Abstract
Enactivist (Embodied, Embedded, etc.) approaches in cognitive science and philosophy of mind are sometimes, though not always, conjoined with an anti-representational commitment. A weaker anti-representational claim is that ascribing representational content to internal/sub-personal processes is not compulsory when giving psychological explanations. A stronger anti-representational claim is that the very idea of ascribing representational content to internal, sub-personal processes is a theoretical confusion. This paper criticises some of the arguments made by Hutto and Myin (2013, 2017) for the stronger anti-representational claim and suggests that the default Enactivist view should be the weaker non-representational position.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 226-244 |
Number of pages | 19 |
Journal | Philosophical Explorations |
Volume | 21 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - May 4 2018 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- embodied cognition
- enactivism
- extended mind
- imagination
- intentionality
- representational content
- teleo-semantics
- verbal disputes
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy