Em Ser e Tempo, Heidegger argumenta que o conhecimento primordial do Dasein se dá no manuseio de entes mundanos. Merleau-Ponty, por sua vez, descreve na Fenomenologia da Percepção que o conhecimento é, antes de tudo, uma intencionalidade corporal intraduzível em termos proposicionais. Mais tarde, em What Computers Can’t Do, Hubert Dreyfus usa a obra de ambos para apontar os equívocos do paradigma cognitivista, isto é, a abordagem dominante do então nascente campo da inteligência artificial. Finalmente, em The Embodied Mind: Cognitive (...) Science and Human Experience, a noção de enativismo - elaborada por Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson e Eleanor Rosch - surge como uma tentativa de tomar do cognitivismo e do conexionismo a hegemonia nas ciências cognitivas. Dito isso, o objetivo do artigo consiste em descrever o enativismo e apontar sua herança fenomenológica. (shrink)

Language does not have to be held as a problem for radical enactivists. The scope objection usually presented to criticize enactivist explanations is a problem only if we have a referentialist and representationalist view of the nature of language. Here we present a normative hypothesis for the great question concerning the hard problem of content, namely, on how linguistic practices develop from minds without content. We carry representational content when we master inferential relations and we master inferential relations when we (...) master normative relations, especially when we are introduced into frameworks of authorizations and prohibitions. Inspired by the anti-intellectualism of the later Wittgenstein and Brandom’s inferentialism, we present the hypothesis that language emerges from inferentially articulated action from normative elements and not from manipulation in internal mental states of contents fixed by reference to external things. (shrink)

In this essay we will argue for the following theses: 1- know-how is not a form of practical knowledge devoid of propositional sense; 2- the relationship between each perception and the body itself is metaphysically contingent (organisms and bodies can vary, as can even the spaces they occupy in the same experience vary), 3- it is up to the brain to configure or to shape a physical body (Körper) into a living body (Leib) and not the other way around; 4- (...) phenomenal externalism of enactivist nature, even in its mild form, is empirically implausible: the correlation between the conscious character of sensory experience with spatiotemporal neuronal patterns is much more systematic and regular than with anything outside the brain. But in its radical form is entirely implausible and contra-intuitive: phenomenal duplicates are not necessarily duplicates of agency; in short, 5-we are our own brain that has a body, avatars, and artifacts, properly configured, and molded by the brain, and not a body that has a brain among other essential organs. (shrink)

In this essay we will argue for the following theses: 1- know-how is not a form of practical knowledge devoid of propositional sense; 2- the relationship between each perception and the body itself is metaphysically contingent. 3- it is up to the brain to configure or to shape a physical body (Körper) into a living body (Leib) and not the other way around; 4- phenomenal externalism of enactivist nature, even in its mild form, is empirically implausible: the correlation between the (...) conscious character of sensory experience with spatiotemporal neuronal patterns is much more systematic and regular than with anything outside the brain. But in its radical form is entirely implausible and contra-intuitive: phenomenal duplicates are not necessarily duplicates of agency; in short, 5-we are our own brain that has a body, avatars, and artifacts, properly configured and molded by the brain, and not a body that has a brain among other essential organs. (shrink)

Enactivism is a family of theories that construe action as constitutive of cognition and reject the need to postulate representations in order to explain all cognitive activities. Acknowledging a biologically basic, non-representational mode of cognition, however, raises the question of how to explain higher or more complex cognitive acts, what we call explanatory integration challenge. In this paper, we critically discuss some attempts to meet that challenge through scaling up basic cognition and through scaling down complex cognition within the enactivist (...) research program. (shrink)

In the article “Why are we our brain: enactivism put into question” (this volume), Pereira and collaborators raise a battery of criticisms of enactivism, which is a family of approaches in the cognitive sciences that gives centrality to the body and to the autonomous action of organisms in explanations of their cognitive processes. The authors’ attacks target some central concepts of the enactivist proposal, such as practical knowledge, embodiment (or corporeity) and sensory-motor regularities. I argue that the criticisms by Pereira (...) et al. do not proceed for different reasons: some assume what they want to prove, others give excessive weight to intuitions about fictional scenarios and, finally, others attack scarecrows that do not represent the enactivist positions. None of the points I raise in defense of enactivism are new, but I consider it important to make them explicit in order to make the debate on the philosophy of cognitive sciences clearer. (shrink)

Embodied approaches to human cognition emphasize the role of the body in processes of linguistic comprehension and production. Several empirical studies have presented support to these approaches. The recent linguistic enactivist approach to cognition stands out for suggesting that we have to deepen our concept of the body. In this context, we present: 1) neurological and psychological evidence supporting the claim that concepts are embodied; 2) two theoretical approaches to embodied cognition in the cognitive sciences: the grounded cognition approach, and (...) one approach based on dynamic systems theory – our focus is on how these theories consider the conceptual system; and 3) the enactivist linguistic approach to cognition. Then, based on introductory clarifications on these three theories, we suggest that the empirical evidence supports only a shallow perspective of the role of the body in cognition, by the linguistic enactivist standards, and we emphasize the importance of understanding the empirical reach of linguistic enactivism. Keywords: Language. Body. Cognition. Enactivism. Conceptual system. (shrink)

I advance the Radically Enactive Cognition (REC) program by developing Hutto & Satne’s (2015) and Hutto & Myin’s (2017) idea that contentful cognition emerges through sociocultural activities, which require a contentless form of intentionality. Proponents of REC then face a functional challenge: what is the function of higher cognitive skills, given the empirical findings that engaging in higher-cognitive activities is not correlated with cognitive amelioration (Kornblith, 2012)? I answer that functional challenge by arguing that higher cognition is an adaptive tool (...) of the social systems we are embedded in, therefore, it is not necessarily aimed at achieving better cognitive states. In order to do so, I suggest interpreting key insights from autopoietic enactivism through REC lenses. (shrink)

Resumo : O presente texto é de natureza hermenêutica, e sua finalidade é a de sistematizar o estudo que empreendemos em relação às linhas gerais do projeto de Varela, Thompson e Rosch. Nosso objetivo é o de analisar as bases e o caminho a partir dos quais nossos autores buscaram redirecionar os rumos e mesmo os princípios mais centrais das ciências empíricas e fenomenológicas da mente. Buscaremos demonstrar que o projeto de Varela, Thompson e Rosch foi exitoso em seu propósito (...) de constituir um novo programa de pesquisa no interior das ciências cognitivas e das ciências da mente em geral. Buscaremos, por fim, discutir a concepção de cognição sobre a qual se sustentaram e o papel da fenomenologia nesse empreendimento. (shrink)

Abordagens pós-cognitivistas mais recentes têm lançado duras críticas à noção de representação mental, procurando ao invés disso pensar a mente e a cognição em termos de ações corporificadas do organismo em seu meio. Embora concordemos com essa concepção, não está claro que ela implique necessariamente a rejeição de qualquer tipo de vocabulário representacional. O objetivo deste artigo é argumentar que representações podem nos comprar uma dimensão explicativa adicional não disponível por outros meios e sugerir que, ao menos em alguns casos, (...) elas podem participar da explicação de performances ou capacidades cognitivas. A noção de representação apresentada, como deixaremos claro ao longo do artigo, não viola os preceitos metodológicos mais caros à cognição 4E em geral e ao enativismo em particular, podendo, portanto, ser utilizada como uma ferramenta teórica útil em investigações sobre a natureza corporificada e situada da mente. (shrink)

Primeiro apresento as linhas gerais do programa de pesquisa sobre cognição corporificada. Em uma posição central nesse programa, está a tese de que a cognição atravessa cérebro, corpo e mundo – e que, portanto, atividades cognitivas não são eventos exclusivamente intracraniais que ocorrem pela manipulação de representações. Eu apresento a gênese histórica desse programa, a saber, o projeto autopoiético dos chilenos Humberto Maturana e Francisco Varela. Desse projeto, é possível atestar um plano de fundo antirrealista e construtivista, segundo o qual (...) a cognição é uma construção do mundo pelo organismo. Depois, eu apresento o fundamento teórico que recentemente tomou os holofotes do programa, a saber, o enativismo sensório-motor. Esse enativismo manifesta o compromisso com um realismo comedido, segundo o qual há estruturas objetivas a serem exploradas de acordo com a morfologia corpórea do organismo. Assim, observa-se uma tensão epistemológica no cerne do programa. Eu apresento uma possibilidade de resolução dessa tensão pela rejeição de uma das teses centrais do projeto autopoiético – a continuidade forte entre vida e cognição – e por uma melhor interpretação do que significa dizer que a cognição requer que o oragnismo “construa” o seu ambiente. (shrink)