Switch to: References

Citations of:

Are animals capable of concepts?

Erkenntnis 51 (1):583-596 (1999)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Complex First? On the Evolutionary and Developmental Priority of Semantically Thick Words.Markus Werning - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (5):1096-1108.
    The Complex-First Paradox consists in a set of collectively incompatible but individually well-confirmed propositions that regard the evolution, development, and cortical realization of the meanings of concrete nouns. Although these meanings are acquired earlier than those of other word classes, they are semantically more complex and their cortical realizations more widely distributed. For a neurally implemented syntaxsemantics interface, it should thus take more effort to establish a link between a concept and its lexical expression. However, in ontogeny and phylogeny, capabilities (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • How to reason without words: inference as categorization.Professor Ronaldo Vigo & Colin Allen - 2009 - Cognitive Processing 10:77-88.
    The idea that reasoning is a singular accomplishment of the human species has an ancient pedigree.Yet this idea remains as controversial as it is ancient. Those who would deny reasoning to nonhuman animals typically hold a language-based conception of inference which places it beyond the reach of languageless creatures. Others reject such an anthropocentric conception of reasoning on the basis of similar performance by humans and animals in some reasoning tasks, such as transitive inference. Here, building on the modal similarity (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Observations of Animal Minds.Ricardo Parellada - 2021 - Philosophia 49 (5):2197-2210.
    The relation between conceptual analysis and empirical observations when ascribing or denying concepts and beliefs to non-human animals is not straightforward. In order to reflect on this relation, I focus on two theoretical proposals and one empirical case, the three of which are permanently discussed and considered in the literature on animal cognition. First, I review briefly Davidson’s arguments for denying thought to non-linguistic animals. Second, I review Allen’s criteria for ascribing concepts to creatures capable of correcting their discriminatory powers (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Sphex story: How the cognitive sciences kept repeating an old and questionable anecdote.Fred Keijzer - 2013 - Philosophical Psychology 26 (4):502-519.
    The Sphex story is an anecdote about a female digger wasp that at first sight seems to act quite intelligently, but subsequently is shown to be a mere automaton that can be made to repeat herself endlessly. Dennett and Hofstadter made this story well known and widely influential within the cognitive sciences, where it is regularly used as evidence that insect behavior is highly rigid. The present paper discusses the origin and subsequent empirical investigation of the repetition reported in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Can Animals Judge?Hans-Johann Glock - 2010 - Dialectica 64 (1):11-33.
    This article discusses the problems which concepts pose for the attribution of thoughts to animals. It locates these problems within a range of other issues concerning animal minds (section 1), and presents a ‘lingualist master argument’ according to which one cannot entertain a thought without possessing its constituent concepts and cannot possess concepts without possessing language (section 2). The first premise is compelling if one accepts the building-block model of concepts as parts of wholes – propositions – and the idea (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • No speech, never mind!Monima Chadha - 2007 - Philosophical Psychology 20 (5):641 – 657.
    In a series of classic papers, Donald Davidson put forward an ingenious argument to challenge the ascription of minds to nonlinguistic animals. Davidson's conclusions have been mercilessly demolished in the literature by cognitive ethologists, but none of them have directly addressed Davidson's argument. First, this paper is an attempt to elucidate and evaluate Davidson's central argument for denying minds to nonlinguistic animals. Davidson's central argument puts forth a challenge to those of us who want to attribute minds to nonlinguistic animals. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations