On Several Misuses of Sober’s Selection for/Selection of Distinction

Topoi 30 (2):181-193 (2011)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Teleological Theories of mental representation are probably the most promising naturalistic accounts of intentionality. However, it is widely known that these theories suffer from a major objection: the Indeterminacy Problem. The most common reply to this problem employs the Target of Selection Argument, which is based on Sober’s distinction between selection for and selection of . Unfortunately, some years ago the Target of Selection Argument came into serious attack in a famous paper by Goode and Griffiths. Since then, the question of the validity of the Target of Selection Argument in the context of the Indeterminacy Problem has remained largely untouched. In this essay, I argue that both the Target of Selection Argument and Goode and Griffiths’ criticisms to it misuse Sober’s analysis in important respects
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-11-02
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 35 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
103 ( #32,684 of 50,091 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #41,052 of 50,091 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.