Fodor advocates a view of cognitive processes as computations defined over the language of thought (or Mentalese). Even among those who endorse Mentalese, considerable controversy surrounds its representational format. What semantically relevant structure should scientific psychology attribute to Mentalese symbols? Researchers commonly emphasize logical structure, akin to that displayed by predicate calculus sentences. To counteract this tendency, I discuss computational models of navigation drawn from probabilistic robotics. These models involve computations defined over cognitive maps, which have geometric rather than logical structure. They thereby demonstrate the possibility of rational cognitive processes in an exclusively non-logical representational medium. Furthermore, they offer much promise for the empirical study of animal navigation.

Alston, Searle, and Williamson advocate the restrictive model of assertion, according to which certain constitutive assertoric norms restrict which propositions one may assert. Sellars and Brandom advocate the dialectical model of assertion, which treats assertion as constituted by its role in the game of giving and asking for reasons. Sellars and Brandom develop a restrictive version of the dialectical model. I explore a non-restrictive version of the dialectical model. On such a view, constitutive assertoric norms constrain how one must react if an interlocutor challenges one's assertion, but they do not constrain what one should assert in the first place. I argue that the non-restrictive dialectical perspective can accommodate various linguistic phenomena commonly taken to support the restrictive model. 1

Contemporary perceptual psychology uses Bayesian decision theory to develop Helmholtz's view that perception involves 'unconscious inference'. The science provides mathematically rigorous, empirically well-confirmed explanations for diverse perceptual constancies and illusions. The explanations assign a central role to mental representation. This article highlights the explanatory centrality of representation within current Bayesian perceptual models. The article also discusses how Bayesian perceptual psychology bears upon several prominent philosophical topics, including: eliminativism about representation (defended by Churchland, Field, Quine, and Stich); relationalism about perception (endorsed by Brewer, Campbell, Martin, and Travis); phenomenal content (postulated by Chalmers, Horgan and Tienson, and Thompson);

I argue that maps do not feature predication, as analyzed by Frege and Tarski. I take as my foil (Casati and Varzi, Parts and places, 1999), which attributes predication to maps. I argue that the details of Casati and Varzi's own semantics militate against this attribution. Casati and Varzi emphasize what I call the Absence Intuition: if a marker representing some property (such as mountainous terrain) appears on a map, then absence of that marker from a map coordinate signifies absence of the corresponding property from the corresponding location. Predication elicits nothing like the Absence Intuition. "F(a)" does not, in general, signify that objects other than a lack property F. On the basis of this asymmetry, I argue that attaching a marker to map coordinates is a different mode of semantic composition than attaching a predicate to a singular term.Keywords Predication · Maps · Compositional semantics · Unity of the proposition Linguistic and cartographic representationAnyone can see that linguistic representation differs markedly from pictorial, diagrammatic, or cartographic representation. But what are the differences, and how deep do they run? Despite intense interest stretching over many decades, philosophers have found these questions remarkably difficult to answer.Focusing on cartography, I will try to isolate a precise sense in which sentences and maps have different representational formats. Sentences and maps are complex M. Rescorla (B)

No abstract