Confronting Language, Representation, and Belief: A Limited Defense of Mental Continuity
Само за регистроване кориснике
2012
Поглавље у монографији (Објављена верзија)
Метаподаци
Приказ свих података о документуАпстракт
According to the mental continuity claim (MCC), human mental faculties are physical and beneficial to human survival, so they must have evolved gradually from ancestral forms and we should expect to see their precursors across species. Materialism of mind coupled with Darwin's evolutionary theory leads directly to such claims and even today arguments for animal mental properties are often presented with the MCC as a premise. However, the MCC has been often challenged among contemporary scholars. It is usually argued that only humans use language and that language as such has no precursors in the animal kingdom. Moreover, language is quite often understood as a necessary tool for having representations and forming beliefs. As a consequence, by lacking language animals could not have developed representational systems or beliefs. In response to these worries, we aim to mount a limited defense of the MCC as an empirical hypothesis. First, we will provide a short historical overview of the... origins of the MCC and examine some of the motives behind traditional arguments for and against it. Second, we will focus on one particular question, namely, whether language as such is necessary for having beliefs. Our goal is to show that there is little reason to think language is necessary for belief. In doing so, we will challenge a view of belief that is widely accepted by those working in animal cognition, namely, representational belief, and we will argue that if belief is nonrepresentational, then different research questions and methods are required. We will conclude with an argument that to study the evolution of belief across species, it is essential to begin the study of subjects in their social and ecological environment rather than in contexts that are not ecologically valid along the social and ecological dimensions. Thus, rather than serving as a premise in an argument in favor of animal minds, the MCC can only be defended by empirical investigation, but importantly, empirical investigation of the right sort.
Кључне речи:
Representation / Nonrepresentational belief / Modern synthesis / Metal continuity claim / Language / Evolutionary theory / BeliefИзвор:
The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology, 2012Издавач:
- Oxford University Press
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738182.013.0003
ISBN: 9780199738182
Scopus: 2-s2.0-84925015217
Институција/група
Filozofija / PhilosophyTY - CHAP AU - Andrews, K. AU - Radenović, Ljiljana PY - 2012 UR - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1517 AB - According to the mental continuity claim (MCC), human mental faculties are physical and beneficial to human survival, so they must have evolved gradually from ancestral forms and we should expect to see their precursors across species. Materialism of mind coupled with Darwin's evolutionary theory leads directly to such claims and even today arguments for animal mental properties are often presented with the MCC as a premise. However, the MCC has been often challenged among contemporary scholars. It is usually argued that only humans use language and that language as such has no precursors in the animal kingdom. Moreover, language is quite often understood as a necessary tool for having representations and forming beliefs. As a consequence, by lacking language animals could not have developed representational systems or beliefs. In response to these worries, we aim to mount a limited defense of the MCC as an empirical hypothesis. First, we will provide a short historical overview of the origins of the MCC and examine some of the motives behind traditional arguments for and against it. Second, we will focus on one particular question, namely, whether language as such is necessary for having beliefs. Our goal is to show that there is little reason to think language is necessary for belief. In doing so, we will challenge a view of belief that is widely accepted by those working in animal cognition, namely, representational belief, and we will argue that if belief is nonrepresentational, then different research questions and methods are required. We will conclude with an argument that to study the evolution of belief across species, it is essential to begin the study of subjects in their social and ecological environment rather than in contexts that are not ecologically valid along the social and ecological dimensions. Thus, rather than serving as a premise in an argument in favor of animal minds, the MCC can only be defended by empirical investigation, but importantly, empirical investigation of the right sort. PB - Oxford University Press T2 - The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology T1 - Confronting Language, Representation, and Belief: A Limited Defense of Mental Continuity DO - 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738182.013.0003 ER -
@inbook{ author = "Andrews, K. and Radenović, Ljiljana", year = "2012", abstract = "According to the mental continuity claim (MCC), human mental faculties are physical and beneficial to human survival, so they must have evolved gradually from ancestral forms and we should expect to see their precursors across species. Materialism of mind coupled with Darwin's evolutionary theory leads directly to such claims and even today arguments for animal mental properties are often presented with the MCC as a premise. However, the MCC has been often challenged among contemporary scholars. It is usually argued that only humans use language and that language as such has no precursors in the animal kingdom. Moreover, language is quite often understood as a necessary tool for having representations and forming beliefs. As a consequence, by lacking language animals could not have developed representational systems or beliefs. In response to these worries, we aim to mount a limited defense of the MCC as an empirical hypothesis. First, we will provide a short historical overview of the origins of the MCC and examine some of the motives behind traditional arguments for and against it. Second, we will focus on one particular question, namely, whether language as such is necessary for having beliefs. Our goal is to show that there is little reason to think language is necessary for belief. In doing so, we will challenge a view of belief that is widely accepted by those working in animal cognition, namely, representational belief, and we will argue that if belief is nonrepresentational, then different research questions and methods are required. We will conclude with an argument that to study the evolution of belief across species, it is essential to begin the study of subjects in their social and ecological environment rather than in contexts that are not ecologically valid along the social and ecological dimensions. Thus, rather than serving as a premise in an argument in favor of animal minds, the MCC can only be defended by empirical investigation, but importantly, empirical investigation of the right sort.", publisher = "Oxford University Press", journal = "The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology", booktitle = "Confronting Language, Representation, and Belief: A Limited Defense of Mental Continuity", doi = "10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738182.013.0003" }
Andrews, K.,& Radenović, L.. (2012). Confronting Language, Representation, and Belief: A Limited Defense of Mental Continuity. in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology Oxford University Press.. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738182.013.0003
Andrews K, Radenović L. Confronting Language, Representation, and Belief: A Limited Defense of Mental Continuity. in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology. 2012;. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738182.013.0003 .
Andrews, K., Radenović, Ljiljana, "Confronting Language, Representation, and Belief: A Limited Defense of Mental Continuity" in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology (2012), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738182.013.0003 . .