Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:44:33.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The brain as part of an enactive system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2013

Shaun Gallagher ,
Daniel D. Hutto ,
Jan Slaby  and
Jonathan Cole
Shaun Gallagher
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152. [email protected]://www.ummoss.org/ School of Humanities, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, United Kingdom. [email protected]://herts.academia.edu/DanielDHutto Philosophy Program, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia
Daniel D. Hutto
Affiliation:
School of Humanities, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, United Kingdom. [email protected]://herts.academia.edu/DanielDHutto Philosophy Program, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia
Jan Slaby
Affiliation:
Exzellenzcluster “Languages of Emotion,” Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany. [email protected]://www.janslaby.com/
Jonathan Cole
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Poole Hospital, Poole, Dorset BH15 2JB, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The notion of an enactive system requires thinking about the brain in a way that is different from the standard computational-representational models. In evolutionary terms, the brain does what it does and is the way that it is, across some scale of variations, because it is part of a living body with hands that can reach and grasp in certain limited ways, eyes structured to focus, an autonomic system, an upright posture, etc. coping with specific kinds of environments, and with other people. Changes to any of the bodily, environmental, or intersubjective conditions elicit responses from the system as a whole. On this view, rather than representing or computing information, the brain is better conceived as participating in the action.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 421 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buckner, R. L. & Carroll, D. C. (2007) Self-projection and the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(2):49–57. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danziger, S., Levav, J. & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011) Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108(17):6889–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumas, G. (2011) Towards a two-body neuroscience. Communicative and Integrative Biology 4(3):349–52.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. & Frith, U. (2008) Implicit and explicit processes in social cognition. Neuron 60(3):503–10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.032.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2005) How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Castillo, J., Saad, J. Z., Handwerker, D. A., Inati, S. J., Brenowitz, N. & Bandettini, P. A. (2012) Whole-brain, time-locked activation with simple tasks revealed using massive averaging and model-free analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109(14):5487–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutto, D. D. & Myin, E. (2013) Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legrand, D. & Ruby, P. (2009) What is self-specific? Theoretical investigation and critical review of neuroimaging results. Psychological Review 116(1):252–82.Google Scholar
Miller, M. B., Donovan, C-L., Bennett, C. M., Aminoff, E. M. & Mayer, R. E. (2012) Individual differences in cognitive style and strategy predict similarities in the patterns of brain activity between individuals. NeuroImage 59:83–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Northoff, G. & Bermpohl, F. (2004) Cortical midline structures and the self. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3):102–107. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perner, J., Aichhorn, M., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W. & Ladurner, G. (2006) Thinking of mental and other representations: The roles of left and right temporo-parietal junction. Social Neuroscience 1:245–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A. & Shulman, G. L. (2001) A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98(2):676–82. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676.Google Scholar
Saxe, R. & Kanwisher, N. (2003) People thinking about thinking people – The role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind.” NeuroImage 19:1835–42.Google Scholar
Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter, J. J. & Davidson, R. J. (2011) The integration of negative affect, pain, and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12(3):154–67.Google Scholar
Shuler, M. G. & Bear, M. F. (2006) Reward timing in the primary visual cortex. Science 311:1606–609.Google Scholar
Slaby, J., Paskaleva, A. & Stephan, A. (in press) Enactive emotion and impaired agency in depression. Journal of Consciousness Studies.Google Scholar
Spreng, R. N., Mar, R. A. & Kim, A. S. N. (2008) The common neural basis of autobiographical memory, prospection, navigation, theory of mind, and the default mode: A quantitative meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(3):489–510.Google Scholar
Vogeley, K., Bussfeld, P., Newen, A., Herrmann, S., Happe, F., Falkai, P., Maier, W., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R. & Zilles, K. (2001) Mind reading: Neural mechanisms of theory of mind and self-perspective. Neuroimage 14:170–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed