Abstract

Open peer commentary on the article “Plasticity, Granularity and Multiple Contingency - Essentials for Conceiving an Artificial Constructivist Agent” by Manfred Füllsack. Upshot: The target article is criticised on four counts. It fails to make clear what is meant by the phrase “constructivist agent,” and whether the author is trying to define “constructivist agent” or arguing what the minimal criteria for this are (there are problems with either. It does not make clear whether weak or strong emergence is intended (there are problems with either. The arguments for a minimal level of granularity are incoherent. To summarise, the whole project has a normative flavour that seems odd given the constructivist stance it intends to argue from.