Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Are involuntary autobiographical memory and déjà vu natural products of memory retrieval?Krystian Barzykowski & Chris J. A. Moulin - 2023 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46:e356.
    Involuntary autobiographical memories (IAMs) and déjà vu are phenomena that occur spontaneously in daily life. IAMs are recollections of the personal past, whereas déjà vu is defined as an experience in which the person feels familiarity at the same time as knowing that the familiarity is false. We present and discuss the idea that both IAMs and déjà vu can be explained as natural phenomena resulting from memory processing and, importantly, are both based on the same memory retrieval processes. Briefly, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The perception/cognition distincton: Challenging the representational account.Sergio Cermeño-Aínsa - 2021 - Consciousness and Cognition 95 (C):103216.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reality testing and metacognition.Nathaniel Greely - forthcoming - Philosophical Psychology.
    Reality testing is the process by which we distinguish our own perceptual states from imagination or episodic memory. I argue that reality testing is a metacognitive process. Since reality testing is also accomplished by creatures who lack mental state concepts, it follows that reality testing is a nonconceptual metacognitive process. I also provide prima facie evidence that reality testing is a necessary condition for prototypical cognitive states like belief. It follows that metacognition is phylogenetically and logically prior to cognition in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Epistemic excuses and the feeling of certainty.Jacques-Henri Vollet - 2022 - Analysis (4):663-672.
    Is knowledge the epistemic norm of action and assertion? Gettier and justified-false-belief cases have been raised as counterexamples to the necessity direction of that claim. Most knowledge normers reply by distinguishing permissibility from excusability. An important objection to this move, however, is that it requires a still lacking view of epistemic excuses sufficiently general to cover all the cases, correctly relating the supposed excuse to the subject's cognitive life, and not collapsing into an account of the fundamental normative standard (see (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations