Skip to content

Debunking enactivism: a critical notice of Hutto and Myin’s Radicalizing Enactivism

Mohan Matthen

Canadian Journal of Philosophy February 1, 2014 DOI: 10.1080/00455091.2014.905251 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Review Peer reviewed
Citations 33
Key findings A non-representational theory of mind cannot differentiate cognition from other bodily engagements, and it fails to account for how semantically interacting representations are needed to explain choice and action.

Abstract

In this review of Hutto and Myin’s Radicalizing Enactivism, I question the adequacy of a non-representational theory of mind. I argue first that such a theory cannot differentiate cognition from other bodily engagements such as wrestling with an opponent. Second, I question whether the simple robots constructed by Rodney Brooks are adequate as models of multimodal organisms. Last, I argue that Hutto and Myin pay very little attention to how semantically interacting representations are needed to give an account of choice and action.