Scaffolded Minds And The Evolution Of Content In Signaling Pathways

Open access


Hutto and Myin (2013) famously argue that basic minds are not contentful and content exists only as far as it is scaffolded with social and linguistic practices. This view, however, rests on a troublesome distinction between basic and scaffolded minds. Since Hutto and Myin have to account for language purely in terms of joint action guidance, there is no reason why simpler communication systems, such as cellular signaling pathways, should not give rise to scaffolded content as well. This conclusion remains valid even if one rejects the view of language as mediated through public symbols and embraces global antirepresentationalism. Content evolves spontaneously in complex regulatory systems, such as human, animal, and cellular communication.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alksnis N. (forthcoming). A review and reply to Radicalizing Enactivism: How scaffolding fails to solve the hard problem of content. Retrieved from:

  • Barandiaran X. E. & Egbert M. D. (2013). Norm-establishing and norm-following in autonomous agency. Artificial Life 1–33. doi:10.1162/ARTL_a_00094

  • Bickhard M. H. (2009). The interactivist model. Synthese166(3) 547–591. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9375-x

  • Block N. i Kitcher P. (2010). Misunderstanding Darwin: Natural selection’s secular critics get it wrong. Boston Review (March-April).

  • Brooks R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence 47 139–159. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(91)90053-M

  • Chemero A. (2000). Anti-representationalism and the dynamical stance. Philosophy of Science 67(4) 625–647. doi:10.1086/392858

  • Chemero A. (2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Clark A. & Toribio J. (1994). Doing without representing? Synthese 101(3) 401–431.

  • Cowley S. J. (2011). Distributed language. In S. J. Cowley (Ed.) Distributed language (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Cuffari E. C. Di Paolo E. & De Jaegher H. (2014). From participatory sense-making to language: there and back again. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. doi:10.1007/s11097-014-9404-9

  • Fodor J. (2008). Against Darwinism. Mind Language23(1) 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.14 68-0017.2007.00324.x

  • Davidson D. (1967). Truth and meaning. Synthese17 304–23.

  • De Jaegher H. & Di Paolo E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences6(4) 485–507. doi:10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9

  • Dretske F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  • Gauker C. (2011). Words and images: An essay on the origins of ideas. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Grice H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review66 377–388.

  • Hockett Ch. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American203 89–97.

  • Harvey M. I. (2015). Content in languaging: why radical enactivism is incompatible with representational theories of language. Language Sciences48 90–129. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2014.12.004

  • Hutto D. & Myin E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  • Hutto D. (2008). Folk psychological narratives: the socio-cultural basis of understanding reasons. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press

  • Korbak T. (2015). Radykalny enaktywizm a konserwatywna kognitywistyka. Analiza i Egzystencja 29 123–133.

  • Lakoff G. & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Maturana H. R. (1978). Biology of language: the epistemology of reality. In G. A. Miller & L. Elizabeth (Eds.) Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg (pp. 27–63). New York NY: Academic Press.

  • Millikan R. G. (1989). Biosemantics. Journal of Philosophy86(6) 281–297. doi: 10.2307/2027123

  • Milkowski M. (2015). Satisfaction conditions in anticipatory mechanisms. Biology & Philosophy (February). doi:10.1007/s10539-015-9481-3

  • O’Regan J. K. & Noë A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(5) 939–973 [discussion 973–1031].

  • Pattee H. (1969). How does a molecule become a message? Developmental Biology Supplement3 1–16.

  • Pattee H. (1985). Universal principles of measurement and language functions in evolving systems. In J. Casti & A. Karlqvist (Eds.) Complexity of language and life: Mathematical approaches (pp. 268–281). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Rączaszek-Leonardi J. (2012). Language as a system of replicable constraints. In H. H. Pattee & J. Raczaszek-Leonardi Laws Language and Life: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols (pp. 295–333). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Skyrms B. (2011). Signals: Evolution learning and information. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Solomon E. P. Martin D. W. Martin C. & Berg L. R. (2014). Biology (10th ed.). Boston MA: Cengage Learning.

  • Thelen E. Schöner G. Scheier C. & Smith L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(1) 1–34 [discussion 34–86]. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01003910

  • Thompson E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology phenomenology and the sciences of mind. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Thompson E. & Stapleton M. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi28(1) 23–30. doi:10.1007/s11245-008-9043-2

  • Weber A. & Varela F. J. (2002). Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences1 97–125.

  • Williams M. (2010). Blind obedience: The structure and content of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. London: Routledge.

Journal information
Impact Factor

Cite Score 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.358

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 245 154 7
PDF Downloads 93 70 6