In this paper I display a general metaphysical assumption thatudcharacterizes basic naturalistic views and that is inherited, in audresidual form, by their leading teleological rivals. The assumption isudthat intentional states require identifiable inner vehicles and that toudexplain intentional properties we must develop accounts that bindudspecific contents to specific vehicles. I show that this assumption isuddeeply rooted in representationalist and reductionist theories ofudcontent and I argue that it is deeply inappropriate.udI sketch the main features of plausible alternatives: such alternativesudare either anti-representationalist (Dynamical Systems' models) orudanti-reductionist (institution-based approaches), and are notudcommitted to any such metaphysical premise.
展开▼
