Strong modularity and circular reasoning pervade the planning–control model

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):48-49 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We believe the dichotomy of processes introduced in the target article is highly speculative, because the dichotomy is shaped by the questionable assumption of modularity and the complementary assumption of locality. As a result, the author falls into a line of circular reasoning that biases his analysis of the experimental and neuropsychological data, and weakens the proposed model.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,388

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The fragility of the locality assumption: Comparative evidence.Philip J. Benson - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (3):515-516.
ERPs and the modularity of cognitive processes.Valerie Gray Hardcastle - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (3):520-521.
Locality, modularity, and computational neural networks.Horst Bischof - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (3):516-517.
Interactions on the interactive brain.Martha J. Farah - 1994 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (1):90-104.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
42 (#558,368)

6 months
15 (#168,777)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references