Philosophical Studies

, Volume 153, Issue 1, pp 175–181

Vicissitudes of non-visual objects: Comments on Macpherson, O’Callaghan, and Batty

Article

Abstract

The papers by Macpherson, O’Callaghan, and Batty reveal some startling differences in the objects and properties represented by different modalities. They also reveal some tensions between different ways of understanding what it is for any one modality to represent objects and properties.

Keywords

Perception Representation Intentional object Illusion 

References

  1. Clark, A. (2000). A theory of sentience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Goodman, N. (1977). The structure of appearance (3rd ed.). Boston: Dordrecht Reidel.Google Scholar
  3. Pylyshyn, Z. (2001). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision. Cognition, 80, 127–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Pylyshyn, Z. (2003). Seeing and visualizing: It’s not what you think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Sellars, W. (1981). Naturalism and process. The Monist, 64, 37–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations