According to Enactivism, cognition should be understood in terms of a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. Further, this view holds that organisms do not passively receive information from this environment, they rather selectively create this environment by engaging in interaction with the world. Radical Enactivism adds that basic cognition does so without entertaining representations and hence that representations are not an essential constituent of cognition. Some proponents think that getting rid of representations amounts to a revolutionary alternative to standard views about cognition. To emphasize the impact, they claim that this ‘radicalization’ should be applied to all enactivist friendly views, including, another current and potentially revolutionary approach to cognition: predictive processing. In this paper, we will show that this is not the case. After introducing the problem (section 2), we will argue (section 3) that ‘radicalizing’ predictive processing does not add any value to this approach. After this (section 4), we will analyze whether or not radical Enactivism can count as a revolution within cognitive science at all and conclude that it cannot. Finally, in section 5 we will claim that cognitive science is better off when embracing heterogeneity.
Bermúdez, J.L. (2003). Thinking Without Words. Oxford.
Block, N. (1996). Mental paint and mental latex. Philosophical Issues, 7, 19–49.
Brooks, R. (1995). Intelligence Without Reason. In L. Steels & R. Brooks (Eds.), The Artificial Life Route to Artificial Intelligence: Building Embodied, Situated Agents. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clark, A., & Toribio, A.J. (1994). Doing without representing. Synthese, 10, 401-431.
Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the Mind: Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. (2012a). Dreaming the whole cat: Generative models, predictive processing, and the enactivist conception of perceptual experience. Mind 121 (483), 753-771. doi: 10.1093/mind/fzs106.
Clark, A. (2012b). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 36(3), 181–253.
Clark, A. (2015a). Embodied prediction. In T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds). Open MIND (7), 1-21. doi: 10.15502/9783958570115.
Clark, A. (2015b). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind: Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. (2016). Busting out: Predictive brains, embodied minds, and the puzzle of the evidentiary veil. Noûs 00:0, 1-27. doi:10.1111/nous.12140.
Clowes, R.W. (2017). The Ipseity Disturbance Theory of Schizophrenia and Predictive Processing. In I. Hipólito, J. Gonçalves, & J. G. Pereira (Eds.), Schizophrenia and Common Sense: explaining madness and social values. : Springer Mind Brain Studies.
Clowes, R.W., & Chrisley, R. (2012). Virtualist Representation. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 04(02), 503-522.
Clowes, R.W., & Mendonça, D. (2016). Representation Redux: Is there still a useful role for representation to play in the context of embodied, dynamicist and situated theories of mind? New Ideas in Psychology, Special Issue on Representation(Special Issue: Explaining Representation), 26-47.
Hutto, D.D., & Satne, G. (2015). The natural origins of content. Philosophia, 43(3), 521-536.
Kriegel, U. (2002). PANIC Theory and the Prospects for a Representationalist Theory of Phenomenal Consciousness. Philosophical Psychology 15, 55-64.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press.
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (1999). Concepts: core readings: Mit Press.
Miłkowski M. (2013). A mechanistic account of computational explanation in cognitive science. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Cooperative Minds: Social Interaction and Group Dynamics, Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, 3050–3055. Available online at: http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/Proceedings/2013/papers/0545/paper0545.pdf.
Miłkowski, M. (2016a). Function and causal relevance of content. New Ideas in Psychology, 40, 94-102.
Miłkowski, M. (2016b). Unification Strategies in Cognitive Science. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 48(61), 13-33.
O’Regan, J.K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 939-973.
Piccinini, G. (2006). Computation without Representation. Philosophical Studies 137(2), 205–241. doi:10.1007/s11098-005-5385-4.
Piccinini, G. (2015). Physical Computation: A Mechanistic Account. Oxford University Press.