Recent “connectionist” models provide a new explanatory alternative to the digital computer as a model for brain function. Evidence from our EEG research on the olfactory bulb suggests that the brain may indeed use computational mechanisms like those found in connectionist models. In the present paper we discuss our data and develop a model to describe the neural dynamics responsible for odor recognition and discrimination. The results indicate the existence of sensory- and motor-specific information in the spatial dimension of EEG activity and call for new physiological metaphors and techniques of analysis. Special emphasis is placed in our model on chaotic neural activity. We hypothesize that chaotic behavior serves as the essential ground state for the neural perceptual apparatus, and we propose a mechanism for acquiring new forms of patterned activity corresponding to new learned odors. Finally, some of the implications of our neural model for behavioral theories are briefly discussed. Our research, in concert with the connectionist work, encourages a reevaluation of explanatory models that are based only on the digital computer metaphor.

Key words: brain theory, chaos, cognitivism, connectionism, eeg, nonlinear dynamics, olfaction, perception, sensation

This article addresses the issue of “objectivism vs constructivism” in two areas, biology and cognitive science, which are intermediate between the natural sciences such as physics (where objectivism is dominant) and the human and social sciences (where constructivism is widespread). The issues in biology and in cognitive science are intimately related; in each of these twin areas, the “objectivism vs constructivism” issue is interestingly and rather evenly balanced; as a result, this issue engenders two contrasting paradigms, each of which has substantial specific scientific content. The neo-Darwinian paradigm in biology is closely resonant with the classical cognitivist paradigm in cognitive science, and both of them are intrinsically objectivist. The organismic paradigm in biology, based on the concept of autopoiesis, is consonant with the paradigm of “enaction” in cognitive science; the latter paradigms are both profoundly constructivist. In cognitive science, the objectivism vs constructivism issue is internal to the scientific field itself and reflexivity is inescapable. At this level, strong ontological objectivism is self-contradictory and therefore untenable. Radical constructivism is self-coherent; but it also rehabilitates a weak form of objectivism as a pragmatically viable alternative. In conclusion, there is an even-handed reciprocity between “objectivist” and “constructivist” perspectives Finally, the article examines the consequences of this conclusion for fields other than cognitive science: biology; physics and the natural sciences; and the human and social sciences.

Key words: autopoiesis, cognitivism, neo-darwinism, objectivism, organism

Qualitative research approaches under the umbrella of phenomenology are becoming overly prescriptive and dogmatic (e.g., excessive and unnecessary focus on the epoché and reduction). There is a need for phenomenology (as a qualitative research approach) to be renewed and refreshed with opportunities for methodological flexibility. In this process paper, we offer one way this could be achieved. We provide an overview of the emerging paradigm of post-cognitivism and the aligned movement of enactivism which has roots in phenomenology and embodied cognition. We argue that enactivism can be used as a flexible resource by qualitative researchers exploring the unfolding of first-person (subjective) experience and its meanings (i.e., the enactive concept of sense-making). Enactive approaches are commonly tethered to “E-based” theory, such as the idea that sense-making is a 5E process (Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, Emotive, and Extended). We suggest that enactivism and E-based theory can inform phenomenological research in eclectic and non-prescriptive ways, including integration with existing methods such as observation/interviews and thematic analysis with hybrid deductive-inductive coding. Enactivism-informed phenomenological research moves beyond methodological individualism and can inform novel qualitative research exploring the complex, dynamic, and context-sensitive nature of sense-making. We draw from our enactive study that explored the co-construction of pain-related meanings between clinicians and patients, while also offering other ways that enactive theory could be applied. We provide a sample interview guide and codebook, as well as key components of rigor to consider when designing, conducting, and reporting a trustworthy phenomenological study using enactive theory.

Key words: phenomenology, enactivism, enactive approach, embodiment, qualitative research

Post-cognitive approaches to cognitive science, such as enactivism and autopoietic theory, are typically assumed to involve the rejection of computationalism. We will argue that this assumption results from the conflation of computation with the notion of representation, which is ruled out by the post-cognitivist rejection of cognitive realism. However, certain theories of computation need not invoke representation, and are not committed to cognitive realism, meaning that post-cognitivism need not necessarily imply anti-computationalism. Finally, we will demonstrate that autopoietic theory shares a mechanistic foundation with these theories of computation, and is therefore well-equipped to take advantage of these theories.

Key words: computationalism, post-cognitivism, enactivism, autopoietic theory, representation

Open peer commentary on the article “Exploration of the Functional Properties of Interaction: Computer Models and Pointers for Theory” by Etienne B. Roesch, Matthew Spencer, Slawomir J. Nasuto, Thomas Tanay & J. Mark Bishop. Upshot: We challenge the authors’ claim in the target article that “departing from cognitivism requires the development of a new functional framework that will support causal, powerful and goal-directed behavior in the context of the interaction between the organism and the environment.” We argue that rather than a departure from cognitivism, the indicated goal is a natural complement or extension of the classical understanding of cognitivism. In order to reach such a goal, no new functional framework has to be developed right from scratch: there are many insights in related areas of research that can serve such a purpose well and can become an integral part of constructive cognitivism. We welcome the idea to build constructive foundations of cognitivism.

Context: Shaun Gallagher’s work is very influential in contemporary philosophy, especially when it comes to the mind, to philosophical issues raised by developmental psychology, and to intersubjectivity. Problem: Classical cognitivism” has been, and often still is dominating the sciences of the mind. The reasons for this dominance include being implementable on computers, being consistent with Darwinism, and being allegedly experimentally testable. However, this dominance could just as well be a historical phase as cognitivism is disconnected from biological, anthropological, and neuroscientific research. Method: We historically and epistemologically contextualize how Gallagher contributed to bringing the body and subjectivity back to the center of the sciences of the mind by focusing on two examples: theory of mind and evolutionary psychology. Results: Both contemporary epistemologists and Gallagher’s work indicate why classical cognitivism provides a flawed model of cognition, especially when it comes to its explanatory scope: embodiment, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity, among other things, are fundamentally mistreated by cognitivism. Implications: Gallagher helped to structure what Andler calls “heterodoxical” approaches to cognition by conceptualizing a unifying framework, the so-called “E-approaches.” This unification has the major implication of leading Gallagher to a model in which cognition is “decentered,” which helps tackle the philosophical issues one might encounter when narrowing down philosophy of cognition. Constructivist content: We apply E-approaches to the philosophy of cognition, psychology and social sciences.

Key words: Philosophy of mind, philosophy of cognitive science, history of science, embodiment, E-approaches