Review Of ' Biosemantics ' Millikan 's Goal For `` Biosementaics ``

798 Words4 Pages
Jessica Scruggs Phil 307 Response Paper #3 11/11/16 Millikan’s “Biosemantics” Millikan’s goal for “Biosementaics” is to explain what connects a representation with the thing it represents. To reach this goal, Millikan has to explain that there are special conditions that need to be met to form a connection between a representation and its object. These “content-fixing” conditions cannot be statistically normal conditions, because normal is a relative term. An example Millikan gives is that of a red face. Is it a sign of sunburn? Exertion? Overheating? Embarrassment? Or, often times in my case, alcohol flush? There are numerous views that focus on the idea that what produces a representation is what makes it what it is. Millikan brings up views by Fodor, Stampe, Matthen, and Dretske. Millikan dismisses Fodor’s idea that content is fixed by a causal connection, but the representation’s role in a functional system is what, in the end, determines how the content is fixed. She dismisses it because having fixed content means to “act like a representation.” Stampe, Matthen, and Dretske say that the representations have a detecting or indicating role, but Millikan also dismisses this as unenlightening, because the terms “detect” and “indicate” basically mean to represent. Millikan refutes all of these notions so that she can explain that the way a representation is used is what fixes the content, not how it was made. The object of representation stands for something because there is

    More about Review Of ' Biosemantics ' Millikan 's Goal For `` Biosementaics ``

      Get Access