What is structural similarity and is it greater in living things?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):486-487 (2001)
| Abstract | Humphreys and Forde (H&F) propose that greater within- category structural similarity makes living things more difficult to name. However, recent studies show that normal subjects find it easier to name living than nonliving things when these are matched across category for potential artefacts. Additionally, at the level of single pixels, visual overlap appears to be greater for nonliving things. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJoshua Hoffman & Gary S. Rosenkrantz (1998). On the Unity of Compound Things: Living and Non-Living. Ratio 11 (3):289–315.
Theodore George (2012). Thing, Object, Life. Research in Phenomenology 42 (1):18-34.
Paul W. Taylor (1984). Are Humans Superior to Animals and Plants? Environmental Ethics 6 (2):149-160.
Ronald Sandler (2012). Is Artefactualness a Value-Relevant Property of Living Things? Synthese 185 (1):89-102.
Glyn W. Humphreys & Emer M. E. Forde (2001). Hierarchies, Similarity, and Interactivity in Object Recognition: “Category-Specific” Neuropsychological Deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):453-476.
Glyn W. Humphreys & Emer M. E. Forde (2001). Category Specificity in Mind and Brain? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):497-504.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #203,919 of 556,896 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,896 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
