A rather puzzling statement from Hubert Ripoll here (perspectives on cognition and action in sport, Araujo, Ripoll, Raab eds.)

First of all, what is a "conventional playing system" if not an evolved form of interaction??

Second, if not from repeated interactions where the heck does it come from?

Interesting read. As an ecological psychologist I would have worried I was creating a straw man of mainstream cognitive science if I attributed some of those definitions to them 😂 Seems like Pylyshyn's 1980 definition is still influential.

Cognitive science moved away from the difficult questions without ever answering them.

"Unfortunately, difficulties that are not faced do not simply go away" - Benoit Mandelbrot

Turvey and Kugler (1984) pinpointing them here👇
#complex

This is another key pragmatists, Richard Rorty, describing the tradition that pragmatism is attempting to overcome.

This is Dewey in the reflex arc paper. This is almost exactly what collins et al frequently argue against so they can leave room for mental processes. So if they are grounded in pragmatism, it doesn't seem to be the pragmatism of the pragmatists?

This is Dewey in experience and nature. Do you feel like this is a metatheory that collins et al are comfortable with?

It's a really good read. I've been reading a few of Weinberger's papers recently.

Pattee on discrete and continuous processes in brains and computers 👇

Gibson's visionary re-imagining of psychology was an inspiration.