David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Psychology 11 (3):331-351 (1998)
I have two goals in this paper. First, I want to show by example that inferences about theoretical entities are relatively contingent affairs. Previously accepted conceptual metaphors in science set both the general form of new theories and our acceptance of the theories as plausible. In addition, they determine how we define the relevant parameters in investigating phenomena in the first place. These items then determine how we conceptualize things in the world. Second, and maybe more importantly, I want to solve a puzzle that falls out of our current explication of attention, namely why we have it. Given the now widely accepted view that our brains are massively parallel, it is difficult to see why we should have evolved attentional mechanisms at all. Why gate when we can already process what we transduce in parallel? Here I answer that puzzle and suggest a perspective on attention that makes it a bit easier to understand, although this perspective also entails that we have to revise how we individuate experimental protocols and relevant data
|Keywords||Attention Metaphor Puzzle Science Visual|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas S. Kuhn (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Vol. The University of Chicago Press.
Philip Kitcher (1993). The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. Oxford University Press.
Norwood Russell Hanson (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge [Eng.]University Press.
R. Desimone & J. Duncan (1995). Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience 18 (1):193-222.
Citations of this work BETA
Andy Clark (2009). Spreading the Joy? Why the Machinery of Consciousness is (Probably) Still in the Head. Mind 118 (472):963-993.
Similar books and articles
Gabriel Uzquiano (2006). The Price of Universality. Philosophical Studies 129 (1):137 - 169.
Wayne Wu (2008). Visual Attention, Conceptual Content, and Doing It Right. Mind 117 (468):1003-1033.
Seahwa Kim (2005). The Real Puzzle From Radford. Erkenntnis 62 (1):29 - 46.
Brian Rabern & Landon Rabern (2008). A Simple Solution to the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. Analysis 68 (2):105-112.
Shaun P. Vecera (2000). Toward a Biased Competition Account of Object-Based Segregation and Attention. Brain and Mind 1 (3):353-384.
Gabriel Uzquiano (2010). How to Solve the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever in Two Questions. Analysis 70 (1):39-44.
Josh Dever, Three Modes of, and Five Morals Regarding, Displaced Semantic Processing, with Special Attention to the Role of Variables (and a Final Plug for Dynamic Semantics).
Diego Fernandez-Duque (2002). Cause and Effect Theories of Attention: The Role of Conceptual Metaphors. Review of General Psychology 6 (2):153-165.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #80,924 of 1,725,840 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,700 of 1,725,840 )
How can I increase my downloads?