Reply to Peter Ludlow

Bozickovic, Vojislav

doi:10.1590/0100-6045.2022.v45n3.rp

Manuscrito

2022

DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2022.v45n3.rp

|View full text |Cite

Reply to Peter Ludlow

Vojislav Bozickovic

Abstract: The author's response to Peter Ludlow´s contribution to the special issue on The Indexical Point of View. In what follows I have copied the relevant passages from Ludlow's review of my followed by my (indented) reply to each passage separately.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Cognitive dynamics: Red Queen semantics versus the story of O

Ludlow¹

2022

Belgrade Philosop Ann

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It appears that indexicals must have fine-grained senses for us to explain things involving human action and emotions, and we typically identify these different senses with different modes of expression. On the other hand, we also express the very same thought in very different ways. The first problem is the problem of cognitive significance. The second problem is what Branquinho (1999) has called the problem of cognitive dynamics. The question is how we can solve both of those problems at the same time. Vojislav Božičković (2021) offers one solution in which the cognitive dynamics runs through the objects of the attitudes. I discuss this solution and offer an alternative in which the theory of cognitive dynamics has no use for the objects of the attitudes to unify expressions of attitudes. When we say or believe "the same thing" using different modes of expressions, it is by virtue of our deploying a dynamic theory of attitude expression. Like Lewis Carrol's Red Queen, we must run to stay in place.

show abstract

Cognitive dynamics: Red Queen semantics versus the story of O

Ludlow¹

2022

Belgrade Philosop Ann

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Reply to Peter Ludlow

Abstract: The author's response to Peter Ludlow´s contribution to the special issue on The Indexical Point of View. In what follows I have copied the relevant passages from Ludlow's review of my followed by my (indented) reply to each passage separately.

Cited by 1 publication

References 2 publications

Cognitive dynamics: Red Queen semantics versus the story of O

Cognitive dynamics: Red Queen semantics versus the story of O

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Reply to Peter Ludlow

Abstract: The author's response to Peter Ludlow´s contribution to the special issue on The Indexical Point of View. *In what follows I have copied the relevant passages from Ludlow's review of my followed by my (indented) reply to each passage separately.*

Cited by 1 publication

References 2 publications

Cognitive dynamics: Red Queen semantics versus the story of O

Cognitive dynamics: Red Queen semantics versus the story of O

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Abstract: The author's response to Peter Ludlow´s contribution to the special issue on The Indexical Point of View. In what follows I have copied the relevant passages from Ludlow's review of my followed by my (indented) reply to each passage separately.