#andyclark

Fig 1. Geek guide to structural-coupling

Andy Clark's article brings to mind Francisco Varela's approach called enactive cognitive science, borne of his dissatisfaction with both the cognitivist and connectionism views of the mind.

Enactive cognitive science is an approach to the study of mind that seeks to explain how the structures and mechanisms of autonomous cognitive systems can arise and participate in the generation and maintenance of viable perceiver-dependent worlds—rather than more conventional cognitivist efforts, such as the attempt to explain cognition in terms of the ‘recovery’ of (pre-given, timeless) features of The (objectively-existing and accessible) World. (McGee, 2005, p. 19)

This notion of is echoed in the Gibsonian view of sensing with it's agent-environment coupling and the 'intimate intermingling of mind, body and world' or as Clark puts it, 'the sensor as an open conduit allowing environmental magnitudes to exert a constant influence on behavior' .

What is fascinating about Varela's approach is that it springs from the theory of autopoiesis, developed by him and Humberto Maturana. In his essay "Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela’s Contribution to Media Ecology", Ronan Halowell states, "Maturana and Varela’s theory of autopoiesis demonstrates how biological entities, through the organization of their components, self-produce the structures that define them as living beings and how they interact with their environment through, what they call, structural coupling"

While the early definition of autopoiesis stems from their done in cell biology, it had far reaching implications for cognition. Mamatura's famous experiment on the neurophysiology of the frog, entitled " what the frog's eye tells the frog's brain" demonstrated that the frog's brain constructed reality rather than represented it. From this they extrapolated that human brains must behave similarly. According to Halowell, Maturana's conclusion was that as humans with brain based language and consciousness, we do not actually experience an absolutely objective world that is accurately re-presented to us faithfully through our cognition, but that we bring forth observer-dependent worlds with other autopoietic unities and our physical environment through, “a structural dance in the choreography of co-existence” (Maturana & Varela, 1992, p. 248).

What is engaging about the idea of autopoiesis and what Andy Clark is also arguing is that we're not stagnant mechanisms, locked into a certain mode of behaviour and reaction, but that our reality, amazingly, seems to be of us, determined by our individual structure and our interaction with our environment. The physical environment is not static. Humberto Mariotti, in his article "Autopoiesis, Culture and Society argues that living systems and the environment change in a congruent way. Environment triggers changes in the structure of systems, and systems answer by triggering changes in the environment and so on, in a circular way. When a system influences another, the influenced one answers by influencing back, that is, it develops a compensatory behavior. An autopoietic system is simultaneously, the producer and the product.

All of this supports Clark's emphasis that we are "profoundly embodied agents", able to recruit external aids to complement our inner workings, and in doing so, we create a semi-permeable boundary between us and the world we co-create. While this leads to questions about our control over and role in the environment and experiences we help create, it also points to the necessity of considering the external resources that we utilise, and that then go on to become our "transparent equipment". What are the nature of these aids, and what kind of behaviours do they foment? The belief that design carries within it a certain prescription of behaviour becomes even more relevant in this context,where technology, used in a certain way has the ability to affect deep structural changes with far reaching implications.