Understanding action in perception: Replies to Hickerson and Keijzer

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

Abstract

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,174

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
158 (#78,199)

6 months
2 (#275,027)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alva Noë
University of California, Berkeley

References found in this work

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