At the Australian National University:
Date and time:
Tue, 02/08/2011 - 16:00 - 18:00
Location:
Coombs Seminar Room B
Abstract: Alonzo Church (1958)
argued that “no discussion of an ontological question ... can be
regarded as intelligible unless it obeys a definite criterion of
ontological commitment.” In this paper, I apply Church’s standard to
discussions of the Extended Mind Thesis (EMT). Such discussions, I
argue, are presently defective (if not unintelligible) because extended
mind theorists vacillate systematically and indiscriminately between
ontological and non-ontological articulations of their thesis. I present
strong textual evidence to this effect, and head off some natural
objections. The conclusion of this paper suggests a way forward. I urge
extended mind theorists to abandon the ontological articulation of
EMT. If their basic aim is what they say it is—namely to promote
cognitive scientific progress—then the ontological dimension of their
enterprise is dead weight. Or so I contend.
No comments:
Post a Comment