Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-7lfxl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T20:44:09.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The language of tactile thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2023

Tony Cheng Open the ORCID record for Tony Cheng [Opens in a new window]
Tony Cheng*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy / Research Center for Mind, Brain and Learning, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan h.cheng.12@ucl.ac.uk www.tonycheng.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article argues that language-of-thought hypothesis (LoTH) is applicable to various domains, including perception. However, it focusses exclusively on the visual case, which is limited in this regard. I argue for two ideas in this commentary: first, their case can be extended to other modalities such as touch; and second, the status of those six criteria needs to be further clarified.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e270
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Block, N. (2007). Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Science, 30(5), 481–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, J. (1997). Sense, reference, and selective attention. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, T. (2019). On the very idea of a tactile field, or: A plea for skin space. In Cheng, T., Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (Eds.), Spatial senses: Philosophy of perception in an age of science (pp. 226–247). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, T. (2020). Molyneux's question and somatosensory spaces. In Ferretti, G. & Glenney, B. (Eds.), Molyneux's question and the history of philosophy (pp. 300–312). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, T. (2022). Spatial representations in sensory modalities. Mind and Language, 37(3), 485–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fardo, F., Beck, B., Cheng, T., & Haggard, P. (2018). A mechanism for spatial perception on human skin. Cognition, 178, 236–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (2007). The revenge of the given. In McLaughlin, B. P. & Cohen, J. D. (Eds.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of mind. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, E. J. (2022). Representing shape in sight and touch. Mind and Language, 37(4), 694–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, P., & Giovagnoli, G. (2011). Spatial patterns in tactile perception: Is there a tactile field? Acta Psychologica, 137(1), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. (1996). Mind and world. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. (2011). The language of thought: A new philosophical direction. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrzypulec, B. (2021). Spatial content of painful sensations. Mind and Language, 36(4), 554–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrzypulec, B. (2022). Is there a tactile field? Philosophical Psychology, 35(3), 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar