Pylyshyn makes a convincing case that early visual processing
is cognitively impenetrable, and although I question the utility of
binary oppositions such as penetrable/impenetrable, for the most part
I am in agreement. The author does not provide explicit designations
or denotations for the terms penetrable and impenetrable, which appear
quite arbitrary. Furthermore, the use of focal attention smacks of an
homunculus, and the account appears to slip too easily between the
perceptual, the cognitive, and the neurophysiological.