Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:19:08.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The problem with brain GUTs: Conflation of different senses of “prediction” threatens metaphysical disaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2013

Michael L. Anderson  and
Tony Chemero
Michael L. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17604-3003. michael.anderson@fandm.eduhttp://www.agcognition.org
Tony Chemero
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17604-3003. michael.anderson@fandm.eduhttp://www.agcognition.org Departments of Philosophy and Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. tony.chemero@fandm.eduhttp://edisk.fandm.edu/tony.chemero
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clark appears to be moving toward epistemic internalism, which he once rightly rejected. This results from a double over-interpretation of predictive coding's significance. First, Clark argues that predictive coding offers a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of brain function. Second, he over-reads its epistemic import, perhaps even conflating causal and epistemic mediators. We argue instead for a plurality of neurofunctional principles.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 204 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, M. L. (2006) Cognitive epistemic openness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 5(2):125–54.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2001) A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain and Mind 2:5–38.Google Scholar
Chemero, A. (2009) Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1997) Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1974) On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47:5–20.Google Scholar
Hohwy, J., Roepstorff, A. & Friston, K. (2008) Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review. Cognition 108(3):687–701.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60:20–43.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1979) Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tong, F., Meng, M. & Blake, R. (2006) Neural bases of binocular rivalry. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:502–11.Google Scholar