Attention And Attentiveness: A Defence of The Argument for Adverbialism

References

• Allport, Alan (1993) ‘Attention and Control: Have we Been Asking the Wrong Questions? A Critical Review of Twenty-Five Years’, in David E. Meyer and Sylvan Kornblum, eds., Attention and Performance 14: Synergies of experimental psychology, artificial intelligence and cognitive neuroscience: 183–218. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Almog, Joseph (1991) ‘The What and the How’, Journal of Philosophy 88: 225–44. doi:10.2307/2026927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, Britt (2011) ‘There is No Such Thing as Attention’, Frontiers in Psychology 2: 246. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrasco, Marisa (2011) ‘Visual Attention: The Past 25 years’, Vision Research 51: 1484–525. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chisholm, Roderick (1957) Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Stewart (1999) ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons’, in Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 13, Epistemology: 57–89. Blackwell. doi:10.1111/0029-4624.33.s13.3.
   Google Scholar
• Collingwood, R G (1924) Speculum Mentis. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• D'Ambrosio, Justin (2019) ‘A New Perceptual Adverbialism’, Journal of Philosophy 116: 413–46. doi:10.5840/jphil2019116826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickie, Imogen (2015) Fixing Reference. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, John (2006) ‘Brain Mechanisms of Attention’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59: 2–27. doi:10.1080/17470210500260674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazekas, Peter, and Bence Nanay (2018) ‘Attention Is Amplification, Not Selection’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72: 299–324. doi:10.1093/bjps/axy065.
   Google Scholar
• Fine, Kit (1994) ‘Essence and Modality’, Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–16. doi:10.2307/2214160.
   Google Scholar
• Fine, Kit (1999) ‘Things and Their Parts’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23: 61–74. doi:10.1111/1475-4975.00004.
   Google Scholar
• Fortney, Mark (2020) ‘Unity in the Scientific Study of Intellectual Attention’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 50: 444–59. doi:10.1017/can.2019.45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne, John (2006) ‘Plenitude, Convention, and Ontology’, in Metaphysical Essays: 53–70. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, Carolyn D (2012) ‘The Subject of Attention’, Synthese 189: 535–54. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0164-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, Carolyn D (2020) The Attending Mind. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koralus, Philipp (2014) ‘The Erotetic Theory of Attention: Questions, Focus and Distraction’, Mind and Language 29: 26–50. doi:10.1111/mila.12040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leuenberger, Stephan (2008) ‘Ceteris Absentibus Physicalism’, in D. Zimmerman, ed., Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 4: 145–70. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, Yair (2019) ‘Is Attending a Mental Process?’ Mind and Language 34: 283–98. doi:10.1111/mila.12211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mole, Christopher (2011) Attention is Cognitive Unison: An Essay in Philosophical Psychology. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parasuraman, Raja (1998) ‘The Attentive Brain: Issues and Prospects’, in Raja Parasuraman, ed., The Attentive Brain: 3–15. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, Trevor W (1998) ‘Arousal and Attention: Psychopharmacological and Neuropsychological Studies in Experimental Animals’, in Raja Parasuraman, ed., The Attentive Brain: 189–220. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, Gideon (2015) ‘Real Definition’ Analytic Philosophy 56: 189–209. doi:10.1111/phib.12067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryle, Gilbert (1949) The Concept of Mind. Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Saran, Kranti (2018) ‘Does Mole's Argument That Cognitive Processes Fail to Suffice for Attention Fail?’, Ergo 18: 487–505. doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0005.018.
   Google Scholar
• Sellars, Wilfrid S (1975) ‘The Adverbial Theory of the Objects of Sensation’, Metaphilosophy 6, 144–60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.1975.tb00244.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smithies, Declan (2011) ‘Attention is Rational-Access Consciousness’, in Christopher Mole, Declan Smithies, and Wayne Wu, eds., Attention: Philosophical and Psychological Essays: 247–273. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley, Jason (2004) ‘On the Linguisitic Basis for Contextualism’, Philosophical Studies 119: 119–46. doi:10.1023/B:PHIL.0000029353.14987.34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinson, Catherine (2009) ‘Searching for the Source of Executive Attention’, Psyche 15: 137–54.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Henry (2015) ‘Against Unifying Accounts of Attention’, Erkenntnis 80: 39–56. doi:10.1007/s10670-014-9611-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, Henry (2018) ‘Attention, Psychology, and Pluralism’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69: 935–56. doi:10.1093/bjps/axx030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, Henry, and Peter Vickers (2017) ‘Conceptual Fragmentation and The Rise of Eliminativism’, European Journal for Philosophy of Science 7: 17–40. doi:10.1007/s13194-016-0136-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tye, Michael (1989) The Metaphysics of Mind. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watzl, Sebastian (2011) ‘Review of Attention is Cognitive Unison’, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/attention-is-cognitive-unison-an-essay-in-philosophical-psychology/
   Google Scholar
• Watzl, Sebastian (2017) Structuring Mind: The Nature of Attention and How it Shapes Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Wayne (2014) Attention. Routledge.
   Google Scholar