Why living bodies could be dead weight

McGregor, Simon

doi:10.1177/1059712319838211

Cited by 2 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Agmon (2019), explicitly, and Maturana (2019), implicitly, think that this move is redundant because, according to them, the qualification of a molecular autopoietic system already does the job of restricting the notion of autopoiesis to discrete bodies. Peeters (2019) and McGregor (2019), however, consider that there is not even enough motivation to embrace EAT in the first place. According to the two, the notion of an autopoietic system, precisely because it is neutral regarding the spatial location of the living being’s components, should be preferred over the notion of an autopoietic body.…”

Section: Eat’s Motivation and Ontological Commitmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What is the problem with not entailing this more specific property? Let us illustrate the point with the stances of Peeters (2019) and McGregor (2019).…”

Section: Eat’s Motivation and Ontological Commitmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reactions to our argument go from different degrees of support (Harvey, 2019; Vecchi, 2019) to different degrees of skepticism about the scientific utility of the (too folk-minded, merely verbal) discussion itself (Beer, 2019; McGregor, 2019). In between, some think that EAT is basically correct but somehow redundant (Agmon, 2019; Maturana, 2019), whereas others argue that the job EAT aims to do is already done, in a much better way, by enactivism itself (Corris & Chemero, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…A functional approach to living beings, embracing full (spatial and material) multiple realizability should be preferred over an embodied one (McGregor, 2019; Peeters, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…EAT does not provide a neat definition of living beings, and is so open to borderline cases and ambiguities (Clavel, 2019; Di Paolo, 2019; McGregor, 2019; Miller & Nave, 2019; Stapleton, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Living beings as autopoietic bodies

Villalobos

2019

Adaptive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the target article, it was claimed that the enactive extended interpretation of the autopoietic theory (AT) of living beings is incorrect, and an embodied reformulation of AT (EAT) was put forward to remedy and prevent such an interpretation. In this general reply, I want to clarify the motivation, reach, philosophical commitments, and theoretical status of EAT. I do this, mainly, by explicating the notions of body and autopoiesis, and by reconstructing EAT, not as a conceptual definition of life but as a theoretical identity statement of living beings as a natural kind.

show abstract

Section: Eat’s Motivation and Ontological Commitmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What is the problem with not entailing this more specific property? Let us illustrate the point with the stances of Peeters (2019) and McGregor (2019).…”

Section: Eat’s Motivation and Ontological Commitmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…A functional approach to living beings, embracing full (spatial and material) multiple realizability should be preferred over an embodied one (McGregor, 2019; Peeters, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Living beings as autopoietic bodies

Villalobos

2019

Adaptive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dancing robots: Aesthetic engagement is shaped by stimulus and knowledge cues to human animacy

Darda,

Maiwald,

Raghuram

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing presence of artificial intelligence (AI) and robots in the realm of art is moulding the aesthetic identity of the new-age consumer of art. Various questions arise with this development: do cues to the humanness of the origin of an artwork or artist influence our aesthetic preferences? Across two experiments, we investigated how the perception and appreciation of dance is influenced by cues to human animacy by manipulating (1) “agent form” (human-like or robot-like dancer); (2) belief about the source of the movement (human motion capture or computer animation); (3) the source of choreography (human- or computer-generated); and (4) belief about the source of choreography (believe a choreography is human- or computer-generated). Results pointed toward agent congruence –robot agents were preferred when the source of movement was thought to be computer animation (Experiment 1) and when the source of choreography was believed to be computer-generated (Experiment 2). Choreographies believed to be human-generated were preferred (Experiment 2) but participants could not accurately identify the actual source of choreography (Experiment 1). These results persisted above and beyond the effects of age, dance expertise, technological expertise, attitudes toward AI, and how familiar, complex, evocative, technically competent, or reproducible the dance was perceived to be. Dance expertise, technological expertise and attitudes toward AI independently impacted aesthetic judgments. Our findings provide valuable insights to the design and development of robotic dance by identifying the features of a dance choreography and audience characteristics that influence its aesthetic engagement. Additionally, along with creating more refined creative productions by using AI in a dancemaker’s toolkit, shaping people’s perceptions will be just as crucial for its reception and for better engagement.

show abstract

Why living bodies could be dead weight

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Living beings as autopoietic bodies

Living beings as autopoietic bodies

Dancing robots: Aesthetic engagement is shaped by stimulus and knowledge cues to human animacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About