This sounds to me like it shares some agenda with the Heideggarian AI and other embodiment theorists. Which is weird, because I think of that stuff as very non-magical, on the contrary, it's very down to earth, physical, naturalistic, and pragmatic, or at least is oriented towards that sort of thing. I guess both are ways to get away from the square Technic mode of thinking, but very different ways.
One curious thing: "embedded cognition" sounds similar to "embodied cognition" and the two terms are often linked (see 4E cognition). But they are not quite the same thing, and in this essay the body makes no appearance whatsoever. In fact they seem to lead in opposite directions; embeddedness seems to generate complexity; while embodiment suggests models of cognition that are actually simpler.
05 Jan 2022 07:41 - 05 Jan 2022 07:41
Embodiment is supposed to be the solution to the braindamaged Western view of mind. According to this view, mind is not some abstract reasoning engine, but tightly coupled to the physical body.
I think this is largely correct, but there's something suspicious about the name. It seems to still imply a separate mind, that is connected up to the body after-the-fact: that is what "embodied" literally means.