Simulation and cognitive penetrability

Mind and Language 11 (1):44-67 (1996)
Abstract
: Stich, Nichols et al. assert that the process of deriving predictions by simulation must be cognitively impenetrable. Hence, they claim, the occurrence of certain errors in prediction provides empirical evidence against simulation theory. But it is false that simulation‐derived prediction must be cognitively impenetrable. Moreover the errors they cite, which are instances of irrationality, are not evidence against the version of simulation theory that takes the central domain of simulation to be intelligible transitions between states with content
Keywords Cognition  Content  Epistemology  Simulation  Stich, S
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1996.tb00028.x
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,169
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Essays on Actions and Events.Donald Davidson - 1980 - Oxford University Press.
Folk Psychology as Simulation.Robert M. Gordon - 1986 - Mind and Language 1 (2):158-71.
Interpretation Psychologized.A. Goldman - 1989 - Mind and Language 4 (3):161-85.

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Structure-Mapping: Directions From Simulation to Theory.Theodore Bach - 2011 - Philosophical Psychology 24 (1):23-51.
Predictive Failure.Ian Ravenscroft - 1999 - Philosophical Papers 28 (3):143-168.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
95 ( #55,684 of 2,191,852 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #288,547 of 2,191,852 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature