Another thought on radical enactivism

I wrote about "radical enactivism" back in January.

To review: this is a philosophical theory about consciousness associated with Daniel Hutto of Antwerp.

It is a non-reductive identity theory of mind and body. In this, it sounds a bit like Spinoza, and the "dual aspect" school.

But Hutto maintains that we can understand the brain-mind relationship if and only if we look at it as part of the organism-environment interaction. That's as far as I got.

What else is Hutto, and the rest of the school, saying?

Three of the other members of the school are: Francisco J Varela; Evan Thompson; Eleanor Rosch. They co-authored THE EMBODIED MIND published in 1992.

Varela et al invented the word "enactivism" to, in their words, "emphasize the growing conviction that cognition is not the representation of a pre-given world by a pre-given mind but s rather the enactment of a world and a mind on the basis of a history of the variety of actions that a being in the world performs."

That is as clear as mud, I'm afraid. But, hey, maybe I would have to roll that around in my mind a bit and even enact it somehow in order to cognize it.

Anyway: given enactivism: there seems to be both a "conservative" and a "radical" variant.

Regan, J. K. and Noë, A. 2001 expounded on enactivism at some length.

Later, Regan writing with a different co-author, Myin, called this a "way to naturalize phenomenology."

It is Hutto who feels the need to distinguish himself from the work of O'Regan and co-authors, because Hutto says they are not thorough enough about turning the backs on the old ways of trying to understand the issues involved. In a word, too "conservative."

Using their "landmark sensorimotor contingency theory of perceptual experience as a foil, I demonstrate how easy it is to fall into conservative thinking... [I]t shows itself to be riddled with suppositions threatening to reduce it to a rules-and-representations approach."

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog