Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):198-200 (2002)
|Abstract||This commentary focuses on four major points: (1) “Tacit knowledge” is not a complete explanation for imagery phenomena, if it is an explanation at all. (2) Similarities and dissimilarities between imagery and perception are entirely consistent with the depictive view. (3) Knowledge about the brain is crucial for settling the debate. (4) It is not clear what sort of theory Pylyshyn advocates.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nigel J. T. Thomas (2003). The False Dichotomy of Imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):211-211.
Nigel J. T. Thomas (2005). Mental Imagery, Philosophical Issues About. In Lynn Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, Volume 2, pp. 1147-1153.
Stephen M. Kosslyn (1981). The Medium and the Message in Mental Imagery: A Theory. In Ned Block (ed.), Imagery. MIT Press.
Georg Goldenberg (2002). Loss of Visual Imagery: Neuropsychological Evidence in Search for a Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):191-191.
John R. Pani (2002). Mental Imagery is Simultaneously Symbolic and Analog. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):205-206.
Evan Thompson (2007). Look Again: Phenomenology and Mental Imagery. [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2):137-170.
Gianfranco Dalla Barba, Victor Rosenthal & Yves-Marie Visetti (2002). The Nature of Mental Imagery: How Null is the “Null Hypothesis”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):187-188.
Markus Raab & Marc Boschker (2002). Time Matters! Implications From Mentally Imaged Motor Actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):208-209.
Kim Sterelny (1986). The Imagery Debate. Philosophy of Science 53 (December):560-83.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #74,582 of 739,325 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,325 )
How can I increase my downloads?