advanced if only we develop biologically constrained theories was not really taken
up.
The objective of this section is to build on and extend Hebb’s theory of thought
consistently with the key requirements of the philosophical and computational
approaches. Specifically, such a theory should ideally be:
a) Described in terms of a naturalistic theory of meaning.
b) Broad enough to encompass animal, and ideally machine, thinking.
c) Rich enough to be able to account for human thinking.
d) In accordance with observable behavior and biological evidence.
e) An integral part of a (much larger) theory of mind.
The proposed theory makes only two additions to Hebb’s classic work. First, it
addresses the mind-body problem in terms of neural formations. Second, it extends
the notion of ‘thinking’ to fully cover condition (b).
2.1.1.1 The structure of the animal mind: A biological theory of meaning
The pursuit of a theory of meaning is one of the fundamental issues of cognitive
science. Some would argue that it is the discipline’s holy grail (e.g., Jackendoff 2002,
2003). Among philosophers, a few claim that it is an eliminable notion (e.g., Searle
1992, meaning as derived intentionality of linguistic elements), others that is the
foundation for all philosophy (Dummett 1973). Having accepted its necessity, some
have argued for (e.g., Katz 1972) and some against (e.g., Putnam 1988) the
possibility of developing a theory of meaning. Table 1 provides a summary of the key
advantages and disadvantages of the main theories of meaning along with a succinct
presentation of their views on its nature.8 Despite the immense amount of work
though, no widely accepted theory of the nature of meaning exists.
Table 1. Summary of key advantages and disadvantages of the main theories of
meaning.
|
Name and Key proponents____________ |
Nature of Meaning |
Main Advantage |
Main Disadvantage |
|
RTM. Russell 1905, 1919.9_____________________ |
The language-world link |
Pinpointed the relation of |
Too narrow. It cannot account for e.g., |
|
ITM. Grice, 1957, 1968, |
Intended effect on audience.__________________ |
Distinguishes between linguistic |
Inability to combine personal with |
|
UTM. Wittgenstein, ↑1953.__________________ |
Use. |
Recognizes the effect of context |
Ignores underlying mechanisms. |
|
LTM10. Katz & Fodor |
Purely linguistic. |
Inclusion of syntax to account |
Excludes context and the world. |
|
TTM. Tarski 1944; |
Knowledge of truth |
(a) Pinpoints the relation of |
Cannot account for non-truth |
|
AITM. Jonhson-Laird 1977._____________________ |
Procedure. |
As with UTM. As with TTM (b)______________ |
Cannot account for non-executable expressions._____________________________ |
|
Id.TM. Locke 1690; Saussure ↑2006; Ogden |
Encoding. |
Considers the close relation of |
Cannot account for the abstraction |
|
BTM. a) Osgood, 1971, b) Dretske 1981. c) Millikan 1984, Macdonald & Papineau |
a) Function of response. b) The condition that c) Truth conditions of |
Brings in our relation to things. |
Does not recognize perceptual effects |
|
STM, Mead ↑1934*1962. |
Reside in social collectivities. |
Take into account the |
Ignore the biological dimension. |
TM = Theory of Meaning
RTM = Referential TM
TTM = Truth TM
STM = Social TM