@misc{Lexicon of Arguments, title = {Quotation from: Lexicon of Arguments – Concepts - Ed. Martin Schulz, 28 Mar 2024}, author = {Papineau,David}, subject = {Content}, note = {I 253 Drive/Animal/Content/Papineau: Purpose-Means-thinking/Papineau: Level 0: "Monomats": Tue V Level 1: "Opportunists": If B, do V >Purposes/Papineau. I 248 Level 2: "people in need": If B and T, do V Level 3: "Voter": If B1 and T1, do V1, IF T1 is the dominant need A comparative mechanism is needed here. Level 4: "Learners": AFTER experience has shown that B1, T1, and V1 result in a reward, then ... (like 3). >Learning. Level 2 does not necessarily entail 3. There can be something like Buridan's donkey, which works reliably when only one drive is activated. >Buridan's donkey. Level 4: here drives play a further role: they intensify behavior, which lead to the reduction of drives. >Behavior, >Drives. I 254 Drive/Content/Papineau: through this complexity, it is uncertain what the exact content is, which the drives represent. A) Should it consist in the specific results? B) or in the different effects? Papineau pro b). >Thinking, >Animals, cf. >Animal language.}, note = { Papineau I David Papineau "The Evolution of Means-End Reasoning" in: D. Papineau: The Roots of Reason, Oxford 2003, pp. 83-129 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild, Frankfurt/M. 2005 Papineau II David Papineau The antipathetic fallacy and the boundaries of consciousness In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Papineau III D. Papineau Thinking about Consciousness Oxford 2004 }, file = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=472161} url = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=472161} }