David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (4):427-443. (2007)
Much recent work on cognition is characterized by an augmentation of the role of action coupled with an attenuation of the role of representation. This coupling is no accident. The appeal to action is seen either as a way of explaining representation or explaining it away. This paper argues that the appeal to action as a way of explaining, supplementing, or even supplanting, representation can lead to a serious dilemma. On the one hand, the concept of action to which we appeal cannot, on pain of circularity, be a representational concept. Such an appeal would presuppose representation and therefore can neither explain it nor explain it away. On the other hand, I shall argue, if the concept of action to which we appeal is not a representational one, there is every reason for supposing that it will not be the sort of thing that can explain, or supplement, let alone supplant, representation. The resulting dilemma, I shall argue, is not fatal. But avoiding it requires us to embrace a certain thesis about the nature of action, a thesis whose broad outline this paper delineates. Anyone who wishes to employ action as a way of explaining or explaining away representation should, I shall argue, take this conception of action very seriously indeed. I am going to discuss these issues with respect to a influential recent contribution to this debate: the sensorimotor or enactive model of perception developed by Kevin O’Regan and Alva Noë
|Keywords||Action Representation Perception Sensorimotor Myth of the giving|
|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
Andy Clark & David J. Chalmers (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis 58 (1):7-19.
J. Kevin O'Regan & Alva Noë (2001). A Sensorimotor Account of Vision and Visual Consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):883-917.
Susan L. Hurley (1998). Consciousness in Action. Harvard University Press.
Mark Rowlands (1999). The Body in Mind: Understanding Cognitive Processes. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Daniel D. Hutto (2005). Knowing What? Radical Versus Conservative Enactivism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4 (4):389-405.
Mark Rowlands (2009). Enactivism and the Extended Mind. Topoi 28 (1):53-62.
Marek McGann & Hanne De Jaegher (2009). Self–Other Contingencies: Enacting Social Perception. [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8 (4):417-437.
Similar books and articles
Shaun Gallagher (2008). Are Minimal Representations Still Representations? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (3):351 – 369.
Mark H. Bickhard (1997). Is Cognition an Autonomous Subsystem. In S. O'Nuillain, Paul McKevitt & E. MacAogain (eds.), Two Sciences of Mind. John Benjamins 115--131.
Naomi M. Eilan (2006). On the Role of Perceptual Consciousness in Explaining the Goals and Mechanisms of Vision: A Convergence on Attention? Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 80 (1):67-88.
Mark Rowlands (2006). Body Language: Representation in Action. Cambridge MA: Bradford Book/MIT Press.
Jonathan Webber (2002). Doing Without Representation: Coping with Dreyfus. Philosophical Explorations 5 (1):82-88.
Nivedita Gangopadhyay & Julian Kiverstein (2009). Enactivism and the Unity of Perception and Action. Topoi 28 (1):63-73.
Mark Rowlands (2006). Sensorimotor Activity. Psyche 12 (1).
Robert Briscoe (2008). Vision, Action, and Make‐Perceive. Mind and Language 23 (4):457-497.
Mark Rowlands (2006). The Normativity of Action. Philosophical Psychology 19 (3):401-416.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads105 ( #38,769 of 1,911,384 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #319,111 of 1,911,384 )
How can I increase my downloads?