.png){kind=icon}
返回
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
摘要
En 中文
Daniel Dennett and Stephen Stich have independently, but similarly, argued that the contents of mental states cannot be specified precisely enough for the purposes of scientific prediction and explanation. Dennett takes this to support his view that the proper role for mentalistic terms in science is heuristic. Stich takes it to support his view that cognitive science should be done without reference to mental content at all. I defend a realist understanding of mental content against these attacks by Dennett and Stich. I argue that they both mistake the difficulty of making content ascriptions precise for the impossibility of doing so.
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
IF:
4.7
论文数:
2.2K
被引数:
6.7K
机构
暂无机构信息
.png){kind=icon}
