I will argue that mechanism is not sufficient to capture representation, thus cognition. More generally, mechanism is not sufficient to capture normativity of any sort. I will also outline a model of emergent normativity, representational normativity in particular, and show how it transcends these limitations of mechanism. To begin, I will address some illustrative attempts to model representation within mechanistically naturalistic frameworks, first rather generally, and then in the cases of the models of Fodor and Millikan.
2024. The Dilemma of Ahistorical Teleosemantics. Philosophy of Science 91:1 ► pp. 58 ff.
Miłkowski, Marcin
2016. Function and causal relevance of content. New Ideas in Psychology 40 ► pp. 94 ff.
Nasuto, Slawomir J. & Yoshikatsu Hayashi
2016. Anticipation: Beyond synthetic biology and cognitive robotics. Biosystems 148 ► pp. 22 ff.
Winning, Jason & William Bechtel
2016. Review of Biological Autonomy - Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio, Biological Autonomy. Dordrecht: Springer (2015), 221 pp., $129.00.. Philosophy of Science 83:3 ► pp. 446 ff.
Abramova, Katerina & Mario Villalobos
2015. The Apparent (Ur-)Intentionality of Living Beings and the Game of Content. Philosophia 43:3 ► pp. 651 ff.
Bickhard, Mark H.
2008. Is Embodiment Necessary?. In Handbook of Cognitive Science, ► pp. 27 ff.
Bickhard, Mark H.
2009. The biological foundations of cognitive science. New Ideas in Psychology 27:1 ► pp. 75 ff.
Bickhard, Mark H.
2021. Emergent Mental Phenomena. In The Mind-Technology Problem [Studies in Brain and Mind, 18], ► pp. 49 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.
