Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 205–235 | Cite as

The extended body: a case study in the neurophenomenology of social interaction

Article

Abstract

There is a growing realization in cognitive science that a theory of embodied intersubjectivity is needed to better account for social cognition. We highlight some challenges that must be addressed by attempts to interpret ‘simulation theory’ in terms of embodiment, and argue for an alternative approach that integrates phenomenology and dynamical systems theory in a mutually informing manner. Instead of ‘simulation’ we put forward the concept of the ‘extended body’, an enactive and phenomenological notion that emphasizes the socially mediated nature of embodiment. To illustrate the explanatory potential of this approach, we replicate an agent-based model of embodied social interaction. An analysis of the model demonstrates that the extended body can be explained in terms of mutual dynamical entanglement: inter-bodily resonance between individuals can give rise to self-sustaining interaction patterns that go beyond the behavioral capacities of isolated individuals by modulating their intra-bodily conditions of behavior generation.

Keywords

Enaction Embodied intersubjectivity Dynamical systems theory Social cognition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The collaboration between Froese and Fuchs was initially enabled by the COST Action on Consciousness (BM0605), which funded a Short-Term Scientific Mission for Froese to work with Fuchs at the University of Heidelberg. During the later completion of this paper Froese was financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid awarded by the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). We thank Rasmus Thybo Jensen and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments, and Takashi Ikegami for many helpful discussions. The software implementation of the agent-based model made use of Randall D. Beer’s “Evolutionary Agents v1.1.2” C++ package. The mathematical analysis of the agent’s dynamical system was performed with the help of Randall D. Beer’s “Dynamica v1.0.4” Mathematica package.

References

  1. Agnew, Z. K., Bhakoo, K. K., & Puri, B. K. (2007). The human mirror system: a motor resonance theory of mind-reading. Brain Research Reviews, 54, 286–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auvray, M., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beer, R. D. (1995). A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction. Artificial Intelligence, 72(1–2), 173–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beer, R. D. (2003). The dynamics of active categorical perception in an evolved model agent. Adaptive Behavior, 11(4), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boden, M. A. (2006). Of islands and interactions. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(5), 53–63.Google Scholar
  8. Carruthers, P., & Smith, P. K. (Eds.) (1996). Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, A. (2009). Spreading the joy? Why the machinery of consciousness is (probably) still in the head. Mind, 118(472), 963–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2007). Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.Google Scholar
  13. De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Vignemont, F. (2004). The co-consciousness hypothesis. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Paolo, E. A. (2009). Editorial: the social and enactive mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Paolo, E. A., Noble, J., & Bullock, S. (2000). Simulation models as opaque thought experiments. In M. A. Bedau, J. S. McCaskill, N. H. Packard, & S. Rasmussen (Eds.), Artificial life VII: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on artificial life (pp. 497–506). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & Iizuka, H. (2008). Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas in Psychology, 26(2), 278–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Downing, G. (2004). Emotion, body and parent–infant interaction. In J. Nadel & D. Muir (Eds.), Emotional development: Recent research advances (pp. 429–449). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Fodor, J. A. (1992). A theory of the child’s theory of mind. Cognition, 44, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Froese, T. (2011). Breathing new life into cognitive science. Avant. The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard, 2(1), 113–129.Google Scholar
  23. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2008). Stability of coordination requires mutuality of interaction in a model of embodied agents. In M. Asada, J. C. T. Hallam, J.-A. Meyer, & J. Tani (Eds.), From animals to animats 10: Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on simulation of adaptive behavior (pp. 52–61). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2010). Modeling social interaction as perceptual crossing: an investigation into the dynamics of the interaction process. Connection Science, 22(1), 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Froese, T., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Phenomenology and artificial life: toward a technological supplementation of phenomenological methodology. Husserl Studies, 26(2), 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2011a). The enactive approach: theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2011b). Toward minimally social behavior: Social psychology meets evolutionary robotics. In G. Kampis, I. Karsai, & E. Szathmáry (Eds.), Advances in artificial life. Darwin meets von Neumann. 10th European Conference, ECAL 2009 (pp. 426–433). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Froese, T., Gould, C., & Barrett, A. (2011). Re-viewing from within: a commentary on first- and second-person methods in the science of consciousness. Constructivist Foundations, 6(2), 254–269.Google Scholar
  29. Fuchs, T. (1996). Leibliche Kommunikation und ihre Störungen. Zeitschrift fuer Klinische Psychologie Psychopathologie und Psychotherapie, 44, 415–428.Google Scholar
  30. Fuchs, T. (2008). Leib und Lebenswelt: Neue philosophisch-psychiatrische essays. Kusterdingen: Die Graue Edition.Google Scholar
  31. Fuchs, T. (2012). The phenomenology of body memory. In S. C. Koch, T. Fuchs, M. Summa, & C. Müller (Eds.), Body memory, metaphor and movement (pp. 9–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Fuchs, T., & De Jaegher, H. (2009). Enactive intersubjectivity: participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gallagher, S. (1997). Mutual enlightenment: recent phenomenology in cognitive science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4(3), 195–214.Google Scholar
  34. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gallagher, S. (2007). Simulation trouble. Social Neuroscience, 2(3–4), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gallagher, S. (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gallagher, S. (2009). Two problems of intersubjectivity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(6–8), 289–308.Google Scholar
  38. Gallese, V. (2005). Embodied simulation: from neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gallese, V. (2007). Before and below ‘theory of mind’: embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gallese, V., Keysers, C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2004). A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9), 396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gergely, G., & Watson, J. (1999). Early social-emotional development: contingency perception and the social biofeedback model. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition: Understanding others in the first months of life (pp. 101–137). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Giunti, M. (1995). Dynamical models of cognition. In R. F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind in motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 549–572). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Goldman, A., & de Vignemont, F. (2009). Is social cognition embodied? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harvey, I., Di Paolo, E. A., Wood, R., Quinn, M., & Tuci, E. A. (2005). Evolutionary robotics: a new scientific tool for studying cognition. Artificial Life, 11(1–2), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heath, J. (2011). Methodological individualism. In: E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/methodological-individualism/.
  46. Husserl, E. [1893-1917] (1969). Zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins (1893-1917). In: Husserliana. Gesammelte Werke, Band 10. Berlin: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  47. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hutto, D. (2008). Folk psychological narratives: The sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hutto, D., & Ratcliffe, M. (Eds.). (2010). Folk psychology re-assessed. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Iizuka, H., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2007). Minimal agency detection of embodied agents. In F. Almeida e Costa, L. M. Rocha, E. Costa, I. Harvey, & A. Coutinho (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: Proc. of the 9th Euro. Conf. on artificial life (pp. 485–494). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Ikegami, T., & Iizuka, H. (2007). Turn-taking interaction as a cooperative and co-creative process. Infant Behavior & Development, 30, 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jackson, P. L., & Decety, J. (2004). Motor cognition: a new paradigm to study self-other interactions. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jacob, P., & Jeannerod, M. (2005). The motor theory of social cognition: a critique. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Keysers, C., & Fadiga, L. (2008). The mirror neuron system: new frontiers. Social Neuroscience, 3(3–4), 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krueger, J. (2012). Seeing mind in action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.Google Scholar
  56. Lutz, A. (2002). Toward a neurophenomenology of generative passages: a first empirical case study. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lutz, A., & Thompson, E. (2003). Neurophenomenology: integrating subjective experience and brain dynamics in the neuroscience of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 31–52.Google Scholar
  58. Lyons-Ruth, K., Bruschweiler-Stern, N., Harrison, A. M., Morgan, A. C., Nahum, J. P., Sander, L., Stern, D. N., & Tronick, E. Z. (1998). Implicit relational knowing: its role in development and psychoanalytic treatment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19, 282–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Merleau-Ponty, M. [1945]. Phénomènologie de la perception, trans. by: C. Smith (1962), Phenomenology of perception. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  60. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1960). “Les relations avec autrui chez l’enfant”, Paris, France: Cours de Sorbonne, trans. by W. Cobb, “The Child’s Relations with Others”. In: M. Merleau-Ponty (1964), The Primacy of Perception And Other Essays on Phenomenological Psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History and Politics, J. M. Edie (Ed.), (pp. 96-155). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Morganti, F., Carassa, A., & Riva, G. (Eds.). (2008). Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective on the study of interactions. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  62. Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulations of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers. In T. M. Field & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 177–197). Norwood: Alex.Google Scholar
  63. Nadel, J., Carchon, I., Kervella, C., Marcelli, D., & Réserbat-Plantey, D. (1999). Expectancies for social contingency in 2-month-olds. Developmental Science, 2(2), 164–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Petitmengin, C., Navarro, V., & Le Van Quyen, M. (2007). Anticipating seizure: pre-reflective experience at the center of neuron-phenomenology. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(3), 746–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Port, R. F., & van Gelder, T. (Eds.). (1995). Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Quinn, M., Smith, L., Mayley, G., & Husbands, P. (2003). Evolving controllers for a homogeneous system of physical robots: structured cooperation with minimal sensors. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 361, 2321–2343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Rethinking commonsense psychology: A critique of folk psychology, theory of mind and simulation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  70. Reddy, V. (2008). How infants know minds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (1999). Resonance behaviors and mirror neurons. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 137, 85–100.Google Scholar
  73. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Roy, J.-M., Petitot, J., Pachoud, B., & Varela, F. J. (1999). Beyond the gap: An introduction to naturalizing phenomenology. In J. Petitot, F. J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 1–80). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Spaulding, S. (2010). Embodied cognition and mindreading. Mind & Language, 25(1), 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stawarska, B. (2006). Introduction: intersubjectivity and embodiment. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Starwaska, B. (2009). Between you and I. Dialogical phenomenology. Ohio: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Stern, D. N. [1985] (1998). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  79. Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E. A. (Eds.). (2010). Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Stich, S., & Nichols, S. (1991). Folk psychology: Simulation or tacit theory. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  81. Stout, R. (2012). What someone’s behaviour must be like if we are to be aware of their emotions in it. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.Google Scholar
  82. Stuart, S. (2011), Enkinaesthesia, Biosemiotics and the Ethiosphere. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  83. Summa, M. (2011). Das Leibgedächtnis. Ein Beitrag aus der Phänomenologie Husserls. Husserl Studies, 27, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamical systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  85. Thompson, E. (2001). Empathy and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5–7), 1–32.Google Scholar
  86. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Torrance, S. (2009). Contesting the concept of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(5), 111–126.Google Scholar
  88. Torrance, S., & Froese, T. (2011). An inter-enactive approach to agency: phenomenology, dynamics, and sociality. Humana Mente, 15, 21–53.Google Scholar
  89. Trevarthen, C. B. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 321–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Trevarthen, C. (2005). First things first: infants make good use of the sympathetic rhythm of imitation, without reason or language. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 31(1), 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. van Gelder, T. (1999). Wooden iron? Husserlian phenomenology meets cognitive science. In J. Petitot, F. J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 245–265). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: a methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330–349.Google Scholar
  93. Varela, F. J. (1997). The naturalization of phenomenology as the transcendence of nature: searching for generative mutual constraints. Alter: Revue de Phénoménologie, 5, 355–381.Google Scholar
  94. Varela, F. J. (1999). The specious present: a neurophenomenology of time consciousness. In J. Petitot, F. J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 266–317). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  96. Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the cognitive world: The next step. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Zahavi, D. (2001). Beyond empathy: phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5–7), 151–167.Google Scholar
  98. Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.) (2008). The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ikegami LaboratoryThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Klinik für Allgemeine Psychiatrie, Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Universitätsklinikum HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations