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
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Tolerant enactivist cognitive science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS