Sins of omission and commission
Gerard O'Brien, Jon Opie
Behavioral and Brain Sciences October 1, 2001 DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x0149011x (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Citations | 3 |
| Key points | Argues that O'Regan and Noë's sensorimotor account fails to address two historically important reasons for explaining visual experience via internal representations: the apparently inferential nature of perception, and the phenomenology of dreams, hallucinations, and mental imagery, about which the authors claim O'Regan and Noë are mistaken. |
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.