Making Enactivism Even More Pragmatic: the Jamesian Legacy in Shaun Gallagher’S Enactivist Approach to Cognition Guido Baggio(Α)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DI FILOSOFIA E PSICOLOGIA ISSN 2039-4667; E-ISSN 2239-2629 DOI: 10.4453/rifp.2021.0002 Vol. 12 (2021), n. 1, pp. 16 -30 RICERCHE Making enactivism even more pragmatic: The Jamesian legacy in Shaun Gallagher’s enactivist approach to cognition Guido Baggio(α) Ricevuto: 21 dicembre 2020; accettato: 31 marzo 2021 █ Abstract The article outlines some similarities between the perspectives adopted by Shaun Gallagher and William James. In particular, assuming that the issue of representation in cognitive systems provides a val- uable starting point and testing ground for verifying James’ possible contribution to enactivism, we argue that there is a considerable degree of similarity between Gallagher’s and James’ non-representational mod- els of direct perception. Furthermore, we propose that by combining James’s theory of time and spatial perception with Gallagher’s Husserlian-inspired theory of retentional-protentional structure, we can strengthen the theoretical assumptions of enactivism, integrating elements taken from phenomenology and aspects of Jamesian pragmatics. Understood in this way, James’ enactive theory of action and percep- tual causality provides a promising opportunity for an innovative and coherent enactivist research pro- gram. KEYWORDS: Enactivism; Pragmatism; 4E Cognition; William James; Shaun Gallagher █ Riassunto Rendere l’enattivismo ancora più pragmatico: l’eredità jamesiana nell’approccio enattivista alla cogni- zione di Shaun Gallagher – In questo lavoro si pongono in evidenza alcune somiglianze tra la prospettiva enattivista di Shaun Gallagher e la psicologia di William James. In particolare, assumendo che il tema della rappresentazione nei sistemi cognitivi fornisca un valido punto di partenza e un terreno di prova per veri- ficare il possibile contributo di James all’enattivismo, ritengo che esista una notevole assonanza tra l’anti- rappresentazionalismo di Gallagher e la teoria della percezione diretta di James. Sostengo inoltre che at- traverso una combinazione della teoria del tempo e della percezione spaziale di James con la teoria di Gal- lagher della struttura ritentivo-protensiva di ispirazione husserliana sia possibile rafforzare i presupposti teorici dell’enattivismo, integrando elementi tratti dalla fenomenologia con aspetti pragmatisti. La teoria jamesiana dell’azione e della causalità percettiva sembra fornire una promettente opportunità per un inno- vativo programma di ricerca in ambito enattivista. PAROLE CHIAVE: Enattivismo; Pragmatismo; 4E Cognition; William James; Shaun Gallagher (α)Dipartimento di Filosofia, Comunicazione, Spettacolo, Università degli Studi di Roma Tre, via Ostiense, 234-236 – 00146 Roma (I) E-mail: [email protected] () Creative Commons - Attribuzione - 4.0 Internazionale - © Guido Baggio 2021 Making enactivism even more pragmatic 17 IN WHERE’S THE ACTION? The pragmatic turn in thinking process is only one of several remarkable cognitive science Engel and colleagues witnessed to processes of embodied experience, whose main a “pragmatic turn” in cognitive science, i.e., the principle is continuity. It is in the continuity of shift from a representation-centered perspective experience that cognitive operations grow out of to a paradigm that focuses on the understanding organic activities. Moreover, the conceptual tool of cognition as “enactive”. The article formalized a of the organism-environment relationship helps to change of perspective that had been taking place alleviate the tension between enactive, embodied, in the cognitive sciences since the end of the twen- and extended cognition as it highlights the inter- tieth century and which considered that pragma- twining of mind, body and world in action, and tists were basically right about the nature of the emergence of “higher” cognitive functions knowledge and experience. In general, the pragmat- from perceptual, motor and affective functions.9 ic turn paradigm suggests that cognition is funda- In his analysis, Gallagher also took into considera- mentally grounded in action, that is, «fundamen- tion the work of William James both in The inor- tally action-bound, subserving the planning, selec- dinance of time (1998) and, more recently, in an tion, anticipation, and performance of actions».1 article in which he examined James’ concept of the The use of the term “pragmatic”, taken from the “warmth and intimacy” of bodily self-conscious- action-oriented perspectives developed by Peirce, ness. In particular, the 1998 volume compares James, Dewey, and Mead, aims to stress the conjec- James’ notion of time with Husserl’s, contending ture that cognition is a form of practice, namely a that though both authors agree in attributing to skillful activity that implies a continuous interac- consciousness a temporal structure, James’ account tion with the natural and social world. of the specious present falls into a “cognitive para- Despite the various versions of the pragmatic dox,” for it involves the idea that succession can on- turn in the cognitive sciences,2 as a common back- ly be represented in momentary simultaneity. Hus- ground many assume that cognition is action- serl, on the other hand, escapes the paradox thanks oriented. Therefore, cognition should not be con- to his concept of intentionality. The body in social sidered a producer of veridical representations but context (2012) examines James’ concept of the rather as a capacity to generate structures of action. “warmth and intimacy” of bodily self-consciousness In this respect, the pragmatic turn is reflected in related to recent attempts to reformulate bodily enactivist theories of cognition.3 In particular, on a self-consciousness in strictly neural terms, and ar- historical-theoretical level, pragmatist authors are gues that both James’ and neuroscience’s perspec- seen as forerunners, at least in part, of enactivism. tives ignore the social aspects of the self and the Peirce, James, Dewey, and Mead’s theories are, in role they play in accounting for bodily self- fact, largely consistent with the enactivist argu- awareness and its various perturbations. ments that cognition is a matter of dynamical regu- Gallagher focuses more on dissonances than on lation between brain, body, and environment. In- similarities between his and James’ proposals. Ad- deed, many authors agree that the roots of enactiv- mittedly, James did not pay much attention to the ism lay not only in phenomenology but also in notion of “situation” and to the role that organism- pragmatism.4 In fact, as for phenomenologically in- environment interaction plays in cognition com- spired enactivism,5 a pragmatist non-reductionist pared to other pragmatists, such as Dewey and approach to cognition allows not only the rethink- Mead.10 Nevertheless, my claim is that upon closer ing of the meaning of mind and brain, but the very examination, there are many elements that testify to concept of nature, not accepting a mechanistic def- a possible Jamesian legacy in Gallagher’s enactivism. inition of nature as presupposed by science. Considering the possible synergies between James Among the enactivists, Shaun Gallagher high- and Gallagher, I will argue, can provide an enriched lighted on various occasions the contribution that conception of enactivist philosophy. pragmatists and neo-pragmatists can make to In what follows, I outline some similarities in cognitive science,6 maintaining that pragmatism their perspectives. In particular, assuming that the supports an integrative approach to cognition issue of representation in cognitive systems provides which strengthens the enactivist-extended model a valuable starting point and testing ground in order on several points.7 In particular, by deepening to verify James’ valuable contribution to enactivism, Dewey’s theory of organic circuit as well as his no- I argue that there is a considerable degree of similari- tions of “situation” and “organism-environment”, ty between Gallagher’s and James’ non-repre- he argues that they offer a way to elaborate a theo- sentational models of direct perception. To do so, I ry of the extended mind based on enactivist prin- compare Gallagher’s Husserlian-inspired theory of ciples. Accordingly, nature can only be understood intrinsic time and James’s theory of time and spatial through the cognitive capacity we have to investi- perception. This theory is part of James’ psychologi- gate it, namely through experiencing our transac- cal functionalism, which he summarized in the mas- tions with it.8 This capacity calls into question a terpiece Principles of psychology (1890). In particular, teleological perspective on the organic relation be- assuming an evolutionary, strongly anti-dualist, non- tween organism and environment, in which the reductionist naturalism,11 James’s functionalism 18 Baggio claims continuity between action, perception, cogni- trol aspect can be considered as independent from tion, arguing that perception and cognition are part the object or situation it represents. In other words, of the more comprehensive motor process involved to think that anticipations emulated can be separat- in action.12 I then maintain that James’ theory of ac- ed from perceptual and proprioceptive input involve tion and causality might be considered a kind of a decoupled process. forerunner of Gallagher’s enactivism. Moreover, I maintain that James’ functionalist conception of To think that the anticipatory emulator in- “space-relations” can contribute to further highlight volves a decoupled process