Matteo Colombo

Perceptual Confidence is the thesis that perceptual experiences can be probabilistic. This thesis has been defended and criticised based on a variety of phenomenological, epistemological, and explanatory arguments. One gap in these arguments is that they neglect the question of whether perceptual experiences satisfy the formal conditions that define the notion of probability to which Perceptual Confidence is committed. Here, we focus on this underexplored question and argue that perceptual experiences do not satisfy such conditions. But if they do not, then ascriptions of perceptual confidence are undefined; and so, Perceptual Confidence cannot be true.

The subject matter of this thesis can be summarized by a triplet of questions and answers. Showing what these questions and answers mean is, in essence, the goal of my project. The triplet goes like this: Q: How can we make progress in our understanding of social norms and norm compliance? A: Adopting a neurocomputational framework is one effective way to make progress in our understanding of social norms and norm compliance. Q: What could the neurocomputational mechanism of social norm compliance be? A: The mechanism of norm compliance probably consists of Bayesian - Reinforcement Learning algorithms implemented by activity in certain neural populations. Q: What could information about this mechanism tell us about social norms and social norm compliance? A: Information about this mechanism tells us that: a1: Social norms are uncertainty-minimizing devices. a2: Social norm compliance is one trick that agents employ to interact coadaptively and smoothly in their social environment. Most of the existing treatments of norms and norm compliance consist in what Cristina Bicchieri refers to as “rational reconstructions.” A rational reconstruction of the concept of social norm “specifies in which sense one may say that norms are rational, or compliance with a norm is rational”. What sets my project apart from these types of treatments is that it aims, first and foremost, at providing a description of some core aspects of the mechanism of norm compliance. The single most original idea put forth in my project is to bring an alternative explanatory framework to bear on social norm compliance. This is the framework of computational cognitive neuroscience. The chapters of this thesis describe some ways in which central issues concerning social norms can be fruitfully addressed within a neurocomputational framework. In order to qualify and articulate the triplet above, my strategy consists firstly in laying down the beginnings of a model of the mechanism of norm compliance behaviour, and then zooming in on specific aspects of the model. Such a model, the chapters of this thesis argue, explains apparently important features of the psychology and neuroscience of norm compliance, and helps us to understand the nature of the social norms we live by.

Where does a probabilistic language-of-thought (PLoT) come from? How can we learn new concepts based on probabilistic inferences operating on a PLoT? Here, I explore these questions, sketching a traditional circularity objection to LoT and canvassing various approaches to addressing it. I conclude that PLoT-based cognitive architectures can support genuine concept learning; but, currently, it is unclear that they enjoy more explanatory breadth in relation to concept learning than alternative architectures that do not posit any LoT.

Can facts about subpersonal states and events be constitutively relevant to personal-level phenomena? And can knowledge of these facts inform explanations of personal-level phenomena? Some philosophers, like Jennifer Hornsby and John McDowell, argue for two negative answers whereby questions about persons and their behavior cannot be answered by using information from subpersonal psychology. Knowledge of subpersonal states and events cannot inform personal-level explanation such that they cast light on what constitutes persons’ behaviors. In this paper I argue against this position. After having distinguished between enabling and constitutive relevance, I defend the claim that at least some facts about subpersonal states and events are constitutively relevant to some personal-level phenomenon, and therefore can, and sometimes should, inform personal-level explanations. I draw some of the possible consequences of my claim for our understanding of personal-level behavior by focusing on the phenomenon of addiction.

Climate change, nutrition, poverty and medical drugs are widely discussed and pressing issues in science, policy and society. Despite these issues being of great importance for the quality of our lives it remains unclear how well people understand them. Specifically, do particular demographic and socioeconomic factors explain variation in public understanding of these four concepts? To what extent are people’s changes in understanding associated with changes in their behaviour? Do people judge scientific practices relying on the more descriptive concepts of climate change and effective medical drugs to be more objective (less controversial) than practices relying on the more value-laden concepts of poverty and healthy nutrition? To address these questions, an experimental survey and regression analyses are conducted using data collected from about one thousand participants across different continents. The study finds that public understanding of science is generally low. A smaller proportion of people were able to correctly identify the common explanation accepted internationally among the scientific community for climate change and effectiveness of medical drugs (42% and 43% of participants in the study, respectively) than for poverty and healthy nutrition (61% and 65% of participants, respectively). Older age and political non-conservativeness were the strongest predictors of correctly understanding these four concepts. Greater levels of education and political non-conservativeness were in turn the strongest predictors of people’s reported changes in their behaviour based on their improved understanding of these concepts. Because climate change is among the least understood scientific concepts but is arguably the greatest challenge of our time, better efforts are needed to improve how media, awareness campaigns and education systems mediate information on the topic in order to tackle the large knowledge deficits that constrain behavioural change.