Volume 19 (2006), Issue 4
Manuscripts:
Justin C. Fisher
Does Simulation Theory Really Involve Simulation?
This paper contributes to an ongoing debate regarding the cognitive processes involved when one person predicts a target person’s behavior and/or attributes a mental state to that target person. According to simulation theory, a person typically performs these tasks by employing some part of her brain as a simulation of what is going on in a corresponding part of the brain of the target person. I propose a general intuitive analysis of what simulation means. Simulation is a particular way of using one process to acquire knowledge about another process. What distinguishes simulation from other ways of acquiring knowledge is that simulation requires, for its non-accidental success, that the simulating process reflect significant aspects of the simulated process. This conceptual work is of independent philosophical interest, but it also enables me to argue for two conclusions that are of great significance to the debate about mental simulation theory. First, I argue that, in order to stake a non-trivial claim, simulation theory must hold that mental simulation involves what I call concretely similar processes. Second, I argue for the surprising conclusion that a significant class of cases that simulation theorists have claimed as intuitive cases of simulation do not actually involve simulation, after all. I close by sketching an alternative account that might handle these problematic cases.
Adam Shriver
Minding Mammals
Many traditional attempts to show that nonhuman animals are deserving of moral consideration have taken the form of an argument by analogy. However, arguments of this kind have had notable weaknesses and, in particular, have not been able to convince two kinds of skeptics. One of the most important weaknesses of these arguments is that they fail to provide theoretical justifications for why particular physiological similarities should be considered relevant. This paper examines recent empirical research on pain and, in particular, explores the implications of the dissociation between the sensory and the affective pain pathways. It is argued that these results show that the belief that nonhuman animals experience pain in a morally relevant way is reasonable, though not certain. It is further argued that the proposal to explore the relationship between consciousness and various forms of learning challenges the aforementioned skeptics to provide more physiological details for their claims that nonhuman mammals are probably not conscious.
Gary J. Purpura, Jr.
In Search of Human Uniqueness
Typically in the philosophical literature, kinds of minds are differentiated by the range of cognitive tasks animals accomplish as opposed to the means by which they accomplish the tasks. Drawing on progress in cognitive ethology (the study of animal cognition), I argue that such an approach provides bad directions for uncovering the mark of the human mind. If the goal is to determine what makes the human mind unique, philosophers should focus on the means by which animals interact with objects in their environments, and not on the sorts of tasks they are able to accomplish.
David Jehle and Uriah Kriegel
An Argument Against Dispositionalist HOT Theory
In this paper we present a two-stage argument against Peter Carruthers’ theory of phenomenal consciousness. The first stage shows that Carruthers’ main argument against first-order representational theories of phenomenal consciousness applies with equal force against his own theory. The second stage shows that if Carruthers can escape his own argument against first-order theories, it will come at the cost of wedding his theory to certain unwelcome implausibilities. §1 discusses Carruthers’ argument against first-order representationalism. §2 presents Carruthers’ theory of consciousness. §3 presents our argument against Carruthers’ theory. §4 sums up.
Steven J. Todd
Unmasking Multiple Drafts
Any theoretician constructing a serious model of consciousness should carefully assess the details of empirical data generated in the neurosciences and psychology. A failure to account for those details may cast doubt on the adequacy of that model. This paper presents a case in point. Dennett and Kinsbourne’s (Dennett, D., & Kinsbourne, M. (1992). Time and the observer: The where and when of consciousness in the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 183–243) assault on the materialist version of the Cartesian theater model of the mind relies significantly on the superiority of their multiple drafts model of consciousness as an explanation of the phenomenon of metacontrast. However, their description of metacontrast is, in important ways, inadequate. The result is that their explanation of how the multiple drafts model handles this phenomenon fails to account for the actual data. In this paper I offer a more complete description of metacontrast, show how Dennett and Kinsbourne’s explanation fails, and argue that there are good theoretical reasons for choosing the so-called Stalinesque model over the so-called Orwellian model.
Maria Ruz
Let the Brain Explain the Mind: The Case of Attention
Oversimplified conceptions of cognitive neuroscience regard the goal of this discipline as the localization of previously discovered and validated cognitive processes. Research however is showing how brain data goes far beyond this translation role, as it can be used to help in explaining human cognition. Knowing about the brain is useful in building and redefining taxonomies of the mind and also in describing the mechanisms by which cognitive phenomena proceed. The present paper takes the cognitive system of attention as a model research field to exemplify how biological knowledge can be used to advance the psychological theories explaining mental phenomena.
Catherine Driscoll
The Bowerbirds and the Bees: Miller on Art, Altruism and Sexual Selection
Geoffrey Miller argues that we can account for the evolution of human art and altruism via the action of sexual selection. He identifies five characteristics supposedly unique to sexual adaptations: fitness indicating cost; involvement in courtship; heritability; variability and sexual differentiation. Miller claims that art and altruism possess these characteristics. I argue that not only does he not demonstrate that art and altruism possess these characteristics; one can also explain the origins of altruism via a form of group selection and traits with the five characteristics in terms of a process I call “cultural sexual selection.”
Craig DeLancey
Basic Moods
The hypothesis that some moods are emotions has been rejected in philosophy, and is an unpopular alternative in psychology. This is because there is wide agreement that moods have a number of features distinguishing them from emotions. These include: lack of an intentional object and the related notion of lack of a goal; being of long duration; having pervasive or widespread effects; and having causes rather than reasons. Leading theories of mood have tried to explain these purported features by describing moods as global changes in the mind affecting such things as predispositions to holding certain beliefs or the thresholds for triggering a range of relevant behaviors. I show instead that our best understanding of emotions can show that basic emotions either have or can appear to have each of these features. Thus, a plausible hypothesis is that certain moods are emotions. This theory is more parsimonious than the global change theories, and for this reason is to be preferred as an explanation of some moods.
Book Reviews:
Ronald EndicottReview of Thomas Polger, Natural Minds
Chris J. Onof
Review of William S. Robinson, Understanding Phenomenal Consciousness
Alicia Coram
Review of Zenon W. Pylyshyn, Seeing and Visualizing: It's Not What You Think
Jing Zhu
Review of Alfred R. Mele & Piers Rawling (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Rationality
Matthew Schlesinger
Review of Thomas R. Shultz, Computational Developmental Psychology.
Anthony Landreth
Review of Timothy Schroeder, Three faces of desire