Images important even if not primitive explanations OpposingArgument #963

It may be true that images are not primitive, low-level entities. However, explanation does not always require an understanding of what happens at the lowest possible level. The proper level of analysis perception requires the inclusion of images.
For example, you wouldn’t learn much about architectural design just by studying bricks, mortar, steel etc.

Stephen Kosslyn and James Pomerantz (1977).
PAGE NAVIGATOR(Help)
▲Map HomeArtificial Intelligence
▲IssueCan computers think? [1]
▲PositionNo: computers can't understand images [5b]
▲OpposingArgumentImages represented by filled cells in an array
▲SupportiveArgumentImages are Quasi-pictorial representations
▲SupportiveArgumentImage Psychology
▲SupportiveArgumentImages are primitive, functional components of thought
▲OpposingArgumentImages aren't primitive explanatory concepts
■OpposingArgumentImages important even if not primitive explanations
◄AdvocacyStephen Kosslyn
CommentsAdd a comment
Metadata

Entered by:- David Price
Entry date (GMT): 8/22/2006 12:18:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT): 11/27/2007 10:14:00 AM
Incoming cross-relations: 1
Outgoing cross-relations: 0
Average rating: 0 by 0 users