We question the usefulness of Pylyshyn's dichotomy
between cognitively penetrable and cognitively impenetrable mechanisms
as the basis for his distinction between cognition and early vision.
This dichotomy is comparable to others that have been proposed in
psychology prompting disputes that by their very nature could not be
resolved. This fate is inevitable for Pylyshyn's thesis because
of its reliance on internal representations and their interpretation.
What is more fruitful in relation to this issue is not a difficult
dichotomy, but a different look at perception such as proposed
by Gibson (1979).