Evolutionary psychology is one of many biologically informed approaches to the study of human behavior. Along with cognitive psychologists, evolutionary psychologists propose that much, if not all, of our behavior can be explained by appeal to internal psychological mechanisms. What distinguishes evolutionary psychologists from many cognitive psychologists is the proposal that the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations—products of natural selection—that helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and reproduce. To understand the central claims of evolutionary psychology we require an understanding of some key concepts in evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Philosophers are interested in evolutionary psychology for a number of reasons. For philosophers of science —mostly philosophers of biology—evolutionary psychology provides a critical target. There is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise. For philosophers of mind and cognitive science evolutionary psychology has been a source of empirical hypotheses about cognitive architecture and specific components of that architecture. Philosophers of mind are also critical of evolutionary psychology but their criticisms are not as all-encompassing as those presented by philosophers of biology. Evolutionary psychology is also invoked by philosophers interested in moral psychology both as a source of empirical hypotheses and as a critical target.

/pdf/stanford-encyclopedia-of-philosophy-1wqoykisq0.pdf

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

ion: The grounding relations are relations of abstraction. The derivative entities, in order to be an ‘‘ontological free lunch’’ and count as no further addition, ought to be already latent within the substances. In other words, the grounding relations should just be ways of separating out aspects that are implicitly present from the start.37 Here is the sort of picture of substances that these diagnostics converge upon: Priority Monism: There is exactly one substance, the whole concrete cosmos. Insofar as there can be no difference in the world without a difference somewhere in the cosmos, priority monism delivers a complete roster of substances.38 This roster is trivially minimal, since the only proper subset of {the cosmos} is Ø, which obviously is not complete. Moreover, this roster is clearly metaphysically general—the ways the cosmos could be just are the ways the world could be.39 And this roster is empirically specifiable since advanced physics is field theoretic physics, and field theory has a natural monistic interpretation in terms of a spacetime bearing properties.40 These diagnostics also converge on: Thick Particularism: Substances are thick particulars (concrete things). 37 Scaltsas imputes a similar view to Aristotle: ‘‘for Aristotle a substance is complex, not because it is a conglomeration of distinct abstract components like matter, form, or properties; a substance is complex because such items can be separated out by abstraction, which is a kind of division of the unified substance’’ (1994: 109) 38 To see the bite of completeness, note that a pluralistic roster comprising point particles in spatiotemporal relations would fail completeness if the whole had emergent features, as are arguably present in entangled quantum systems (Schaffer forthcoming–a: §2.2). 39 In contrast, a pluralistic roster of mereological simples fails generality, since the world could be gunky. That would be a way the world that could be that is not a way that any roster of simples could be (Schaffer forthcoming–a: §2.4). 40 For instance, general relativistic models are <M, g, T> triples, where M is a four-dimensional continuously differentiable point manifold, g is a metric-field tensor, and t is a stress-energy tensor (with both g and t defined at every point of M). The obvious ontology here is that of a spacetime manifold bearing fields. Thus Norton notes: ‘‘a spacetime is a manifold of events with certain fields defined on the manifold. The literal reading is that this manifold is an independently existing structure that bears properties’’ (2004). Quantum field theory invites a similar monistic reading. As d’Espagnat explains: ‘‘Within [quantum field theory] particles are admittedly given the status of mere properties, ... But they are properties of something. This something is nothing other than space or space-time, ...’’ (1983: 84) See Schaffer (manuscript) for some further defense of the spacetime-bearing-fields view of what is fundamental. on what grounds what 379 That is, substances have both a that-aspect—the thin particular, the substratum—and a what-aspect—the thickening features, the modes (c.f. Armstrong 1997: 123–6). Plugging in priority monism, the that-aspect of the cosmos is spacetime, and the what-aspect of it is its fields. So among the derivative categories are those of substratum and mode: Substratum and Mode as Derivative: substratum and mode are abstractions from thick particulars. Another derivative category will be the partialia, abstracted via: Universal Decomposition: The cosmos may be arbitrarily decomposed into parts. From priority monism plus universal decomposition, the entirety of the actual concrete mereological hierarchy of thick particulars is generated (whether or not the world is gunky). Wholes are complete and concrete unities, and partialia their incomplete aspects, arising from a process of ‘‘one-sided abstraction’’ (Bradley 1978: 124). With the partialia thus grounded, it remains to ground abstracta (such as numbers and possibilia) in the actual concrete realm. Here matters are too complicated to discuss further within the scope of this paper. But perhaps I have said enough to illustrate how at least one of the many possible neo-Aristotelian programs might look. To conclude: metaphysics as I understand it is about what grounds what. It is about the structure of the world. It is about what is fundamental, and what derives from it.41

On What Grounds What

Geographic Information Science. The Nature and Value of Geographic Information. Communicating Geographic Information in Context. Pragmatic Information Content. Representational Commitment in Maps. Granularity in Change over Time. A Theory of Granular Partitions. On the Ontological Status of Geographical Boundaries. Regions in Geography. Neighborhoods and Landmarks. Geographical Terminology Servers. Placing Cultural Events and Documents. Geographic Activity Models.

Foundations of Geographic Information Science

I argue that our current practice of ascribing the term 'memory' to mental states and processes lacks epistemic warrant. Memory, according to the 'received view', is any state or process that results from the sequential stages of encoding, storage, and retrieval. By these criteria, memory, or its footprint, can be seen in virtually every mental state we are capable of having. This, I argue, stretches the term to the breaking point. I draw on phenomenological, historical, and conceptual considerations to make the case that an act of memory entails a direct, non-inferential feeling of reacquaintance with one's past. It does so by linking content retrieved from storage with autonoetic awareness during retrieval. On this view, memory is not the content of experience, but the manner in which that content is experienced. I discuss some theoretical and practical implications and advantages of adopting this more circumscribed view of memory.

What memory is.

Introduction 1. Sameness and Difference 2. Parts and Stages 3. Sticking Stages Together 4. Vagueness 5. Sheer Coincidence? 6. Modality Epilogue Bibliography, Index

How Things Persist

The usual charge against Carnap’s internal/external distinction is one of ‘guilt by association with analytic/synthetic’. But it can be freed of this association, to become the distinction between statements made within makebelieve games and those made outside them—or, rather, a special case of it with some claim to be called the metaphorical/literal distinction. Not even Quine considers figurative speech committal, so this turns the tables somewhat. To determine our ontological commitments, we have to ferret out all traces of nonliterality in our assertions; if there is no sensible project of doing that, there is no sensible project of Quinean ontology. Not that I would undertake to limit my use of the words ‘attribute’ and ‘relation’ to contexts that are excused by the possibility of such paraphrase... consider how I have persisted in my vernacular use of ‘meaning’, ‘idea’, and the like, long after casting doubt on their supposed objects. True, the use of a term can sometimes be reconciled with rejection of its objects; but I go on using the terms without even sketching any such reconciliation.1 Quine, Word and Object

/pdf/does-ontology-rest-on-a-mistake-1nhnbqy10c.pdf

Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake

1. Preliminaries 2. Individual Essences and Bare Identities 3. Origin Properties and Individual Essences 4. Extrinsically Determined Identity and 'Best-candidate' Theories 5. Counterpart Theory and the Puzzles of Transworld Identity 6. The Necessity of Origin 7. Sortal Concepts and Essential Properties I: Substance Sortals and Essential Sortals 8. Sortal Concepts and Essential Propeties II: Sortal Concepts and Principles of Individuation 9. Essential Properties and Remote Contingencies 10. Essentialism, Semantic Theory, and Natural Kinds

How Things Might Have Been: Individuals, Kinds, and Essential Properties

Occasions of identity

In this challenging study, Andre Gallois proposes and defends a thesis about the character of our knowledge of our own intentional states. Taking up issues at the centre of attention in contemporary analytic philosophy of mind and epistemology, he examines accounts of self-knowledge by such philosophers as Donald Davidson, Tyler Burge and Crispin Wright, and advances his own view that, without relying on observation, we are able justifiably to attribute to ourselves propositional attitudes, such as belief, that we consciously hold. His study will be of wide interest to philosophers concerned with questions about self-knowledge.

André Gallois

Papers

Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake

How Things Might Have Been: Individuals, Kinds, and Essential Properties

Occasions of identity

The World Without, the Mind Within: An Essay on First-Person Authority

Van Inwagen on free will and determinism