Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meyering, T. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Some Problems Concerning a Relational Concept of Mind

T. C. Meyering

Leiden University, meyering{at}rulcri-leidenuniv.nl

In discussing Looren de Jong's `Some Remarks on a Relational Concept of Mind' (1997), this paper signals some foundational problems for ecological psychology, indeed for any psychology trying to incorporate a `relational' concept of mind. Central to Gibson's theory is the notion of function. But how scientifically viable are (teleo)functional explanations? Specifically, the paper critically examines whether such ('broad') functional categories as sensitivity-for-affordances (a crucial notion in Gibson's theory) but also Marr's `solid-object detection' or Churchlands' `food-detection' are respectable psychological categories that are grounded in some causally explanatory theory; or whether they have no more than folk-psychological significance. A third, more intriguing, option would be that these categories are indeed causally inert, but nevertheless do generate unadulterated `functional' explanations that are scientifically respectable without being causally explanatory. To defend this third option the standard appeal to multiple realizability is shown to be inadequate. Instead the notion of multiple supervenience is developed. It is argued that this notion effectively justifies the use of teleofunctional explanations compatibly with naturalist constraints on psychological theory formation.

Key Words: ecological psychology • function • functional explanation • Gibson • multiple realizability • multiple supervenience

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 2, 173-186 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354397072002


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
R. A. Jones
Psychological Value and Symbol Formation
Theory Psychology, April 1, 2001; 11(2): 233 - 254.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
H. L. de Jong
Functions and Causes: A Reply to Meyering (1997)
Theory Psychology, April 1, 1997; 7(2): 187 - 190.
[Abstract]