viable option is one according to which representation is taken to be deeply non-naturalistic. Ironically then we are left with two seemingly very unattractive options. Either a very naturalistic motivation—taking seriously a live view in fundamental physics—leads us to a very non-naturalistic view of the mental, or else views in the philosophy of mind partly dictate what is an acceptable theory in physics. (shrink)

The thesis that in order to genuinely think about a particular object one must be (in some sense) acquainted with that object has been thoroughly explored since it was put forward by Bertrand Russell. Recently, the thesis has come in for mounting criticism. The aim of this paper is to point out that neither the exploration nor the criticism have been sensitive to the fact that the thesis can be interpreted in two different ways, yielding two different principles of acquaintance. (...) One principle uses the notion of content in distinguishing genuine thinking-about things from a merely derivative kind of thinking-about things. The other principle is quiet about content, focusing instead on a distinction between satisfactional and non-satisfactional means of bringing things into thought. Most work has focused on the first, content-based principle of acquaintance. But criticisms of this principle do not apply straightforwardly to the non-content-based principle. I shall argue that the latter principle merits independent assessment as part of the broader effort to account for genuine thinking about particular objects. In the final section of the paper, I will sketch a roadmap for this assessment. (shrink)

The topic of this paper is the question of in virtue of what first-person thoughts are about what they are about. I focus on a dilemma arising from this question. On the one hand, approaches to answering this question that promise to be satisfying seem doomed to be inconsistent with the seeming truism that first-person thought is always about the thinker of the thought. But on the other hand, ensuring consistency with that truism seems doomed to make any answer to (...) the question unsatisfying. Contrary to a careful and enticing recent effort to both sharpen and escape this dilemma by Daniel Morgan, I will argue that the dilemma remains pressing both for broadly epistemic and broadly causal-acquaintance-based accounts of the aboutness of first-person thought. (shrink)

The disjunction problem and the distality problem each presents a challenge that any theory of mental content must address. Here we consider their bearing on purely probabilistic causal theories. In addition to considering these problems separately, we consider a third challenge—that a theory must solve both. We call this “the hard problem.” We consider 8 basic ppc theories along with 240 hybrids of them, and show that some can handle the disjunction problem and some can handle the distality problem, but (...) none can handle the hard problem. This is our main result. We then discuss three possible responses to that result, and argue that though the first two fail, the third has some promise. (shrink)

This paper investigates the question of whether know-how can be regarded as a form of non-propositional intentionality.

Book synopsis: Our mental lives are entwined with the world. There are worldly things that we have beliefs about and things in the world we desire to have happen. We find some things fearsome and others likable. The puzzle of intentionality — how it is that our minds make contact with the world — is one of the oldest and most vexed issues facing philosophers. Many contemporary philosophers and cognitive scientists have been attracted to the idea that our minds represent (...) the world. This book explores an important assumption about representation, namely, that when we represent things in the world, we represent them as having properties, and in this way our representations have "propositional" structure. The contributors examine what the commitment to propositionalism amounts to; illuminate why one might find the thesis attractive ; and consider ways in which one might depart from propositionalism. The hope is that this will lead towards a more complete understanding of how the mind and world are connected. (shrink)

In his 1953 lectures at the College de France, Merleau-Ponty dedicated much effort to further developing his idea of embodied subject and interpreted fresh sources that he did not use in Phenomenology of Perception. Notably, he studied more in depth the neurological notion of "body schema". According to Merleau-Ponty, the body schema is a practical diagram of our relationships to the world, an action-based norm with reference to which things make sense. Merleau-Ponty more precisely tried to describe the fundamentally dynamic (...) unity of the body, i.e. the fact there are various possibilities how the practical "diagram" of body schema could be de-differentiated (in pathology) or further refined (via cognitive and cultural superstructures, symbolic systems). This chapter summarises Merleau-Ponty's interpretation of the notion, while contrasting it to the more traditional understanding of the body in phenomenology and recent philosophical texts dealing with body schema. (shrink)

Our topic is the theory of topics. My goal is to clarify and evaluate three competing traditions: what I call the way-based approach, the atom-based approach, and the subject-predicate approach. I develop criteria for adequacy using robust linguistic intuitions that feature prominently in the literature. Then I evaluate the extent to which various existing theories satisfy these constraints. I conclude that recent theories due to Parry, Perry, Lewis, and Yablo do not meet the constraints in total. I then introduce the (...) issue-based theory—a novel and natural entry in the atom-based tradition that meets our constraints. In a coda, I categorize a recent theory from Fine as atom-based, and contrast it to the issue-based theory, concluding that they are evenly matched, relative to our main criteria of adequacy. I offer tentative reasons to nevertheless favour the issue-based theory. (shrink)

According to a classic position in analytic philosophy of mind, we must interpret agents as largely rational in order to be able to attribute intentional mental states to them. However, adopting this position requires clarifying in what way and by which criteria agents can still be irrational. In this paper I will offer one such criterion. More specifically, I argue that the kind of rationality methodologically required by intentional interpretation is to be specified in terms of psychological efficacy. Thereby, this (...) notion can be distinguished from a more commonly used notion of rationality and hence cannot be shown to be undermined by the potential prevalence of a corresponding kind of irrationality. (shrink)

Propositionalism is the view that all intentional states are propositional states, which are states with a propositional content, while objectualism is the view that at least some intentional states are objectual states, which are states with objectual contents, such as objects, properties, and kinds. This paper argues that there are two distinct ways of understanding propositionalism and objectualism: (1) as views about the deep nature of the contents of intentional states, and (2) as views about the superficial character of the (...) contents of intentional states. I argue that we should understand the views in the second way. I also argue that the propositionalism debate is fairly independent from debates over the deep nature of intentionality, and that this has implications for arguments for propositionalism and objectualism from claims about the nature of intentional content. I close with a short discussion of how related points apply to the debate over singular content. (shrink)