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||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Su-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.
Shimon Edelman, No Reconstruction, No Impenetrability (at Least Not Much) A Commentary on ``Is Vision Continuous with Cognition?'' by Z. Pylyshyn.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #246,081 of 722,856 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?