Seeing is believing--or is it?

In Kathleen Akins (ed.), [Book Chapter]. Oxford University Press. pp. 158-172 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We would all like to have a good theory of perception. Such a theory would account for all the known phenomena and predict novel phenomena, explaining everything in terms of processes occurring in nervous systems in accordance with the principles and laws already established by science: the principles of optics, physics, biochemistry, and the like. Such a theory might come to exist without our ever having to answer the awkward "philosophical" question that arises.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,612

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

Seeing is believing.John Heil - 1982 - American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (3):229-240.
Seeing is believing?Daniel Whistler & Daniel Hill - 2016 - Forum for European Philosophy Blog.
Seeing And Believing. [REVIEW]Christopher Kelly - 2002 - The Classical Review 52 (1):136-138.
Seeing and Believing.Michael Michael - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 33:37-43.
Seeing is Believing.Peter Kivy - 2011-04-15 - In Dominic McIver Lopes & Berys Gaut (eds.), Once‐Told Tales. Wiley‐Blackwell. pp. 98–123.
Seeing isn't believing.Kandace Lytle - 2012 - In Tracy Lyn Bealer, Rachel Luria & Wayne Yuen (eds.), Neil Gaiman and philosophy: gods gone wild! Chicago, Ill.: Open Court.
Visual bioethics: Seeing is believing?Barbara Chubak - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (12):58 – 60.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
158 (#120,720)

6 months
14 (#254,536)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniel C. Dennett
Tufts University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references