Abstract
Context: Distributed language and interactivity are central members of a set of concepts that are rapidly developing into rigorous, exciting additions to 4E cognitive science. Because they share certain assumptions and methodological commitments with enactivism, the two have sometimes been confused; additionally, while enactivism is a well-developed paradigm, interactivity has relied more on methodological development and on a set of focal examples. Problem: The goal of this article is to clarify the core conceptual commitments of both interactivity-based and enactive approaches to cognitive science by contrasting the two and highlighting their differences in assumptions, focus, and explanatory strategies. Method: We begin with the shared commitments of interactivity and enactivism - e.g., antirepresentationalism, naturalism, interdisciplinarity, the importance of biology, etc. We then give an overview of several important varieties of enactivism, including sensorimotor and anti-representationalist enactivism, and then walk through the history of the “core” varieties, taking care to contrast Maturana’s approach with that of Varela and the current researchers following in Varela’s footsteps. We then describe the differences between this latter group and interactivity-based approaches to cognitive science. Results: We argue that enactivism’s core concepts are explanatorily inadequate in two ways. First, they mis-portray the organization of many living systems, which are not operationally closed. Second, they fail to realize that most epistemic activity (i.e., “sense-making”) depends on engagement with non-local resources. Both problems can be dealt with by adopting an interactivity-based perspective, in which agency and cognition are fundamentally distributed and involve integration of non-local resources into the local coupling of organism and environment. Implications: The article’s primary goal is theoretical clarification and exposition; its primary implication is that enactive concepts need to be modified or extended in some way in order to explain fully many aspects of cognition and directed biological activity. Or, read another way, the article’s primary implication is that interactivity already provides a rich set of concepts for doing just that, which, while closely allied with enactivism in several ways, are not enactivist concepts. Constructivist content: The article consists entirely of a comparison between two constructivist fields of theory. Key Words: Interactivity, enactivism, distributed language, radical embodied cognitive science, ecological psychology, autonomy.
Citation
Harvey M. I., Gahrn-Andersen R. & Steffensen S. V. (2016) Interactivity and enaction in human cognition. Constructivist Foundations 11(2): 234–245. http://constructivist.info/11/2/234
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
References
Attanasi A., Cavagna A., Del Castello L., Giardina I., Grigera T. S., Jelić, A., Melillo S., Parisi L., Pohl O., Shen E. & Viale M. (2014) Information transfer and behavioural inertia in starling flocks. Nature Physics 10: 691–696.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Baber C. (2015) Thinking through tools: What can tool-use tell us about distributed cognition? Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 41(1): 25–40.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bailly F. & Longo G. (2008) Extended critical situations: The physical singularity of life phenomena. Journal of Biological Systems 16(2): 309–336.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Barandiaran X. E. (2012) Pushing the accelerator on enactive perception: How sensorimotor dynamics can constitute minds. Seminario Interuniversitario de Ciencia Cognitiva, XXII.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Barrows W. M. (1915) The reactions of an orb-weaving spider, Epeira Sclopetaria Clerck, to rhythmic vibrations of its web. Biological Bulletin 29(5): 316–326+328.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Barth F. G. (1985) Neuroethology of the spider vibration sense. In: F. G. Barth (ed.) Neurobiology of Arachnids. Springer-Verlag, Berlin: 203–229.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bingham G. P. (1988) Task-specific devices and the perceptual bottleneck. Human Movement Science 7: 225–264.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Buhrmann T. & Di Paolo E. (2014) Non-representational sensorimotor knowledge. In: Del Pobil A. P, Chinellato E., Ester Martinez-Martin E., Hallam J., Cervera E. & Morales A. (eds.) From animals to animats 13. Springer, New York: 21–31.
http://cepa.info/2521
Cannon W. B. (1929) Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiological Reviews 9(3): 399–431.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cavagna A., Cimarelli A., Giardina I., Parisi G., Santagati R. & Stefanini F., Massimiliano. (2010) Scale-free correlations in starling flocks. PNAS 107(26): 11865–11870.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cowley S. J. (2016) Entrenchment. In: Schmid H. J. (ed.) Entrenchment, memory and automaticity: The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learning. De Gruyter, New York. In: Press.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Craig A. D. (2015) How do you feel? An interoceptive moment with your neurobiological self. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cuffari E. C. (2014) On being mindful about misunderstandings in languaging: Making sense of non-sense as the way to sharing linguistic meaning. In: Cappuccio M. & Froese T. (eds.) Enactive cognition at the edge of sense-making: Making sense of non-sense. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke UK: 207–237.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cummins F. (2013) Towards an enactive account of action: Speaking and joint speaking as exemplary domains. Adaptive Behavior 21(3): 178–186.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cummins J. (2012) Do the origins of biological general intelligence lie in an adaptation of the stress response? In: Simeonov P. L., Smith L. S.& Andrée C. Ehresmann A. C. (eds.) Integral biomathics. Springer, Berlin: 155–168.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
De Jesus: (2015) Autopoietic enactivism, phenomenology and the deep continuity between life and mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1–25.
http://cepa.info/2385
Di Paolo E. A. (2003) Organismically-inspired robotics: Homeostatic adaptation and teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop. In: Murase K. & Asakura T. (eds.) Dynamical systems approach to embodiment and sociality. Advanced Knowledge International, Adelaide: 19–42.
http://cepa.info/2514
Di Paolo E. A. (2009) Overcoming autopoiesis: An enactive detour on the way from life to society. In: Magalhães R. & Sanchez R. (eds.) Autopoiesis in organization theory and practice. Emerald, Bingley UK: 43–68.
http://cepa.info/2366
Di Paolo E. A. (2015) Interactive time-travel: On the intersubjective retro-modulation of intentions. Journal of Consciousness Studies 22(1–2): 49–74.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ellis N. C. & Larsen-Freeman D. (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27(4): 558–589.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Enfield N. J. (2011) Sources of asymmetry in human interaction. In: Stivers T., Mondada L. & Steensig J. (eds.) The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 285–312.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Enfield N. J. (2013) Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Enfield N. J. (2014) Causal dynamics of language. In: Enfield N. J., Kockelman P. & Sidnell J. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 325–342.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fischer A. H. & Mansted A. (2008) Social functions of emotion. In: Lewis M., Haviland-Jones J. & Barrett L. (eds.) Handbook of emotions. The Guilford Press, London: 456–470.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fowler C. A. (2014) Talking as doing: Language forms a public language. New Ideas in Psychology 32: 174–182.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fox A. (2009) Dushun’s huayan fajie guan men (Meditative approaches to the huayan dharmadhatu). In: Edelglass W. & Garfield J. L. (eds.) Buddhist philosophy: Essential readings. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 73–82.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T. & Gallagher S. (2012) Getting interaction theory (IT) together: Integrating developmental, phenomenological, enactive, and dynamical approaches to social interaction. Interaction Studies 13(3): 436–468.
http://cepa.info/2368
Fuchs T. (2013) The phenomenology and development of social perspectives. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 12: 655–683.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gallagher S. & Hutto D. (2008) Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. In: Zlatev J., Racine T. P., Sinha C. & Itkonen E. (eds.) The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. John Benjamins, Amsterdam: 17–38.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Goldstein L. & Fowler C. A. (2003) Articulatory phonology. In: Schiller N. O. & Meyer A. S. (eds.) Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin: 159–207.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gordon D. M. (2010) Ant encounters. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Griffiths E. & Scarantino A. (2005) Emotions in the wild. In: Robbins P. & Aydede M. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 437–453.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gu X. & FitzGerald T. H. (2014) Interoceptive inference: Homeostasis and decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(6): 269–270.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Harvey M. (2015) Content in languaging: Why radical enactivism is incompatible with representational theories of language. Language Sciences 48: 90–129.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Havelange V. (2010) The ontological constitution of cognition and the epistemological constitution of cognitive science: Phenomenology, enaction, and technology. In: Stewart J., Gapenne O. & Di Paolo E. A. (eds.) Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 335–359.
http://cepa.info/2466
Hoppitt W. & Laland K. N. (2013) Social learning. Princeton University Press, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hutto D. D. (2013) Exorcising action oriented representations: Ridding cognitive science of its Nazgûl. Adaptive Behavior 21(3): 142–150.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hutto D. D. (2015) Overly enactive imagination? Radically re-imagining imagining. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 53(S1): 68–89.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Iizuka H., Ando H. & Maeda T. (2013) Extended homeostatic adaptation model with metabolic causation in plasticity mechanism: Toward constructing a dynamic neural network model for mental imagery. Adaptive Behavior 21(4): 263–273.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Jensen T. W. (2014) Emotion in languaging: Language and emotion as affective, adaptive and flexible behavior in social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 720.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Johnson G. J., Bruner II G. C. & Kumar A. (2006) Interactivity and its facets revisited: Theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising 35(4): 35–52.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kalupahana D. (1992) A history of Buddhist philosophy. Continuities and discontinuities. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kelso J. A. S. (1995) Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behaviour. MIT Press, Cambridge.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kirsh D. (2015) The importance of chance and interactivity in creativity. Pragmatics and Cognition 22(1): 5–26.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Konvalinka I., Xygalatas D., Bulbulia J., Schjødt U., Jegindø E.-M. Wallot S. & Roepstorff A. (2011) Synchronized arousal between performers and related spectators in a fire-walking ritual. PNAS 108(20): 8514–8519.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Laland K. N., Odling-Smee J. & Feldman M. W. (2000) Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23: 131–175.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Latour B. (2013) An inquiry into modes of existence. Translated by Catherine Porter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. French original published in 2012.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lemke J. (2000) Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7(4): 273–290.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Loughlin V. (2014) Sensorimotor knowledge and the radical alternative. In: Bishop J. M. & Martin A. O. (eds.) Contemporary sensorimotor theory. Springer, Heidelberg: 105–116.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
MacWhinney B. (2005) The emergence of linguistic form in time. Connection Science 17(3–4) 191–211.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. (1978) Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In: G. A. Miller & E. Lenneberg (eds.) Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg. Academic Press, New York: 27–63.
http://cepa.info/549
Maturana H. R. (1988) Ontology of observing: The biological foundations of self-consciousness and the physical domain of existence. In: Donaldson R. E. (ed.) Texts in cybernetic theory: An in-depth exploration of the thought of Humberto Maturana, William T. Powers, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. American Society for Cybernetics, Felton CA.
http://cepa.info/597
Maturana H. R. (2002) Autopoiesis, structural coupling, and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 9(3–4): 5–34.
http://cepa.info/685
Maturana H. R. (2011) Ultrastability… autopoiesis? Reflective response to Tom Froese and John Stewart. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 18(1–2): 143–152.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
McMillan S. J. (2006) Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions. In: Lievrouw L. A. & Livingstone S. (eds.) The Handbook of New Media. Sage, London: 205–230.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Merker B. & Okanoya K. (2007) The natural history of human language. In: Lyon C., Nehaniv C. L. & Cangelosi A. (eds.) Emergence of Communication and Language. Springer London: 403–420.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Myin E. & O’Regan K. (2002) Perceptual consciousness, access to modality and skill theories. A way to naturalize phenomenology? Journal of Consciousness Studies 9(1): 27–46.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Port R. F. (2010) Language as a social institution: Why phonemes and words do not live in the brain. Ecological Psychology 22: 304–326.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Port R. F. (2010) Rich memory and distributed phonology. Language Sciences 32: 43–55.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ramscar M. & Port R. F. (2016) How spoken languages work in the absence of an inventory of discrete units. Language Sciences 53: 58–74.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rosch E. (1999) Reclaiming concepts. In: Núñez R. & Freeman W. J. (eds.) Reclaiming cognition. Imprint Academic, Thorverton UK: 61–78.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schulkin J. (2011) Adaptation and well-being: Social allostasis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schulkin J. (2011) Social allostasis: Anticipatory regulation of the internal milieu. Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience 2: 3389.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Seth A. K. (2014) The cybernetic Bayesian brain. In: Metzinger T. & Windt J. (eds.) Open MIND. MIND Group, Frankfurt am Main: 35(T).
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Steffensen S. V. & Cowley S. (2010) Signifying bodies and health. In: Cowley S. J. Major J. C., Steffensen S. V. & Dinis A. (eds.) Signifying bodies: Biosemiosis, interaction and health. Portuguese Catholic University, Braga: 331–356.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Steffensen S. V. (2013) Human interactivity. In: Cowley S. J. & Vallée-Tourangeau F. (eds.) Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interacivity, and Human Artifice. Springer, London: 195–223.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sterelny K. (2010) Minds: Extended or scaffolded? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9: 465–481.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sterling P. (2004) Principles of allostasis: Optimal design, predictive regulation, pathophysiology, and rational therapeutics. In: Schulkin J. (ed.) Allostasis, homeostasis, and the costs of physiological adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 17–64.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thibault J. (2011) First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: The distributed language View. Ecological Psychology 23: 210–245.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thompson E. (2004) Life and mind: From autopoiesis to neurophenomenology. A tribute to Francisco Varela. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3: 381–398.
http://cepa.info/1137
Thompson E. (2005) Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4(4): 407–427.
http://cepa.info/2358
Turner J. S. (2000) The extended organism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Uryu M., Steffensen S. V. & Kramsch C. (2013) The ecology of intercultural interaction: Timescales, temporal ranges and identity dynamics. Language Sciences 41: 41–59.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. J. (1987) Laying down a path in walking. In: Thompson W. I. (ed.) Gaia: A way of knowing. Political implications of the new biology. Lindisfarne Press, Hudson NY: 48–64.
http://cepa.info/2069
Varela F. J. (1991) Organism: A meshwork of selfless selves. In: Tauber A. I. (ed.) Organism and the Origins of Self. Kluwer, Dordrecht: 79–107.
http://cepa.info/1959
Varela F. J. (1992) Autopoiesis and a biology of intentionality. In: McMullin B. (ed.) Proceedings of the workshop “Autopoiesis an Perception.” Dublin City University, Dublin: 4–14.
http://cepa.info/1274
Virgo N., Egbert M. D. & Froese T. (2011) The role of the spatial boundary in autopoiesis. In: Kampis G., Karsai I. & Szathmáry E. (eds.) Advances in artificial life: Darwin meets von Neumann. 10th European conference on artificial life (ECAL 2009) Springer, Berlin: 234–241.
http://cepa.info/2254
Whitehead A. N. (1967) Science and the modern world. Free Press, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wingfield J. C. (2004) Allostatic load and life cycles: Implications for neuroendocrine control mechanisms. In: Schulkin J. (ed.) Allostasis, homeostasis, and the costs of adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 302–342.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.