Metodo

International Studies in Phenomenology and Philosophy

Journal | Volume | Article

143218

Experience, action and representations

critical realism and the enactive theory of vision

Paul Coates

pp. 445-462

Abstract

This paper defends a dynamic model of the way in which perception is integrated with action, a model I refer to as "the navigational account'. According to this account, employing vision and other forms of distance perception, a creature acquires information about its surroundings via the senses, information that enables it to select and navigate routes through its environment, so as to attain objects that satisfy its needs. This form of perceptually guided activity should be distinguished from other kinds of semi-automatic responses to visual stimuli that do not necessarily involve conscious experiences. It essentially involves inner states, which involve both the awareness of phenomenal qualities, and also a representational component. The navigational account is compared here with the enactive approach to perception, which opposes the view that perceptual experiences are inner states. This paper argues that a full account of perception raises a number of different questions. One central explanatory project concerns questions about the kinds of processes that currently enable a creature to identify and respond appropriately to distant objects: the answer, it is argued, lies in acknowledging the role of conscious inner representations in guiding navigational behaviour through complex environments. The fact that perception and action are interdependent does not conflict with the claim that inner representational states comprise an essential stage in visual processing.

Publication details

Published in:

Torrance Steve (2007) Enactive experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (4).

Pages: 445-462

DOI: 10.1007/s11097-007-9063-1

Full citation:

Coates Paul (2007) „Experience, action and representations: critical realism and the enactive theory of vision“. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (4), 445–462.