In Kathleen Akins (ed.), [Book Chapter]. Oxford University Press. pp. 158-172 (1996)
We would all like to have a good theory of perception. Such a theory would account for all the known phenomena and predict novel phenomena, explaining everything in terms of processes occurring in nervous systems in accordance with the principles and laws already established by science: the principles of optics, physics, biochemistry, and the like. Such a theory might come to exist without our ever having to answer the awkward "philosophical" question that arises.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Is Seeing Believing?Russell B. Goodman - 1974 - Proceedings of the New Mexico-West Texas Philosophical Society 40 (April):45.
Seeing is Believing' and 'Believing is Seeing.Elisabeth Schellekens - 2005 - Acta Analytica 20 (4):10-23.
On an Inconsistency in Constructive Empiricism.Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (3):511-514.
Believing in Things.Zoltán Gendler Szabó - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (3):584–611.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads89 ( #57,810 of 2,163,972 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #39,854 of 2,163,972 )
How can I increase my downloads?