Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Like Knowledge and Like Not Knowledge (SHORTENED)

I'm sorry to keep repeating this but I want everyone to understand where we are. There are principles of object perception that explain abilities to segment objects, to represent them while temporarily unperceived and to track their interactions. These principles are not known. What is their status?

a problem

Three Questions

1. How do four-month-old infants model physical objects?

2. What is the relation between the model and the infants?

3. What is the relation between the model and the things modelled (physical objects)?

The Simple View answers this question. But the Simple View is incorrect. So we need an alternative answer. And it is difficult to find one because ...

Four-month-olds can act (e.g. look, and reach) for the reason that this object is there.

Four-month-olds cannot believe, nor know, that this object is there.

Uncomplicated Account of Minds and Actions

For any given proposition [There’s a spider behind the book] and any given human [Wy] ...

1. Either Wy knows that there’s a spider behind the book, or she does not.

2. Either Wy can act for the reason that there is, or seems to be, a spider behind the book (where this is her reason for acting), or else she cannot.

3. The first alternatives of (1) and (2) are either both true or both false.

\subsection{Uncomplicated Account of Minds and Actions} For any given proposition [There’s a spider behind the book] and any given human [Wy] ... \begin{enumerate} \item Either Wy knows that there’s a spider behind the book, or she does not. \item Either Wy can act for the reason that there is, or seems to be, a spider behind the book, or else she cannot. \item The first alternatives of (1) and (2) are either both true or both false. \end{enumerate}

generality of the problem

The problem is quite general. It doesn't arise only in the case of knowledge of objects but also in other domains (like knowledge of number and knowledge of mind). And it doesn't arise only from evidence about infants or nonhuman primates; it would also arise if our focus were exclusively on human adults. More on this later. For now, our aim is to better understand the problem as it arises in the case of knowledge of objects.
domain evidence for knowledge in infancy evidence against knowledge
colour categories used in learning labels & functions failure to use colour as a dimension in ‘same as’ judgements
physical objects patterns of dishabituation and anticipatory looking unreflected in planned action (may influence online control)
number --""-- --""--
syntax anticipatory looking [as adults]
minds reflected in anticipatory looking, communication, &c not reflected in judgements about action, desire, ...

‘if you want to describe what is going on in the head of the child when it has a few words which it utters in appropriate situations, you will fail for lack of the right sort of words of your own.

‘We have many vocabularies for describing nature when we regard it as mindless, and we have a mentalistic vocabulary for describing thought and intentional action; what we lack is a way of describing what is in between’

(Davidson 1999, p. 11)

Recall what Davidson said: we need a way of describing what is in between thought and mindless nature. This is the challenge presented to us by the failure of the Simple View.