Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/37346
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorO'Brien, G.en
dc.contributor.authorOpie, J.en
dc.date.issued2001en
dc.identifier.citationBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 2001; 24(5):997-998en
dc.identifier.issn0140-525Xen
dc.identifier.issn1469-1825en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/37346-
dc.description.abstractO'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.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityGerard O'Brien and Jon Opieen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherCambridge Univ Pressen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2001 Cambridge University Pressen
dc.titleSins of omission and commissionen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.provenancePublished online by Cambridge University Press 18 Nov 2002en
dc.identifier.rmid0020012801en
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0140525X0149011Xen
dc.identifier.pubid60734-
pubs.library.collectionPhilosophy publicationsen
pubs.verification-statusVerifieden
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
dc.identifier.orcidOpie, J. [0000-0001-6593-4750]en
Appears in Collections:Philosophy publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
O'Brien_37346.pdfPublished version52.15 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.