Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 80 (80):43-65 (2006)
[Andy Clark] What is the relation between perceptual experience and the suite of sensorimotor skills that enable us to act in the very world we perceive? The relation, according to 'sensorimotor models' (O'Regan and Noë 2001, Noë 2004) is tight indeed. Perceptual experience, on these accounts, is enacted via skilled sensorimotor activity, and gains its content and character courtesy of our knowledge of the relations between (typically) movement and sensory stimulation. I shall argue that this formulation is too extreme, and that it fails to accommodate the substantial firewalls, dis-integrations, and special-purpose streamings that form the massed strata of human cognition. In particular, such strong sensorimotor models threaten to obscure the computationally potent insensitivity of key information-processing events to the full subtleties of embodied cycles of sensing and moving. /// [Naomi Eilan] The strong sensorimotor account of perception gives self-induced movements two constitutive roles in explaining visual consciousness. The first says that self-induced movements are vehicles of visual awareness, and for this reason consciousness 'does not happen in the brain only'. The second says that the phenomenal nature of visual experiences is consists in the action-directing content of vision. In response I suggest, first, that the sense in which visual awareness is active should be explained by appeal to the role of attention in visual consciousness, rather than self-induced movements; and second, that the sense in which perceptual consciousness does not happen in the brain only should be explained by appeal to the relational nature of perceptual consciousness, appeal to which also shows why links with action cannot exhaust phenomenal content
|Keywords||Cognition Epistemology Experience Perception Senses|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Commentary on Mossio and Taraborelli: Is the Enactive Approach Really Sensorimotor?☆.F. Pascal & J. Oregan - 2008 - Consciousness and Cognition 17 (4):1341-1342.
Commentary on Mossio and Taraborelli: Is the Enactive Approach Really Sensorimotor?Frédéric Pascal & J. Kevin O'Regan - 2008 - Consciousness and Cognition 17 (4):1341-1342.
Similar books and articles
Andy Clark Cognitive Complexity and the Sensorimotor Frontier.Andy Clark - 2006 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 80 (1):43–65.
Sensorimotor Contingencies Do Not Replace Internal Representations, and Mastery is Not Necessary for Perception.Ernst Niebur - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):994-995.
Perception, Action, and Consciousness: Sensorimotor Dynamics and Two Visual Systems.Nivedita Gangopadhyay, Michael Madary & Finn Spicer (eds.) - 2010 - Oxford University Press, Usa.
Defining Visuomotor Dissociations and an Application to the Oculomotor System.Bruce Bridgeman - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):27-28.
Vision as Dance? Three Challenges for Sensorimotor Contingency Theory.Andy Clark - 2006 - Psyche 12 (1).
Enactivism and the Unity of Perception and Action.Nivedita Gangopadhyay & Julian Kiverstein - 2009 - Topoi 28 (1):63-73.
Understanding 'Sensorimotor Understanding'.Tom Roberts - 2010 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):101-111.
Experiential Blindness Revisited: In Defense of a Case of Embodied Cognition.N. Gangopadhyay - 2010 - Cognitive Systems Research 11:396-407.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads52 ( #99,344 of 2,158,427 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #193,773 of 2,158,427 )
How can I increase my downloads?