Doctor Logic on modeling
Doctor Logic apparently wants to explain intentionality and the ability to understand it, in terms of modeling.
I think we need to get a whole lot clearer on what we mean by modeling. It seems a mistake to explain meaning in terms of modeling, since as I understand modeling, it somehow has to have meaning already.
There are two things I look for when I see a naturalistic account of any of the phenomena required for reason. First, I look to see whether the description is really physicalistically acceptable. Is it really skyhook-free, or does it slip the skyhook in through the back door, use the word "brain" to make it sound naturalistic, and call it good. Carrier's account of intentionality reeks of this kind of procedure, as does Dennett's attempt to explain intentionality in terms of the intentional stance.
The other is to see whether the rational phenomena are recognizable when we get through. Does it really look like consciousness, or reason, or normativity has really been explained, or has it simply been explained away and replaced with a lot of scientific talk. Sometimes we are honestly told that we are being presented with an error theory: that what we thought was going on when we reason really isn't. I take it that is what it means to be an eliminativist about some dimension of folk psychology.
I wondering if Doctor Logic has Dennett's account in mind here, from Darwin's Dangerous Idea.