Sensorimotor contingencies do not replace internal representations, and mastery is not necessary for perception

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):994-995 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Sensorimotor contingencies are certainly of great importance for perception but they are no substitute for the internal representation of perceived information. I argue that internal, non-iconic representations of perceptions must, and do, exist and that sensorimotor contingencies are an integral part of them. Further, I argue that mastery of the sensory apparatus or environment is not a prerequisite for perception and that perception is possible in the absence of any control over the perceptual process.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Mirror neurons: A sensorimotor representation system.Vittorio Gallese & Christian Keysers - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):983-984.
Understanding 'sensorimotor understanding'.Tom Roberts - 2010 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):101-111.
How do we account for the absence of “change deafness”?Frédéric Isel - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):988-988.
Still room for representations.Robert Van Gulick - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):1007-1008.
A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness.J. Kevin O’Regan & Alva Noë - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):883-917.
The explanatory gap is still there.Klaus Oberauer - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):996-997.
Seeing, acting, and knowing.Zenon W. Pylyshyn - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):999-999.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
126 (#361,965)

6 months
25 (#409,042)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references