No reconstruction, no impenetrability (at least not much)
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):376-376 (1999)
| Abstract | Two of the premises of Pylyshyn's target article – surface reconstruction as the goal of early vision and inaccessibility of intermediate stages in the process presumably leading to such reconstruction – are questioned and found wanting. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSu-Ling Yeh & I.-Ping Chen (1999). Is Early Visual Processing Attention Impenetrable? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):400-400.
Birgitta Dresp (1999). The Cognitive Impenetrability Hypothesis: Doomsday for the Unity of the Cognitive Neurosciences? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):375-376.
Cathleen M. Moore (1999). Cognitive Impenetrability of Early Vision Does Not Imply Cognitive Impenetrability of Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):385-386.
John Canfield & Keith Lehrer (1961). A Note on Prediction and Deduction. Philosophy of Science 28 (2):204-208.
Jan Willem Wieland (2012). Regress Argument Reconstruction. Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,628 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
