“…Current mainstream cannot be characterized as being predominantly mechanistic and computational, while the concomitance of multiple paradigms competing with each another is clearly much more appropriate. The following paradigms challenge Kohler's definition of the computer metaphor: situated cognition (i.e., Brighton et al 2003;Clark 1997), embodied cognition (i.e., Anderson 2003;Haugeland 1995), cognitive linguistic (i.e., Johnson 1987;Lakoff and Johnson 1980), enaction (i.e., Varela et al 1991, Thompson andVarela 2001), extended mind (i.e., Clark and Chalmers 1998;Clark 2001), contextual cognition (Cornejo et al 2007(Cornejo et al , 2009Dufey et al 2010; Barutta et al 2010;Hurtado et al 2009;Ibañez et al 2006Ibañez et al , 2009Riveros et al 2010;San Martín et al 2010); distributed cognition (i.e., Cole and Engeströn 1991;Hutchins 1995), theory of activity (i.e., Bakhurst 1995;Engelsted 1993), dynamical approaches (Ibañez 2007a(Ibañez , b, 2008Tschacher and Dauwalder 2003), and synergetics (Haken 1997(Haken , 2003Haken et al 1985), among others. As a result, based on Kohler's definition of the machine paradigm, its application in contemporary work is considerably restricted.…”