Does Separating Intentionality From Mental Representation Imply Radical Enactivism?
Frontiers in Psychology 2018 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01497 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Autopoiesis Cognition Enactivism Intentionality Naturalism Representation |
| Citations | 16 |
| Key points | Argues that intentionality and mental representation are distinct: intentionality is a feature of whole embodied agents directed at objects, while representation is a feature of mental states, and that creatures can be intentionally directed without the capacity to represent. |
Abstract
Traditionally, intentionality is regarded as that feature of all and only mental states - paradigmatically beliefs and desires - in virtue of which they are directed at or are about something. The problem of intentionality is to explain how it fits into the natural order given the intuition that no physical entity can be intentionally directed in this sense. The basic assumption of this paper, proposed by enactivists, is that failure to naturalize intentionality and mental representation is partly due to the fact that most participants in the debate take intentionality and mental representation to be equivalent. In contrast, it is proposed to treat intentionality as a feature of whole embodied agents (paradigmatically organisms) who can be directed at objects and states of affairs in various ways, while representation should be regarded as a feature of mental states (and their respective vehicles or underlying mechanisms). The present paper develops and motivates the distinction, applies it to Metzinger's project of naturalizing phenomenal representation, and demonstrates the range of theoretical options with respect to a delineation of cognition given the enactive proposal. It is taken as problematic that enactivism takes the realm of cognition to be identical to the realm of biology. Instead, a constraint on a theory of intentionality and representation is that it should delineate the subject matter of cognitive science and distinguish it from other sciences, also to leave room for the possibility of artificial intelligence. One important implication of the present proposal is that there can be creatures which can be intentionally directed without having the capacity to represent. That is, their intentionality is restricted to being able to be directed at existent things. Only creatures in possession of the right kind of neurocognitive architecture can produce and sustain representations in order to be directed at non-existent things. It is sketched how this approach conceives of intentionality as a developmental and layered concept, allowing for a hierarchical model of varieties of intentionality, ranging from the basic pursuit of local environmental goals to thoughts about fictional objects.
Citations in the library
Cited by 4
- The structure of intentionality: insights and challenges for enactivism Inquiry May 26, 2023
- Making enactivism even more pragmatic: The Jamesian legacy in Shaun Gallagher’s enactivist approach to cognition Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia May 2, 2021
- The Hard Problem of Intentionality for Radical Enactive Cognition Synthese April 21, 2026
- Imagery in action. G. H. Mead’s contribution to sensorimotor enactivism Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences December 1, 2021
Cites 6
- Radicalizing Enactivism The MIT Press eBooks December 14, 2012
- Evolving Enactivism The MIT Press eBooks May 19, 2017
- The enactive approach Pragmatics & Cognition July 26, 2011
- Representation and mental representation Philosophical Explorations May 4, 2018
- The Phenomenal Basis of Intentionality Oxford Scholarship Online June 21, 2018
and 1 more in the library