Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Computation, Philosophy: among others, the hypothesis that the brain processes signals by algorithms. It is the question of how distinct a mapping relation must be or can ever be between unspecified symbols. Another problem is how far both sides have to be designed semantically._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Christopher Peacocke on Computation - Dictionary of Arguments
I 215 Computation/Peacocke: possible without syntax and without Mentalese. Causal relations and order are enough. >Syntax, >Mentalese, >Causal relation, >Language of thought, >Thinking, >World/thinking, >Cognition. Representation/Fodor: Representation is necessary for computation. >J. Fodor. PeacockeVsFodor: Representation is not necessary. ((s) Peacocke: representation is somehow the same as syntax.) >Representation/Peacocke, >Representation/Fodor._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Peacocke I Chr. R. Peacocke Sense and Content Oxford 1983 Peacocke II Christopher Peacocke "Truth Definitions and Actual Languges" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell, Oxford 1976 |
||
> Counter arguments against Peacocke
> Counter arguments in relation to Computation
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-19