| Title |
Satisfaction conditions in anticipatory mechanisms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology & Philosophy, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10539-015-9481-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcin Miłkowski |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this paper is to present a general mechanistic framework for analyzing causal representational claims, and offer a way to distinguish genuinely representational explanations from those that invoke representations for honorific purposes. It is usually agreed that rats are capable of navigation (even in complete darkness, and when immersed in a water maze) because they maintain a cognitive map of their environment. Exactly how and why their neural states give rise to mental representations is a matter of an ongoing debate. I will show that anticipatory mechanisms involved in rats' evaluation of possible routes give rise to satisfaction conditions of contents, and this is why they are representationally relevant for explaining and predicting rats' behavior. I argue that a naturalistic account of satisfaction conditions of contents answers the most important objections of antirepresentationalists. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 14% |
| Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 11 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2020.
All research outputs
#15,348,067
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Biology & Philosophy
#504
of 663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,425
of 258,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology & Philosophy
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.