Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T06:16:46.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sins of omission and commission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2002

Gerard O'Brien  and
Jon Opie
Gerard O'Brien
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005 [email protected]@adelaide.edu.au http://www.arts.adelaide.edu.au/Philosophy/gobrien.htm http://www.arts.adelaide.edu.au/Philosophy/jopie.htm
Jon Opie
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005 [email protected]@adelaide.edu.au http://www.arts.adelaide.edu.au/Philosophy/gobrien.htm http://www.arts.adelaide.edu.au/Philosophy/jopie.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Brief Report
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 24 , Issue 5 , October 2001 , pp. 997 - 998
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable