Comments for The Life & Mind Seminar Network

Comment on The Interactive Brain Hypothesis by computer coupons

computer coupons — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:59:11 +0000

I’m amazed, I have to admit. Rarely do I encounter a blog that’s equally educative
and interesting, and let me tell you, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The issue is something which not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I’m very happy that I found this in my
hunt for something regarding this.

Comment on Combined symposiums on enaction @ AISB’13 (Exeter, UK), April 3-5, 2013 by eroesch

eroesch — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:26:54 +0000

Agreed! I think enaction still needs to prove itself, both in day-to-day practice, e.g. clinical or education, and as a scientific concept that can be operationalised and grown into a full blown research scaffolding, ultimately supporting and seeding science with the same impact as the computational theory of mind.
You’ll be missed Tom. Drink a mojito for us!

Comment on Combined symposiums on enaction @ AISB’13 (Exeter, UK), April 3-5, 2013 by Tom Froese

Tom Froese — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:11:43 +0000

Looks awesome! Wish I could be there... I think the development of an enactive approach to psychopathology has a lot of promise. It will allow us to check if our theories actually translate into better practice. If I could have joined the workshop I would have presented something on a related topic, which could still be of interest to the participants in paper form: Is it normal to be a principal mindreader? Revising theories of social cognition on the basis of schizophrenia and high functioning autism-spectrum disorders

Comment on New paper: Enactivism is not interactionism by Tom Froese

Tom Froese — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:32:11 +0000

Very nice paper! I only now had a chance to look at it. I arrived at similar conclusions here: Froese, T. & Stewart, J. (2013). Enactive Cognitive Science and Biology of Cognition: A Response to Humberto Maturana. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 19(4): 61-74 I should have included a reference to Proulx (2008). Sorry Jerome!

Comment on New paper: Enactivism is not interactionism by Paulo

Paulo — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:45:25 +0000

Tom, interesting you mention Hutto and Myin’s, very interesting read. Not sure how comfortably it sits with the views endorsed by most who are interested in this blog (enaction grounded in autonomy). At any rate, i am very interested to know what others made of the book.

Comment on The Role of the Spatial Boundary in Autopoiesis by andreashager

andreashager — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:41:27 +0000

http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/cybernetics/oo/oo3.pdf

Comment on The Role of the Spatial Boundary in Autopoiesis by andreashager

andreashager — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:40:32 +0000

http://autopoietic.net/boundaries.pdf

Comment on The Role of the Spatial Boundary in Autopoiesis by andreashager

andreashager — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:39:29 +0000

http://froese.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/virgo-egbert-froese-09-ecal.pdf

Comment on The Role of the Spatial Boundary in Autopoiesis by andreashager

andreashager — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:13:55 +0000

Reblogged this on Andreashager's Blog.

Comment on New paper: Enactivism is not interactionism by Fred Cummins

Fred Cummins — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:19:49 +0000

Continuing the Enaction vs Constructivism debate, this paper by Jerome Proulx may be of interest:

J. Proulx (2008). Some Differences between Maturana and Varela’s Theory of Cognition and Constructivism. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, (2008) 5(1):11-26.

Available at http://fredspdfs.posterous.com/j-proulx-2008-some-differences-between-matura