Inaug.-diss.--Basel. / Cover title. Vita.

Thesis--Basel, 1948. / Bibliographical notes: p. 169-183.

Inaug.-diss.--Basel. / Cover title. Vita.

This thesis examines Aristotle’s dynamic, organic model of teleological explanation to see if it is a viable alternative to material reductionism. I argue that his teleology provides both a model for and an overview of the scientific enterprise. Aristotle’s theory of knowledge and perception is capable of exerting a unifying effect on the diversity of knowledge. The adoption of substance ontology gives a deeper understanding of any subject than a strictly cause-effect approach. His hylomorphism provides a clearer idea of the role of necessity in regular natural processes, and identifies the role of chance events as accidental anomalies. His actual-potential distinction is the key to understanding both Aristotle’s teleological approach and the complexity and diversity of living things. Aristotle’s teleology does not use only finality: all four conditions of change are incorporated as necessary and sufficient conditions for explanation and full understanding of change. Aristotle’s teleology, based on the human being as part of nature, is applicable at least in biological sciences to provide both a scientific methodology and a scientific method for the study of nature. It is particularly relevant to ecological studies, while his notion of the ‘good’ could be an acceptable criterion for funding of sustainable development.

The purpose of this dissertation is to advance our understanding of the intentionality and causal efficacy of mental states. More specifically, the dissertation is intended to help justify an appeal to teleological functions in the philosophy of mind. I start by examining the disjunction problem as encountered by causal/ information-theoretic accounts of intentionality. Such accounts individuate the content of mental states on the basis of their cause or the information they carry. As a result, they require a principled method of ruling out those cases in which a state is tokened in the "wrong" circumstances. Without such a method, a state's content could be massively disjunctive and error would be impossible. The dissertation then considers one type of purported solution, viz., teleological functionalism. The basic idea is that an analogy between malfunction and misrepresentation will help solve the disjunction problem by invoking a suitably naturalised notion of normativity. A state's content need not be what caused it but, rather, what should have caused it. I argue that there are two legitimate ways of understanding teleological function in this context. Selectionist theories— the current favourites— attribute functions on the basis of selection history; a thing's function is that effect or behaviour for which it has been selected. In contrast, systems-theoretic accounts attribute function on the basis of an analysis of components with regard to the workings of a whole; a thing's function is that effect or behaviour which contributes to the performance of the whole, of which that thing is a part. Upon examination, it becomes apparent that neither notion of function meets all the desiderata one might reasonably expect need to be met. This is explicable— the different notions are suited to two different, though related, explanatory projects. I argue that selectionist construals of teleological function are appropriate when, roughly, the project is that of explaining why extant features are present in the distribution and form that they are. In contrast, systems-theoretic construals of teleological function are appropriate when, roughly, the project is that of explaining how these features work. Furthermore, I argue that, from the perspective of a causal/ information-theoretic account, the normativity that is required for the project of individuating the content of mental states cannot derive solely from history. Knowing what served one's ancestors is not sufficient for knowing what one is doing now, let alone what one should be doing now. A systems-theoretic (and more specifically, a structural) teleological functional approach to the problem of intentionality, because it is importantly ahistorical, has the merit of incorporating normative considerations into the philosophy of mind without rendering the causal efficacy of intentional states unnecessarily mysterious. It also has the merit of allowing for those attributions of teleological function in biology that would not be overturned by new evolutionary information regarding selection history. Adherence solely to an etiological construal of teleological function is too restrictive in both domains. The dissertation ends with a defence of the structural approach against the charge that it is too liberal in attributing functions.

The purpose of this dissertation is to advance our understanding of the intentionality and causal efficacy of mental states. More specifically, the dissertation is intended to help justify an appeal to teleological functions in the philosophy of mind. I start by examining the disjunction problem as encountered by causal/ information-theoretic accounts of intentionality. Such accounts individuate the content of mental states on the basis of their cause or the information they carry. As a result, they require a principled method of ruling out those cases in which a state is tokened in the "wrong" circumstances. Without such a method, a state's content could be massively disjunctive and error would be impossible. The dissertation then considers one type of purported solution, viz., teleological functionalism. The basic idea is that an analogy between malfunction and misrepresentation will help solve the disjunction problem by invoking a suitably naturalised notion of normativity. A state's content need not be what caused it but, rather, what should have caused it. I argue that there are two legitimate ways of understanding teleological function in this context. Selectionist theories— the current favourites— attribute functions on the basis of selection history; a thing's function is that effect or behaviour for which it has been selected. In contrast, systems-theoretic accounts attribute function on the basis of an analysis of components with regard to the workings of a whole; a thing's function is that effect or behaviour which contributes to the performance of the whole, of which that thing is a part. Upon examination, it becomes apparent that neither notion of function meets all the desiderata one might reasonably expect need to be met. This is explicable— the different notions are suited to two different, though related, explanatory projects. I argue that selectionist construals of teleological function are appropriate when, roughly, the project is that of explaining why extant features are present in the distribution and form that they are. In contrast, systems-theoretic construals of teleological function are appropriate when, roughly, the project is that of explaining how these features work. Furthermore, I argue that, from the perspective of a causal/ information-theoretic account, the normativity that is required for the project of individuating the content of mental states cannot derive solely from history. Knowing what served one's ancestors is not sufficient for knowing what one is doing now, let alone what one should be doing now. A systems-theoretic (and more specifically, a structural) teleological functional approach to the problem of intentionality, because it is importantly ahistorical, has the merit of incorporating normative considerations into the philosophy of mind without rendering the causal efficacy of intentional states unnecessarily mysterious. It also has the merit of allowing for those attributions of teleological function in biology that would not be overturned by new evolutionary information regarding selection history. Adherence solely to an etiological construal of teleological function is too restrictive in both domains. The dissertation ends with a defence of the structural approach against the charge that it is too liberal in attributing functions. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Notre Dame, 2004. / Thesis directed by Phillip R. Sloan and Michael J. Loux for the Program in History and Philosophy of Science. "January 2004." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 278-285).

No description available.

No description available.