Mental imagery doesn't work like that

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):198-200 (2002)
Abstract
This commentary focuses on four major points: (1) “Tacit knowledge” is not a complete explanation for imagery phenomena, if it is an explanation at all. (2) Similarities and dissimilarities between imagery and perception are entirely consistent with the depictive view. (3) Knowledge about the brain is crucial for settling the debate. (4) It is not clear what sort of theory Pylyshyn advocates.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X02390046
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,174
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The False Dichotomy of Imagery.Nigel J. T. Thomas - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):211-211.
Mental Imagery is Simultaneously Symbolic and Analog.John R. Pani - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):205-206.
Look Again: Phenomenology and Mental Imagery. [REVIEW]Evan Thompson - 2007 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2):137-170.
Time Matters! Implications From Mentally Imaged Motor Actions.Markus Raab & Marc Boschker - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):208-209.
The Imagery Debate.Kim Sterelny - 1986 - Philosophy of Science 53 (December):560-83.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
29 ( #179,790 of 2,180,087 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #304,931 of 2,180,087 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums