Debunking enactivism: a critical notice of Hutto and Myin’s Radicalizing Enactivism
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.
Citations in the library
Cited by 7
- Representation and mental representation Philosophical Explorations May 4, 2018
- Going Radical The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition October 9, 2018
- Gesture, meaning, and intentionality: from radical to pragmatist enactive theory of language Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences September 23, 2023
- The structure of intentionality: insights and challenges for enactivism Inquiry May 26, 2023
- Making Room for Narrative Practices in Mental Health: Taking Care with the Scaffolding-Plumbing Metaphor Topoi May 3, 2026
and 2 more in the library