No reconstruction, no impenetrability (at least not much) A commentary on ``Is vision continuous with cognition?'' by Z. Pylyshyn

Abstract

Two of the premises of the target paper -- surface reconstruction as the goal of early vision, and inaccessibility of intermediate stages in the process presumably leading to such reconstruction -- are questioned and found wanting.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,297

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

No reconstruction, no impenetrability (at least not much).Shimon Edelman - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):376-376.
Knowledge and intention can penetrate early vision.Mary A. Peterson - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):389-390.
Aristotle, Logic, and QUARC.Jonas Raab - 2018 - History and Philosophy of Logic 39 (4):305-340.
Regress Argument Reconstruction.Jan Willem Wieland - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.
Is early visual processing attention impenetrable?Su-Ling Yeh & I.-Ping Chen - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):400-400.
The Cognitive Impenetrability of Perception and Theory-Ladenness.Athanassios Raftopoulos - 2015 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 46 (1):87-103.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-22

Downloads
24 (#916,108)

6 months
6 (#879,768)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Shimon Edelman
Cornell University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references