Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Psychology 20 (4):531 – 538 (2007)
|Abstract||In this short essay I respond to the criticism of Action in Perception (2004) advanced by Ryan Hickerson and Fred Keijzer. In particular, I provide a brief precis of the main argument of Action in Perception. I seek to clarify the claims made in the book about the relation between perception and action, the importance of sensorimotor knowledge. I discuss the problem of "sensorimotor chauvinism," that of the "ping-pong playing robot," and the problem of perceptual presence|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nivedita Gangopadhyay, Michael Madary & Finn Spicer (eds.) (2010). Perception, Action, and Consciousness: Sensorimotor Dynamics and Two Visual Systems. Oxford University Press, Usa.
Mohan Matthen (2006). Review: Action in Perception. [REVIEW] Mind 115 (460):1160-1166.
Ryan Hickerson (2007). Perception as Knowing How to Act: Alva Noë's Action in Perception. Philosophical Psychology 20 (4):505 – 517.
Fred Keijzer (2007). Evolution in Action in Perception. Philosophical Psychology 20 (4):519 – 529.
Alessandra Tanesini & Richard Gray (2010). Perception and Action: The Taste Test. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (241):718-734.
John R. Pani (2001). Perceptual Theories That Emphasize Action Are Necessary but Not Sufficient. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):998-998.
N. Gangopadhyay (2010). Experiential Blindness Revisited: In Defense of a Case of Embodied Cognition. Cognitive Systems Research 11:396-407.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads102 ( #7,573 of 739,080 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,701 of 739,080 )
How can I increase my downloads?