Nicolás Sebastián Sánchez

One of Daniel Dennett’s best known and widely discussed views concerns his reflections on the epistemic value of applying psychological vocabulary to account for human and nonhuman behavior. In this paper, I argue that Dennett’s views on the intentional stance shift in his later work, where he treats it as a “subspecies of the design stance.” I will argue that this interpretation eschews the role of the rationality assumption in determining what the system represents, and enables Dennett to answer a traditional objection raised against the intentional stance outlook: arbitrariness – objection: the claim that his view entails that intentional concepts have arbitrary application conditions.

De acuerdo con una caracterización filosófica estándar, el comportamiento humano se hace inteligible a partir de estados mentales, atendiendo especialmente a dos relaciones explicativas: la racionalidad y la causalidad. En el presente artículo evaluaremos cuán adecuada es dicha caracterización respecto a las explicaciones que se dan en las psicoterapias contextuales. Nuestro análisis establece varias respuestas por la negativa. Por un lado, el objetivo de estas terapias no es la comprensión ni la evaluación normativa, por lo que la racionalidad no juega allí un rol explicativo. A su vez, el rol de la causalidad es secundario en la evaluación diagnóstica, dado que en esa etapa del proceso terapéutico es la función de los comportamientos la que busca elucidarse. Finalmente, sostenemos que la intervención terapéutica de estas psicoterapias se centra en explicaciones causales, aunque no desde el modelo de sentido común que la caracterización filosófica supone. Sugerimos, por la positiva, que las explicaciones del comportamiento en psicoterapias contextuales son híbridas: al evaluar apelan a explicaciones funcionales y al intervenir a explicaciones causales.

A constitutive theory of representation must address two challenges. The content determination challenge requires specifying why a particular state has a given content. The job description challenge requires spelling out the explanatory role that representational notions play in that theory. Recently, Nicholas Shea has advanced *varitel semantics* as a hybrid approach to representation to answer those challenges, supplementing teleosemantics with non-historical features –namely, exploitable relations and robustness. In this paper, I critically assess the hybrid theory’s answers to both challenges, arguing that their hybrid nature undermines their merits. In each case, I will show that it is hard to establish how the alleged complementariness of the hybrid account components works. I will conclude that internal problems beset Shea’s theory of representation.

With an extensive amount of research on the social lives of primates, Frans de Waal has been a pioneering advocate for the continuity of human and non-human minds, putting forward the idea that these creatures exhibit rudimentary political and moral behaviors. One of the traits which de Waal focuses on is animal normativity, a set of behaviors functionally defined as adherence to social standards. Recently, some philosophers have endorsed this position, holding that animals show a psychological capacity called normative cognition underlying those and other social behaviors. In this paper, I assess whether advocacy for animal normativity is an exercise of theory construction in comparative cognition. To that end, I present three features of this kind of theory construction. First, the explanatory goal of building functional analyses of cognitive capacities. Second, the conceptual aid of comparative thinking for theory construction. Third, the heuristic value of theory in specifying possible roads of inquiry. Taking these features into account, I assess whether the claims advocates make regarding animal normativity consider them. My answer is negative. First, since some advocates focus on behavioral traits and not on psychological capacities, they are not producing theory in comparative cognition, although, as I argue, they should. Second, there is a disregard for hypothesis testing and no evolutionary considerations to support their views. Finally, the claim that non-human animals exhibit normativity does not seem to have heuristic value.

The distinction between personal and subpersonal levels of psychological explanation has proved useful in order to differentiate ways of understanding human behavior. Yet little has been discussed about how these kinds of explanations would work in making sense non-animals’ intelligent behavior. In this paper I assess the main characterizations of personal and subpersonal explanations and how they could be applied in interpreting animal behavior in a scientific setting. Specifically, my claim is that personal level explanation is especially relevant to explain human actions as singular events. Through this, I will argue that instances of animal behavior can potentially be taken as singular events in the same way in which we take human action to be. Thus, personal level explanation plays an important role in behavioral sciences of non-human animals. La distinción entre los niveles personal y subpersonal de explicación psicológica ha resultado de gran utilidad para diferenciar distintos modos de comprender el comportamiento humano. La discusión teórica en torno a la distinción se ha enfocado particularmente en torno a cómo caracterizar el nivel personal. Sin embargo, poco se ha dicho sobre cómo estas explicaciones operarían a la hora de hacer inteligible el comportamiento inteligente de animales no humanos. En este trabajo analizo las principales caracterizaciones que se han dado de las explicaciones de nivel personal y cómo éstas aplicarían a la interpretación del comportamiento animal en contextos científicos. Específicamente, defenderé que las explicaciones de nivel personal son especialmente relevantes para explicar las acciones humanas en tanto eventos singulares. A partir de esto, argumentaré que también los comportamientos animales pueden potencialmente ser eventos singulares como lo son las acciones humanas. Así, las explicaciones de nivel personal juegan un rol importante en las ciencias del comportamiento animal.