Preparing to be punched: Prediction may not always require inference of intentions

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (4):362 - 363 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) framework assumes an efference copy based on the interlocutor's intentions. Yet, elaborate attribution of intentions may not always be necessary for online prediction. Instead, contextual cues such as speaker gaze can provide similar information with a lower demand on processing resources

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

Prediction, inference, and the homunculus.Horace B. Barlow - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):750-751.
Reintroducing prediction to explanation.Heather E. Douglas - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (4):444-463.
Inference, explanation, and prediction.Jaegwon Kim - 1964 - Journal of Philosophy 61 (12):360-368.
We-intentions revisited.Raimo Tuomela - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 125 (3):327 - 369.
Proximal intentions, intention-reports, and vetoing.Alfred Mele - 2008 - Philosophical Psychology 21 (1):1 – 14.
Is prediction possible in general relativity?John Byron Manchak - 2008 - Foundations of Physics 38 (4):317-321.
Reichenbach's concept of prediction.Wenceslao J. González - 1995 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9 (1):37-58.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-27

Downloads
15 (#923,100)

6 months
2 (#1,232,442)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?