David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topoi 28 (1):63-73 (2009)
This paper contrasts two enactive theories of visual experience: the sensorimotor theory (O’Regan and Noë, Behav Brain Sci 24(5):939–1031, 2001; Noë and O’Regan, Vision and mind, 2002; Noë, Action in perception, 2004) and Susan Hurley’s (Consciousness in action, 1998, Synthese 129:3–40, 2001) theory of active perception. We criticise the sensorimotor theory for its commitment to a distinction between mere sensorimotor behaviour and cognition. This is a distinction that is firmly rejected by Hurley. Hurley argues that personal level cognitive abilities emerge out of a complex dynamic feedback system at the subpersonal level. Moreover reflection on the role of eye movements in visual perception establishes a further sense in which a distinction between sensorimotor behaviour and cognition cannot be sustained. The sensorimotor theory has recently come under critical fire (see e.g. Block, J Philos CII(5):259–272, 2005; Prinz, Psyche, 12(1):1–19, 2006; Aizawa, J Philos CIV(1), 2007) for mistaking a merely causal contribution of action to perception for a constitutive contribution. We further argue that the sensorimotor theory is particularly vulnerable to this objection in a way that Hurley’s active perception theory is not. This presents an additional reason for preferring Hurley’s theory as providing a conceptual framework for the enactive programme.
|Keywords||Perception Action Sensorimotor Enactivism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Kenneth Aizawa (2007). Understanding the Embodiment of Perception. Journal of Philosophy 104 (1):5-25.
James J. Gibson (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin.
John Haugeland (1993). Mind Embodied and Embedded. In Yu-Houng H. Houng & J. Ho (eds.), Mind and Cognition: 1993 International Symposium. Academica Sinica. 233-267.
M. Hayhoe & D. Ballard (2005). Eye Movements in Natural Behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (4):188-194.
Citations of this work BETA
Nivedita Gangopadhyay (2011). The Extended Mind: Born to Be Wild? A Lesson From Action-Understanding. [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (3):377-397.
Sven Walter (2010). Locked-in Syndrome, Bci, and a Confusion About Embodied, Embedded, Extended, and Enacted Cognition. Neuroethics 3 (1):61-72.
Similar books and articles
Robert Briscoe (2008). Vision, Action, and Make‐Perceive. Mind and Language 23 (4):457-497.
Alva Noë (2007). Understanding Action in Perception: Replies to Hickerson and Keijzer. Philosophical Psychology 20 (4):531 – 538.
Nini Praetorius (2007). The Problems of Consciousness and Content in Theories of Perception. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (3):349-367.
Nivedita Gangopadhyay, Michael Madary & Finn Spicer (eds.) (2010). Perception, Action, and Consciousness: Sensorimotor Dynamics and Two Visual Systems. Oxford University Press, Usa.
Alessandra Tanesini & Richard Gray (2010). Perception and Action: The Taste Test. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (241):718-734.
N. Gangopadhyay (2010). Experiential Blindness Revisited: In Defense of a Case of Embodied Cognition. Cognitive Systems Research 11:396-407.
Mohan Matthen (2006). Review: Action in Perception. [REVIEW] Mind 115 (460):1160-1166.
Evan Thompson & Giovanna Colombetti (2005). Enacting Emotional Interpretations with Feeling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):200-201.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads100 ( #10,780 of 1,098,828 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #79,379 of 1,098,828 )
How can I increase my downloads?