Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Psychology 21 (5):585 – 599 (2008)
|Abstract||This paper argues for two major revisions in the way philosophers standardly think of vision science and vision theories more generally. The first concerns mental representations and the second supervenience. The central result is that the way is cleared for an externalist theory of perception. The framework for such a theory has what are called Aristotelian representations as elements in processes the well-functioning of which is the principal object of a theory of vision.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jaap M. van der Does & Michiel van Lambalgen (2000). A Logic of Vision. Linguistics and Philosophy 23 (1):1-92.
A. Gorea (ed.) (1991). Representations of Vision. Cambridge University Press.
John Hyman (1986). The Cartesian Theory of Vision. Ratio 28 (December):149-167.
D. M. Armstrong (1960/1988). Berkeley's Theory of Vision: A Critical Examination of Bishop Berkeley's Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. Garland Pub..
George Berkeley (1963/1981). Works on Vision. Greenwood Press.
Margaret Atherton (1990). Berkeley's Revolution in Vision. Cornell University Press.
P. S. Kitcher (1988). Marr's Computational Theory of Vision. Philosophy of Science 55 (March):1-24.
P. Morton (1993). Supervenience and Computational Explanation in Vision Theory. Philosophy of Science 60 (1):86-99.
Gerald Vision (1997). Problems of Vision: Rethinking the Causal Theory of Perception. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zenon W. Pylyshyn (2001). Connecting Vision with the World: Tracking the Missing Link. In Joao Branquinho (ed.), The Foundations of Cognitive Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Added to index2009-03-08
Total downloads29 ( #48,105 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?