Thesis (Ph. D.)--York University, 2000. Graduate Programme in Philosophy. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 303-308). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ56216.

The celebrated 'veil-of-ideas' argument is a skeptical argument that moves from a certain epistemological doctrine about perception to a general negative conclusion concerning our thoughts about external material objects. Indeed, the argument concludes not only that we do not know, but that neither could we know nor even reasonably believe, any of the thoughts that we may possibly entertain concerning external material objects. The epistemological doctrine about perception referred to in the argument has been in fashion since Descartes and states that the nature of perceptual knowledge in general is inferential. / In this thesis, we will attempt to defuse this argument by calling into question the epistemological doctrine upon which it relies. This method of defusing the argument appeals to some of the reasoning to be found in the writings of J. L. Austin and, more recently, John McDowell. The following is a rough outline of how we will proceed. First, we will briefly look at the skeptical argument in question. Second, we will examine the mainstay of the epistemological doctrine, the Argument from Illusion, and argue that without the appeal to a certain view about the nature of appearance, this argument is ineffective. Third, we will adduce reasons for rejecting this view of appearance and put forward an alternative. This alternative requires us to construe knowledge in fallibilist rather than infallibilist terms. Thus, finally, we will examine the fallibilist and infallibilist conceptions of knowledge.

Thesis (Ph. D)--UCLA, 2008. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 174-182).

No description available.

How should we account for our ability to entertain simple, vision-based demonstrative thoughts about particular objects (that is, our ability to entertain thoughts about particular objects simply on the basis of seeing them)? In this thesis I propose an account of this ability that accords with the common-sense view that seeing an object puts one in a position to single it out by visually attending to it, and that this provides one with the ability to entertain demonstrative thoughts about it. An account of this type requires that we account for what it is to see a particular object and to visually attend to it without appealing to particular demonstrative abilities. However, it has been argued that a notion of seeing an object, and similarly a notion of attending to an object, which is accounted for in this way is unsuitable for accounting for demonstrative abilities. I argue that there is no real problem: what we need is a notion of experiential content which is concept-dependent only in a general manner. That is, the account of the relevant notion of experiential content requires appeal to the subject's conceptual abilities, but the account is not given in terms of specific conceptual abilities (especially, not specific demonstrative abilities). I then characterize a notion of attention to a seen object which can be accounted for without appeal to particular demonstrative abilities, and explain how attending to an object in the relevant sense provides the subject with the ability to think about the object demonstratively. It is widely agreed that spatial location plays a central role in an account of demonstratives. I explain this role in terms of the role played by location in visual attention to the object and the subject's grasp of the fact that he attends to the object.

Univ., Diss.--Freiburg, 2005.

Thesis (Ph. L.)--Catholic University of America, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 100-104).

Thesis (Ph. L.)--Catholic University of America, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 100-104).

While the search for models and explanations of cognitive phenomena is a growing area of research, there is no consensus on what counts as a good explanation in cognitive science. This Ph.D. thesis offers a philosophical exploration of the different frameworks adopted to explain cognitive behaviour. It then builds on this systematic exploration to offer a new understanding of the explanatory standards employed in the construction and justification of models and modelling frameworks in cognitive science. Sub-goals of the project include a better understanding of some theoretical terms adopted in cognitive science and a deep analysis of the role of representation in explanations of cognitive phenomena. Results of this project can advance the debate on issues in general philosophy of cognitive science and be valuable for guiding future scientific and cognitive research. In particular, the goals of the thesis are twofold: (i) to provide some necessary desiderata that genuine explanations in cognitive science need to meet; (ii) to identify the framework that is most apt to generate such good explanations. With reference to the first goal, I claim that a good explanation needs to provide predictions and descriptions of mechanisms. With regards to the second goal, I argue that the neurocomputational framework can meet these two desiderata. In order to articulate the first claim, I discuss various possible desiderata of good explanations and I motivate why the ability to predict and to identify mechanisms are necessary features of good explanations in cognitive science. In particular, I claim that a good explanation should advance our understanding of the cognitive phenomenon under study, together with providing a clear specification of the components and their interactions that regularly bring the phenomenon about. I motivate the second claim by examining various frameworks employed to explain cognitive phenomena: the folk-psychological, the anti-representational, the solely subpersonal and the neurocomputational frameworks. I criticise the folk-psychological framework for meeting only the predictive criterion and I stress the inadequacy of its account of cause and causal explanation by engaging with James Woodward’s manipulationist theory of causation and causal explanation. By examining the anti-representational framework, I claim that the notion of representation is necessary to predict and to generalise cognitive phenomena. I reach the same conclusion by engaging with William Ramsey (2007) and Jose Luis Bermudez (2003). I then analyse the solely subpersonal framework and I argue that certain personal-level concepts are indeed required to successfully explain cognitive behaviour. Finally, I introduce the neurocomputational framework as more promising than the alternatives in explaining cognitive behaviour. I support this claim by assessing the framework’s ability to: (i) meet the two necessary criteria for good explanations; (ii) overcome some of the other frameworks’ explanatory limits. In particular, via an analysis of one of its family of models — Bayesian models — I argue that the neurocomputational framework can suggest a more adequate notion of representation, shed new light on the problem of how to bridge personal and subpersonal explanations, successfully meet the prediction criterion (it values predictions as a means to evaluate the goodness of an explanation) and can meet the mechanistic criterion (its model-based methodology opens up the possibility to study the nature of internal and unobservable components of cognitive phenomena).

This thesis deals primarily with metaphysical issues concerning human sensory/ perceptual experiences, and with questions about the formal representation of these experiences. In this respect it is similar to N. Goodman's The Structure of Appearance, which is discussed at some length. I establish a way of des- cribing and formally representing certain structures which must occur in sensory/ perceptual experiences, regardless of how the features of these experiences are categorized in terms of being physical or being mental. A special ("ontological- ly neutral") conceptual scheme which reflects the neutrality with respect to these categorizations, and which is particularistic in the sense of admitting sensory/per- ceptual individuals (sensations), is introduced for this purpose. The choice of a particularistic conceptual scheme in this context is supported by an argument which shows that the so-called adverbial approach is insufficient for describing sensory/perceptual experiences. To achieve the desired formal representation, I introduce an original generalization of the standard formalism for semantic 1st -order predicate theories which involves incomplete models, and a type of structured primitive predicates. Based on a Kantian view of the function of concepts in experience, I then give an account of experiential colour-predicates (like x looks red) in ontologi- cally neutral terms. This account, involving a special class of sensory/perceptual individuals (colour-tokens), has the particular advantage of avoiding the short- comings of both sense-datum theories and the views held by C. Peacocke in Sense and Content. This is followed by an account of experiential intentionality (in ontologically neutral terms) which shows how intentionality, as occurring in the context of sensory/perceptual experiences, can have a relational nature, des- pite the well-known problems of substitutivity and intentional inexistence which are traditionally associated with intentional relations.