Abstract
In response to Michael Morris, I attempt to refute the crucial second premise of the argument, which states that the formality condition cannot be satisfied “non-stipulatively” in computational systems. I defend the view of representation urged in Meaning and Mental Representation against the charge that it makes content stipulative and therefore irrelevant to the explanation of cognition. Some other reservations are expressed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
ChurchlandPaul (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
CumminsR. (1983), The Nature of Psychological Explanation, Cambridge, MA: MIT/Bradford Books.
CumminsR. (1989), Meaning and Mental Representation, Cambridge, MA: MIT/Bradford Books.
FodorJ. (1980), ‘Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 63–109.
FodorJ. (1989), Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge, MA, MIT/Bradford Books.
HaugelandJ. (1985), Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea, Cambridge, MA: MIT/Bradford Books.
MillikanR. (1984), Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, Cambridge, MA: MIT/ Bradford Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cummins, R. Form, interpretation, and the uniqueness of content: Response to Morris. Minds and Machines 1, 31–42 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00360577
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00360577