Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):470-470 (1998)
|Abstract||The concept of distal similarity that plays a crucial role in Edelman's theory of representation is called into question in this commentary on theoretical as well as empirical grounds. A possible confusion between shape and (knowledge of) its referent, the problem of the subjective world, redundancy, and large individual differences in subjective space encountered in contrived universes are discussed.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1993). Two Concepts of Truth. Philosophical Studies 70 (1):35 - 58.
Ronald N. Kostoff, Dustin Johnson, J. Antonio Ridelo, Louis A. Bloomfield, Michael F. Shlesinger, Guido Malpohl & Hector D. Cortes (2006). Duplicate Publication and 'Paper Inflation' in the Fractals Literature. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3).
Christopher Gauker (2007). A Critique of the Similarity Space Theory of Concepts. Mind and Language 22 (4):317–345.
Derek Partridge (1981). Information Theory and Redundancy. Philosophy of Science 48 (2):308-316.
Cees van Leeuwen (1998). Regular Spaces Versus Computing with Chaos. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):482-484.
Shimon Edelman (1998). Shape Representation by Second-Order Isomorphism and the Chorus Model: SIC. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):484-493.
Ulrike Hahn & Nick Chater (1998). The Notion of Distal Similarity is Ill Defined. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):474-475.
Shimon Edelman (1998). Representation is Representation of Similarities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):449-467.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #245,904 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?