Skip to main content
Log in

Why there are no mental representations

  • Critical Exchange
  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I argue that there are no mental representations, in the sense of “representation” used in standard computational theories of the mind. I take Cummins' Meaning and Mental Representation as my stalking-horse, and argue that his view, once properly developed, is self-defeating. The argument implicitly undermines Fodor's view of the mind; I draw that conclusion out explicitly. The idea of mental representations can then only be saved by appeal to a Dennett-like instrumentalism; so I argue against that too. Finally, I argue that there is no good metaphysical reason in favour of believing in mental representations and that cognitive science can manage perfectly well without them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • CumminsR. (1989), Meaning and Mental Representation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DretskeF. (1988), Explaining Behaviour, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DennettD. (1987), The Intentional Stance, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • FodorJ. (1987), Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • FodorJ. and PylyshynZ. (1988), ‘Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis’, Cognition 28, pp. 3–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • KennyA., ed. (1970), Descartes: Philosophical Letters, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeibnizG. (1695), ‘Explanation of the New System of the Communication of Substances’, translated in G. H. R.Parkinson, ed., Leibniz: Philosophical Writings, pp. 125–130. London, UK: Dent, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeibnizG. (1696), Letter to Henri Basagne de Beauval, translated in G. H. R.Parkinson, ed., Leibniz: Philosophical Writings, pp. 130–132. London, UK: Dent, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • MillikanR. (1984), Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ParfitD. (1984), Reasons and Persons, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • PylyshynZ. (1986), Computation and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • TarskiA. (1956), ‘The Concept of Truth in Formalised Languages’, in A. Tarksi, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–278.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morris, M. Why there are no mental representations. Minds and Machines 1, 1–30 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00360576

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00360576

Key words