Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T20:42:33.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematicity, Conceptual Truth, and Evolution*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Brian P. McLaughlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 34 , March 1993 , pp. 217 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 1993

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

Block, N. 1982. Imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Braddon-Mitchell, D. & Fitzpatrick, J. 1990. Explanation and the language of thought. Synthese, 83, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. 1988. Thoughts, sentences and cognitive science. Philosophical Psychology, 1, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. 1989. Microcognition. Cambridge MA: MIT/Bradford.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1991. Systematicity structured representations and cognitive architecture: a reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn. In Horgan and Tienson 1991, pp. 198–218.Google Scholar
Crane, T. (ed.) 1992a. The Contents of Experience: Essays on Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, T. 1992b. The nonconceptual content of experience. In Crane 1992a, pp. 136–137.Google Scholar
Cummins, R. 1983. The Nature of Psychological Explanation. Cambridge MA: MIT/Bradford.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 1991. Concepts, connectionism, and the language of thought. In Ramsey, et al, pp. 229–258.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. 1991. Mother nature versus the walking encyclopedia: a western drama. In Ramsey et al. 1991, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1978. The role of the percept in visual cognition. In Wade Savage, C. (ed.) Perception and Cognition: Issues in the Foundations of Psychology, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IX. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 107–128.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1991. Explaining Behaviour: Reasons in a World of Causes. Cambridge MIT/Bradford Book.Google Scholar
Evans, G. 1982. Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1975. The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Crowell, and Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1982. Imagistic representation. In Block 1982, pp. 63–86.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. & Pylyshyn, Z. 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. (1990). A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge MA: MIT/Bradford.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. & McLaughlin, B. P. 1990. Connectionism and the problem of systematicity: why Smolensky's solution doesn't work. Cognition, 35, 183–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heil, J. 1989. Cause, Mind, and Reality. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, T. & Tienson, J. 1991. Connectionism and the Philosophy of Mind. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. & Rey, G. 1991. Meaning in Mind. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. 1991. Is there vindication through representationalism? In Loewer & Rey 1991, pp. 137–150.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. P. 1987. Tye on connectionism. Spindel Conference on Connectionism, Southern Journal of Philosophy, 26, 185–193.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. P. 1989. Why perception is not singular reference. In Heil 1989, pp. 111–120.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. P. 1993a. On punctate content and on conceptual role. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 3, 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. P. 1993b. The classicism/connectionism battle to win souls. Philosophical Studies, 70, 45–72.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. P. & Warfield, T. A. Forthcoming. The allures of connectionism reexamined. Synthese.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. 1992. Scenarios, concepts and perception. In Crane 1992a, pp. 105–135.Google Scholar
Ramsey, W., Stich, S. P. & Rumelhart, D. E. 1991. Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. 1991. Does mentalese have a compositional semantics? In Loewer & Rey 1991, pp. 181–200.Google Scholar
Smolensky, , 1991. Connectionism, constituency and the language of thought. In Loewer & Rey, pp. 201–228.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. 1990. The Representational Theory of the Mind. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 1992. Visual qualia and visual content. In Crane 1992a, pp. 158–176.Google Scholar