The volume also publishes for the first time a part of his Debrecen Ph.D. thesis and it is concluded by a bibliography of his Hungarian writings.

In their 1993 article "'Theoretical Mathematics': Toward a Cultural Synthesis of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics" published in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, the eminent mathematical physicists Arthur Jaffe and Frank Quinn proposed a set of prescriptions for the interaction between mathematicians and theoretical physicists that should foster mathematicians' receptivity of ideas from physics by safeguarding mathematical rigour against uncontrolled speculation. The proposal propelled and intensive debate in the Bulletin and lead to a special issue of the journal Synthese. (...) So far, however, philosophers of science have hardly addressed this debate, perhaps because it lacks a systematic framework. In this contribution I portray the various stances taken in the Jaffe-Quinn debate from the perspective of Imre Lakatos philosophy of mathematics that seems most suitable for a debate concerning mathematical growth. After outlining the lessons to be drawn for it from Lakatos's published works, I examine which modifications of Lakatos's account are in place to enable a fruitful assessment of present mathematical physics in which axiomatization plays a key role. (shrink)

The relevance of chaotic itinerancy and other types of exotic dynamical behavior described by Tsuda (2001) certainly goes beyond the scope of his target article. These concepts of dynamics may offer a general framework for the understanding of complexity, which could help to restructure the analysis and conceptualization of mental states in novel ways, providing insights for the philosophy of mind.

(1991). Different forms of causation in dynamical systems: Determinism, pattern generation, and information. World Futures: Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 221-237.

Semantic systems are sytems with an inherent semantics. An example would be systems showing intrinsic intentionality: if a system is genuinely intentional, it must be able to define its own meanings. Searle was a forerunner of the modern idea of semantic systems in his oft-cited “Chinese Room” paper in 1980. The current author has approached the problem from a different angle 30 years ago in his book Self-Modifying Systems, claiming that minds can define their own meanings by virtue of being (...) “material”, in the sense of freely generating new properties on the fly, as do material objects. In the course of the process, meaning should arise because syntax does not fully describe the rich functioning of such systems, so goes the argument. While still attractive, the author has in the meantime abandoned the idea, for at least two reasons. One, fundamentals-seeking has itself been largely abandoned, because the study of questions like “is the mind computational”? has turned out to be non-productive. Two, brute force approaches such as ANN-based deep learning have been “unreasonably” successful, and this fact puts aside arguments about the limits of computational systems. The paper provides an overview of these developments. (shrink)

In contemporary literature, the fact that there is negative causation is the primary motivation for rejecting the physical connection view, and arguing for alternative accounts of causation. In this paper we insist that such a conclusion is too fast. We present two frameworks, which help the proponent of the physical connection view to resist the anti-connectionist conclusion. According to the first framework, there are positive causal claims, which co-refer with at least some negative causal claims. According to the second framework, (...) negative causal claims are generated from mapping and comparing different scenarios, which can fully be accounted for in purely positive terms. Since the positive causal claims evoked by both frameworks pose no obvious difficulties for the physical connection view, these frameworks make it possible for the connectionists to accommodate negative causal claims into their theory. Once these strategies are available, the connectionists become able to render all the arguments starting from the observation that there are negative causal claims in our causal discourse inconclusive with regard to the viability of the physical connection view. (shrink)

This book contains eleven original papers about intentionality. Some explore current problems such as the status of intentional content, the intentionality of perception and emotion, the connections between intentionality and normativity, the relationship between intentionality and consciousness, the characteristics of the intentional idiom. Others discuss the work of historical figures like Locke, Brentano, Husserl and Frege.

Recent years have seen significant changes in the study of intentionality and mental representation. Twenty years ago, there was a fairly well-established research agenda, set largely by the work of Jerry Fodor. Those working to this agenda tended to assume that the study of intentionality is distinct from the study of consciousness; that the study of intentionality is the study of the propositional attitudes; that the aim of an account of intentionality should be to give a physicalist theory of it; (...) that such a theory must in some way appeal to causal relationships between intentional states and the things in the world that they are about. (shrink)

Kampis proposes the study of chaotic itinerancy, pointing out its significance in domains of cognitive science and philosophy. He has discovered in the concept of chaotic itinerancy the possibility for a new dynamical approach that elucidates mental states with a physical basis. This approach may therefore provide the means to go beyond the connectionist approach. In accordance with his theory, I here highlight three issues regarding chaotic itinerancy: transitory dynamics, diversity, and self-modifying system.

During the last decade several authors (Kaufman, Casti, Kampis) have published scientific monographs as well as popular science books heralding the emergence of a new paradigm of science - the science of complexity, which promisses unification of natural sciences. This paper attempts to analyse the meaning of the concept of complexity in both everyday language and the framework of self-organizing systems theory. The paper consists of four parts. The first part discusses the main tenets of the alleged new paradigm (...) and typical criticisms it encounters. The second part articulates the formal correctness and material adequacy conditions, that the definition of „complexity” should satisfy. The third part discusses meanings of the concept: from opposition simplicity-complexity prevalent in everyday language to self-organizing triad: perfect order-complexity-complete chaos. It also lists and critically discussed potential candidates for an adequate definition. The reasons explaining why none of the presented approaches is succesful are subsequently discussed. The conclusions analyse plausible reasons for such a state of affairs. (shrink)