{"title":"昨天是蠼螋,今天是人,明天是蠼螋?","authors":"C. Hewitson, David M. Kaplan, J. Sutton","doi":"10.3819/CCBR.2018.130003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this commentary, we highlight some relevant history of the situated cognition movement and then identify several issues with which we think further progress can be made. In particular, we address and clarify the relationship between situated cognition and antirepresentational approaches. We then highlight the heterogeneous nature of the concept of morphological computation by describing a less common way the term is used in robotics. Finally, we discuss some residual concerns about the mutual manipulability criterion and propose a potential solution.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Yesterday the earwig, today man, tomorrow the earwig?\",\"authors\":\"C. Hewitson, David M. Kaplan, J. Sutton\",\"doi\":\"10.3819/CCBR.2018.130003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this commentary, we highlight some relevant history of the situated cognition movement and then identify several issues with which we think further progress can be made. In particular, we address and clarify the relationship between situated cognition and antirepresentational approaches. We then highlight the heterogeneous nature of the concept of morphological computation by describing a less common way the term is used in robotics. Finally, we discuss some residual concerns about the mutual manipulability criterion and propose a potential solution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3819/CCBR.2018.130003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3819/CCBR.2018.130003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Yesterday the earwig, today man, tomorrow the earwig?
In this commentary, we highlight some relevant history of the situated cognition movement and then identify several issues with which we think further progress can be made. In particular, we address and clarify the relationship between situated cognition and antirepresentational approaches. We then highlight the heterogeneous nature of the concept of morphological computation by describing a less common way the term is used in robotics. Finally, we discuss some residual concerns about the mutual manipulability criterion and propose a potential solution.