My limited understanding of Jean Piaget’s constructivist theory of cognitive development suggests something very similar to what Clark is saying. From experience, we form ‘schemes’ or schema of what we perceive, then use them to make sense of the world, going through a constant process of adaptation and refinement. It is proactive and predictive as Clark describes. A small child with a pet dog will apply a ‘dog’ scheme to the next animal he sees with four legs and a tail. So for a brief period a cow will be a dog as he is actively processing and building upon the new experience. It’s a lifetime process of ‘disequilibrium’ as long as are open to new experiences.
This is really interesting! Might have to put the book on my TBR. I’m so fascinated by brain science and have been digging into a lot of the research around polyvagal theory and the autonomic nervous system. That idea that the brain uses sensory information to reinforce rather than generate ideas makes so much sense to me from a trauma perspective and matches with the work Stephen Porges has done. It explains why all the mindfulness of the current sensory input isn’t enough to overcome your mind if it’s already decided something is dangerous and is looking for reinforcement of that idea.
I have to get this book. Andy Clark and David Chalmers got the "extended mind" thing rolling a long time ago, and it's been rolling a long while on a pretty productive trip. He's got the depth of an academic researcher and writing clarity of a journalist. Nice mix. I don't want to be That Guy, but I've looked at the extended mind ideas of Clark and Chalmers in a 'stack: https://technocomplex.substack.com/p/extended-mind. In triguing and useful way of thinking about thinking and perception.
Another great review and one I will be adding to my TBR. Really appreciate your dissection and the detail you go into really give a flavour for the book. Thanks for sharing.
I read some time ago in relation to darts that research shows that the reason a champion darts player scores more highly more consistently than a darts throwing machine is that the human being makes lots of micro adjustments in several aspects, whereas the machine just does the maths.
Lewis: reminded me of Calvino, who said one reason he writes is to find out what he knows.
Regarding the idea of extending our abilities/functionality, I have high hopes for Chat GPT et al, because used sensibly they can enrich what we do.Well, that's my belief at least
I don’t know if Clark talks about this in his book, but I heard or read someone make a similar point to the one at the beginning about the relationship between our brain’s supposed computational processes and catching a baseball.
It’s a pop fly, headed toward the outfield. Our brain isn’t <calculating calculating calculating> and then spitting out a GPS location. Rather, because it’s hard to predict where the ball will land on a parabolic curve but comparatively easy if it were a straight line, we run in such a way as to make the ball *appear* to us to be moving linearly from our perspective. We intersect our mitt with that stick straight perceptual path, and boom. Multi-million dollar contract earned.
My limited understanding of Jean Piaget’s constructivist theory of cognitive development suggests something very similar to what Clark is saying. From experience, we form ‘schemes’ or schema of what we perceive, then use them to make sense of the world, going through a constant process of adaptation and refinement. It is proactive and predictive as Clark describes. A small child with a pet dog will apply a ‘dog’ scheme to the next animal he sees with four legs and a tail. So for a brief period a cow will be a dog as he is actively processing and building upon the new experience. It’s a lifetime process of ‘disequilibrium’ as long as are open to new experiences.
This is really interesting! Might have to put the book on my TBR. I’m so fascinated by brain science and have been digging into a lot of the research around polyvagal theory and the autonomic nervous system. That idea that the brain uses sensory information to reinforce rather than generate ideas makes so much sense to me from a trauma perspective and matches with the work Stephen Porges has done. It explains why all the mindfulness of the current sensory input isn’t enough to overcome your mind if it’s already decided something is dangerous and is looking for reinforcement of that idea.
I have to get this book. Andy Clark and David Chalmers got the "extended mind" thing rolling a long time ago, and it's been rolling a long while on a pretty productive trip. He's got the depth of an academic researcher and writing clarity of a journalist. Nice mix. I don't want to be That Guy, but I've looked at the extended mind ideas of Clark and Chalmers in a 'stack: https://technocomplex.substack.com/p/extended-mind. In triguing and useful way of thinking about thinking and perception.
Another great review and one I will be adding to my TBR. Really appreciate your dissection and the detail you go into really give a flavour for the book. Thanks for sharing.
This is so interesting. A few things:
I read some time ago in relation to darts that research shows that the reason a champion darts player scores more highly more consistently than a darts throwing machine is that the human being makes lots of micro adjustments in several aspects, whereas the machine just does the maths.
Lewis: reminded me of Calvino, who said one reason he writes is to find out what he knows.
Regarding the idea of extending our abilities/functionality, I have high hopes for Chat GPT et al, because used sensibly they can enrich what we do.Well, that's my belief at least
I don’t know if Clark talks about this in his book, but I heard or read someone make a similar point to the one at the beginning about the relationship between our brain’s supposed computational processes and catching a baseball.
It’s a pop fly, headed toward the outfield. Our brain isn’t <calculating calculating calculating> and then spitting out a GPS location. Rather, because it’s hard to predict where the ball will land on a parabolic curve but comparatively easy if it were a straight line, we run in such a way as to make the ball *appear* to us to be moving linearly from our perspective. We intersect our mitt with that stick straight perceptual path, and boom. Multi-million dollar contract earned.
I’m putting this book on my list.🙏