Spelling suggestions: "subject:"twodimensional semantics"" "subject:"twodimensional semantics""
1 |
What sorts of entities does grounding relate?Barnett, Sylvia January 2018 (has links)
The topics of Grounding and Metaphysical Explanation have been at the forefront of research and debate within metaphysics for the last decade. Grounding is commonly taken to be a relation of non-causal dependence. In this thesis I address the pertinent question as to what sorts of entities are related in instances of grounding. There has so far been little enquiry into this issue, and it therefore requires urgent attention. I argue here that the entities involved in grounding are facts, where facts are true Fregean propositions. True Fregean propositions are abstract entities composed of senses, and are individuated according the senses which they involve. I proceed by setting out some desiderata which the entities involved in grounding will fulfil. Firstly, they will be individuated sufficiently finely as to provide instances of grounding to back all putative cases of non-causal explanation. Secondly, they will ensure that there is unity between instances of grounding and instances of causation. Finally, they will be mind- independent. I survey different types of entity and show that true Fregean propositions are best-equipped to fulfil these desiderata. We therefore have reason to believe that grounding relates facts, so understood. The conclusion of this thesis therefore makes it incumbent upon us to extend our ontology to include true Fregean propositions.
|
2 |
Analyticity, Necessity and Belief : Aspects of two-dimensional semanticsJohannesson, Eric January 2017 (has links)
A glass couldn't contain water unless it contained H2O-molecules. Likewise, a man couldn't be a bachelor unless he was unmarried. Now, the latter is what we would call a conceptual or analytical truth. It's also what we would call a priori. But it's hardly a conceptual or analytical truth that if a glass contains water, then it contains H2O-molecules. Neither is it a priori. The fact that water is composed of H2O-molecules was an empirical discovery made in the eighteenth century. The fact that all bachelors are unmarried was not. But neither is a logical truth, so how do we explain the difference? Two-dimensional semantics is a framework that promises to shed light on these issues. The main purpose of this thesis is to understand and evaluate this framework in relation to various alternatives, to see whether some version of it can be defended. I argue that it fares better than the alternatives. However, much criticism of two-dimensionalism has focused on its alleged inability to provide a proper semantics for certain epistemic operators, in particular the belief operator and the a priori operator. In response to this criticism, a two-dimensional semantics for belief ascriptions is developed using structured propositions. In connection with this, a number of other issues in the semantics of belief ascriptions are addressed, concerning indexicals, beliefs de se, beliefs de re, and the problem of logical omniscience.
|
3 |
From Language to Thought: On the Logical Foundations of Semantic TheorySbardolini, Giorgio 03 July 2019 (has links)
No description available.
|
4 |
Les arguments de concevabilité / Conceivability ArgumentsSaint-Germier, Pierre 22 June 2015 (has links)
Les arguments de concevabilité sont des arguments philosophiques reposant sur le principe selon lequel tout ce qui est concevable est possible. Cette thèse se propose d'évaluer à un niveau général cette forme d'argumentation en s'appuyant sur des exemples historiques et contemporains. les arguments de concevabilité, quelle que soit la position philosophique qu'ils visent à défendre, soulèvent en effet des difficultés qui leur sont communes et ont trait principalement (i) à la définition de la notion de possibilitée, (ii) à la définition de la notion de concevabilité, et (iii) à la légitimité de l'inférence allant de l'une à l'autre. Le travail consiste d'abord (chapitres 1-3) à construire la catégorie que constituent les arguments de concevabilité en spécifiant notamment le genre de thèses philosophiques qu'ils peuvent chercher à établir. Une fois précisés les objectifs que les arguments de concevabilité peuvent viser, il s'engage (chapitres 4-8) dans l'examen de savoir si les ressources fournies par Ia concevabilité et l'inférence menant du concevable vers le possible suffisent à les atteindre. Pour ce faire, le travail propose une analyse détaillée des différentes formes de possibilité (chapitres 4-5) et de concevabilité (chapitres 6-8) impliquées dans ces arguments. II aboutit à une position dite sceptique modérée au sujet de la validité de cette forme d'argumentation, sur la base de la démonstration que, pour les thèses philosophiques qui nécessitent l'etablissement d'une possibilité métaphysique, la concevabilitée s'avère être un guide insuffisamment fiable, quelle que soit la manière dont on comprend la concevabilité. Mais il défend aussi l'idée que le fait que les arguments de concevabilité ne soient pas toujours concluants n'implique pas qu'ils sont depourvus d'utilité argumentative: car ils nous obligent à clarifier les implications modales de nos conceptions philosophiques et la manière dont nous pouvons raisonner au sujet de ces implications. Cette conception des arguments de concevabilité est appliquée pour finir à la clarification d'un chapitre essentiel de la philosophie de la cognition contemporaine relatif à la possibilité de fournir une explication naturaliste (physicaliste) de la conscience phénoménale, et ou un argument de concevabilité qui a fait couler beaucoup d'encre, dit argument des zombis, joue un rôle essentiel. / Conceivability arguments are philosophical arguments which rely crucially on the principle according to which conceivability entails possibility. This dissertation provides an analysis and a critical assessment of this kind of argumentative strategy, on the basis of contemporary and historical examples. Various possible explanations of the notion of conceivability are considered and it is argued that the inference from conceivability to possibility does not enable conceivability arguments to reach all their intended conclusions, especially those pertaining to substantial metaphysical issues.
|
5 |
The explanatory gap problemKostic, Daniel 09 January 2012 (has links)
Diese Arbeit bewertet verschiedene Argumente, die nicht nur leugnen, dass Gehirnzustände und bewusste Zustände ein und dasselbe sind, sondern auch behaupten, dass eine solche Identität unverständlich bleibt. Ich argumentiere, dass keiner der Ansätze einen Physikalismus unterminieren, da sie für ihre stillschweigenden Annahmen über die Verbindung zwischen Arten der Präsentation und ihrer Erklärung keine direkte oder unabhängige Begründung liefern. Meiner Ansicht nach sollte die Intelligibilität psychologischer Identität nicht ausschließlich auf einer Meinungsanalyse basieren. Der Haupteinwand sollt dann sein, warum man annehmen sollte, dass eine vollständig intelligible Erklärung auf Beschreibungen der kausalen Rollen als Modi von Präsentationen beruhen sollte. Ich schlage dazu vor, den Blick auf “psychologische Konzepte” zu werfen. Psychologische Konzepte sind Konzepte, die eine Beschreibung von funktionalen Rollen benutzen aber von Erfahrungsqualitäten handeln. Ich schlage vor, diese in Qualitätsraum-Modellen zu analysieren um aufzuklären, warum von phänomenalen Konzepten erwartet wird, dass diese sich durch Beschreibungen der kausalen bzw. funktionalen Rollen auf etwas beziehen sollten. Der Qualitätsraum soll hier verstanden werden als multidimensionaler Raum, der aus mehreren Achsen relativer Ähnlichkeit und Unterschieden in den Anordnungsstrukturen verschiedener Modalitäten bewusster Erfahrung besteht. In meinem Vorschlag ist es möglich, dass einige Achsen des Qualitätsraumes selbst aus ihrem eigenen Qualitätsraum bestehen, so dass wir in die Beschreibungen der funktionalen Rollen “hinein zoomen” und “heraus zoomen” können und damit klarer sehen, wie die Erklärung eines bestimmten Bewusstseinsaspekts gestaltet ist, wenn man ihn in Begriffen psychologischer Konzepte betrachtet. / This thesis evaluates several powerful arguments that not only deny that brain states and conscious states are one and the same thing, but also claim that such an identity is unintelligible. I argue that these accounts do not undermine physicalism because they don’t provide any direct or independent justification for their tacit assumptions about a link between modes of presentation and explanation. In my view intelligibility of psychophysical identity should not be based exclusively on the analysis of meaning. The main concern then should be why expect that fully intelligible explanation must be based on the descriptions of the causal roles as modes of presentation. To this effect I propose that we examine "psychological concepts". The psychological concepts are concepts that use descriptions of the functional roles but are about qualities of our experiences. I propose to analyze them in quality space models in order to unveil why phenomenal concepts are expected to refer via descriptions of the causal or functional roles. The quality space should be understood here as a multidimensional space consisting of several axes of relative similarity and differences among the structures of ordering in different modalities of conscious experience. On my proposal it is possible that some axes in the quality space consist of their own quality spaces so we could “zoom in” and “zoom out” into the descriptions of the functional roles and see more clearly what the explanation of certain aspects of consciousness looks like when thought of in terms of psychological concepts.
|
Page generated in 0.0752 seconds