Cited by 145Embodied and Extended CognitionPhilosophy and History of ScienceCybernetics and Technology in Society

Radical embodiment in two directions

Open access
Baggs, Edward, Chemero, Anthony·2021·Synthese

Abstract

Radical embodied cognitive science is split into two camps: the ecological approach and the enactive approach. We propose that these two approaches can be brought together into a productive synthesis. The key is to recognize that the two approaches are pursuing different but complementary types of explanation. Both approaches seek to explain behavior in terms of the animal–environment relation, but they start at opposite ends. Ecological psychologists pursue an ontological strategy. They begin by describing the habitat of the species, and use this to explain how action possibilities are constrained for individual actors. Enactivists, meanwhile, pursue an epistemic strategy: start by characterizing the exploratory, self-regulating behavior of the individual organism, and use this to understand how that organism brings forth its animal-specific umwelt . Both types of explanation are necessary: the ontological strategy explains how structure in the environment constrains how the world can appear to an individual, while the epistemic strategy explains how the world can appear differently to different members of the same species, relative to their skills, abilities, and histories. Making the distinction between species habitat and animal-specific umwelt allows us to understand the environment in realist terms while acknowledging that individual living organisms are phenomenal beings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11229-018-02020-9

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Chemero (2009) and Baggs and Chemero (2021) bring the physical and biological approaches closer together in order to better cope with social phenomena.

    “Chemero (2009) and Baggs and Chemero (2021), on the other hand, bring the physical and the biological approach closer together so as to better cope with social phenomena.”

    From Productive pluralism: The coming of age of ecological psychology. (2024) · cites this paper as Baggs & Chemero, 2021

    The Abstract proposes a synthesis of ecological psychology and enactivism, and §3.2 applies the framework to social perception and enculturation. The paper does not, however, state that better handling social phenomena is the purpose of bringing the approaches together. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Baggs, E. (2018). A psychology of the in between? Review of "Sensorimotor life: An enactive proposal" by Ezequiel Di Paolo, Thomas Buhrmann, and Xabier Barandiaran. Constructivist Foundations, 13(3), 395-397.
  2. Baggs, E. & Chemero, A. (to appear). The third sense of environment. In J. B. Wagman & J. J. C. Blau (Eds.), Perception as information detection: Reflections on Gibson's ecological approach to visual perception. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis [Preprint available at https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF. IO/SXMRZ]. · DOI
  3. Balasubramaniam, R., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. (2000). Specificity of postural sway to the demands of a precision task. Gait and Posture, 11(1), 12-24.
  4. Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181-195.
  5. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  6. Chemero, A. (2016). Sensorimotor empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(5-6), 138-152.
  7. Costall, A. (1995). Socializing affordances. Theory and Psychology, 5(4), 467-481.
  8. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485-507.
  9. Faries, F., & Chemero, A. (2018). Dynamic information processing. In M. Sprevak & M. Colombo (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the computational mind (pp. 134-148). London: Routledge.
  10. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). How direct is visual perception? Some reflections on Gibson's "ecological approach". Cognition, 9(2), 139-196.
  11. Froese, T., & Gallagher, S. (2012). Getting interaction theory (IT) together: Integrating developmental, phe- nomenological, enactive, and dynamical approaches to social interaction. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 436-468.
  12. Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Gibson, J. J. (1967). Autobiography. In E. G. Boring & G. Lindsay (Eds.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 5, pp. 125-143). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  14. Gibson, J. J. (1975). Events are perceivable but time is not. In J. T. Fraser & N. Lawrence (Eds.), The study of time II. New York: Springer.
  15. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Heft, H. (2017). Perceptual information of "An entirely different order": The "cultural environment" in The senses considered as perceptual systems. Ecological Psychology, 29(2), 122-145.
  17. Husserl, E. (1913/2012). Ideas. Trans. Dermot Moran. London: Routledge.
  18. Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2017). Evolving enactivism: Basic minds meet content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  19. Käufer, S., & Chemero, A. (2015). Phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  20. Mearleau-Ponty, M. (1942/1963). The structure of behavior. Trans. Alden Fisher. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
  21. Nöe, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  22. O'Regan, J. K. (2011). Why red doesn't sound like a bell: Understanding the feel of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. O'Shea, J. R. (2018). Percepts and concepts. In A. Klein (Ed.), Oxford handbook to William James. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. James J. Gibson and the psychology of perception. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  25. Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an Ecological psychology. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press.
  26. Riegler, A. (2005). The constructivist challenge. Constructivist Foundations, 1(1), 1-8.
  27. Shaw, R., & McIntyre, M. (1974). Algoristic foundations to cognitive psychology. In W. Weimer & D. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and symbolic processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlabaum.
  28. Smith, B. C. (1988). The semantics of clocks. In J. H. Fetzer (Ed.), Aspects of artificial intelligence. Studies in cognitive systems (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Springer.
  29. Swenson, R. (1992). Autocatakinetics, yes-autopoiesis, no: Steps towards a unified theory of evolutionary ordering. International Journal of General Systems, 21(2), 207-228.
  30. Swenson, R., & Turvey, M. T. (1991). Thermodynamic reasons for perception-action cycles. Ecological Psychology, 3(4), 317-348.
  31. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  32. Turvey, M. T. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychol- ogy, 4(3), 173-187.
  33. Turvey, M. T., Shaw, R. E., Reed, E. S., & Mace, W. M. (1981). Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981). Cognition, 9(3), 237-304.
  34. Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  35. Von Uexküll, J. (1934/1992). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: a picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica, 89(4):319-391.
  36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  37. Ward, D., Silverman, D., & Villalobos, M. (2017). Introduction: The varieties of enactivism. Topoi, 36(3), 365-375.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baggs, E., & Chemero, A.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
Baggs, Edward
Venue
Synthese
Published
2018-11-20
Volume
198
Issue
S9
Pages
2175-2190
ISSN
  • 0039-7857 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0964
OpenAlex
W2901248493
Cited by
145
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 5
FWCI
9.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Synthese (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Horizon 2020 (706432)
  • Charles Phelps Taft Research Center
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
ecological approach, enactivism, Umwelt, habitat, phenomenality, realism, action possibilities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review