Enactive Cognition
Old paradigm umed the physical world was “out there” and that the brain represented it in some internal neural language.
New paradigm sees that the nervous system is autopoietic (self-making) and therefore organizationally closed. What we know about the world has to do with how our own internal structures organize themselves (ie, the brain is self-organizing!), not with how a pre-existing world is represented.
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/articles/1.1.mcgee.pdf
“…the enactive approach consists of two points:
(1) perception consists in perceptually guided
action and (2) cognitive structures emerge from
the recurrent sensorimotor patterns that enable
action to be perceptually guided. The overall con-
cern …is not to determine how some perceiver-
independent world is to be recovered; it is, rather,
to determine the common principles or lawful
linkages between sensory and motor systems
that explain how action can be perceptually
guided in a perceiver-dependent world.”
– Varela, Thompson & Rosch 1991, p. 173
Duration : 0:5:57
[youtube 6frNFSXj5ws]
Tags: cognitive, consciousness, enactivism, science
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
We ume their is …
We ume their is an objective world out there just like we ume that x=x, these umptions however separate they seem, independently verify each other.
These are called basic umptions, without these, we wouldn’t even be able to the that thought is able to deduce anything since “reality is an illusion” and thought!=though.
These are called necessary umptions and its useless to discard them due to the fact that doing so accomplishes nothing.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
given that the …
given that the external physical world created by the brain, doesn’t that suggest that there isn’t one world, but an infinite number of worlds? that our brain’s ability to perceive in different ways (ie, we’re driving down a road and we perceive in the distance an animal lying ahead on the road—then we get closer and realize it’s just a fallen tree branch. we pass it by and continue driving…which was it then, a branch, a dead animal, both? something else? does time exist? just a perception?
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Fascinating …
Fascinating argument. It would, I suppose, support the cause of skepticism and relativism.
One question though: Given that emotions are basically neurological or chemical reactions, what causes these reactions?
Don’t know if I’m making sense.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Your not telling …
Your not telling anyone anything they don’t already know…
Who exactly are you attempting to inform?
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“We don’t …
“We don’t experience anything except the state of our own nervous system. ” This is why consciousness exploration is so important for understanding. By changing those neurological states it is possible to get an idea of how perception relates to reality and what is constant, if anything.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
The key is …
The key is understanding the illusion of independent existence. If you don’t mind, please approve my video response to your “What is the mind” video in your other account.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Similar nervous …
Similar nervous systems enact similar worlds. And then there is our common language which adds even more similarity.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Garbage theory, …
Garbage theory, funny how all of us subjective beings see the same picture of you and those trees. Seems pretty objective to me.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
too much matrix …
too much matrix watching…
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Sorry it took me so …
Sorry it took me so long to get here. This discussion is too thick for my blood. ~peace
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
everything …
everything constrains.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
A biological …
A biological organism does not need to ume that there is an objective physical world outside itself, what is the point of uming something that you are already experiencing. I get fed up of mentioning this but all of our ideas of the truth are based on the ideas of the truth that we get from our sense impressions of objective physical reality.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Interesting idea…
Interesting idea…
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
agreed, but the …
agreed, but the ontic does constrain the ontological, does it not?
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I’ll have to do …
I’ll have to do another video to explain the difference between enactivism and solipsism. Long story short: enactivism posits a consensual domain of experience brought forth by our intersubjective interaction with others. Because we are all similarly structured organisms, we share a human world brought forth by our human brains/bodies.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
explain?
explain?
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Well, sort of I …
Well, sort of I guess…Solipsism is the ideat that the self (i.e., individual subjective existence) is all that can be known to exist. I just don’t see why that isn’t what Matt and Michael are saying here, but I’m not sure, so I asked.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I am not in my body …
I am not in my body; in fact, in my body is precisely where i am not.
a nervous system is an ability for dasein, and in no way can be said to be constitutive of it. A nervous system is constitutive of an organism, etc.
nothing ontic can constitute the ontological.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I guess this is …
I guess this is what I was getting at. I hadn’t heard of solipsism but when you say this middle space I think you mean the inconceivable. Is that what is meant by cognitive unconscious? I just wonder what follows from just speculation. This play between the universe seems like a transparent symbol.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
interesting stuff.
interesting stuff.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
this is crazy video …
this is crazy video full of crazy stuff and i think you made mistakes many time, specially with the example about eyes….
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
How is this not …
How is this not just a different flavor of solipsism?
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Don’t mistake this …
Don’t mistake this for solipsism. It isn’t all in your mind. But neither is it all waiting in the world for you to inwardly model. Reality is what arises in the middle space between organism and environment.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
There is a …
There is a cognitive unconscious, neural activity that goes on without us being aware of it. But when we call it “representational” we are uming that it stands for something in the world. But what could it stand for if “the world” is something brought forth by the neural activity itself?
August 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Matt,
Do you think …
Matt,
Do you think experience is chained to “internal representational language”? Based off what you read/said, I agree, we’re translating every last bit, but there seem to be times when we lose ourselves. But it I also wonder how I can refer to it, and if when I refer to it I’m translating something that couldn’t be translated? When we have any experience is there mute internal language?