Explore the vast range of titles available.

En una serie de trabajos, Grimaltos y Rosell (2017), 2021) han caracterizado dos tipos de mentiras, las mentiras ‘doxogénicas’ y las ‘falsificadoras’, y han utilizado esta distinción para defender dos interesantes afirmaciones: que un análisis correcto de la mentira engañosa tiene que incluir necesariamente las intenciones del hablante y que no se puede proporcionar una definición unificada de la mentira. El propósito de este artículo es doble: en primer lugar, reivindicaré la distinción de Grimaltos y Rosell entre diferentes tipos de mentiras y argumentaré que, de hecho, siguiendo su razonamiento se pueden identificar muchos más tipos de mentiras. En segundo lugar, y a pesar de este acuerdo, argumentaré que multiplicar los tipos de mentiras apelando a diferentes clases de intenciones no muestra que una definición unificada de la mentira sea inalcanzable. In a series of works, Grimaltos and Rosell (2017, 2021) have characterized two different kinds of lies, ‘doxogenic’ and ‘falsifying’ lies, and have employed this distinction to defend two interesting claims: that a correct analysis of deceptive lying has to necessarily include the speaker’s intentions and that no unified definition of lying can be provided. The goal of this paper is twofold: first, I will vindicate Grimaltos and Rosell’s distinction between different kinds of deceptive lies and I will argue that, following their reasoning, one can actually identify many more types of lies. Second, despite this agreement, I will argue that multiplying the types of lies by appealing to different kinds of intentions does not show that a unified definition of lying is unattainable.

We defend the moral and legal right to secede in accordance with plebiscitary theory. Our paper has three main goals. First, by offering a schematic characterization of plebiscitary theory, the main arguments in its favour (and the main objections to them), we contribute to clarify the structure of this complex debate. Second, we stress the point that, if the moral right to secede is established, the resistance for its inclusion into positive law is unjustified. Finally, by addressing old and new objections to plebiscitary theory, we hope to make a compelling case for a wider recognition of secessionist rights.

The goal of this essay is to put forward an original theory of artifact function, which takes on board the results of the debate on the notion of biological function and also accommodates the distinctive aspects of artifacts. More precisely, the paper develops and defends the Dual-Aspect Theory, which is a monist account according to which an artifact’s function depends on intentional and reproductive aspects. It is argued that this approach meets a set of theoretical and meta-theoretical desiderata and is superior to alternative views.

Although the definition of ‘signal’ has been controversial for some time within the life sciences, current approaches seem to be converging toward a common analysis. This powerful framework can satisfactorily accommodate many cases of signaling and captures some of its main features. This paper argues, however, that there is a central feature of signals that so far has been largely overlooked: its special causal role. More precisely, I argue that a distinctive feature of signals is that they are minimal causes. I explain this notion, suggest some strategies for identifying its instances and defend its relevance by means of conceptual and empirical considerations.

This paper addresses Prinz's naturalistic theory of conceptual content, which he has defended in several works (Prinz 2000, 2002, 2006). More precisely, I present in detail and critically assess his account of referential content, which he distinguishes from nominal or cognitive content. The paper argues that Prinz's theory faces four important difficulties, which might have significant consequences for his overall empiricist project. Este artículo discute la teoría del contenido conceptual de Prinz, que él ha defendido en diversas obras (Prinz 2000, 2002, 2006). Más concretamente, presento en detalle y evalúo críticamente su teoría del contenido referencial, que él distingue del contenido cognitivo o nominal. El artículo argumenta que la teoría de Prinz tiene cuatro problemas importantes, que pueden tener consecuencias significativas para su proyecto empiricista.

The idea that only complex brains can possess genuine representations is an important element in mainstream philosophical thinking. An alternative view, which I label 'liberal representationalism', holds that we should accept the existence of many more full-blown representations, from activity in retinal ganglion cells to the neural states produced by innate releasing mechanisms in cognitively unsophisticated organisms. A promising way of supporting liberal representationalism is to show it to be a consequence of our best naturalistic theories of representation. However, several philosophers and scientists have recently argued against this strategy. In the paper I counter these objections in defense of liberal representationalism.

Recent research on bacteria and other microorganisms has provided interesting insights into the nature of life, cooperation, evolution, individuality or species. In this paper, I focus on the capacity of bacteria to produce molecules that are usually classified as ’signals’ and I defend two claims. First, I argue that certain interactions between bacteria should actually qualify as genuine forms of communication. Second, I use this case study to revise our general theories of signaling. Among other things, I argue that a plausible requirement for a state to qualify as a signal is that it is a minimal cause.

The recent proliferation of deepfakes and other digitally produced deceptive representations has revived the debate on the epistemic robustness of photography and other mechanically produced images. Authors such as Rini (2020) and Fallis (2021) claim that the proliferation of deepfakes pose a serious threat to the reliability and the epistemic value of photographs and videos. In particular, Fallis adopts a Skyrmsian account of how signals carry information (Skyrms, 2010) to argue that the existence of deepfakes significantly reduces the information that images carry about the world, which undermines their reliability as a source of evidence. In this paper, we focus on Fallis’ version of the challenge, but our results can be generalized to address similar pessimistic views such as Rini’s. More generally, we offer an account of the epistemic robustness of photography and videos that allows us to understand these systems of representation as continuous with other means of information transmission we find in nature. This account will then give us the necessary tools to put Fallis’ claims into perspective: using a richer approach to animal signaling based on the signaling model of communication (Maynard-Smith and Harper, 2003), we will claim that, while it might be true that deepfake technology increases the probability of obtaining false positives, the dimension of the epistemic threat involved might still be negligible.

Naturalistic theories of representation seek to specify the conditions that must be met for an entity to represent another entity. Although these approaches have been relatively successful in certain areas, such as communication theory or genetics, many doubt that they can be employed to naturalize complex cognitive representations. In this essay I identify some of the difficulties for developing a teleosemantic theory of cognitive representations and provide a strategy for accommodating them: to look into models of signaling in evolutionary game theory. I show how these models can be used to formulate teleosemantics and expand it in new directions.

Street's (Philos Stud 127(1):109–166, 2006) Darwinian Dilemma purports to show that evolutionary considerations are in tension with realist theories of value, which include moral realism. According to this argument, moral realism can only be defended by assuming an implausible tracking relation between moral attitudes and moral facts. In this essay, I argue that this tracking relation is not as implausible as most people have assumed by showing that the three main objections against it are flawed. Since this is a key premise in the reasoning, I conclude that the Darwinian Dilemma against moral realism can be resisted.