Sins of omission and commission

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

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

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

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
2009-01-28

Downloads
35 (#393,865)

6 months
1 (#1,028,709)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Gerard O'Brien
University of Adelaide
Jonathan Opie
University of Adelaide

Citations of this work

An analysis of the binding problem.Jan Plate - 2007 - Philosophical Psychology 20 (6):773 – 792.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references