пятница, 19 сентября 2014
15:59

For the(anyhow, my)

все записи пользователя в сообществе youtubtrafic
Jean-marc pizano For the(anyhow, my)

 


intuition is very strong that there is only one way to have that concept. In particular, that there is no concept of a round square that one could have without also having ROUND and SQUARE. If you share the intuition that there is thisasymmetry, between RED SQUARE and ROUND SQUARE, then you should be very happy with IA. IA explains theasymmetry because it entails that there can be no primitive concept without a corresponding property for it to lock to.


1


And/or among states of entertaining them. I’ll worry about this sort of ontological nicety only where it seems to matter.


2


Why relations that depend on merely mechanical properties like frequency and contiguity should preserve intentional properties like semantic domain was whatAssociationists never could explain. That was one of the rocks they foundered on.


3


Connectionists are committed, willy-nilly, to all mental representations being primitive; hence their well-known problems with systematicity, productivity, and the like. Moreon this in Chapter 5.


4


Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with just allowing ‘symbol’ and ‘computation’ to be interdefined. But that option is not available to anyone who takes the theory that thought is computation to be part of a naturalistic psychology; viz. part of a programme of metaphysical reduction. As Turing certainly did; and as do I.


5


More precisely: it’s never conceptually necessary unless either the inference from Fa to a — b or the inference from Fb to a — b is itself conceptually necessary. (Forexample, let Fa be: ‘a has the property of being identical to b ’.)

Jean-marc pizano

6


Or, if there is more than one way to grasp a MOP, then all of the different ways of doing so must correspond to the same way of thinking its referent. I won't pursue thisoption in the text; suffice it that doing so wouldn't help with the problem that I'm raising. Suppose that there is more than one way to grasp a MOP; and suppose that acertain MOP is a mode of presentation of Moe. Then if, as Frege requires, there is a MOP corresponding to each way of thinking a referent, all the ways of grasping theMoe-MOP must be the same way of thinking of Moe. I claim that, precisely because 5.3 is in force, Frege's theory has no way to ensure that this is so.


7


See also Smith, Medin, and Rips: “what accounts for categorization cannot account for stability [publicity] . . . [a]s long as stability of concepts is equated with sameness of concepts . . . But there is another sense of stability, which can be equated with similarity of mental contents . . . and for this sense, what accounts for categorization may at least partiallyaccount for ‘stability’ ”(1984: 268). Similar passages are simply ubiquitous in the cognitive science literature; I’m grateful to Ron Mallon for having called this example to my


8


Alternatively, a similarity theory might suppose that what we share when our PRESIDENT concepts are similar are similar beliefs about the probabilities of certain propositions: you believe that p(presidents are CICs) = 0.98; I believe that p(presidents are CICs) = 0.95; Bill believes that p(Presidents are CICs) = 0.7; so, all else equal,your PRESIDENT concept is more like mine than Bill’s is.But this construal does nothing to discharge the basic dependence of the notion of content similarity on thenotion of content identity since what it says makes our beliefs similar is that they make similar estimates of the probability of the very same proposition; e.g. of the proposition thatpresidents are CICs. If, by contrast, the propositions to which our various probability estimates relate us are themselves supposed to be merely similar, then it does not followfrom these premisses that ceteris paribus your PRESIDENT concept is more like mine than like Bill’s.

Jean-marc pizano

9


It’s common ground that—idioms excepted—MRs that correspond to phrases (for example, the one that corresponds to “brown cow”) are typically structurally complex, so I’ve framed the definition theory as a thesis about the MRs of concepts that are expressed by lexical items. But, of course, this way of putting it relativizes the issue to thechoice of a reference language.Jean-marc pizano



URL
Комментарии
13.02.2024 в 05:39

Гость
Здравствуйте, уважаемые участники форума!

Хотел бы поделиться с вами своим значимым опытом поиска рекомендуемого автосервиса в Оренбурге. После многочисленных обращений, я наконец нашел то место, которым действительно остался доволен — AutoLife 56.

Что мне особенно понравилось в AutoLife, так это качество работы каждого специалиста этого сервиса. Мастера не только с высокой точностью решили проблему с моим автомобилем, но и предоставили компетентные советы по его дальнейшему обслуживанию.

Мне кажется важным поделиться этой информацией с вами, так как знаю, насколько непросто порой найти действительно надежный сервис. Если вы ищете качественный автосервис в Оренбурге, рекомендую обратить внимание на АвтоЛайф, расположенный по адресу: г. Оренбург, ул. Берёзка, 20, корп. 2. Они работают без выходных, с 10 до 20 часов, и более подробную информацию вы можете найти на их сайте: https://autolife56.ru/.

Надеюсь, мой опыт окажется ценным для кого-то из вас. Буду рад знать вашу реакцию, если решите воспользоваться услугами АвтоЛайф.

Техническое обслуживание
Вспомогательные ссылки
Познакомьтесь о АвтоЛайфе: наши сильные стороны в обслуживании автомобилях в Оренбурге Опыт использования лучшего автосервиса в Оренбурге завершился успехом: АвтоЛайф 56 Не игнорируйте: АвтоЛайф 56 — ваш лучший выбор в мире авторемонта в Оренбурге Откройте для себя о AutoLife56: преимущества в обслуживании автомобилях в Оренбурге Выбор доступного автосервиса в Оренбурге завершился успехом: АвтоЛайф 56 e01a2bf
URL

Расширенная форма

Редактировать

Подписаться на новые комментарии