On sympathies with J. J. Gibson and on focusing reference
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):732-733 (1999)
| Abstract | Something of the relation of my work on substance concepts to Gibsonian theories of perception–action is discussed. What historical relations tie a particular substance concept to a particular substance is discussed. | |||||||||
| 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: 5,865 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRuth Garrett Millikan (2011). Loosing the Word–Concept Tie. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 85 (1):125-143.
Edward Gibson & Neal J. Pearlmutter (eds.) (2011). The Processing and Acquisition of Reference. The Mit Press.
Niko Scharer (1998). Can Mere Phonemes Be Components of Millikan's Substance Concepts? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):83-84.
Vincent C. Müller & Stephanie Kelter (1998). Too Much Substance, Not Enough Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):80-80.
Ruth Garrett Millikan (2000). On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay About Substance Concepts. Cambridge University Press.
Tamar Szabó Gendler (1998). Why Language is Not a “Direct Medium”. Commentary on Ruth Garrett Millikan. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):71-72.
Paul J. Treffner (1999). The Common Structure is the Affordance in the Ecology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):731-732.
Thomas Natsoulas (1991). Why Do Things Look as They Do? Some Gibsonian Answers to Koffka's Question. Philosophical Psychology 4 (2):183-202.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads24 ( #52,469 of 556,815 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,815 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
