Peter Slezak

The problem of explaining the mind persists essentially unchanged today since the time of Plato and Aristotle. For the ancients, of course, it was not a question of the relation of mind to brain, though the question was fundamentally the same nonetheless. For Plato, the mind was conceived as distinct from the body and was posited in order to explain knowledge which transcends that available to the senses. For his successor, Aristotle, the mind was conceived as intimately related to the body as form is related to substance. On this conception, the mind is an abstract property or condition of the body itself -

Externalist theories in natural language semantics have become the orthodoxy since Kripke is widely thought to have refuted descriptive theories involving internal cognitive representation of meaning. This shift may be seen in developments in philosophy of language of the 1970s – the direct reference “revolution against Frege”. I consider Fodor’s heretical thought that something has gone “awfully wrong” in this philosophical consensus, perhaps confirming Chomsky’s view that the whole field of philosophical semantics is “utterly wrongheaded” and “crazy” by virtue of its non-naturalist assumptions and “methodological dualism.” Kripke acknowledges that he was led to his views by his “natural intuition”. Accordingly, I take up the aetiological question Chomsky poses, suggesting that we may go beyond the usual analysis of those doctrines that have been assumed too uncritically “to ask why they seem so compelling”. I suggest that the externalist orthodoxy is a kind of cognitive illusion seen elsewhere in philosophy and cognitive science.

Methodological questions concerning Chomsky’s generative approach to linguistics have been debated without consensus. The status of linguistics as psychology, the psychological reality of grammars, the character of tacit knowledge and the role of intuitions as data remain heatedly disputed today. I argue that the recalcitrance of these disputes is symptomatic of deep misunderstandings. I focus attention on Michael Devitt’s recent extended critique of Chomskyan linguistics and I suggest that his complaints are based on a failure to appreciate the special status of Chomsky’s computational formalisms found elsewhere in cognitive science. Devitt ascribes an intentional conception of representations that Chomsky repudiates and that is independently implausible. I argue that Devitt’s proposed “linguistic reality ” as the proper subject matter of linguistics neglects the problems of tokens as opposed to types and he misses the force of Chomsky’s arguments against Behaviourism and nominalism. I suggest that Devitt’s case against intuitions as data misunderstands their standard role throughout perceptual psychology. Finally, of more general interest, I argue that Devitt’s position exemplifies compelling errors concerning mental representation seen throughout cognitive science and philosophy of mind

In reviewing Finocchiaro's book, I argue that Galileo deserved to be found guilty for the charges against him. A measure of Finocchiaro's scrupulously fair-minded presentation of the issues surrounding the Galileo Affair is the fact that a contrary case against his own exculpatory evaluation may be inferred from his meticulous scholarship. Specifically, to acknowledge that the standards of evaluation and judgment have changed since 1633 is not in any way to diminish Galileo's greatness but, on the contrary, to recognize his visionary insights. Even to acknowledge that he was justly condemned by standards that we no longer accept in science or theology is not to detract from his deserved place in the firmament of scientific genius.

SummaryJ.R. Lucas has argued that it follows from Godel's Theorem that the mind cannot be a machine or represented by any formal system. Although this notorious argument against the mechanism thesis has received considerable attention in the literature, it has not been decisively rebutted, even though mechanism is generally thought to be the only plausible view of the mind. In this paper I offer an analysis of Lucas's argument which shows that it derives its persuasiveness from a subtle confusion. In particular, I examine Benacerraf's reconstruction of Lucas's argument, thereby permitting a precise re‐statement of my own analysis and reinforcement of my conclusions regarding Lucas's mistake. This examination of Benacerraf's reconstruction permits us to evaluate certain radical and highly paradoxical conclusions concerning empirical psychology which Benacerraf draws, and this, in turn, permits us to consider certain suggestive implications for the mind which may, after all, follow from Godel's Theorem.RésuméJ.R. Lucas a dérivé du théorème de Gödel la conclusion que ľesprit ne peut pas être une machine ou être représenté par un systeme formel. Bien que cet argument célèbre contre la thése du mécanisme ait éveillé un interêt considérable dans la littérature, il ňa pas été réfuté de façon décisive, même si ľopinion générate prévaut que le mécanisme est la seule conception possible de ľesprit. Dans cet article, je propose une analyse du raisonnement de Lucas qui montre que sa force persuasive provient ?on;une subtile confusion. En particulier, j'examine la reconstruction, par Benacerraf, de la démonstration de Lucas, ce qui me pérmet de préciser ma propre analyse et de confirmer mes conclusions quant àľerreur de Lucas. Cet examen de la reconstruction de Benacerraf nous fournit ľoccasion de discuter certaines conclusions radicales et hautement paradoxals qu'il en tire concernant la psychologie expérimentale et nous conduit à certaines implications suggestives concernant ľesprit et qui pourraient finalement decouler du théorème de Gödel.ZusammenfassungJ.R. Lucas hat argumentiert, aus Gödels Theorem mUsse folgen, dass der menschliche Geist keine Maschine sein oder durch ein formales System dargestellt werden kann. Obschon dieses bekannte Argument gegen die mechanistische These in der Literatur beträchtliche Beachtung gefunden hat, ist es bisher noch nie eigentlich widerlegt worden, obgleich eine mechanistische Betrachtungsweise allgemein als die einzig plausible gilt. In dieser Arbeit biete ich eine Analyse von Lucas Argument an, die zeigen soil, dass seine Überzeugungskraft auf einer subtilen Konfusion beruht. Im besonderen untersuche ich Benacerrafs Rekonstruktion des Arguments, was rnirerlaubt, meine eigene Analyse in genauer Weise zu formulieren und meine Schlussfolgerung bezüglich des von Lucas gemachten Fehlers zu erharten. Diese Untersuchung von Benacerrafs Rekonstruktion ermöglicht es, gewisse radikale und im höchsten Grad paradoxe Schlüsse, die Benacerraf hinsichtlich der empirischen Psychologie zieht, zu beurteilen. Das wiederum erlaubt uns, gewisse den Geist betreffende Implikationen zu erörtern, die tatsächlich aus Gödels Theorem folgen kUnnten

SummaryJ.R. Lucas has argued that it follows from Godel's Theorem that the mind cannot be a machine or represented by any formal system. Although this notorious argument against the mechanism thesis has received considerable attention in the literature, it has not been decisively rebutted, even though mechanism is generally thought to be the only plausible view of the mind. In this paper I offer an analysis of Lucas's argument which shows that it derives its persuasiveness from a subtle confusion. In particular, I examine Benacerraf's reconstruction of Lucas's argument, thereby permitting a precise re‐statement of my own analysis and reinforcement of my conclusions regarding Lucas's mistake. This examination of Benacerraf's reconstruction permits us to evaluate certain radical and highly paradoxical conclusions concerning empirical psychology which Benacerraf draws, and this, in turn, permits us to consider certain suggestive implications for the mind which may, after all, follow from Godel's Theorem.RésuméJ.R. Lucas a dérivé du théorème de Gödel la conclusion que ľesprit ne peut pas être une machine ou être représenté par un systeme formel. Bien que cet argument célèbre contre la thése du mécanisme ait éveillé un interêt considérable dans la littérature, il ňa pas été réfuté de façon décisive, même si ľopinion générate prévaut que le mécanisme est la seule conception possible de ľesprit. Dans cet article, je propose une analyse du raisonnement de Lucas qui montre que sa force persuasive provient?on;une subtile confusion. En particulier, j'examine la reconstruction, par Benacerraf, de la démonstration de Lucas, ce qui me pérmet de préciser ma propre analyse et de confirmer mes conclusions quant àľerreur de Lucas. Cet examen de la reconstruction de Benacerraf nous fournit ľoccasion de discuter certaines conclusions radicales et hautement paradoxals qu'il en tire concernant la psychologie expérimentale et nous conduit à certaines implications suggestives concernant ľesprit et qui pourraient finalement decouler du théorème de Gödel.ZusammenfassungJ.R. Lucas hat argumentiert, aus Gödels Theorem mUsse folgen, dass der menschliche Geist keine Maschine sein oder durch ein formales System dargestellt werden kann. Obschon dieses bekannte Argument gegen die mechanistische These in der Literatur beträchtliche Beachtung gefunden hat, ist es bisher noch nie eigentlich widerlegt worden, obgleich eine mechanistische Betrachtungsweise allgemein als die einzig plausible gilt. In dieser Arbeit biete ich eine Analyse von Lucas Argument an, die zeigen soil, dass seine Überzeugungskraft auf einer subtilen Konfusion beruht. Im besonderen untersuche ich Benacerrafs Rekonstruktion des Arguments, was rnirerlaubt, meine eigene Analyse in genauer Weise zu formulieren und meine Schlussfolgerung bezüglich des von Lucas gemachten Fehlers zu erharten. Diese Untersuchung von Benacerrafs Rekonstruktion ermöglicht es, gewisse radikale und im höchsten Grad paradoxe Schlüsse, die Benacerraf hinsichtlich der empirischen Psychologie zieht, zu beurteilen. Das wiederum erlaubt uns, gewisse den Geist betreffende Implikationen zu erörtern, die tatsächlich aus Gödels Theorem folgen kUnnten.

In response to widespread doubts among professional philosophers (Russell, Horwich, Dietrich, McGinn, Chalmers), Stoljar argues for a ‘reasonable optimism’ about progress in philosophy. He defends the large and surprising claim that ‘there is progress on all or reasonably many of the big questions.’ However, Stoljar’s caveats and admitted avoidance of historical evidence permits overlooking persistent controversies in philosophy of mind and cognitive science that are essentially unchanged since the 17th Century. Stoljar suggests that his claims are commonplace in philosophy departments and, indeed, the evidence I adduce constitutes an indictment of the widely shared view among professional analytic philosophers.

The republication of David Bloor's Knowledge and Social Imagery is evidence of the continuing interest and importance of the work but also provides the clearest evidence of the shortcomings of the enterprise. The new Afterword of Bloor's second edition addresses criticisms of the Strong Programme, but the theses which Bloor now defends are substantially weaker claims than the iconoclastic tenets of the original manifesto. Moreover, in a related strategy, Bloor asserts that criticisms made since 1975 have given him no reason to modify the original text, but there are judicious alterations which are revealing. These unacknowledged alterations are documented here. Bloor's Strong Programme was founded on the diametrical opposition between his causal sociological approach and the allegedly a?causal rationalist, psychologist or ?teleological? approach. However, once it was shown that the teleological position is not the straw?man he represented it to be, Bloor's diametrical opposition left him no retreat. Just as Bloor weakens the original claims of the Strong Programme to make them appear compatible with cognitive science, so he eradicates the suggestion that the opposing teleological position was ever as absurd as he had portrayed it. The common rationale of these independent tactics leaves little question about their purpose ? and their futility