Why Not Both? Interaction and the Individual in Enactivism

Brancazio, Nick

Volume 18 · Number 3 · Pages 380–382

< Previous Paper · Next Paper >

Why Not Both? Interaction and the Individual in Enactivism

Nick Brancazio

Abstract

Open peer commentary on the article “Beyond Individual-Centred 4E Cognition: Systems Biology and Sympoiesis” by Mads Julian Dengsø & Michael David Kirchhoff. Abstract: I provide two reasons for thinking the conclusion drawn from the argument’s premises is too strong. Briefly, (a) the benefits of having consistent commitments between enactivism and developmental systems theory are only clear when treating both as philosophies of nature rather than empirical research programs, and (b) the target article demonstrates that enactivism is capable of explanatory pluralism.

Citation

Brancazio N. (2023) Why not both? Interaction and the individual in enactivism. Constructivist Foundations 18(3): 380–382. https://constructivist.info/18/3/380

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

References

Barandiaran X. E., Di Paolo E. & Rohde M. (2009) Defining agency: Individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action. Adaptive Behavior 17(5): 367–386. https://cepa.info/324

Beer R. D. & Williams P. L. (2015) Information processing and dynamics in minimally cognitive agents. Cognitive Science 39(1): 1–38. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Brancazio N. (2023) Interactive agential dynamics. Synthese 201(6): 221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04192-5

Corris A. (2022) An enactive-developmental systems framing of cognizing systems. Biology & Philosophy 37(4): 1–21. https://cepa.info/8305

Godfrey-Smith P. (2001) On the status and explanatory structure of developmental systems theory. In: Oyama S., Griffiths P. & Gray R. D. (eds.) Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 283–297. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Griffiths P. E. & Tabery J. (2013) Developmental systems theory: What does it explain, and how does it explain it? In: Lerner R. M. & Benson J. B. (eds.) Advances in child development and behavior, Volume 44. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 65–94. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Longino H. E. (2020) Interaction: A case for ontological pluralism. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 45(3): 432–445. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Longino H. E. (2021) Scaling up; scaling down: What’s missing? Synthese 198: 2849–2863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02249-y

Maturana H. R. (1980) Autopoiesis: Reproduction, heredity and evolution. In: Zeleny M. (ed.) Autopoiesis, dissipative structures and spontaneous social orders, AAAS Selected Symposium 55 (AAAS National Annual Meeting, Houston TX, 3–8 January 1979) Westview Press, Boulder CO: 45–79. https://cepa.info/552

Meyer R. & Brancazio N. (2022) Putting down the revolt: Enactivism as a philosophy of nature. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 948733. https://cepa.info/8401

Stotz K. & Griffiths P. (2015) Dissecting developmental biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 53: 134–138. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.

LATEST ISSUES

FOLLOW US

Abstract

Citation

References

Comments: 0