Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):474-475 (1998)
|Abstract||We argue that the notion of distal similarity on which Edelman's reconstruction of the process of perception and the nature of representation rests is ill defined. As a consequence, the mapping between world and description that is supposedly at stake is, in fact, a mapping between two different descriptions or “representations.”.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mauricio Suarez (2003). Scientific Representation: Against Similarity and Isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (3):225-244.
Carlotta Piscopo & Mauro Birattari (2010). A Critique of the Constitutive Role of Truthlikeness in the Similarity Approach. Erkenntnis 72 (3).
S. G. Sterrett, Similarity and Dimensional Analysis (Forthcoming Entry in Handbook of Philosophy of Science, Elsevier).
Cees van Leeuwen (1998). Regular Spaces Versus Computing with Chaos. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):482-484.
David Knights & Darren McCabe (1999). Automated Lines and "Modern" Times: A Distal and Proximal Understanding of Skill/Knowledge. Emergence 1 (3):105-124.
Raimo Tuomela (1980). Analogy and Distance. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 11 (2):276-291.
Mark Siebel (2004). Does TEC Explain the Emergence of Distal Representations? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):588-589.
Shimon Edelman (1998). Representation is Representation of Similarities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):449-467.
Hannes Eisler (1998). Distal Similarity, Shape Referents, Subjective World, and Redundancy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):470-470.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #202,056 of 549,628 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?