On the Role of AI in the Ongoing Paradigm Shift within the Cognitive Sciences

Froese, Mr Tom (2007) On the Role of AI in the Ongoing Paradigm Shift within the Cognitive Sciences. [Book Chapter] (In Press)

Full text available as:



This paper supports the view that the ongoing shift from orthodox to embodied-embedded cognitive science has been significantly influenced by the experimental results generated by AI research. Recently, there has also been a noticeable shift toward enactivism, a paradigm which radicalizes the embodied-embedded approach by placing autonomous agency and lived subjectivity at the heart of cognitive science. Some first steps toward a clarification of the relationship of AI to this further shift are outlined. It is concluded that the success of enactivism in establishing itself as a mainstream cognitive science research program will depend less on progress made in AI research and more on the development of a phenomenological pragmatics.

Item Type:Book Chapter
Keywords:AI, cognitive science, paradigm shift, enactivism, phenomenology
Subjects:Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy > Philosophy of Science
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
ID Code:5778
Deposited By: Froese, Mr Tom
Deposited On:22 Oct 2007 10:41
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:56

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Anderson, M.L. (2003), “Embodied Cognition: A field guide”, Artificial Intelligence, 149(1), pp. 91-130

Beer, R.D. (1995), “A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction”, Artificial Intelligence, 72(1-2), pp. 173-215

Beer, R.D. (2000), “Dynamical approaches to cognitive science”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), pp. 91-99

Boden, M.A. (2006), Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science, 2 vols., Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Brooks, R.A. (1991), “Intelligence without representation”, Artificial Intelligence, 47(1-3), pp. 139-160

Brooks, R.A. (1997), “From earwigs to humans”, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 20(2-4), pp. 291-304

Clark, A. (1997), Being There, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Di Paolo, E.A. (2003), “Organismically-inspired robotics: homeostatic adaptation and teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop”, in: K. Murase & T. Asakura (eds.), Dynamical Systems Approach to Embodiment and Sociality, Adelaide, Australia: Advanced Knowledge International, pp. 19-42

Di Paolo, E.A., Noble, J. & Bullock, S. (2000), “Simulation Models as Opaque Thought Experiments”, in: M.A. Bedau et al. (eds.), Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 497-506

Di Paolo, E.A., Rohde, M. & De Jaegher, H. (2007), “Horizons for the Enactive Mind: Values, Social Interaction, and Play”, Cognitive Science Research Paper, 587, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

Dreyfus, H.L. (1991), Being-in-the-World, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Dreyfus, H.L. (2007), “Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian”, Philosophical Psychology, 20(2), pp. 247-268

Dreyfus, H.L. & Dreyfus, S.E. (1988), “Making a mind versus modelling the brain: artificial intelligence back at a branch-point”, Daedalus¸ 117(1), p. 15-44

Fodor, J.A. (1975), The Language of Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni. Press

Froese, T., Virgo, N. & Izquierdo, E. (2007), “Autonomy: a review and a reappraisal”, in: F. Almeida e Costa et al. (eds.), Proc. of the 9th Euro. Conf. on Artificial Life, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, in press

Gallagher, S. (2005), How the Body Shapes the Mind, New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Hanna, R. & Thompson, E. (2003), “The Mind-Body-Body Problem”, Theoria et Historia Scientarum, 7(1), pp. 24-44

Harnard, S. (1990), “The symbol grounding problem”, Physica D, 42, pp. 335-346

Harvey, I. (2004), “Homeostasis and Rein Control: From Daisyworld to Active Perception”, in: J. Pollack et al. (eds.), Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 309-314

Harvey, I., Di Paolo, E.A., Wood, R., Quinn, M. & Tuci, E. A. (2005), ‘Evolutionary Robotics: A new scientific tool for studying cognition’, Artificial Life, 11(1-2), pp. 79-98

Iizuka, H. & Di Paolo, E.A. (forthcoming), “Toward Spinozist robotics: Exploring the minimal dynamics of behavioral preference”, Adaptive Behavior

Ikegami, T. & Suzuki, K. (forthcoming), “From Homeostatic to Homeodynamic Self”, BioSystems

Jonas, H. (1966), The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology, Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2001

Levine, J. (1983), “Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64, pp. 354-361

Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J. (1980), Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers

McCarthy, J. & Hayes, P.J. (1969), “Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence”, in: B. Meltzer & D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 4, Edinburgh, UK: Edinburg University Press, pp. 463-502

McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E. & the PDP Research Group (1986), Parallel Distributed Processing. Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1976), “Computer Science as Empirical Enquiry: Symbols and Search”, Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 19(3), pp. 113-126

Noë, A. (2004), Action in Perception, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Nolfi, S. & Floreano, D. (2000), Evolutionary Robotics, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Pfeifer, R. (1996), “Building ‘Fungus Eaters’: Design Principles of Autonomous Agents”, in: P. Maes et al. (eds.), Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on the Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, p. 3-12

Pfeifer, R. & Scheier, C. (1999), Understanding Intelligence, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Thompson, E. (2005), “Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience”, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), pp. 407-427

Thompson, E. (2007), Mind in Life, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Thompson, E. & Varela, F.J. (2001), “Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(10), pp. 418-425

Torrance, S. (2005), “In search of the enactive: Introduction to special issue on enactive experience”, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), pp. 357-368

van Gelder, T. (1998), “The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(5), pp. 615-665

Varela, F.J. (1976), “Not One, Not Two”, The Co-Evolution Quarterly, 12, pp. 62-67

Varela, F.J. & Shear, J. (1999), ‘First-person Methodologies: What, Why, How?’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2-3), pp. 1-14

Varela, F.J, Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1991), The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Weber, A. & Varela, F.J. (2002), “Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality”, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, pp. 97-125

Wheeler, M. (2005), Reconstructing the Cognitive World, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

Ziemke, T. (2007), “What’s life got to do with it?”, in: A. Chella & R. Manzotti (eds.), Artificial Consciousness, Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, pp. 48-66


Repository Staff Only: item control page