Questioning explicit properties of implicit individuals in knowledge representation

Dienes & Perner argue that the explicit representation of an individual to which a property is attributed requires explicit representation of the attr ibuted property. The reasons for this conclusion are similar to the reasons why another of their conclusions may be considered suspect: A property may be explicit without an explicit representation of an individual or the pre dication of the property to an individual. We question the latter conclusio n and draw connections to neurophysiological and cognitive evidence.