When did people decide that beliefs *should be* a target of psychological explanation? And when did people decide it was the core of common sense psychology?
-
-
Replying to @NeuroYogacara
Isn't the intentional stance the core of FP? And isn't a weak belief concept central to that?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @keithfrankish
Dan frames it that way, but I think that’s a historical accident. I need to talk to him about this, but I don’t think it would make much of a difference if the core interpretive states had a different character...
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
-
Replying to @keithfrankish
It has to allow for something like prediction, explanation, and interpretation. That much I think is core to the IS. But whether we frame those explanations in terms of beliefs, desires, and intentions, or in terms of 51 different mental formations, doesn't really seem to matter
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
Duty & will, for Calvinists. Belief & desire is for those other Protestants.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.