In this project, I defend a holistic, internalist conceptual-role theory of mental content (‘Holism’, for short). The account of communicative success which must be adopted by the Holist is generally thought to be unattractive and perhaps even untenable. The primary aim of my thesis is to show that this account is actually far more plausible than the accounts available to competing theories of mental content. Holism is thought to suffer from a special problem of communication because it entails that no two subjects ever mean the same thing by an utterance of the same word-forms, or share the same thought content. Many think that it is necessary for communicative success (or, at least, sometimes required) that the content grasped by the hearer is the same content as that which is expressed by the speaker. As such, theories such as social externalism are thought to be well-equipped to explain communicative success because they can posit shared content. Holism claims that subjects think, and speak, in their own idiosyncratic idiolects. As such, Holists must deny that it is ever required for communicative success that subjects share content. Holists must maintain instead that successful communication requires only similarity of content between speaker and hearer. This is supposed to be a serious cost of the view. In this project, I argue that it is, in fact, a virtue. Views like Holism, which can posit only mere similarity of content, are better placed to explain communicative success than views which can posit shared content. In the first part of my thesis, I argue that externalist theories of content face a dilemma when it comes to explaining communicative success. They must choose between (a), endorsing an account of communication which renders the relationship between the content expressed by the speaker and grasped by the hearer irrelevant to communicative success and (b), endorsing an account which gives implausible diagnoses as to the success and failure of communicative attempts. I argue that the reason that externalist theories face this dilemma is because they allow that content and understanding can come apart. Interestingly, it is, in part, because they posit a communal language that they face the dilemma. In contrast, the Holist’s similar content account does not face the dilemma. It can naturally incorporate understanding into its explanation of how mental content facilitates communicative success because, on Holism, understanding perfectly tracks mental content. In the second part of my thesis, I develop an account of communicative success for the Holist and defend the account from objections. The account claims that communication succeeds to the degree that content is similar across communication partners. In defending the view, I propose a criterion for similarity of content for the Holist. I also argue that (pure) internalists can agree with externalists as to the extensions of concepts and the truth-conditions of contents without the need to appeal to any factors outside of the individual. Finally, I explain how my account of communication impacts upon a theory of testimony. Most work on testimony stipulates that the content of the testimony grasped by the hearer is the same as that expressed by the speaker. I present and defend an account of testimony which claims instead that testimonial exchanges can be successful even when the content grasped by the hearer is merely similar to the content expressed by the speaker.

Within the Philosophy of Mind two features of our mental life have been acknowledged as the most perplexing - consciousness, the phenomenal "what it is likeness" of our mental states, and intentionality, the aboutness or directedness of our mental states. As such, it has become commonplace to develop theories about these phenomena which seek to explain them naturalistically, that is, without resort to magic or miracles. Traditionally this has been done by analyzing consciousness and intentionality apart from one another. However, in more recent years the tide has turned. In contemporary theories these phenomena are typically analyzed in terms of the other. This results in two competing views: Representationalism, which seeks to ground consciousness in intentionality, and Phenomenalism, which seeks to ground intentionality in consciousness. David Chalmers has proposed an alternative view to these which takes consciousness and intentionality as essentially interdependent, neither more fundamental than the other. This thesis explores the motivations for Representationalism and Phenomenalism, outlines their extraneous commitments, and analyzes their merits - as well as assessing whether Chalmers' view is a defensible middle ground. This involves an analysis of the metaphysical doctrine of physicalism, phenomenal consciousness, intentionality, and the nature of mental content. I argue that the view which Chalmers advocates is the best supported. Yet, I argue, it could benefit by adopting a thoroughgoing externalism of mental content.

Concepts are widely agreed to be the basic constituents of thought. Amongst philosophers and psychologists, however, the question of how concepts are structured has been a longstanding problem and a locus of disagreement. I draw on recent work describing how representational content is ascribed to populations of neurons to develop a novel solution to this problem. Because disputes over the structure of concepts often reflect divergent explanatory goals, I begin by arguing for a set of six criteria that a good theory ought to accommodate. These criteria address philosophical concerns related to content, reference, scope, publicity, and compositionality, and psychological concerns related to categorization phenomena and neural plausibility. Next, I evaluate a number of existing theoretical approaches in relation to these six criteria. I consider classical views that identify concepts with definitions, similarity-based views that identify concepts with prototypes or exemplars, theory-based views that identify concepts with explanatory schemas, and atomistic views that identify concepts with unstructured mental symbols that enter into law-like relations with their referents. I conclude that none of these accounts can satisfactorily accommodate all of the criteria. I then describe the theory of representational content that I employ to motivate a novel account of concept structure. I briefly defend this theory against competitors, and I describe how it can be scaled from the level of basic perceptual representations to the level of highly complex conceptual representations. On the basis of this description, I contend that concepts are structured dynamically through sets of transformations of single source representation, and that the content of a given concept specifies the set of potential transformations it can enter into. I conclude by demonstrating that the ability of this account to meet all of the criteria introduced beforehand. I consider objections to my views throughout.

This thesis presents a defense of the view that externalism cannot be a theoretical basis of a mentalistic causal-explanatory science, even though such a theoretical basis is implicitly or explicitly adopted by many cognitive scientists. Externalism is a theory in philosophy of mind which states that mental properties are relations between the core realizers of an individual&rsquo / s mental states (such as brain states) and certain things that exist outside those realizers (such as what the content of a mental state corresponds to in the actual world.) After clarifications regarding the term &ldquo / externalism&rdquo / and reviewing the history and the various forms of the externalist theory, it is argued that the properties offered by externalist theories as mental properties have no causal influence on behavior, and therefore cannot causally explain it. The argument is largely based on a method of comparing the causal powers of entities which are identical in all respects except their mental properties (as construed by externalism), and the conclusions are supported by metaphysical reflections on causation, dispositions, relational properties and historical properties. Objections to the defended view are considered and refuted. The thesis is written in the style of modern analytic philosophy.

Concepts are widely agreed to be the basic constituents of thought. Amongst philosophers and psychologists, however, the question of how concepts are structured has been a longstanding problem and a locus of disagreement. I draw on recent work describing how representational content is ascribed to populations of neurons to develop a novel solution to this problem. Because disputes over the structure of concepts often reflect divergent explanatory goals, I begin by arguing for a set of six criteria that a good theory ought to accommodate. These criteria address philosophical concerns related to content, reference, scope, publicity, and compositionality, and psychological concerns related to categorization phenomena and neural plausibility. Next, I evaluate a number of existing theoretical approaches in relation to these six criteria. I consider classical views that identify concepts with definitions, similarity-based views that identify concepts with prototypes or exemplars, theory-based views that identify concepts with explanatory schemas, and atomistic views that identify concepts with unstructured mental symbols that enter into law-like relations with their referents. I conclude that none of these accounts can satisfactorily accommodate all of the criteria. I then describe the theory of representational content that I employ to motivate a novel account of concept structure. I briefly defend this theory against competitors, and I describe how it can be scaled from the level of basic perceptual representations to the level of highly complex conceptual representations. On the basis of this description, I contend that concepts are structured dynamically through sets of transformations of single source representation, and that the content of a given concept specifies the set of potential transformations it can enter into. I conclude by demonstrating that the ability of this account to meet all of the criteria introduced beforehand. I consider objections to my views throughout.

Esta dissertação é sobre filosofia do entendimento. Buscaremos responder questões como: O que é o conteúdo de um pensamento? Como entendemos um conteúdo de um pensamento? Como se dá uma deliberação? Qual o papel do conteúdo do pensamento em uma deliberação? Que tipo de acesso temos ao conteúdo do pensamento? Para tanto, nos deteremos em analisar a filosofia anti-individualista de Tyler Burge a partir das objeções levantadas por Åsa Wikforss (2006), que defende que o Princípio de Frege é incompatível com a teoria do entendimento incompleto e que a noção burgeana de conteúdo não é capaz de desempenhar à função de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa. Veremos como a leitura burgeana do Princípio de Frege é capaz de dissolver a incompatibilidade alegada. Defenderemos a tese de que o conteúdo do pensamento na concepção anti-individualista é capaz de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa mediante uma compreensão aprofundada do papel do conteúdo representacional na deliberação, considerando sua inserção no sistema filosófico de Burge que o relaciona com a teoria das garantias epistêmicas e da percepção. Ao atentarmos para a distinção entre significado lexical e significado de tradução, apresentaremos um argumento em defesa da tese de que a teoria do entendimento anti-individualista explica melhor a perspectiva cognitiva e é mais condizente com a prática comum do que as teorias do conteúdo que residem no plano de fundo da interpretação de Wikforss acerca do Princípio de Frege. Por fim, proporemos e defenderemos uma leitura alternativa do Princípio de Frege que julgamos exprimir melhor tanto a visão anti-individualista quanto a fregeana. / This thesis is concerned with the philosophy of understanding. We will try to answer questions such as: What is thought content? How do we understand a thought content? How do we deliberate? What is the role of a thought content in a deliberation? What kind of access do we have to a thought content? For this, we will focus on analyzing the anti-individualist philosophy of Tyler Burge with respect to the objections raised by Åsa Wikforss (2006), who argues that Frege's Principle is incompatible with the Theory of Incomplete Understanding and that the Burgean notion of content is not able to fulfill the function of capturing the cognitive perspective from a first person point of view. We shall see how the Burgean reading of Frege's Principle is capable of dissolving the alleged incompatibility. We will defend the thesis that thought content on the anti-individualist account is capable of capturing the cognitive perspective of the first person point of view through a deep comprehension of the role of the representational content in deliberation, considering that‟s insertion in the philosophical system of Burge‟s, who connects it with the theories of epistemic warrants and of perception. Moreover, when we look at the distinction between lexical meaning and translational meaning, we will present an argument in defense of the thesis that the anti-individualist theory of understanding better explains the cognitive perspective and is more genuine to the common practice than the content theories which are on the background of Wikforss‟ interpretation of the Frege‟s Principle. Finally, we will propose and defend an alternative reading of Frege's Principle that we think will better capture both the anti-individualistic and the Fregean views.

Esta dissertação é sobre filosofia do entendimento. Buscaremos responder questões como: O que é o conteúdo de um pensamento? Como entendemos um conteúdo de um pensamento? Como se dá uma deliberação? Qual o papel do conteúdo do pensamento em uma deliberação? Que tipo de acesso temos ao conteúdo do pensamento? Para tanto, nos deteremos em analisar a filosofia anti-individualista de Tyler Burge a partir das objeções levantadas por Åsa Wikforss (2006), que defende que o Princípio de Frege é incompatível com a teoria do entendimento incompleto e que a noção burgeana de conteúdo não é capaz de desempenhar à função de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa. Veremos como a leitura burgeana do Princípio de Frege é capaz de dissolver a incompatibilidade alegada. Defenderemos a tese de que o conteúdo do pensamento na concepção anti-individualista é capaz de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa mediante uma compreensão aprofundada do papel do conteúdo representacional na deliberação, considerando sua inserção no sistema filosófico de Burge que o relaciona com a teoria das garantias epistêmicas e da percepção. Ao atentarmos para a distinção entre significado lexical e significado de tradução, apresentaremos um argumento em defesa da tese de que a teoria do entendimento anti-individualista explica melhor a perspectiva cognitiva e é mais condizente com a prática comum do que as teorias do conteúdo que residem no plano de fundo da interpretação de Wikforss acerca do Princípio de Frege. Por fim, proporemos e defenderemos uma leitura alternativa do Princípio de Frege que julgamos exprimir melhor tanto a visão anti-individualista quanto a fregeana. / This thesis is concerned with the philosophy of understanding. We will try to answer questions such as: What is thought content? How do we understand a thought content? How do we deliberate? What is the role of a thought content in a deliberation? What kind of access do we have to a thought content? For this, we will focus on analyzing the anti-individualist philosophy of Tyler Burge with respect to the objections raised by Åsa Wikforss (2006), who argues that Frege's Principle is incompatible with the Theory of Incomplete Understanding and that the Burgean notion of content is not able to fulfill the function of capturing the cognitive perspective from a first person point of view. We shall see how the Burgean reading of Frege's Principle is capable of dissolving the alleged incompatibility. We will defend the thesis that thought content on the anti-individualist account is capable of capturing the cognitive perspective of the first person point of view through a deep comprehension of the role of the representational content in deliberation, considering that‟s insertion in the philosophical system of Burge‟s, who connects it with the theories of epistemic warrants and of perception. Moreover, when we look at the distinction between lexical meaning and translational meaning, we will present an argument in defense of the thesis that the anti-individualist theory of understanding better explains the cognitive perspective and is more genuine to the common practice than the content theories which are on the background of Wikforss‟ interpretation of the Frege‟s Principle. Finally, we will propose and defend an alternative reading of Frege's Principle that we think will better capture both the anti-individualistic and the Fregean views.

Esta dissertação é sobre filosofia do entendimento. Buscaremos responder questões como: O que é o conteúdo de um pensamento? Como entendemos um conteúdo de um pensamento? Como se dá uma deliberação? Qual o papel do conteúdo do pensamento em uma deliberação? Que tipo de acesso temos ao conteúdo do pensamento? Para tanto, nos deteremos em analisar a filosofia anti-individualista de Tyler Burge a partir das objeções levantadas por Åsa Wikforss (2006), que defende que o Princípio de Frege é incompatível com a teoria do entendimento incompleto e que a noção burgeana de conteúdo não é capaz de desempenhar à função de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa. Veremos como a leitura burgeana do Princípio de Frege é capaz de dissolver a incompatibilidade alegada. Defenderemos a tese de que o conteúdo do pensamento na concepção anti-individualista é capaz de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa mediante uma compreensão aprofundada do papel do conteúdo representacional na deliberação, considerando sua inserção no sistema filosófico de Burge que o relaciona com a teoria das garantias epistêmicas e da percepção. Ao atentarmos para a distinção entre significado lexical e significado de tradução, apresentaremos um argumento em defesa da tese de que a teoria do entendimento anti-individualista explica melhor a perspectiva cognitiva e é mais condizente com a prática comum do que as teorias do conteúdo que residem no plano de fundo da interpretação de Wikforss acerca do Princípio de Frege. Por fim, proporemos e defenderemos uma leitura alternativa do Princípio de Frege que julgamos exprimir melhor tanto a visão anti-individualista quanto a fregeana. / This thesis is concerned with the philosophy of understanding. We will try to answer questions such as: What is thought content? How do we understand a thought content? How do we deliberate? What is the role of a thought content in a deliberation? What kind of access do we have to a thought content? For this, we will focus on analyzing the anti-individualist philosophy of Tyler Burge with respect to the objections raised by Åsa Wikforss (2006), who argues that Frege's Principle is incompatible with the Theory of Incomplete Understanding and that the Burgean notion of content is not able to fulfill the function of capturing the cognitive perspective from a first person point of view. We shall see how the Burgean reading of Frege's Principle is capable of dissolving the alleged incompatibility. We will defend the thesis that thought content on the anti-individualist account is capable of capturing the cognitive perspective of the first person point of view through a deep comprehension of the role of the representational content in deliberation, considering that‟s insertion in the philosophical system of Burge‟s, who connects it with the theories of epistemic warrants and of perception. Moreover, when we look at the distinction between lexical meaning and translational meaning, we will present an argument in defense of the thesis that the anti-individualist theory of understanding better explains the cognitive perspective and is more genuine to the common practice than the content theories which are on the background of Wikforss‟ interpretation of the Frege‟s Principle. Finally, we will propose and defend an alternative reading of Frege's Principle that we think will better capture both the anti-individualistic and the Fregean views.

My thesis tackles two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: • What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept C₁ the same concept as a concept C₂? • What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? I will develop a pluralist and contextualist theory of concept individuation and possession: different concepts have different individuation and possession conditions, and contextual factors play a crucial role in determining what concepts we attribute to other subjects when we ascribe propositional attitudes to them. In chapters 1-3, I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I suggest contextualist theories of ascriptions can be applied to the problem of concept individuation/possession. In particular, I use contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's “publicity principle”, according to which concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. Publicity has important implications: in particular, it is inconsistent with existing versions of holism, on which concepts cannot be shared by ordinary thinkers. Nonetheless, in chapters 4-5 I show how holism can still play an important role in our best theory of concepts. More specifically, I argue that the tradition of appealing to modes of presentation in order to give an account of “Frege cases” is in fact committed to holism. To develop a version of holism that will give a successful account of Frege cases without violating publicity, I suggest we should adopt my pluralist-contextualist picture: on that picture, the concepts involved in a Frege case will be holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts will be more coarsely individuated and widely shared. In chapter 6, I will develop this view further by contrasting it with other pluralist theories (Weiskopf) and with rival theories of concepts, such as the localist views defended by Peacocke, Rey and Jackson.

Dans cette thèse je défends l'élimination des concepts d'attitudes propositionnelles. Dans le premier chapitre, je présente les thèses éliminativistes en philosophie de l'esprit et des sciences cognitives contemporaines. Il y a deux types d'éliminativisme: le matérialisme éliminatif et l'éliminativisme des concepts. Il est possible d'éliminer les concepts soit des théories naïves soit des théories scientifiques. L'éliminativisme à propos des concepts d'attitudes propositionnelles que je défends requière le second type d'élimination. Dans les trois chapitres suivants je donne trois arguments en faveur de cette thèse. Je commence par soutenir que la théorie interventionniste de la causalité ne fonde pas nos jugements de causalité mentale. Ensuite je montre que nos concepts d'attitudes propositionnelles ne sont pas des concepts d'espèces naturelles car ils groupent ensemble les états des différents modules d'une architecture massivement modulaire, la thèse de modularité massive faisant partie, je l'affirme, de notre meilleur programme de recherche. Finalement, mon troisième argument repose sur l’élimination du concept de contenu mental de nos théories. Dans les deux derniers chapitres de la thèse, je défends ce dernier argument. Tout d'abord, je réfute l'argument du succès selon lequel étant donné que les psychologues emploient le concept de contenu mental et ce faisant produisent de la bonne science ce concept ne devrait pas être éliminé. Ensuite je rejette une autre façon d'éliminer ce concept, celle choisie par les théoriciens de la cognition étendue. Pour cela je réfute le meilleur argument qui a été donné en faveur de cette thèse: l'argument du système. / In this dissertation, I argue for the elimination of propositional attitudes concepts. In the first chapter I sketch the landscape of eliminativism in contemporary philosophy of mind and cognitive science. There are two kinds of eliminativism: eliminative materialism and concept eliminativism. One can further distinguish between folk and science eliminativism about concepts: whereas the former says that the concept should be eliminated from our folk theories, the latter says that the concept should be eliminated form our scientific theories. The eliminativism about propositional attitudes concepts I defend is a species of the latter. In the next three chapters I put forward three arguments for this thesis. I first argue that the interventionist theory of causation cannot lend credit to our claims of mental causation. I then support the thesis by showing that propositional attitudes concepts aren't natural kind concepts because they cross-cut the states of the modules posited by the thesis of massive modularity, a thesis which, I contend, is part of our best research-program. Finally, my third argument rests on science eliminativism about the concept of mental content. In the two last chapters of the dissertation I first defend the elimination of the concept of mental content from the success argument, according to which as psychologists produce successful science while using the concept of mental content, the concept should be conserved. Then, I dismiss an alternative way of eliminating the concept, that is, the way taken by proponents of extended cognition, by refuting what I take to be the best argument for extended cognition, namely, the system argument.