Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):997-998 (2001)

Authors
Gerard O'Brien
University of Adelaide
Jonathan Opie
University of Adelaide
Abstract
O'Regan & Noë (O&N) fail to address adequately the two most historically important reasons for seeking to explain visual experience in terms of internal representations. They are silent about the apparently inferential nature of perception, and mistaken about the significance of the phenomenology accompanying dreams, hallucinations, and mental imagery.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2007
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x0149011x
Options
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: 60,694
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

An Analysis of the Binding Problem.Jan Plate - 2007 - Philosophical Psychology 20 (6):773 – 792.
A Vehicular Theory of Corporeal Qualia.Jonathan Waskan - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 152 (1):103-125.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Gibsonian Sins of Omission.John Heil - 1981 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 11 (3):307–311.
Sins of Omission? The Non-Treatment of Controls in Clinical Trials.Michael Lockwood & G. E. M. Anscombe - 1983 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 57 (1):207 - 227.
Alternative Perspectives on Omission Bias.Christopher J. Anderson - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):544-544.
Upon Reflection.Kenneth R. Hammond - 1996 - Thinking and Reasoning 2 (2 & 3):239 – 248.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
31 ( #343,757 of 2,438,567 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #436,491 of 2,438,567 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes