tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post7833855162345696622..comments2024-03-09T09:06:35.288+00:00Comments on Notes from Two Scientific Psychologists: Chemero (2009) Chapter 9 - The Metaphysics of Radical EmbodimentAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-44369375899183745972011-06-26T12:13:22.134+01:002011-06-26T12:13:22.134+01:00Nice review! Thanks for having it up here.
---
...Nice review! Thanks for having it up here. <br /><br />---<br /><br />As for the "realism", I suspect this will take some time to sort out. I am increasingly appreciating the amazing difference in style between what used to be called "American Philosophy" vs. "Continental Philosophy". Of course, the terms are inaccurate to describe the current location of people doing those things. <br /><br />Gibson's work (as Heft and others have developed) fits within the American tradition, from Peirce to James/Dewey to Holt. The philosophical baggage of European traditions interferes with understanding what is going on. As "cognitive psychology", at least in it's initial form, entailed the continental tradition taking the field back, it makes it very hard for the two sides to communicate. Everything interesting about Gibson's system, and hence Tony's, makes much more sense in the context of American philosophers: There is no clean line between "higher" and "lower" mental processes, "mind" is something a body does, outcomes are what matters - acting sensibly in the world, "truth" (i.e., reality) is to be sought not by avoiding error at all cost-but by having a perceptual system that can correct when you are wrong, etc., etc. <br /><br />The American approach has been so marginalized (e.g., it's founders discouraged their students from going into philosophy) and abused (e.g. by people like Quine and Fish), that it remains very poorly understood. <br /><br />Tony's argument that something is "real" if you can manipulate does a good job as a place holder, but I'm not sure it will do in the long run. That is, it definitely buys us realism in some recognizable and established sense, which is A Very Good Thing, but I'm not sure if it buys us the realism that we want. I suspect someone will ultimately have to go all the way back to Peirce, and put things together from there. <br /><br />EricEric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.com