2. “ Not so,” replied I, “besides your motion of Northward and Southward, there is another motion which I call from left to right.” KING. Exhibit to me, if you please, this motion from left to right. I. Nay, that I cannot do, unless you could step out of your Line altogether. KING. Out of my Line? Do you mean out of the world? Out of Space? I. Well, yes. Out of your world. Out of your Space. For your Space is not the true Space. True Space is a Plane; but your Space is only a Line.”

7. (Radical) Nativism How did we evolve to have all these concepts? And why would evolution pre-equip us with an “eggbeater” concept anyway? Wait – Fodor seems committed to concepts having static content. Every time a concept “changes”, in fact it becomes a new concept. Doesn't this lead to a combinatorial explosion? What exactly do we mean by “innate”? “Present at birth”? “Independent of the environment”? “Coded in the genes”?

8. Metaphysical Bias What is the nature of the thing being represented? How does the thing being represented relate to the representation (MR)? Fodor assumes that there is no similarity between the two. What if we assume that there is... say something like an isomorphism? The question is not, how does my concept successfully lock onto the correct external referent? The question is, how does the external object give rise to my concept? What is the nature of the connection between the thing being represented and the representation (MR)?

10. Conscious / Subconscious conscious ⇒ self-conscious? (“I”) conscious ⇒ linear? traditional symbolic AI? subconscious ⇒ not subject to introspection subconscious ⇒ network / web? symbol-driven connectionism?

11. What this gains us.... No categorization problems. No resort to radical nativism. No rejection of induction as acquisition mechanism. Explanation for “dearth of definitions”. Not more complicated but simpler structure. BUT: Lose possibility of having precisely the same concept.