Mental imagery doesn't work like that

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):198-200 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,703

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The false dichotomy of imagery.Nigel J. T. Thomas - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):211-211.
Time matters! Implications from mentally imaged motor actions.Markus Raab & Marc Boschker - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):208-209.
Look again: Phenomenology and mental imagery. [REVIEW]Evan Thompson - 2007 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2):137-170.
Mental imagery is simultaneously symbolic and analog.John R. Pani - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):205-206.
The imagery debate.Kim Sterelny - 1986 - Philosophy of Science 53 (December):560-83.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
47 (#295,310)

6 months
3 (#435,246)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

William Thompson
Karolinska Institute

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references