Talk:Enaction (philosophy)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Enaction/Enactivism comparison

Below is a flyer at characterizing various articles. They are numbered for easy discussion and amplification.

1. The article Enaction was originated by Sankazim in 2006 who was interested in the ENACTIVE program of the NoE. This gives this article a very particular orientation toward computer interfaces. My guess is that this article should be made to focus even more narrowly upon this subject area, and the pretense of a wider undertaking be removed, making Enactivism the wider article.

2. The article Enactivism is in flux, but presently aims to include all aspects of enactivism. This article appears to be the most general topic choice, and could include a subsection on the E′s embodied, enactive, extended, embedded. These could refer to main articles on these subtopics as these articles develop, but only Embodied cognition has a significant presence right now. The Stanford Encyclopedia has no entry for Enactivism, but the article on embodied cognition has a subsection on enactive cognition. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on Synesthesia by Allen-Hermanson that mentions enactivism. This site seems to be down at the moment. Here is the PhilPapers link to enactivism.

3. The articles Embodied cognition and Extended cognition could be supplemented with Enactive cognition, but it is probable that the last two could be included in Enactivism because they don't contain sufficient material to go beyond stubs.

4. The article Enaction (philosophy) intends to cover the philosophical aspects of Enactivism. It is doubtful at this time that this article will get off the ground, but Tony wants to work on it.

I'm sure that other editors can add to this beginning. Hope it helps begin to untangle this mess. Brews ohare (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful work. I read it and the three articles Enaction, Enactivism, and Enaction (philosophy).

Re your item 1, I agree that the article is oriented towards computer interfaces.

Re items 2–4, I think we should focus only on the three articles I mentioned above. My impression is that there are three basic topics mixed in the present form of those three articles.

• In the article Enaction is enaction (psychology), enaction (computer interface), and enaction (philosophy).
• In the article Enactivism is enaction (philosophy) and enaction (psychology).
• In the article Enaction (philosophy) is enaction (philosophy) and enaction (psychology).

I think that the three existing articles should be replaced with articles on respectively the three basic topics I mentioned above. The new articles and their respective limited topics would be the following.

• Enactive interfaces on the topic of enactive computer interfaces.
• Enaction (psychology) on the topic of enaction in psychology.
• Enaction (philosophy) on the topic of enaction in philosophy.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm in broad agreement as far an 'enaction' goes, however I am not sure you can separate psychology from philosophy ----Snowded ^TALK 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the psychology article would be restricted to info obtained from psychology sources, such as psychology journals, books that say they are about psychology, etc. Similarly for philosophy. A psychology source probably wouldn't mention philosophy, whereas a philosophy source may mention psychology and that could be included in the philosophy article if needed, in the same limited way as the source mentions it. This is in line with the first paragraph of WP:NOR that advises use of "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article", in one case psychology and in the other case philosophy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

At best I think they can be separated into separate sections of a single article but there's no call for parenthetical disambiguation because the philosophers and psychologists are (more or less) talking about the same topic. I think that "Enaction (psychology+philosophy)" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Enaction" and I think an argument can be made that "Enaction (computing)" is not only much more easily separated but that the WP:COMMONNAME should really be going to psycho+philo (as opposed to computing). So, one way to resolve the AfD would be the following sequence:

1) rename the article currently named "Enaction" to "Enactive interface" something parenthetical like "Enaction (computing)"

2) rename "Enactivism" to "Enaction" over that redirect and finally

3) redirect this article there as well.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Re your item 1, I thought the common name for the computer subject was enactive interfaces, which seems to be suggested by the article. For example, try doing an edit-find for enactive interface at the article Enaction and see what you get. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Enactive interface would be totally fine and I've included it above.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: Enactivism now had some additional subsections on educational theories and cultural psychology. Would that suggest some changes in your description of the desirable articles? Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so.

• If it's about cultural psychology, then going by the term it seems like it would go in the psychology article, if anywhere.
• I think the sources for the Education section are about education rather than enactivism. Their connection with enactivism is that they use the concept to discuss education, rather than contribute to the subject of enactivism. So the education section may be out of place in Enactivism and in either of the proposed psychology and philosophy articles.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, isn't that a bit like saying ontology is part of 'philosophy' so we don't need an article on ontology? Enactivism is an approach with many applications, and a subsection on each of these is OK. It can hardly be argued that these subsections as they are now are exhaustive treatments. For example, the subsection Enactivism#Cultural aspects is only a few lines, while the literature on this subject is vast, and (presumably one day) there will be a more comprehensive discussion in cultural psychology or maybe an article of its own. The section Enactivism#Educational aspects largely has an article of its own: Situated cognition and in keeping with that bigger treatment, also is only a few lines.

So, Bob, I agree with you that these subsections deal with enactivism as applied to the bigger topics, but don't see why that means they should be dropped from an article on enactivism in all its aspects. Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear when mentioning "the psychology article" when I meant the proposed Enaction (psychology) article not the Psychology article? Would that change any of your comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the same applies to Enactivism#Psychological aspects and Enactivism#Philosophical aspects, so by removing these subsections, only the introduction would remain in Enactivism, it seems to me? Brews ohare (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The philosophy and psychology material in Enactivism wouldn't be removed or dropped from Wikipdedia but put respectively in the article Enaction (philosophy) and the proposed article Enaction (psychology). --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That does look like your proposal, which would remove this article, and replace 'enactivism' with 'enaction' and would have (I guess) Enaction (psychology) which would include Enaction (psychology)#Cultural psychology and maybe Enaction (psychology)#Educational psychology to which we might add Enaction (cognitive science) with subsections Enaction (cognitive science)#Embedded cognition, Enaction (cognitive science)#Extended cognition, Enaction (cognitive science)#Embodied cognition, Enaction (cognitive science)#Affect. That approach could be criticized as appearing to elevate 'enaction' to the prime force engendering 'embedding' extending' and 'embodying'. We'd also have Enaction (philosophy), which would be the discussion of 'non-Cartesian theories of mind' that Tony is working on.

How does that sound? I don't know why 'enaction' is preferred to 'enactivism'. Brews ohare (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We do not chop topics up into separate articles dog-eared for different sources/editors.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This article Enaction (philosophy) wouldn't be replaced. The article Enactivism would be replaced with Enaction (psychology), which might include Enaction (psychology)#Cultural psychology as you suggested. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

MachineElf: It sounds as though you are dissing the process for arriving at page topics, as well as the particular proposal. Your own proposal appears to be:

Enaction - disambiguation page

Enactive interface - computer and machine interfaces

Enaction (philosophy) - redirect to Enactivism#Philosophical aspects

Enactivism - more or less as is with some additions perhaps?

That seems workable, and I suppose the present form of Enactivism would be acceptable, more or less, as an article of much wider scope than the philosophical aspects. I am not sure where you put the E′s. Brews ohare (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It may turn out that Enactivism#Philosophical aspects becomes too big when it includes a full blown discussion of 'non-Cartesian theories of mind', and we need Enactivism (philosophy) in the near future to include that topic adequately. Brews ohare (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: Renaming Enaction to Enactive interfaces seems like it fits the subject matter there. However, some of its content will have to be moved. The term "enactivism" has deep roots and redirecting Enactivism and moving its content to a new Enaction doesn't seem necessary. What about going the other way around and redirecting the newly empty article Enaction to Enactivism? What are the pros and cons here? Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The resulting "Enaction" redirect to "Enactive interface" could instead be changed into a dab page and "Enaction (philosophy)" could redirect to "Enactivism".—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "However, some of its content will have to be moved." — That was one of the ideas, i.e. that the proposed Enactive interfaces article would not be about enaction philosophy or enaction psychology. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Brews ohare (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Two proposals

Just to summarize, let me put down the article contents as I understand them for MachineElf's proposal:

Enaction. - a disambiguation page

Enactive interfaces. - the material on machine and computer interfaces taken from the existing article Enaction

Enaction (philosophy). - made a redirect to Enactivism#Philosophical aspects, where its material on philosophy will be transferred

Enactivism - a possibly enlarged version of the present article with its present subsections, and to include all aspects of enactivism, including, but not limited to its philosophical aspects

...

Now let me look at Bob's proposal:

Enactive interfaces. - same as other proposal

Enaction (Psychology)

Enaction (Psychology)#Cultural aspects - enactivism and Cultural psychology

Enaction (Psychology)#Educational aspects - things like Situated cognition

...

Enaction (Philosophy). - strictly philosophy; the philosophical parts of the present article, but the psychology removed

Enaction (Philosophy)#Non-Cartesian aspects

Enaction (Philosophy)#Universal Darwinism

...

So question one is: Are these the proposals? Of course, additional subsections could be added.

Question two is: How do they compare?

Two proposals — Comments

• In looking at them, I prefer MacineElf's proposal for this reason: it allows philosophy and cognitive science in the same article, which will avoid problems separating these two and repetition of similar material that seems likely to occur with Bob's proposal. Brews ohare (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think it was two proposals per se, it was several editors discussing how best to do this. I think the last suggestion from MachineElf is the better one for similar reasons to Brews but with a slight caution as to scope creep ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Actually, I hadn't proposed any specific subsections for the two articles Enaction (psychology) and Enaction (philosophy). Essentially the guiding principle for what would go into each article is whether the material was from a psychology oriented source or a philosophy oriented source. From the comments so far it looks like what I suggested isn't going to be accepted, so I will leave it at that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is you can't separate the sources these days. The better ones relating to this subject combine ----Snowded ^TALK 11:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my problem is that I thought the definition of the concept of enaction in psychology is different from the definition of the concept of enaction in philosophy. Maybe you could give your thoughts on what those two definitions are? Or are they the same? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Its both different and the same, then you add in Thhe cognitive science aspects which heavily overlay on philosophy. So per your comments of some time ago this is a trans disciplinary issue with differentiator aspects and common themes and concepts/implications----Snowded ^TALK 13:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The philosophical and the scientific are in principle quite separable. The first is not open to empirical test, and the second is based upon it. Although scientists change hats occasionally, they usually notice that is what they are doing. Philosophers aren't so careful.

An example here is a psychological theory of perception, which is based upon a testable theory of how certain classes of objects are seen as having a three-dimensional character (maybe leading to haptic technology). That can be compared to a philosophical position (maybe Husserl) that presumes the observer brings pre-experential mental and tactile equipment to their interactions with the world that to some degree (to be analyzed ad nauseum) limits their exploration of the world to one that satisfies their limitations. The last view is such a wide generalization as to be beyond the capacity for empirical verification, although instances where this happens may be verifiable. The generalization has application to our entire experience, while a limitation to the verifiable prevents psychology from such extrapolation. Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In short, enaction in psychology is testable, enaction in philosophy is an extrapolation from the testable that cannot be, even in principle, verified. Brews ohare (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers from both of you. From Snowded I get that it is hard to say what the definition(s) is(are). From Brews ohare I get that whatever the definitions are, the one from psychology is testable whereas the one from philosophy is an extrapolation of testable concepts that isn't itself testable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Bob, some say "enactivism" has become a term so broad that it has no meaning anymore. As for philosophy, one of its quandaries is how "knowing" is to be distinguished from "testability". Enaction is one proposed answer, that "knowing" can't be separated from "doing", "know what" requires "know how". Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The separation of science from philosophy is a philosophical position Brews. Those of us from a realist and nauralising perspective would disagree and you will find many authors very comfortable working in both words. The statement that action is testable in one and not testable in others makes an ontological assumptions that many would challenge. While e discussion is interesting we are agreed on one article so not sure where this is going? 17:45, 25 April 2014‎ Snowded (talk | contribs)‎

Snowded, Re your comment, "... we are agreed on one article so not sure where this is going? " — If that's the case then implement it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A change we all seem agreed to is moving Enaction to Enactive interfaces. How about starting there? Brews ohare (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

give me a chance Bob, I am hoping between meetings at the UN and Manhatten using the iPad between meetings. I think it is a move per Brews above and a redirect to Enactivism. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, would you mind copying a summary to the AfD page? —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As preparation for the change of Enaction to a disambiguation page, I have copied the material there on enactive interfaces to Enactive interfaces. It has been flagged as containing copyrighted material. Please take a look. Brews ohare (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The new page Enactive interfaces is entirely unsourced and its author hasn't been around since 2006. It is apparent that this page was just an advertisement for his organization, and though it has some stuff that is interesting, it is a very weak article. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The page Enaction has been nominated for deletion, and links to it have been changed. The material pertinent to Enactivism has been moved there without alteration and probably need attention. Brews ohare (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to nominate it for deletion. I've redirected it to Enactivism.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought the agreement was to make Enaction a disambiguation page:

Enaction may refer to:

Enaction (philosophy) - the philosophical aspects of enaction

Enactive interfaces - the role of enaction in interface design, for example computer and machine interaces

Enactivism - the overall subject of enaction as it appears in philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, mental development and educational theory

What happened to that idea? Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be ok too but you've done a copy and paste move instead of just renaming it Enactive interfaces. Technically, we don't need a WP:DAB page to disambiguate between Enactive interfaces and Enactivism because the titles aren't the same. The important part for me is that Enaction (philosophy) be redirected to Enactivism#Philosophical aspects (as you suggest).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see, I see you've gone ahead and kept this article in your DAB. As you know, you can't keep the parenthetical or split off philosophy... So, why not do something I'm not objecting to? For example, argue that "Enaction" is notable apart from "Enactivism"? I'll go ahead and reverse the redirect since it appears we do not agree. In any case, this is not a forum to decide the fates of other articles.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

One problem here is that it is not clear what you want to do. The general program was laid out here, but apparently we don't understand it the same way. The logical thing is to let Enaction be deleted. All the associated changes are already in place. When it goes, it can be reimplemented as seems appropriate. The fate of Enaction (philosophy) has not yet been decided upon, so far as I understand matters.

So, my suggestion is to replace the PROD. If you have a better idea, let's hear about it. Brews ohare (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently that cannot be done now because a prod cannot be reinserted. So now we have a mess on our hands. Brews ohare (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do. Why not blank the Enactive interfaces article you created? Only you can do that. Then do a proper move of "Enaction" to "Enactive interface" (making the adjustments once again and needless to say, the title should be singular anyway)? Then argue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enaction (philosophy) that a WP:POVFORK has been averted because this article is now the sole contender for the title of "Enaction" (the parenthetical disambiguation hint can be removed). Unless, of course, you really would like to redirect to Enactivism... and I think you should.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Having already done all the moving about and renaming by hand, including the 'What links here' I have simply nominated the Enaction page for deletion (following a number of miss-steps in following directions). That means the requisite changes in content on Enactive interfaces and Enactivism are looked after, and won't be redone 'automatically' requiring further changes. The situation regarding POV Forks and what happens to Enaction (philosophy) remains open for discussion, and I don't think any consensus has been reached on these matters yet. SO only the simple stuff is done and the rest remains. Brews ohare (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

we have concensus to move th philosophy one or rather redirect. Why ar we asking for a prod? This is all about renaming and redirection. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the disagreement is whether to include Enaction (philosophy) as a section in Enactivism or leave it as a separate article. I recall that Tony Clarke wanted to leave it as a separate article so I don't think there is a consensus to change that. Time to move on. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

tony hasn't engaged in the discussion above which did reach agreement among three editors. So it's not time to move on its time to sort out what looks like a mess ----Snowded ^TALK 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob is correct. There is no consensus on the fate of Enaction (philosophy) at this time. I have tried to implement the plan to move material from the present Enaction to the two articles Enactive interfaces and Enactivism. So far as I can tell I have managed to make all the necessary changes and have filled in missing source bibliographic information. I didn't understand all the possible routes to this end, and took one that seemed to work. MachineElf would prefer to do things differently, and now wants me to start over. I am unwilling to retrace my steps, and have suggested that if he wants to do this, he should do it himself. If he does do that, I hope that my efforts to massage the text from the present Enaction will not have to be done again. Brews ohare (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly you create an article then prod it then you agree to a two article solution then you move material then you say to no consensus. This should have been realy simple; a redirect and a rename which can be done based on the agreement above. Now it's going to take time to sort out what is a mess.m. I suggest. You stop adding material until we have sorted it out----Snowded ^TALK 21:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Snowded: You love to gripe, eh? I have moved the stuff on philosophy from the present Enaction to Enactivism and filled in bibliographic details. I have move the stuff on enactive interfaces to Enactive interfaces and rearranged the paragraphs and removed italicized font that seemed to come from nowhere. There are no references in this material. I expanded the material on Cultural aspects in Enactivism to include Andy Clark and provide a bit more context. It is all sourced and most of it was there already. MachineElf asked me to do the work on Enaction, although now he wonders if that was a good idea because apparently I didn't follow protocol. Nonetheless, it all is working just as planned. So there is nothing to complain about. Brews ohare (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Beews lay of the insults it helps no one. You didn't follow protocol and you are mixing up getting the moves and redirections right with your adding content (more OR in the cultural case). Things did seem to getting better until this with your more recent edits standing with little alternation, Let's try and get back there shall we.----Snowded ^TALK 22:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: You are opposing a four-way consensus here without any clarity of purpose. Brews ohare (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews you just said "There is no consensus on the fate of Enaction (philosophy) at this time." And just look at your own summary above (#Two proposals) to see that you've done a 180 on your agreement that "Enaction (philosophy) [will be] made a redirect to Enactivism#Philosophical aspects, where its material on philosophy will be transferred".—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To think that I thought I was the oldest fogy among us and the one who was most likely to suffer from senility! Can't you guys go back and read what was said? After various proposals were reviewed it was concluded that all we agreed upon unanimously was moving the stuff from Enaction to Enactive interfaces and Enactivism, and then deleting Enaction, possibly making Enaction a disambiguation page later. Period. That's what happened. Brews ohare (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded/MachineElf, What material from this article would you like to add to the Enactivism article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Turnabout

Brews ohare agreed that "Enaction (philosophy) [will be] made a redirect to Enactivism#Philosophical aspects, where its material on philosophy will be transferred". He then began acting on that understanding, admittedly (once again) making a big mess of things in the process. Only then did he make it clear that he had no intention of standing by his word.

In particular, I'm very concerned that Brews is needlessly multiplying AfDs.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: You misunderstand. Enaction (philosophy) was discussed as a part of your proposed changes and Bob's proposed changes. The consensus reached among the four of us did not involve Enaction (philosophy), but Enaction. The material from Enaction was to be moved, and I did that. There was no consensus about Enaction (philosophy).

As for the process followed for moving material from Enaction to the two articles Enactivism and Enactive interfaces, the text was copied and pasted in the two locations, and then a PROD was set up to remove the article Enaction, which was then redundant, all its content appearing elsewhere. You then removed the PROD, which interrupted this process, and as a PROD cannot be reintroduced, a formal deletion was requested. That will achieve the same end result but is more cumbersome.

Your move of Enaction (philosophy) to Enactivism was not part of the general consensus, but came up only as a possible process, that had not been agreed upon. Brews ohare (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, if you're just going to lie there's no need for me to respond.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, User:JohnBlackburne reverted your inadvertent removal of my comment here but I didn't interfere with what you were doing in any way. I reverted myself immediately when I saw here that you had no intention of keeping your word.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf: It is sad that you feel the need for such comments, indicative of je ne sais quoi. Brews ohare (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What's sad are your lies about me removing your botched PROD...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You clearly agreed to it Brews----Snowded ^TALK 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not. Brews ohare (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)