Philosophical Psychology 20 (4):531 – 538 (2007)

Alva Noë
University of California, Berkeley
In this short essay I respond to the criticism of Action in Perception (2004) advanced by Ryan Hickerson and Fred Keijzer. In particular, I provide a brief precis of the main argument of Action in Perception. I seek to clarify the claims made in the book about the relation between perception and action, the importance of sensorimotor knowledge. I discuss the problem of "sensorimotor chauvinism," that of the "ping-pong playing robot," and the problem of perceptual presence
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/09515080701474554
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,114
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

A Sensorimotor Account of Vision and Visual Consciousness.J. Kevin O’Regan & Alva Noë - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):883-917.
Real Presence.Alva Noë - 2005 - Philosophical Topics 33 (1):235-264.
Review of Alva Noe, Action in Perception[REVIEW]Ned Block - 2005 - Journal of Philosophy 102:259-272.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Olfactory imagery: is exactly what it smells like.Benjamin D. Young - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 177 (11):3303-3327.
Sensorimotor Expectations and the Visual Field.Dan Cavedon-Taylor - 2018 - Synthese 198 (Suppl 17):3991-4006.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
156 ( #74,110 of 2,499,057 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #169,708 of 2,499,057 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes