Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brews ohare (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 8 April 2014 (→New section: Some minor rewording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Philosophy: Mind / Contemporary Redirect‑class Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of mind Contemporary philosophy

Disclaimer

This article is a stub, and needs considerable expansion. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Scope and content

A useful article to create, but we need to make sure it does not digress into a coat rack for material that is in other articles - I have removed material that falls into that category. Also at the moment the sources used are a little restrictive and need expanding - I would have done something there this morning but I am away from home and my text books. We also need secondary sources to establish some of the claims in the lede.

Brews - can we please try and avoid a repetition of your normal strategy of immediately reverting changes, you know it will just be reverted in turn. Also there is an opportunity here to build a good article but that will not work if you are not prepared to compromise and insist on your material in its original form. ----Snowded 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Your visit here is such a surprise! An invitation to collaborate is great, and improvement in this article is desirable. How can that be accomplished? I'd suggest that it be attempted by a discussion of contributions based upon sources. In that spirit, you have not provided me with much to go on. But in the section below I'll attempt a beginning. Brews ohare (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Social constructivism

The following subsection was deleted by Snowded, and I'd like to discuss it:

Social constructivism

Enaction applies to groups as well as individuals. Social constructivism is the study of an individual's learning that takes place because of their interactions in a group, and the group's experience with its environment. According to Gergen, the social constructionist orientation suggests:

1. What we take to be knowledge of the world is not a product of induction, or of the building and testing of hypotheses...How can theoretical categories be induced or derived from observation,...if the process of identifying observational attributes itself relies on one's possessing categories? ... Constructionism asks one to suspend belief that commonly accepted categories or understandings receive their warrant through observation.
2. The terms in which the world is understood are social artifacts, products of historically situated interchanges among people. From the constructionist position the process of understanding is not automatically driven by the forces of nature, but is the result of an active, cooperative enterprise of persons in relationship.... to consider the social origins of taken-for-granted assumptions about the mind – such as the bifurcation between reason and emotion, the existence of motives and memories, and the symbol system believed to underlie language.
3. The degree to which a given form of understanding prevails or is sustained across time is not fundamentally dependent on the empirical validity of the perspective in question, but on the vicissitudes of social processes (e.g., communication, negotiation, conflict, rhetoric)
4. Descriptions and explanations of the world themselves constitute forms of social action. As such they are intertwined with the full range of other human activities.

An example is the idea of a paradigm as described by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. For the scientist a paradigm refers to the sense of the way reality is structured and the means by which the scientist uncovers this reality and is able to manipulate it and predict effects and events. The dissatisfaction of scientists with an existing theory leads to a paradigm shift, and this dissatisfaction is a matter of criteria demanded of an acceptable theory. These criteria are not themselves scientifically established, but describe an 'ideal' theory as seen by the scientific community, criteria such as 'elegance', 'completeness', 'seminality', 'simplicity'.

Thus, as the idea of enaction suggests within the context of social constructivism, the development of a paradigm involves the interaction of scientists with their environment and each other, the theoretical treatment of experimental results, and re-engagement in probing the environment on the basis of that theory, sometimes with very sophisticated apparatus. Examples of complex probing of the environment as part of the cognitive process, what enaction is about, are the Hadron collider or the Hubble telescope. These activities are accompanied by the evolution and application of theories subject to an aesthetic stemming from social interactions between scientists.

References

1. Kenneth J Gergen (March 1985). "The social constructionist movement in modern psychology" (PDF). American Psychologist. 40 (3): 266 ff.
2. Stefano Guzzini (2000). "A reconstruction of constructionism in international relations" (PDF). European Journal of International Relations. 6 (2): 158. One of the main defenders of epistemological constructivism who is also well known in IR , Thomas Kuhn.
3. Bruno Latour, Steve Woolgar (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press. p. 275. ISBN 978-0691028323. Kuhn had already provided...the general basis for a conception of the social character of science.
4. ^ Thomas Kuhn formally stated the need for the "norms for rational theory choice". One of his discussions is reprinted in Thomas S Kuhn. "Chapter 9: Rationality and Theory Choice". In James Conant, John Haugeland, eds (ed.). The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970-1993, (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 208 ff. ISBN 0226457990. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
5. Mark Colyvan (2001). The Indispensability of Mathematics. Oxford University Press. pp. 78–79. ISBN 0195166612.

Snowded removed this section with the in-line editorial comment "essays on social constructivism are not appropriate to this article, especially OR".

Now, the reasons why Snowded thinks the topic of social constructivism is "not appropriate" and just what in this subsection constitutes a violation of WP:OR has not been identified. Perhaps some further guidance as to what exactly Snowded has in mind could be offered as a beginning point for discussion? Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-reductive naturalism

Snowded has removed the subsection below on non-reductive naturalism without any guidance as to his reasoning:

Non-reductive naturalism

Reductionism in science is the argument that all events (ultimately) are connected to (possibly yet-to-be-established) primal events by the 'laws of nature' and, in particular, mental events are reducible to neuroscience and brain circuitry. In contrast, non-reductive naturalism claims that "mental phenomena cannot be reduced to any particular material object or local process, as for instance neural processing." One form of this thesis arises in cultural psychology where mind is viewed as a cultural phenomenon.

The enactive approach is constructivist, not reductionist, that is, it is about "the active construction of knowledge through our interaction with the environment"..."Our brains do not indiscriminately and passively crunch up any structure that can be detected in a never ending stream of sensations...Cognition is a lot about discarding irrelevant information and going out to get relevant information...Open-loop approaches restricted to input-output mappings are unable to capture this circular causality and the emergent phenomena it can bring about."

References

1. Eric R. Kandel (2007). In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. WW Norton. p. 9. ISBN 0393329372. ...consciousness is a biological process that will eventually be explained in terms of molecular signaling pathways used by interacting populations of nerve cells...
2. ^ Marieke Rohde (2010). "Introduction". Enaction, embodiment, evolutionary robotics: Simulation models for a post-cognitivist science of mind. Atlantis Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-9078677239. Available on line here
3. Carl Ratner (2011). Macro Cultural Psychology: A Political Philosophy of Mind. Oxford University Press. p. 96. ISBN 0199706298. Culture produces the mind; brain circuitry does not. The mind–body problem of how the physical body/brain produces mental, subjective qualia, is the wrong way to frame the origin of consciousness.
4. SM Potter (2007). "What do we know about natural intelligence (NI) that can inform artificial intelligence (AI)?". 50 Years of Artificial Intelligence: Essays Dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of Artificial Intelligence. Springer. pp. 176 ff. ISBN 3540772952. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

I hope Snowded will provide some guidance as to his reasoning in removing this subsection. Brews ohare (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I did Brews, but as before if you don't like something you just ignore it. Its not relevant to this entry and aspects of it are OR. Otherwise see TonyClarke comments below. Assume the same response on the other section ----Snowded 06:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: The matter is simple: here we have a proposed subsection and an invitation for source-based critique. We don't have to look over your previous protestations that you have already presented suitable discussion. The discussion about this subsection is about this subsection and it is located right here. We aren't looking for abstract commentary about my editing style. We are looking for specific remarks about the material of this subsection. There is nothing here from you whatsoever. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Form of citations

Providing the rationale "in text citations makes article creation a lot easier to handle" Snowded has changed some footnotes to an 'in-text' version <ref>{{cite book |title= |author= |isbn= |url= |publisher= |page= |year=}}</ref>, replacing the less distracting use of the 'in-text' designation <ref name =author/> formatting of the original. I'd say this is an imposition of his personal distaste for the cleaner approach, and as he has not originated this article, I do not think it his prerogative to force his aesthetic upon it. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have put the references into the original format. Brews ohare (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In text citations make it easier for other editors as they don't have to do through multiple changes to prevent error messages. Your format is excellent for an article with stable text not undergoing major change. If you want participation and to reduce the temptation to simply do a mass revert you might want to think about changing ----Snowded 05:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: There are several pros for the list-defined reference format used in this article. One is that the text in the edit window is clear and uninterrupted by extraneous footnote material that is distracting and can make the text hard to follow. Another advantage to having all the reference material in its own sub-section is that it is easy to find and change references details and to edit footnote commentary by editing only the reference sub-section, and one does not have to search the body text to find where the inserted <ref>...</ref> material is to be found. The only con of this approach is that in adding a reference one has either to open the entire article to gain simultaneous access to the reference subsection and the body text being edited, or to open sequentially the reference subsection to add the source material and the text where the footnote arises.

It is a personal preference, but in my experience it is the list-defined reference approach that works best, and resistance to its use is due primarily to unfamiliarity. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Snowded has suggested by additon of {{citation needed}} that secondary sources are needed to establish two points. The leading paragraph identifies these points as follows:

Enaction in the study of philosophy is related to the study of embodied cognition, the notion that mind is not coterminous with the brain or perhaps even an entire organism, but goes farther in its emphasis upon the interactions between a living organism and its surroundings.

Francisco J. Varela, Eleanor Rosch, Evan Thompson (1992). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press. ISBN 0262261235.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The first issue is whether there is any relation between 'enaction' and 'embodied cognition'.

My reaction is that the suggestion that the focus of embodied cognition does not necessarily stress the idea of interaction with the environment as a key aspect is obvious from the definition of that field.

The second issue is whether 'enaction' places an emphasis upon interaction.

My reaction is that the second point is the very meaning of the term 'enaction'.

In both cases the cited general introduction of the book by Varela, Thompson & Rosch is about as good a secondary source as one is likely to find, being the introduction by three authors to their essays on various topics from a decidedly non-partisan stance that discusses these aspects at length. Accordingly, these templates appear gratuitous here. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Chapter 8 of this source is titled "Enaction: Embodied cognition". It defines enaction at great length on pp. 173-174. The organism itself chooses the stimuli in the physical world to which it will be sensitive. Perception is not simply embedded within and constrained by the surrounding world. The organism both initiates and is shaped by the environment.

Perhaps, Snowded, you have some other sources in mind that would present a more 'objective' view of the subject?? Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many issues here Brews, Embodiment is one thing, enaction and other and yes authors connect them. But in an article on enact ion we summarise those links but we don't create an extended essay on a related subject. You reference is a collection of essays that take a particular perspective it is not a general summary of the field. They use embodiment differently from other authors, some would link it more with scaffolding etc. We have the normal problem here of you finding some material and over relying on that material rather than looking at the field as a whole. If I get time between arriving home on Sunday and shipping out to the States I will check the Cambridge Companion's definition and one other secondary source on the "E"s that I think would be useful. ----Snowded 06:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It will be great to see some source-related commentary from you that goes beyond your claims that the presented sources have a parochial view of the matter, in your opinion. Brews ohare (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded

Brews, you asked me to be involved with this page. I am sorry to have to say that it is now looking like a rerun of many conflicts that have a arisen between you and Snowded, and conflicts without resolution or improvement resulting.

I agree with Snowded on removing the two sections. The last paragraphs in each section are not properly supported with clear citations, and your citations are put in as evidence for your views. But in fact they give only individual comments on the subject, and there are many other views and approaches which should merit a mention. I also agree that both were not strictly relevant to the subject, and I can't understand some of your responses, e.g. ' My reaction is that the suggestion that the focus of embodied cognition does not necessarily stress the idea of interaction with the environment as a key aspect is obvious from the definition of that field.' What does that mean? It does not address the point being made. Perhaps, taking up the -citation needed- suggestion constructively : ), you should look at some general introductory works on the 'four e's', some of which spell out relationships between embodied cognition, enactive cognitions, extended etc…

Well done for initiating this page, and I wish you well with it. It could be a very useful contribution to this subject. I am happy to contribute to it if there are sensible productive discussions going on, but not at the present.

TonyClarke (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your help. You could begin by framing what you see as a 'sensible productive discussion'. You have suggested the citations provided support the views presented. You suggest other views merit mention, and I encourage you to do that and source them appropriately. Brews ohare (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, for the record the 'many conflicts' are as problematic for me as for you. But you just don't listen. On every article, without exception when other editors have got involved they have not agreed with you, but you persist in arguing your original position rather than listening. As I said I think this is a useful article to create, but you need to be prepared to listen and work with other editors rather than insisting on your original text all the time. ----Snowded 06:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: I have objected to nothing said here. What I have done is object that nothing has been said. I await your reasoning about the deletions of the subsections above.

I also await Tony's introduction of the "many other views and approaches which should merit a mention". Brews ohare (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been given clear reasons for the deletion by me (and in Tony's support). You just don't like them. Sorry Brews your average talk page words to content changes ration is about 5k:1 or more and I've done enough unless other editors engage ----Snowded 05:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: There has been no source-supported commentary by you or by Tony so far. In fact, so far all we have are statements of personal reservation without specifics as to offending wording or content, never mind sources. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews they were pretty specific. Your conclusions for example, like the run-on sentence that includes the Hubble Space Telescope etc... You could probably find cites for that kind of thing but not from a philosophy department.—Machine Elf  15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: It is you that is specific, not Snowded. As for the example of complex probing of the environment as part of the cognitive process, obviously what enaction is about, well other examples could be found, if necessary. Whether these examples are apt or not, they do not justify reversion of that subsection. However, I do appreciate your effort to introduce some specificity into the otherwise empty commentary here so far. Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Title and subject

One of the things that needs to be sorted here is the name of the article an its scope. Enaction already covers much of the material as is one aspect of the wider issue. The general anti-cartesian position emerging in Philosophy of Mind could do with a simple summary, and that would include enaction in its wider context. It is also an area where we get inconsistent use of terms by different authors, characteristic of a new field and we could do some service there as well. Personally I think this is one of the most important emerging areas on Philosophy at the moment so it deserves some serious effort. ----Snowded 06:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Bravo. Apparently Gregbard doesn't agree with you and has rated the importance of this article as low.

Perhaps, given your evaluation, you will actually consider contributing to this article?? One way to do that would be to explain your deletion of two subsections above, both well-sourced, both placing enaction in a broad context, and one based upon sources devoted in their entirety to 'enaction'.

The "anti-Cartesian" position is largely a misconception of the entire subject-object problem but it could be represented in the article as the opinion of some. Brews ohare (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As it stands it is 'low' hence the suggestion below. If you bother to read any of my comments you will see suggestions, including this one as to the nature of content. If you can bother to respond to those with more open language then I might as this is a major area of interest and work for me. However if yu thing its a misconception of subject-object you really are starting in the wrong place. So please respond on the suggestion ----Snowded 05:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Any source-supported content suggestion here, as elsewhere, is undetectable. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing an encyclopaedia is not about stringing together partially understood quotations out of context however referenced Brews. hen you are prepared to engage on other than your own terms let the rest of us know ----Snowded 22:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Your invention of "stringing together partially understood quotations out of context" lacks credibility because you have given no indication of what makes you think any of the quotations provided are 'partially understood'. And your invention that I am not "prepared to engage on other than own terms" is complete fabrication. It would seem to suggest that I have refused to accept some concrete proposals for changing the original proposal. That is a fabrication, as no proposals for different wording or sourcing have been suggested at all, never mind being rejected. In fact, nothing substantive has been said to support your deletion of any of the subsections, and no attempt has been made to change or discuss their content or their sources. Your attempt at smearing the record and your refusal to participate in content review or sourcing is, well, you fill in the blanks... Brews ohare (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, so despite multiple rejections by multiple editors on multiple articles you are not prepared to change, Pity (two meanings) ----Snowded 06:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Change what? The proposed subsections? Sure. Go ahead and suggest some specific changes in wording or some new material or some new sources. Without some concrete proposals for change, your remarks reduce to personal attacks violating WP:CIVIL. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You behaviour Brews, try and engage with discussion rather than just telling people they are wrong and insisting on your manner of editing being the only valid one. And your referencing WP:Civil somewhat takes the biscuit----Snowded 22:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)!

Snowded: I just don't know where you are coming from. I have 'insisted upon' absolutely nothing. My manner of editing may indeed be "the only valid one", just because nobody else has edited at all, except for yourself. You have simply deleted three subsections without any discussion of sources or content on the basis simply that you don't think they are satisfactory. That is not a valid manner of editing - it's just assertion of your own desires. You are living in some other universe than this talk page and this article. Brews ohare (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of another pertinent and reliably sourced subsection

Snowded has removed the subsection below on internalism & externalism without any guidance as to his reasoning:

Internalism and externalism

Proponents of enaction consider its emphasis upon interaction with the external environment to be in contrast with a view of mental processes as simply the internal operation of the brain as a computer manipulating symbols encoding representations of the world, the rules and representations approach to cognition. The issue is not just that cognition involves structures outside the brain proper, but that cognition is a process of interaction, an activity. However, the role of the subject, the individuation, of this activity might be underestimated.

The interactivity between the organism and the environment emphasized by extended cognition impinges on the deeper philosophical questions of the subject-object problem, that is the partition of experience between subject and object. At one extreme, our interior mental processes are dictated by interaction with the external world, and at the other extreme, they are creations of our conscious and subconscious brain activity. "Externalism with regard to mental content says that in order to have certain types of intentional mental states (e.g. beliefs), it is necessary to be related to the environment in the right way. Internalism (or individualism) denies this, and it affirms that having those intentional mental states depends solely on our intrinsic properties."

Sources

1. Mark Rowlands (2010). "Chapter 3: The mind embedded". The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. MIT Press. pp. 51 ff. ISBN 0262014556.
2. ^ Basil Smith. "Internalism and externalism in the philosophy of mind and language". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
3. ^ Joe Lau, Max Deutsch (Jan 22, 2014). Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "Externalism About Mental Content". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition). {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

Snowded removed this material with the in-line comment: restrict to material directly related to the top (holding action there may be more if we agree scope on talk ). On this Talk page he has added the remark: "You've been given clear reasons for the deletion by me (and in Tony's support). You just don't like them. Sorry Brews your average talk page words to content changes ration is about 5k:1 or more and I've done enough unless other editors engage"

What is omitted from Snowded's words is any clarification of his reasons for removal of this subsection, or the other two that he has removed in earlier efforts. My invitations to supply reasons and sources so far has resulted only in Snowded's personal peremptory opinions and his avoidance of all source-related commentary, suggesting that he "has already done enough". Enough what? Tony has also been invited without result to provide some substance to flesh out what he feels is an incomplete presentation.

However, Snowded takes things further than Tony by removing the presentation of these subtopics entirely, and without rationale. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't this be a WP:SUMMARY of the Internalism and externalism article?—Machine Elf  15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As the second paragraph suggests, it is the pertinence of this topic to enaction that is the purpose of this section. Feel free to improve upon it. Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You are doing what you always do Brews, take one article and use it for extended essays on any subject that you find to be linked, You also confuse sourcing with relevance, they are not the same thing, ----Snowded 06:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Evidence, please? Not about your blanket assertions of my "doing what I always do", but evidence that the topic here is not pertinent, preferably by using sources, not your unsupported notions. Brews ohare (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Contribution to Citizendium

Finding no useful commentary here, and instead unsupported and peremptory reversion, I've decided to present this material on Citizendium where it can be found as Extended cognition. Brews ohare (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with removal

Brews: I agree with Snowded's removal of internalism/ externalism. People wanting to know about enactivism(philosophy) could maybe benefit form a link to internalism/externalism, to which this is related, but writing about it here would lose the focus on this important area. The article loses its strength and relevance by this divergent development.

I also think, Brews that you do use sources to back up what you say, which verges on OR. Instead we should be talking about the sources, as balanced pictures of the subject, and specify as closely as possible what they say.

You also said I haven't tried to improve the article. I think I made my point earlier about why I don't intend to get involved in editing this article. I would have to engage in drastic reversions and cuts, and Snowded is already doing this. I don't have any knowledge or allegiance to either of you, but I really think you need to listen to what is being said and try to focus your writing, after surveying the relevant literature.

I wish you well in your future writing.

TonyClarke (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tony: I am confused why you think using sources to back up what is said constitutes OR. It sounds like the opposite to me: it is reporting what the sources say. I am not saying anything based upon my personal opinion; I'm just pointing out sources containing discussion that bears upon enaction. If you think they are a diversion from enaction, as you have mentioned here regarding internalism/externalism, then I guess the relevant policy is WP:Undue.

I think you don't want to engage here because you think the atmosphere is toxic. However, if you look closely you will see all that is going on is that I am trying to get Snowded to explain his actions, as you have tried to do for him. However, he will not do that, and he will not address sources.

I suggest that you try engaging and see whether interaction with me is as bad as Snowded would have you think. You will be surprised. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Enaction?

Is there any reliable source that uses the term "enaction" for the topic of this article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: Reference 2; Stewart et al. Might be what you want. Brews ohare (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the book is, Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science. Looks fine. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is a topic name-dropped without explanation on several occasions by Snowded. To accommodate him, this subsection was contributed. However, Snowded has removed this subsection with the in-line comment: You are just inserting material without context. Lets agree what this article is about first shall we. The subsection is below:

Scaffolding

The term scaffolding in connection with mind refers to the dependence of more complicated functionality upon simpler functionality that serves as a 'scaffold' to build and develop the more complex activity. In developmental psychology one application of scaffolding is the idea that early life experiences significantly shape the adult’s understanding. More broadly, the term has been introduced to describe a "broad class of physical, cognitive and social augmentations -- augmentations which allow us to achieve some goal which would otherwise be beyond us".

In the context of enaction, scaffolding refers to cognition-enhancing tools that extend mental processes into the environment and modulate or even enable interaction with that environment in the processes of cognition. A simple example is the use of a cane by a blind man, "stick-augmented perception". From this standpoint, "what individuals inherit from their ancestors is not a mind, but the ability to develop a mind," a "matrix of resources that serve as the actual physical causes of development." The development of mind is seen as a dynamical process involving interaction with the environment.

According to Thelan (as quoted by Griffiths and Stotz):

"behavior and cognition, and their changes during ontogeny are not represented anywhere in the system beforehand either as dedicated structures, or symbols in the brain, or as codes in the genes. Rather, thought and behavior are "softly assembled" as dynamical patterns of activity that arise as a function of the intended task at hand and an individual's "intrinsic dynamics" the preferred states of the system given its current architecture and previous history of activity."

Notes

1. Lawrence E Williams, Julie Y Huang, John A Baruch (2009). "The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world" (PDF). European Journal of Social Psychology. 39 (7): 1257–1267.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Andy Clark (1998). "Chapter 8: Magic Words: How Language Augments Human Computation". In Peter Carruthers, Jill Boucher (ed.). Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes. Cambridge University Press. pp. 162–183. ISBN 978-0521637589.
3. Andy Clark (2008). Supersizing the Mind : Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford University Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0199715534.
4. PE Griffiths and K Stotz (2000). "How the mind grows: a developmental perspective on the biology of cognition" (PDF). Synthese. 122 (1–2): 29–51.
5. Esther Thelen (1995)). "Chapter 3: Time-scale dynamics and the development of an embodied cognition". In Robert F Port, Timothy van Gelder, eds (ed.). Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. MIT Press. pp. 69–100. ISBN 0-262-16150-8. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

Snowded suggests: "Let's agree what this article is about first, shall we?" Snowded indicated a while back that he was about to participate with this article, but so far no such discussion has taken place, and it remains to be seen whether Snowded has a real intention. Brews ohare (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This deleted subsection is one of four sourced subsections (1, 2, 3 & 4) that Snowded has deleted from the article without any concrete discussion of content or sourcing. Brews ohare (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Title and range

OK lets try again. I will repeat my relier statement with some additions, hopefully we can get some engagement

Original comment

One of the things that needs to be sorted here is the name of the article an its scope. Enaction already covers much of the material as is one aspect of the wider issue. The general anti-cartesian position emerging in Philosophy of Mind could do with a simple summary, and that would include enaction in its wider context. It is also an area where we get inconsistent use of terms by different authors, characteristic of a new field and we could do some service there as well. Personally I think this is one of the most important emerging areas on Philosophy at the moment so it deserves some serious effort.

Additional points

I think the value of an article is to summarise the cartesian/non-cartesian split but in other language. Basically we have the view of the brain as directing activity (with lots of consequences for free will etc) and against that the ideas of extended consciousness (which might be a better title than extended cognition). That has multiple sources and we need to start with a secondary source that summarises the positions, the current one is a bit partial and over focused on the environment.

Leslie Paul Thiele is a good starting point. He characterises Cartesian approaches as seeing cognitive psychology as being responsible for working out the abstract programs that the brain (as a computational device) runs with cognitive neuroscience studying how they are implemented. He contrasts that with post-cartesian approaches which include:

• Embodied: extra-neural
• Embedded: scaffolding
• Enacted: co-evolve with reality
• Extended: into the environment

He further expands on that (from memory there are some other "E"s and he also is good on the autonomic v novelty receptive receptive parts of the brain. Pattern recognition and partial scanning then also come in. My suggestion would be that Extended Consiousness is the better name and Thiele the starting point. He references the sources used by Brews. He is also a philosopher. ----Snowded 07:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see some content proposals. The author Leslei Paul Thiele has written several books. You haven't mentioned just what you refer to. One of these is The Heart of Judgment, which has rather little to say about "Cartesian approaches". It seems oriented toward decision making, and doesn't mention the four points you have bulleted. A number of others are about sustainability issues, which seem wide of the subject. Could you be more specific?

In contrast with Thiele, Rowlands does discuss the issues you raise, as already cited in the original proposal for this article, so perhaps you have simply identified the wrong author? Brews ohare (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New section

I added a summary of a 2012 article which I think covers the areas and points to the importance of enaction. It is also easier to read than many Philosophy articles. I hope it sets the scene to retain and build upon this article, which we all think is important. We need some more entries now, e.g. on 'Criticisms' of the topic (and it certainly has had some opposition!), and some other viewpoints on it. Hopefully we can make it beyond the stub status. Peace!

TonyClarke (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If we are keeping this to Enaction I think that summary is useful with a few amendments. Thanks for that. To expand intro the wider ISS of consciousness would require something different of which that would be a part (see above). I'm neutral on which route us taken. Brews seemed to want to expand the scope so I tried to respond to that desire with a structure that reflects secondary sourcing ----Snowded 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, a way forward maybe. I agree that we can include contextual stuff, but perhaps when a secondary topic becomes important enough it needs its own page (or might have already), and we can branch off that way. But the article is called Enaction(Philosophy) and I think we should make that the main subject. (Not sure what you mean by the 'ISS of consciousness'?)TonyClarke (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tony: I reformatted two of your footnotes. The section seems to suggest that Stapleton and Ward originated the four E's, but that is not the case. For some historical background, see Rowlands' introduction Expanding the Mind. Brews ohare (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did some minor rewording to avoid any assertion of priority to this paper for the E's . Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Philosophy pages
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• Redirect-Class philosophy of mind pages
• Low-importance philosophy of mind articles
• Philosophy of mind task force articles
• Redirect-Class Contemporary philosophy pages
• Low-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
• Contemporary philosophy task force articles