Upshot: This response focuses on the following issues, which summarize the points made by the commentaries: (i) further reflection on and details of the methodological framework that was applied to studying the proposed design of our innovation course, (ii) the issue of generalizability of the findings for teaching innovation (in this context the question of generic or transferable skills will become central), and (iii) finally, more precise explanation of what we mean by “learning from the future as it emerges.”.

Upshot: In our response we focus on how different types of systems are related from a constructivist perspective, and specifically on the relation between communicational social systems and embodied agency.

Upshot: We focus on the following issues: our intentions behind establishing the new Research Through Design conference series; epistemological concerns around “research through design”; and how we might find a balance between openness and specificity for the conference series going forward.

Upshot: Albeit mostly supportive of our work, the commentaries we received highlighted a few points that deserve additional explanation, with regard to the notion of learning in our model, the relationship between our model and the brain, as well as the notion of anticipation. This open discussion emphasizes the need for toy computer models, to fuel theoretical discussion and prevent business-as-usual from getting in the way of new ideas.

Upshot: Firstly, we discuss the main criticisms of our arguments. Secondly, we address the comments and observations on some parts of our article. We conclude with some reflections about the perspectives of the discussion on the autopoiesis concept.

Upshot: We agree with commenters that enactivism incorporates a broad variety of methodologies, metaphysical stances, concepts, and investigative approaches, and that this is a good thing. However, we remain concerned that autonomy and sense-making are problematic concepts for post-Varelian enactivism, and that they form the foundations of a conceptual framework that may hamper the development of effective explanations for cognitive activity, as well as the paradigmatic aspirations of this particular enactivist approach.

For the authors' responses to comments similar to those expressed here by Balsam & Drew, please see: M. Domjan, B. Cusato, & R. Villarreal (2000). Extensions, elaborations, and explanations of the role of evolution and learning in the control of social behavior. BBS 23(2):269–82. [Authors' Response to first round of commentary.].

: We offer a response to four themes that result from the commentators’ inquiries and critiques: the psychodynamic perspective in contemplative research; the limitations of self-….

Upshot: In our target article we claimed that, at least since Weber and Varela, enactivism has incorporated a theoretical commitment to one important aspect of Jonas’s philosophical biology, namely its anthropomorphism, which is at odds with the methodological commitments of modern science. In this general reply we want to clarify what we mean by anthropomorphism, and explain why we think it is incompatible with science. We do this by spelling out what we call the “Jonasian inference,” i.e., the idea that (...) we are entitled, based on our first-person experience of teleology, to take the appearance of teleology in other living beings at face value. (shrink)

Upshot: In our response we focus on five questions that point to important common themes in the commentaries: why start in wicked problems, what kind of system is a scientific perspective, what is the nature of second-order research processes, what does this mean for understanding interdisciplinary work, and how may polyocular research help make real-world decisions.

: We offer a response to three themes arising from the commentators’ inquiries and critiques: The epistemological compatibility of enactivism and conceptual metaphor theory; the ….

Upshot: This response addresses the main points from the three commentaries, focusing particularly on additional terms and concepts introduced to the bridging metaphor. We further clarify our call for future research in the area and conclude with reflections about the practical implications emerging from our target article and the commentaries.

Upshot: In this response to the open peer commentaries on our target article, we address two emerging themes: the need to explicate further the nature of learning processes from a radical constructivist perspective, and the need to investigate further the implications of our research for classroom teaching.

Upshot: The commentaries raise a plethora of issues, extending the article’s problematic in insightful ways. In this response, we chose to focus on two interesting views on the “powerful idea” in the constructionist sense, on systems versus causal-rule thinking and on the affective aspect of collaborative learning.

The paper sets out and defends against criticism the claims argued for in the book A minimalist ontology of the natural world.

Upshot: In reading the commentaries, we were struck by the fact that all of them were in some capacity related to what we consider a core principle of radical constructivism - interaction. We characterize interaction from a radical constructivist perspective, and then discuss how the authors of the commentaries address one kind of interaction.

Upshot: For communicating second-order science, von Foerster’s ethical imperative provides a viable starting point. Proceeding from this, we plead in favour of emphasising the common grounds of diverging scientific opinions and of various approaches in second-order science instead of focussing on the differences. This will provide a basis for communication and stimulate scientific self-reflection.

Upshot: A successful program for an enactive view of dreaming would have to clarify phenomenal and neurophysiological similarities and differences between waking perception, imagination, and dreaming. An embodied and skillful view of the dream process would require careful investigation of somatic sources of dream content, including sensory incorporation, and global, indirect ways in which dream content reacts metaphorically to changes in bodily states. Neurophenomenology of dreams would benefit from developing dreaming-specific approaches to training researchers and participants in phenomenological methods.

Upshot: We acknowledge that our model can be implemented with different reinforcement learning algorithms. Subsystem formation has been successfully demonstrated on the basal level, and in order to show full subsystem formation in the communication system at least both intentional utterances and acceptance/rejection need to be implemented. The comments about intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards made clear that this distinction is not helpful in the context of the constructivist paradigm but rather needs to be replaced by a critical reflection on whether (...) one has truly created autopoietic agents or just an engineering system. (shrink)

Upshot: In the model simulation and the human experiment, we observed that attention shifted from a tool to a task. This was accompanied by bodily extension. However, our experiments lack a sense of bodily incorporation (the sense of ownership. Based on the valuable commentaries, we would like to discuss the necessary conditions for possible bodily incorporation in terms of redundant degrees of freedom, synchronous visual tactile stimulation, and 1/f noise.

Upshot: Gibsonian and enactivist thinkers appear to diverge primarily with respect to the emphasis placed on the contributions of the organism to perception-action. Enactivists claim that a fundamental asymmetry in the organism-environment relationship should be credited for the existence of meaning in the world. Gibsonians counter that theory must reckon with both the asymmetry and symmetry between organism and environment as well as with the role of specificational information in underwriting their coordination.

We thank Karen Canfell, Hamish Spencer and Ben Oldroyd for their commentaries. Below are some comments on the points they raise: 1. Is the Group Selection Debate Merely a Matter of Semantics? 2. Multi-Level Selection Theory versus Genic Selectionism 3. Heritability and Group Selection in Human Beings 4. Adaptationism.

We delineate the distinctness of sympoiesis from adaptive notions of autopoiesis and explain why we see it as helpful to the exploration and explanation of agentive and adaptive cognitive systems.

Upshot: We respond to three main challenges that the commentaries have raised. First, we argue that to deal successfully with the hard problem of consciousness, it is not enough to posit a remedy by which to move beyond the hard problem. Second, we argue that it makes no sense to explain identity. Yet this does not commit us to definitions by fiat. The strategy we pursue here, and in the target article, is not to explain identity but to explain away (...) the appearance of non-identity. Finally, while we are sympathetic to Varela’s call for a paradigm shift in consciousness studies, we argue here, and in the target article, that this call can only be properly successful if the hard problem is dismantled. (shrink)

Upshot: We consider that elementary students’ situated activities with geometric transformations and animation contain the seeds of complex, and eventually, mathematically generalizable and abstract reasoning. Further studies can explore such technologically-based activities’ potential as building blocks for flexible, creative, and formalized knowledge.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 7, Page 65, July 2012.

: In the commentaries, a number of intriguing projections of Future State Maximization on a multitude of different systems are suggested, which raised the need to clarify certain ….