Dennett versus Gibson

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):751-752 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Pessoa et al. misinterpret some of Dennett's discussion of filling-in. Their argument against the representational conception of vision and for a Gibsonian alternative is also flawed.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1017/s0140525x98261759

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Dennett’s deism.Craig Ross - 2012 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 71 (3):221-238.
Killing the straw man: Dennett and phenomenology.Dan Zahavi - 2007 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2):21-43.
Dennett's mind.Michael Lockwood - 1993 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 36 (1-2):59-72.
Dennett on Free Will.Craig Ross - 2011 - Metaphysica 12 (2):137-149.
Qualia that it is right to Quine.Manuel Garcia-Carpintero - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (2):357-377.
Dennett on the knowledge argument.Howard M. Robinson - 1993 - Analysis 53 (3):174-7.
Dennett's little grains of salt.Gregory McCulloch - 1990 - Philosophical Quarterly 40 (158):1-12.
What RoboDennett still doesn't know.Michael Beaton - 2005 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (12):3-25.
Intuition pumps.Jon Dorbolo - 2006 - Minds and Machines 16 (1):81-86.
Filling in: Why Dennett is wrong.Patricia S. Churchland & Vilayanur S. Ramachandran - 1993 - In B. Dahlbom (ed.), Dennett and His Critics. Blackwell.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
36 (#432,773)

6 months
1 (#1,510,037)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alex Byrne
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references