Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 3, pp 839–851 | Cite as

Replies to Barrett, Corris and Chemero, and Hutto

  • Shaun GallagherEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this essay, I respond to the critical remarks of Louise Barrett, Amanda Corris and Anthony Chemero, and Daniel Hutto on my book Enactivist Interventions. In doing so, I consider whether behaviorism can make a contribution to enactivist theory, whether synergies are the same as dynamical gestalts, and whether the brain can add anything to mathematical reasoning.

Keywords

Enactivism Behaviorism Synergy Mathematical reasoning 

Notes

References

  1. Aizawa, K. (2014). The enactivist revolution. Avant, 5(2), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.12849/50202014.0109.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, L. (2018). Picturing primates and looking at monkeys: Why 21st century primatology needs Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations, 41(2), 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becchio, C., Manera, V., Sartori, L., Cavallo, A., & Castiello, U. (2012). Grasping intentions: From thought experiments to empirical evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, N. (2005). Book review: Action in perception by Alva Noë. Journal of Philosophy, 102(5), 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bregman, A. S., & Rudnicky, A. I. (1975). Auditory segregation: Stream or streams? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 263–267.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, F. T. (2013). What pragmatism was. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buttelmann, D., Schutte, S., Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Great apes infer others’ goals based on context. Animal Cognition, 15, 1037–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carruthers, P. (2015). Perceiving mental states. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 498–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chemero, A., & Käufer, S. (2016). Pragmatism, phenomenology, and extended cognition. In R. Madzia & M. Jung (Eds.), Pragmatism and embodied cognitive science: From bodily intersubjectivity to symbolic articulation (pp. 57–72). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, V. P., Fan, S., & Hillyard, S. A. (1995). Identification of early visual cortex by crossmodal spatial attention. Human Brain Mapping, 2, 170–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costall, A. (1995). Socializing affordances. Theory and Psychology, 5(4), 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costall, A. (2012). Canonical affordances in context. Avant, 3(2), 85–93.Google Scholar
  14. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craver, C. F., & Bechtel, W. (2007). Top-down causation without top-down causes. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craver, C. F., & Darden, L. (2013). In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Does social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  19. Dennett, D. C., & Kinsbourne, M. (1992). Time and the observer: The where and when of consciousness in the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(2), 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3(4), 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dewey, J. (1910). The influence of Darwin on philosophy: And other essays in contemporary thoughts. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  22. Di Paolo, E. A., Buhrmann, T., & Barandiaran, X. E. (2017). Sensorimotor life: An enactive proposal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foxx, J. J., & Simpson, G. V. (2002). Flow of activation from V1 to frontal cortex in humans: a framework for defining ‘early’ visual processing. Experimental Brain Research, 142, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallagher, S. (1998). The inordinance of time. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gallagher, S. (2015a). Invasion of the body snatchers: How embodied cognition is being de-radicalized. The Philosophers’ Magazine. https://www.academia.edu/14182262/Gallagher_S._2015._Invasion_of_the_body_snatchers_How_embodied_cognition_is_being_disembodied. Accessed 20 December 2018.
  26. Gallagher, S. (2015b). Reuse and body-formatted representations in simulation theory. Cognitive Systems Research, 34–35, 35–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallagher, S., & Povinelli, D. (2012). Enactive and behavioral abstraction accounts of social understanding in chimpanzees, infants, and adults. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1), 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gallese, V. (2017). Neoteny and social cognition: A neuroscientific perspective on embodiment. In C. Durt, C. Tewes, & T. Fuchs (Eds.), Embodiment, enaction, and culture: Investigating the constitution of the shared world (pp. 309–331). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gibson, J. J. (1967). Autobiography. In E. G. Boring & G. Lindzey (Eds.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 5, pp. 125–143). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldman, A. I. (2014). The bodily formats approach to embodied cognition. In U. Kriegel (Ed.), Current controversies in philosophy of mind (pp. 91–108). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Grush, R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 377–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grush, R. (2018). Review of S. Gallagher, Enactivist interventions. Notre dame philosophical reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/enactivist-interventions-rethinking-the-mind/. Accessed 20 December 2018.
  34. Hutto, D. (2015). Overly enactive imagination? Radically re-imagining imagining. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(S1), 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2017). Evolving enactivism: Basic minds meet content. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jacob, P. (2011). The direct-perception model of empathy: A critique. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(3), 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, M. (2017). Embodied mind, meaning, and reason: How our bodies give rise to understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelso, J. S. (1997). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kirchhoff, M. (2017). From mutual manipulation to cognitive extension: Challenges and implications. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 16, 862–878.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-016-9483-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krickel, B. (2017). Making sense of interlevel causation in mechanisms from a metaphysical perspective. Journal for General Philosophy of Science/Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 48(3), 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Leuridan, B. (2012). Three problems for the mutual manipulability account of constitutive relevance in mechanisms. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mac Lane, S. (1981). Mathematical models: A sketch for the philosophy of mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 88(7), 462–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Menary, R. (2007). Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbounded. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1983). The structure of behavior (A. L. Fisher, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  49. Milton, A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2016). The phase of pre-stimulus alpha oscillations influences the visual perception of stimulus timing. Neuroimage, 133, 53–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.065pmid:26924284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Noble, W. G. (1981). Gibsonian theory and the pragmatist perspective. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 11(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pöppel, E. (1994). Temporal mechanisms in perception. International Review of Neurobiology, 37, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ramstead, M. J., Veissière, S. P., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2016). Cultural affordances: scaffolding local worlds through shared intentionality and regimes of attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ronconi, L., & Melcher, D. (2017). The role of oscillatory phase in determining the temporal organization of perception: Evidence from sensory entrainment. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(44), 10636–10644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenthal, S. B., & Bourgeois, P. L. (1991). Mead and Merleau-Ponty: Toward a common vision. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  58. Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(3), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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. 266–314). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Varela, F. J., Toro, A., John, E. R., & Schwartz, E. L. (1981). Perceptual framing and cortical alpha rhythm. Neuropsychologia, 19, 675–686.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(81)90005-1. pmid: 7312152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vaughan, H. G., & Arezzo, J. C. (1988). The neural basis of event-related potentials. In T. W. Picton (Ed.), Human event-related potentials. Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology (Vol. 3, pp. 45–96), Revised series. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  65. Vaughan, H. G., Ritter, W., & Simson, R. (1980). Topographic analysis of auditory event related potentials. Progress in Brain Resarch, 54, 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wutz, A., Weisz, N., Braun, C., & Melcher, D. (2014). Temporal windows in visual processing: “prestimulus brain state” and “poststimulus phase reset” segregate visual transients on different temporal scales. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 1554–1565.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3187-13.2014pmid:24453342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PhilosophyUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Law, Humanities and the ArtsUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations