Visual Representation and Taxonomy
How ought we classify visual representation? Is there any reason to suppose that information made available through the eyes is represented in a different kind of way to information made available to the ears, or to touch? In this paper I will explore whether, for the purposes of cognitive science, a useful representational taxonomy will give a special place to visual representation. In particular, I argue that pictures are not a good exemplar of the ‘iconic’ genus of representation.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Haugeland, J. Representational Genera. In: W. Ramsey, S. P. StichD. E. Rumelhart. (eds) Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1991Google Scholar
- 2.McGinn, C. Mental Content. Blackwell, Oxford, 1989Google Scholar
- 3.Cummins, R. Representations, Targets and Attitudes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- 4.Millikan. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984Google Scholar
- 5.Cummins, R. Meaning and Mental Representation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989Google Scholar
- 6.Goodman, N. Languages of Art. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1976Google Scholar
- 7.Gregory, R. L. Eye and Brain. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978Google Scholar
- 9.van Gelder, T. What is the “D” in “PDP”? A Survey of the Concept of Distribution. In: W. Ramsey, S. P. Stich and D. E. Rumelhart. (eds) Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1991Google Scholar