FURTHER ARGUMENTS CONCERNING REPRESENTATIONS FOR MENTAL-IMAGERY - RESPONSE TO HAYES-ROTH AND PYLYSHYN

In an earlier article (see record 1979-22767-001), the author advanced reasons for believing that it was not possible to discriminate between imagery and propositional representations. A formal argument that behavioral data would not provide a basis for identifying the correct representation was provided. It was argued that it seemed unlikely that other criteria, such as physiological constraints, parsimony, efficiency, or optimality, would succeed in providing unique identifiability. F. Hayes-Roth (see record 1979-32853-001) and Z. W. Pylyshyn (see record 1979-32869-001) have challenged these conclusions, alleging flaws in the formal argument, claiming potential for the other criteria the author tried to discredit, and advancing new criteria. Each of their main points is carefully inspected, and it is found that either they are incorrect in their points or the points do not argue against the original conclusions. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).