Search

Uno de los problemas señalados habitualmente para criticar distintas formas de representacionalismo es la dificultad encontrar definiciones que no sean semánticas ni realistas en un sentido simple. El presente trabajo aborda esta clase de críticas desde un punto de vista contextualista, asumiendo los aspectos semánticos necesarios para un concepto de representación, pero mostrando que las relaciones semánticas de representación no deben ser estáticas, ni estrictamente referenciales en un sentido clásico y realista. Dos distinciones son cruciales para nuestra propuesta: Por un lado, tenemos la distinción entre sistemas cerrados y abiertos; por otro, una distinción tripartita entre representaciones estructurales, informacionales y semánticas. Con esto, entendemos las representaciones en términos de variaciones asimétricas entre modelos contextuales.

Copyright of Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Artefactos: Revista de Estudios Sobre La Ciencia Y La Tecnologia is the property of Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista MAD is the property of Revista MAD and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

John Searle defends «Direct Realism», which argues that the direct object of perception is the extra-mental reality. According to this theory, there is no intermediary entity between the act of perception and the perceived thing, as a «representation», «resemblance», or «species». Actually, Searle systematically develops a theory of perception which displays the explanatory possibilities of the mentioned thesis. In the present article, we discussed some aspects of the mentioned thesis with the purpose of comparing them with selective medieval thinkers cognitive theories. We intend to show that Searle’s theory offers nothing radically new, and that he falls into avoidable mistakes if he had had a better understanding of medieval historiography that cover such issues. Thus, we intend to assert the importance of the History of Philosophy.

One of the main challenges that representationalism must face is to consistently account for the possibility of scenarios in which covert attention alters the phenomenology of our visual experiences. The present work tries to highlight the internal commitments and difficulties of three different representational strategies to face this challenge: the strategy of indeterminate content, the strategy of mass illusion and the narcissistic project that appeals to relational properties indexed to attention. It will be argued that the latter has evident comparative virtues that the literature has ignored and that justify its in-depth development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

María José Frápolli sostiene que el concepto de verdad es absolutamente neutral e independiente de los debates entre realistas y antirrealistas científicos. En el presente trabajo se analiza críticamente su propuesta y se argumenta que, de manera inadvertida, la autora ha caído presa de una contradicción pragmática: al pretender decir qué es la verdad está implícitamente utilizando una noción correspondentista de la verdad, precisamente, la noción que subyace a los debates entre realistas y antirrealistas, al menos entre realistas y antirrealistas científicos.

Copyright of Estudios Filosóficos is the property of Estudios Filosoficos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Desde os anos 90, a corporeidade vem ocupando um papel cada vez mais central nas explicações das ciências cognitivas. Com isso, surgiram críticas contundentes, tanto do ponto de vista empírico quanto conceitual, à suposição de que a representação é a marca do mental. Apesar disso, cientistas cognitivos parecem relutar em desfazer-se do vocabulário representacionalista. Este artigo tenta lançar luz sobre a questão do suposto representacionalismo de um dos principais paradigmas das ciências cognitivas, o Processamento preditivo, revisando argumentos pela interpretação não-representacionalista de alguns de seus pontos, assim resgatando a ideia avançada pelas teorias da cognição corporificada segundo a qual a atividade exploratória de um organismo em seu ambiente não exige a geração de modelos representacionais acerca do ambiente.

One of the main problems attributed to the higher-order theories of consciousness (HOT) lies in its consideration of non-human animals, as well as infants, as non-conscious beings. In response, some HOT theorists, such as Rocco Gennaro, argue that this claim is based on a false assumption, while others, such as Peter Carruthers, deny that the nonattribution of consciousness to animals is a problem. The present work will describe the criticism mentioned to the HOTs, as well as the two possible replies presented by Gennaro and Carruthers. Taking sides for Gennaro's proposal will be carried out a critical review of the second. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are three interpretations on the theory of intelligible species. These interpretations debate the relationship between the species and the external object and explain the intellective act of the human soul. The first interpretation refers to the species as a way of direct access to the object, in which the intellect would be able to access it due to its own nature. Aquinas' species theory, according to this interpretation, is classified as a naive direct realism. The second interpretation states, to the contrary, a representationalism. The species would not be the first object of apprehension. In the process of knowing, the external object would be known secondarily. A third interpretation about species renders us a modified direct realism. This interpretation supports that species are necessary cognitive resources, and do not imply differences with the external object. The intellect aims for the external object. For this reason, the external object is primarily apprehended, while the species is apprehended by a reflexive act, therefore, secondarily. This paper aims to review the debate between Aquinas and Platonism about the origin of human knowledge on the assumption of these three interpretations on intelligible species. It aims subsequently to present how intelligible species can be both id quod and id quo, since in the first case the form of the external object - present in the intellect - is identical to the form of the external object in its natural form. In the second case, it demonstrates how the intellection of something material - in the immaterial form - needs an intermediary, however, not an intermediary which is itself the first object of intellective knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

O objetivo deste artigo é responder à questão: a teoria cartesiana das ideias é realista direta ou representacionalista? Para responder a essa questão, analiso as noções de ideia, ser objetivo, realidade objetiva e essência nas "Meditações" de Descartes. Eu procuro mostrar que do ponto de vista da apreensão das essências das coisas externas, Descartes é um realista direto. Mas como algumas provas da existência são inferenciais, eu mostro também que deste ponto de vista a teoria cartesiana é representacionalista.

Copyright of Magis: Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación is the property of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Manuscrito is the property of Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Portal de Periodicos Eletronicos Cientificos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Estudios Filosóficos is the property of Estudios Filosoficos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Dentro de los diversos intentos por justificar las normas del discurso práctico son de consideración la teoría universal pragmática de HABERMAS (HABERMAS 1995 (1976); 1983) y la fundamentación última pragmático trascendental de APEL (APEL 1973; 1998 (1976)). ALEXY responde con su fundamentación de las normas constitutivas del discurso a una necesidad sistémica de su teoría de la argumentación práctica (ALEXY 1991; 1993; 1995), que él define como una teoría kantiana (ALEXY 1995). Es por ello que la fundamentación de ALEXY adquiere características propias diversas a los intentos de fundamentación precedentes. Dos niveles de fundamentación componen el argumento alexiano dirigido a sustentar las normas constitutivas del discurso. Un primer nivel dirigido a la fundamentación de la validez universal de dichas normas en el plano pragmático o de la comunicación, y un segundo nivel complementario dirigido a la fundamentación de su validez universal en el plano de la acción. Dado que el argumento que sirve de punto de partida al argumento trascendental que ALEXY usa para la fundamentación de las normas constitutivas del discurso en el nivel pragmático se fundamenta en razones empíricas, dicho argumento no es aceptado por el escéptico en razón a su carácter verdadero sino en razón a su carácter plausible. Una fundamentación tal parece demasiado débil como para sustentar la pretensión ontológica asociada a la revelación de las normas constitutivas de nuestras prácticas discursivas. Con el objeto de complementar la fundamentación de la validez universal de los principios de la razón desde el nivel práctico, ALEXY ha introducido la distinción en el campo del habla entre la validez subjetiva y la validez objetiva de las normas (ALEXY 1995). Respecto a la primera, ALEXY ha afirmado la validez categórica de los principios de la razón. Respecto de la segunda, al justificar la validez universal de los principios de la razón en el campo práctico a partir de la generación de motivaciones e intereses de los sujetos en relación con su conducta externa, ALEXY ha aceptado de manera implícita la validez hipotética de estas normas. Dado que los principios de la razón son condición suficiente para el logro del fin de la práctica argumentativa ideal (ALEXY 1995), el carácter categórico o hipotético que se predique de ellos se predicará también del principio de universalización. En este sentido, de acuerdo a la fundamentación alexiana, el principio de universalización tiene un doble carácter. Desde el punto de vista práctico subjetivo el principio de universalización tiene validez categórica. Desde el punto de vista práctico objetivo el principio de universalización tiene validez hipotética. No obstante, si se predica el carácter hipotético del principio de universalización este ya no será una regla moral en sentido kantiano y de esta forma la teoría del discurso práctico racional habrá perdido su carácter distintivo.

En este artículo abordo los dos argumentos más frecuentemente aducidos en defensa del principio de composicionalidad y muestro que la versión de los mismos ofrecida por Fodor y Lepore malinterpreta la productividad y la sistematicidad de los lenguajes humanos; ello les conduce a una posición atomista y representacionalista acerca del significado y los conceptos. Defiendo que un enfoque pragmatista del lenguaje y el pensamiento no sólo es compatible con la composicionalidad, sino que ofrece una explicación más adecuada de la sistematicidad y la productividad.

Representational theories of consciousness try to explain phenomenal experience by the use of terms without implying consciousness. The two main theories are representationalism and higher-order representational theories (HOR). The key argument for the first one is the transparency of experience according to which, it is impossible to discern, via introspection, any intrinsic properties of an experience of x that are not experienced as properties of x. Representationalism states that our experiences show qualitative features that are identical to the properties things are represented as having, and therefore, phenomenal character of experience is identical to its representational content. On the other hand, HOR theories account for conscious states in terms of higher-order representation, that may take the form of a quasi-perception or a thought that it’s directed to a first-order mental state. In this paper I put forward two arguments against representational theories, on the basis of a theory which affirms that every conscious experience has an implicit pre-reflective self-consciousness of some kind, that it is characterized of having a for-me-ness aspect (sense of ownership). The first argument is against representationalism. The argument asserts that this sense of ownership (1) is an intrinsic aspect of experience, and (2) is discernible via introspection; therefore, the phenomenal character of experiences is not identical to its representational content, and consequently, representationalism is false. The second argument is the problem of targetless higher-order states. Suppose that a subject S has a HOR of being in a pain state p, but without having p. According to HOR theories, p is non-conscious, because it doesn’t exist. But, S’s having HOR about p, will cause that S would have a phenomenal experience of p. Nevertheless this result in incoherent. For pre-reflexive self-consciousness theory, on the other hand, p will not be a conscious state if it doesn’t belong to S, nevertheless S does have consciousness of p (being p different from pain, e.g., a believe, a mental imagery) therefore this sense of ownership is what makes p a phenomenal experience. Las teorías representacionales de la conciencia intentan dar cuenta de la experiencia fenoménica con términos mentales sin implicar la conciencia. Las dos principales son el representacionalismo y las teorías de representación de orden superior. El principal argumento para la primera es el de la transparencia de la experiencia, según el cual es imposible discernir, vía introspección, las propiedades intrínsecas de una experiencia de x que no se experimenten como propiedades de x. El representacionalismo sostiene que nuestras experiencias muestran rasgos cualitativos que son idénticos a las propiedades de los objetos que nuestra experiencia representa y que, por lo tanto, el carácter fenoménico de la experiencia es idéntico a su contenido representacional. Las teorías de representación de orden superior o HOR (por higher-order representation), por su parte, explican los estados conscientes en términos de una representación de orden superior, que puede tomar la forma de una cuasi percepción o un pensamiento que va dirigido a un estado mental de primer orden. En este artículo presento dos argumentos contra las teorías representacionales desde una teoría que establece que toda experiencia consciente lleva implícita un tipo de autoconciencia prerreflexiva caracterizada por tener un aspecto por tener un aspecto: ser característicamente mía o para mí (sentido de pertenencia). El primer argumento es contra el representacionalismo. El argumento sostiene que este sentido de pertenencia (1) es un rasgo intrínseco de la experiencia y (2) es discernible por medio de la introspección; por lo tanto, el carácter fenoménico de la experiencia no es idéntico a su contenido representacional y por consiguiente, el representacionalismo es erróneo. El segundo argumento es el problema de los estados de orden superior sin un objetivo al cual dirigirse (i.e., un estado mental de primer orden). Supongamos que un sujeto S tiene una representación de orden superior (HOR) de encontrarse en un estado de dolor d, pero sin tener d. Según las teorías HOR, d no es consciente porque no existe. Pero, como S tiene una HOR acerca de d entonces tendrá una experiencia fenoménica de d. No obstante este resultado es incoherente. Para la teoría de la autoconciencia prerreflexiva, d no es consciente si no le pertenece a S, pero como S sí tiene conciencia de d (siendo d otro tipo de estado diferente al dolor, e.g., una creencia, una imaginería mental), entonces este sentido de pertenencia es lo que hace que d sea una experiencia fenoménica.

Este artículo muestra las líneas generales de la lectura rortiana de Kant, centrada en su papel como máximo representante de la conversión de la filosofía en epistemología, así como algunas críticas a dicha lectura.

Copyright of Revista Derecho del Estado is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper is an attempt to convince anti-realists that their correct intuitions against the metaphysical inflationism derived from some versions of mathematical realism do not force them to embrace non-standard, epistemic approaches to truth and existence. It is also an attempt to convince mathematical realists that they do not need to implement their perfectly sound and judicious intuitions with the anti-intuitive developments that render full-blown mathematical realism into a view which even Gödel considered objectionable (Gödel 1995, p. 150). I will argue for the following two theses: (i) that realism, in its standard characterization, is our default position, a position in agreement with our pre-theoretical intuitions and with the results of our best semantic theories, and (ii) that most of the metaphysical qualms usually related to it depends on a poor understanding of truth and existence as higher-order concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Este artigo critica a concepção predominante, representacionista-neurofisicalista sobre a percepção sensorial. Introduz a noção de "campo-experiência" na tentativa de tratamento ontológico dos dados fenomenológicos da experiência. A idéia geral é que a experiência visual, por exemplo, seria ontologicamente algo assim como um campo-experiência de intencionalidade visual, que se estende por sobre e entre o sistema nervoso central do sujeito da experiência e o objeto distai da visão. Chamo esta posição de macrorrealismo fenomenológico, em contraste com o microrrealismo científico. Qualidades da fenomenalidade não estão subjetivamente dentro do cérebro, mas objetivamente dentro de campos-experiência perceptuais extra-encefálicos, ou, como dizemos, lá fora no mundo. Algumas conseqüências específicas do macrorrealismo fenomenológico são apresentadas.

El principal objetivo de este ensayo consiste en criticar los supuestos representacionalistas de algunos trabajos de la corriente neo institucionalista de la política. Se sostienen dos tesis fundamentales: 1) la crítica del modelo institucionalista de la democracia a la noción de soberanía popular no tiene en cuenta que el pueblo es una categoría política que muestra el fracaso constitutivo de toda representación; 2) la teoría neoinstitucionalista, en particular en su vertiente histórico–sociológica, se basa en el supuesto representacionalista de que hay algo previo a lo político en la sociedad o en la cultura que debe ser fielmente representado por las instituciones para evitar el desorden.

Copyright of Estudios Filosóficos is the property of Estudios Filosoficos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Perfiles Latinoamericanos is the property of FLACSO - Mexico (Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Laguna: Revista de Filosofía is the property of Universidad de La Laguna and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)