Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):406-407 (2002)
|Abstract||It is proposed that symmetry of stone tools may derive from perceptual similarity rather than from cognitively more complex awareness of symmetry. Although encodement of shapes necessarily involves symmetry (as evidenced by the confusability of enantiomorphs), it does not imply awareness of symmetry. Responses of relatively simple organisms, such as bees, support the notion that the processes involved are likely to be perceptual.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jennifer M. Gurd, Gereon R. Fink & John C. Marshall (2002). Tacit Symmetry Detection and Explicit Symmetry Processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):409-409.
Jeffrey B. Wagman (2002). Symmetry for the Sake of Symmetry, or Symmetry for the Sake of Behavior? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):423-424.
Rolf Reber (2002). Reasons for the Preference for Symmetry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):415-416.
Alexandre Laforgue (1993). Les Brisures de Symetrie du Temps. Acta Biotheoretica 41 (1-2).
Alexandre Laforgue (1994). Les Brisures de Symetrie du Temps. Acta Biotheoretica 42 (1).
P. Kosso (1999). Symmetry Arguments in Physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30 (3):479-492.
Otávio Bueno (2006). The Methodological Character of Symmetry Principles. Abstracta 3 (1):3-28.
Bruce Bridgeman (2002). Artifacts and Cognition: Evolution or Cultural Progress? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):403-403.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #189,165 of 739,348 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,348 )
How can I increase my downloads?