Icons, Magnitudes, and Their Parts
Main Article Content
Abstract
Analog representations come in different types. One distinction is between those representations that have parts that are themselves representations and those that do not (i.e., those for which the Parts Principle is true and those for which it is not). I offer a unified account of analog representation, showing what all types have in common. This account clarifies when the Parts Principle applies and when it does not, thereby illuminating why the Parts Principle is less interesting than one might have thought. Understanding analog representation instead requires understanding the kinds of magnitudes used in a particular representation, and the kinds of variation possible within a representational scheme.
Downloads
Article Details
PLUMX Metrics
References
Burge, Tyler, 2018, “Iconic Representation: Maps, Pictures, and Perception”, in Shyam Wuppuluri and Francisco Antonio Doria (eds.), The Map and the Territory: Exploring the Foundations of Science, Thought and Reality, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72478-2_5
Carey, Susan, 2009, The Origin of Concepts, Oxford University Press, New York.
Clarke, Sam, 2022, “Beyond the Icon: Core Cognition and the Bounds of Perception”, Mind and Language, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 94–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12315
Isaac, Alistair, 2018, “Embodied Cognition as Analog Computation”, Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi 7, vol. 14, pp. 239–260. https://doi.org/10.12832/92298
Kant, Immanuel, 1988, Critique of Pure Reason, Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Krantz, David H., R. Duncan Luce, Patrick Suppes, and Amos Tversky, 1971, Foundations of Measurement, vol. 1, Academic Press, New York.
Kulvicki, John, 2015, “Analog Representation and the Parts Principle”, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-014-0218-z
Lee, Andrew Y., Joshua Myers, and Gabriel Oak Rabin, 2022, “The Structure of Analog Representation”, Noûs, pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12404
Lewis, David K., 1971, “Analog and Digital”, Noûs, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 321-327.
Maley, Corey J., 2023, “Analog Computation and Representation”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1086/715031
Maley, Corey J., 2011, “Analog and Digital, Continuous and Discrete”, Philosophical Studies, vol. 155, no. 1, pp. 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9562-8
Papayannopoulos, Philippos, 2020, “Computing and Modelling: Analog vs. Analogue”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 83, October, pp. 103–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.05.001
Peacocke, Christopher, 2019, The Primacy of Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Redlich, Otto, 1970, “Intensive and Extensive Properties”, Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 47, no. 2, p. 154. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed047p154.2
Shagrir, Oron, 2022, The Nature of Physical Computation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Crítica, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México is licensed under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional License.
Creado a partir de la obra en http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica.