This paper examines a fundamental philosophical difference between two radical postcognitivist theories that are usually assumed to offer (more or less) the same view of cognition; namely the autopoietic theory (AT) and the enactive approach. The ways these two theories understand cognition, it is argued, are not compatible nor incompatible but rather incommensurable. The reason, so it is argued, is that while enactivism, following the traditional stance held by most of the cognitive theories, understands cognitive systems as constituting a (sort of) natural kind, the autopoietic theory understands them as constituting only a conventional kind. Additionally, the paper shows that AT’s conventionalist stance about cognition, far from being an undesirable or useless position, offers some methodological virtues that might be timely and welcome in the agitated and revolutionary climate of current cognitive science.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The kind of enactivism that we have in mind in this paper is the canonical version developed by Varela and collaborators (Varela et al. 1991; Weber and Varela 2002; Thompson 2007; Di Paolo 2005; Froese and Stewart 2010), sometimes dubbed “autopoietic enactivism”, but perhaps better called “autonomist enactivism”. Other versions of enactivism, such as the sensorimotor theory of O'Regan and Noë (2001), and the “radical” branch of Hutto and Myin (2013), will not be considered here.
Notice, however, that this prescription does not come as an axiomatic or a priori judgment. AT’s Strict Naturalism is a methodological stance that follows the lead of the natural sciences and that, therefore, remains open to be informed and updated by their progress and discoveries. If the natural sciences demonstrate, at some moment, that living beings do have teleology and normativity as natural properties, AT should update its conception of living beings accordingly. The point for the present discussion is that, lacking such a demonstration, AT's Strict Naturalism currently dictates the rejection of such properties.
Here we address and discuss only some potential methodological implications of conventionalism in the field of cognitive science. There are, however, other and deeper implications of conventionalism, such as those that arise at the metaphysical level. One of the main worries at this latter level is that if cognition is taken to be something we merely ascribe to certain systems, then it is not easy to see how we could explain our own (and real) ability to ascribe cognition (or anything) in the first place. This is an interesting and important problem for any conventionalism about cognition, but one that unfortunately we cannot address here. See, however, Villalobos and Silverman (2018), and Abramova and Villalobos (2015), for some clues on how AT might deal with this kind of metaphysical worry.
Abramova, K., & Villalobos, M. (2015). The apparent Ur-intentionality of living beings and the game of content. Philosophia, 43(3), 651–668.
Akagi, M. (2017). Rethinking the problem of cognition. Synthese, 195(8), 3547–3570.
Allen, C. (2017). On (not) defining cognition. Synthese, 194(11), 4233–4249.
Barker, M., & Velasco, J. (2013). Deep conventionalism about evolutionary groups. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 971–982.
Brigandt, I. (2003). Species pluralism does not imply species eliminativism. Philosophy of Science, 70, 1305–1316.
Buckner, C., & Fridland, E. (2017). What is cognition? Angsty monism, permissive pluralism(s), and the future of cognitive science. Synthese, 194(11), 4191–4195.
Clark, A. (2015). Predicting peace: The end of the representation wars—a reply to Michael Madary. In T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND: 7(R). Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group.
Cleland, C., & Chyba, C. (2002). Defining “life”. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 32(4), 387–393.
Darwin, C. (1859/2003). The origin of species. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
Di Paolo, E. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 97–125.
Di Paolo, E. (2009). Extended life. Topoi, 28, 9–21.
Di Paolo, E., & Thompson, E. (2014). The enactive approach. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 68–78). New York: Routledge Press.
Froese, T., & Stewart, J. (2010). Life after Ashby: Ultrastability and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 17(4), 83–106.
Guala, F. (2014). On the nature of social kinds. In M. Gallotti & J. Michael (Eds.), Perspectives on social ontology and social cognition. Studies in the philosophy of sociality (Vol. 4, pp. 57–68). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hutto, D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Khalidi, M. A. (2013). Three kinds of social kinds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 90, 96–112.
Machery, E. (2012). Why I stopped worrying about the definition of life… and why you should as well. Synthese, 185, 145–164.
Maturana, H. (1975). The organization of the living: A theory of the living organization. International Journal of Man–machine studies, 7, 313–332.
Maturana, H. (1981). Autopoiesis. In M. Zeleny (Ed.), Autopoiesis: A theory of living organization (pp. 21–33). New York; Oxford: North Holland.
Maturana, H. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 9(3–4), 5–34.
Maturana, H. (2003). The biological foundations of self-consciousness and the physical domain of existence. In N. Luhmann, H. Maturana, M. Namiki, V. Redder, & F. Varela (Eds.), Beobachter: Konvergenz der Erkenntnistheorien? (pp. 47–117). München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Maturana, H. (2011). Ultrastability… autopoiesis? Reflective response to Tom Froese and John Stewart. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 18(1–2), 143–152.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mishler, B. (1999). Getting Rid of Species? In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays (pp. 307–316). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Newen, A. (2017). What are cognitive processes? An example-based approach. Synthese, 194(11), 4251–4268.
O’Regan, K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 883–917.
Pöyhönen, S. (2013). Natural kinds and concept eliminativism. In V. Karakostas & D. Dieks (Eds.), EPSA11 perspectives and foundational problems in philosophy of science (pp. 167–179). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG, (The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings; vol. 2).
Ramsey, W. D. (2007). Representation reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rupert, R. (2013). Memory, natural kinds, and cognitive extension; or, martians don’t remember, and cognitive science is not about cognition. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(1), 25–47.
Thompson, E. (2005). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 407–427.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Thompson, E. (2011). Replies to commentaries. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(5–6), 176–223.
Thompson, E., & Stapleton, M. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 28, 23–30.
Tirard, S., Morange, M., & Lazcano, A. (2010). The definition of life: A history of an elusive scientific endeavor. Astrobiology, 10(10), 1003–1009.
Varela, F. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. New York: Elsevier North Holland.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Villalobos, M. (2013). Enactive cognitive science: Revisionism or revolution? Adaptive Behavior, 21(3), 159–167.
Villalobos, M., & Dewhurst, J. (2018). Enactive autonomy in computational systems. Synthese, 195, 1891–1908.
Villalobos, M., & Silverman, D. (2018). Extended functionalism, radical enactivism, and the autopoietic theory of cognition: Prospects for a full revolution in cognitive science. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 719–739.
Villalobos, M., & Ward, D. (2015). Living systems: Autopoiesis, autonomy and enaction. Philosophy and Technology, 28(2), 225–239.
Weber, A., & Varela, F. (2002). Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1(2), 97–125.
Mario Villalobos wants to thank the fantastic audience at the III International Colloquium on Colours and Numbers “Ways of Enaction”, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil 11–13 September 2017, where the initial draft of this paper was presented, and the Santiago Mind & Cognition Research Group (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile) for helpful discussions. He also wants to thank Marcos Silva and Francicleber Ferreira for their support, and to David Silverman and Joe Dewhurst for helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. Finally, both authors want to thank the anonymous referees for their constructive observations.
Funding was provided by Universidad de Tarapaca (Grant No. Proyecto de Investigación para Estudiantes de Pregrado UTA 2018 Code 3751-18).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Villalobos, M., Palacios, S. Autopoietic theory, enactivism, and their incommensurable marks of the cognitive. Synthese 198, 71–87 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02376-6
- Autopoietic theory
- The mark of the cognitive
- Conventional kind
- Strict naturalism