• James Russell


The problem of representation is: what do we think in? If this question were given to a cross-section of the population I suspect many would say ‘words’, many ‘words and images’, some ‘images only’ and a few ‘neither’. Some sensible souls would reject the question as meaningless. Some well-informed souls would refer to the controversy which raged some eighty years ago around the Würzburg functionalists’ claim that there are ‘imageless thoughts’. In fact, asking people does not get us very far at all.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    N. Malcolm, Memory and Mind (Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1977).Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    E.g. H. H. Price, Thinking and Experience (New York: Hutchinson University Library, 1953). pp. 235–6.Google Scholar
  3. 11.
    N. S. Sutherland, ‘Outlines of a theory of visual pattern recognition in animals and man’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 171, 1968.Google Scholar
  4. 13.
    J. Fodor, Language of Thought (New York) (Thomas Y. Crowell Co. 1975).Google Scholar
  5. 25.
    H. H. Field, ‘Mental representation’, Erkenntniss, 1978, 13, pp. 9–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 28.
    See W. V O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1953). See next chapter for a discussion of Quine’s views.Google Scholar
  7. 29.
    See D. Davidson, ‘Truth and meaning’, Synthese, 1967, 17, pp. 304–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 34.
    D. M. Armstrong, Belief, Truth and Knowledge (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 38.
    J. M. Baldwin, The Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology (New York: Macmillan, 1901–5).Google Scholar
  10. 39.
    J. Russell, ‘Propositional attitudes’, in M. Beveridge (ed.), Children Thinking Through Language (London: Edward Arnold, 1982).Google Scholar
  11. 48.
    A. Hannay, Mental Images: a Defence (George Allen & Unwin, 1971) pp. 16674.Google Scholar
  12. 53.
    This is the example used by E. Wolgast in ‘Wittgenstein and criteria’, Inquiry, 1964, 7.Google Scholar
  13. 57.
    J. P. Sartre, The Psychology of Imagination (London: Methuen, 1972). This is a translation of L’imaginaire which appeared in France in 1940.Google Scholar
  14. 79.
    R. N. Shepard and J. Metzler, ‘Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects’, Science, 1971, 171, pp. 701–03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 80.
    S. M. Kosslyn, T. M. Ball, B. J. Reiser, ‘Visual images preserve metric spatial information: evidence from studies of image scanning’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978, 4, pp. 47–60.Google Scholar
  16. 82.
    S. M. Kosslyn, ‘Measuring the visual angle of the mind’s eye’, Cognitive Psychology, 1978, 10, pp. 356–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 83.
    S. M. Kosslyn, ‘Can imagery be distinguished from other forms of internal representation? Evidence from studies of retrieval time’, Memory and Cognition, 1976, 4, pp. 291–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 84.
    Z. W. Pylshyn, ‘The imagery debate: analogue media versus tacit knowledge’, Psychological Review, 1981, 88, pp. 16–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 87.
    Quotes in B. Ghiselin, The Creative Process (New York: New American Library, 1952), p. 45.Google Scholar
  20. 88.
    S. M. Kosslyn, ‘The medium and the message in mental imagery’, Psychological Review, 1981, 88, pp. 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 95.
    See the review by R. A. Finke, ‘Levels of equivalence in imagery and perception’, Psychological Review, 1980, 86, pp. 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 99.
    J. R. Anderson, ‘Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery’, Psychological Review, 1978, 85, pp. 249–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 102.
    F. Hayes-Roth, ‘Distinguishing theories of representation: a critique of Anderson, “Arguments concerning mental imagery”’, Psychological Review, 1979, 86, pp. 376–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 103.
    Z. W. Pylyshyn, ‘Validating computational models: a critique of Anderson’s indeterminacy of representation claims’, Psychological Review, 1979, 86, pp. 383–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© James Russell 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Russell
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LiverpoolEngland

Personalised recommendations