Silvano Zipoli

Research on the concept of affordance generated different interpretations, which are due to different stories aimed at describing how this notion accounts for visually guided motor behaviors. On the one hand, _dispositional accounts of affordances_ explain how affordances emerge from the encounter of the agent’s perceptual-motor skills, with an object offering possible interactions, as _behavioral dispositional properties_. On the other hand, _cognitive neuroscience_ explains what neural mechanisms are required for agents to detect affordances, resulting from an internal _processing_. As the literature recognized, it would be beneficial to connect these two stories. We propose an important step into this connection, showing how a _dispositional notion_ of affordance can be distinguished into two versions, the _Dispositional Account of Nomological Affordance Response_ and the _Dispositional Account of Probable Affordance Response_, and how to complement different aspects of _visuomotor processing_ for affordance extraction, discussed in _neuroscience_, with them. An important benefit of our proposal is that it suggests, for the first time, that we should not prefer one _dispositional_ account at the expense of the other. Indeed, we show that different _dispositional_ accounts can capture distinct aspects of the plethora of complex manifestations, at the neurocognitive level of visuomotor-processing, that affordances can display in humans, both in healthy and pathological subjects.

Philosophers and cognitive scientists have been debating about the nature of practical knowledge in skilled action. A big challenge is that of establishing whether and how practical knowledge (knowledge-how) is influenced by, or related to propositional knowledge (knowledge-that). This becomes even more challenging when trying to understand how propositional and motor representations may cooperate in making action performance flexible, while also remaining rational. In this paper, we offer an account that explains how practical knowledge leads to the execution of our actions in a way that accounts for its relation to propositional knowledge, and with respect to the possibility of granting flexibility and rationality.

Habits usually come in the form of skilled action. Then, accurately explaining the nature of habitual actions requires to say something on skilled actions. Here we focus on the debate on skilled actions in the philosophical literature informed by motor neuroscience. The main question in the literature is whether practical knowledge can be reduced to propositional knowledge and, if not, how these different forms of knowledge can be related when skilled motor performance is in play. But this, ipso facto, also represents a crucial question in the case of habitual actions. In this respect, we suggest that skilled action performance at the basis of habitual actions is the result of an information processing that is shared, within the motor brain, by both epistemic and practical states (of which we specify the nature and the relation). We offer a description of how this information processing works, so as to shed new light on how to conceive habitual skilled action, while also taking into account the practical mode of access to the epistemic states about this action.

How can we explain the intelligence of behaviors? Radical enactivists maintain that intelligent behaviors can be explained without involving the attribution of representational contents. In this paper, I challenge this view by providing arguments showing that the intelligence of a behavior is reliant on ways of presenting the relative purpose and the environment in which that behavior is performed. This involves that a behavior is intelligent only if intesional contents are ascribed to the related agent. Importantly, this conclusion also concerns basic behaviors such as those related to the perception of affordances in the environment. Accordingly, either affordance-related behaviors are not instances of intelligent behaviors and can be accounted in a contentless way or affordance-related behaviors are intelligent, but cannot be accounted without involving contents and modes of presentation.

Today embodiment is a critical theme in several branches of the contemporary philosophical debate. The term embodiment refers to the role of an agent’s own body in his situated life, suggesting the existence of a bodily root for several experiential and cognitive abilities. A metaphor, that of the root, which aims at establishing a constitutive participation of the body in what we usually consider the domain of the mind. As other philosophical concepts, the notion of embodiment, as well as the idea of embodied mind, lacks of an explicit and shared definition, therefore, is possible to find many different uses of it. Works concerning “embodiment” cover many fields of research such as those concerning the nature of abstract thought (Lakoff & Núñez 2000), artificial intelligence (Clark 1998) and social cognition (Sinigaglia 2009). The aim of this paper is to define a path linking considerations from the phenomenological tradition with recent theoretical developments and experimental evidence. This will make it possible to show that the identification of the bodily roots of experience has the consequence to involve a series of theoretical and experimental consequences leading towards an enactive and ecological approach to perception.