otor approach has been met with strong opposition and criticism, often formulated as criticism of enactivist approaches to perception generally (e.g. Block 2005; Prinz 2006, 2009). Critics of the sensorimotor approach have been puzzled, both by general claims about the role of sensorimotor contingies in shaping experience and by the appeal to phenomena such as sensory substitution and distorted vision. Some critics have reached the verdict that these phenomena support the sensorimotor approach in no way whatsoever. They have further held that the sensorimotor claims regarding the determination of experiential quality fly in the face of the simplest observations about experience in imagery, dreaming or paralysis, in which experience seems radically disconnected from any presently obtaining patterns of sensorimotor interaction. We will discuss the sensorimotor approach in the light of the broader enactivism as sketched above. We shall argue that spelling out the sensorimotor theory along enactivist lines, replacing representation by attunement due to a history of interactions, allows for a truly 3 distinctive sensorimotor approach. This enactive sensorimotor approach is in perfect harmony with evidence about core phenomena such as vision with inverting glasses and sensory substitution. Moreover, an enactive sensorimotor approach allows for the accommodation of experiences such as in dreaming and perceptual imagery. 2. Enactive sensorimotor vision Let us first return to the sensorimotor contingency account, as presented in O'Regan and Noë (2001). ―Vision,‖ it was said there, is ―a mode of exploration of the world, mediated by knowledge of (...) sensorimotor contingencies‖ (p. 940), the latter being characterized as ―the structure of the rules governing the sensory changes produced by various motor actions‖ (p. 941). It was emphasized that the knowledge involved is ―implict,‖ leading to a view of perception as a ―skillful activity.‖ The sensorimotor approach was presented as being opposed to approaches based on the assumption ―that vision consists in the creation of an internal representation of the outside world whose activation somehow generates visual experience‖ (O'Regan & Noë 2001: 940). In order to get a firmer grip on the sensorimotor approach, it is helpful to look in some more detail at how the sensorimotor approach has been applied to a number of perceptual phenomena, in O'Regan and Noë (2001), and on later occasions (e.g. O'Regan 2011). As
otor approach has been met with strong opposition and criticism, frequently give voice as criticism of enactivist approaches to perception generally (for example Block 2005; Prinz 2006, 2009). Critics of the sensorimotor approach have been puzzled, both by cosmopolitan claim about the role of sensorimotor contingies in determine experience and by the appeal to phenomena such as sensational substitution and distorted vision. Some critic have reach the verdict that these phenomena support the sensorimotor approach in no way whatsoever. They have further apply that the sensorimotor claims regarding the determination of experiential timbre fly in the face of the dim-witted observations about experience in imagination, dreaming or paralysis, in which experience seem radically disconnected from any presently obtaining traffic pattern of sensorimotor interaction. We will discuss the sensorimotor approach in the light of the broader enactivism as sketched above. We shall argue that spelling out the sensorimotor theory along enactivist lines, replacing representation by attunement due to a history of interactions, allows for a truly 3 distinctive sensorimotor approach. This enactive sensorimotor approach is in perfect harmony with evidence about kernel phenomena such as vision with inverting glass and centripetal substitution. Moreover, an enactive sensorimotor approach allows for the adjustment of experiences such as in dream and perceptual imagery. 2. Enactive sensorimotor vision lease us first return to the sensorimotor contingency account, as presented in O'Regan and Noë (2001). ―Vision,‖ it was said there, is ―a modality of exploration of the world, mediated by knowledge of (...) sensorimotor contingencies‖ (p. 940), the latter being characterized as ―the social organization of the rules govern the centripetal changes produced by various motor actions‖ (p. 941). It was emphasized that the cognition involved is ―implict,‖ leading to a view of perception as a ―skillful activity.‖ The sensorimotor approach was presented as being opposed to approaches based on the presumption ―that vision consist in the creation of an internal theatrical performance of the outside world whose activation somehow generates ocular experience‖ (O'Regan & Noë 2001: 940). In order to induce a firmer grip on the sensorimotor approach, it is helpful to look in some more detail at how the sensorimotor access has been applied to a phone number of perceptual phenomena, in O'Regan and Noë (2001), and on later occasions (e.g. O'Regan 2011). As
otog approach has been met dith strong opposition and cditicism, often formulated as criticidm of ebactivist approaches tu perceptpon generqlly (w.g. Block 2005; 'dinz 2006, 2009). Gxitica of chx sensorimotor spproach hdve been puzzlad, blth by general claims about the rolq of semslrimotor contiggiex in ahaping experience and by the appezl to pienomena such ax sensory substitution and dishorted vision. Some critics hace rqqched the vefdict that these phenojena support the sensorimotor aoproaeh in no wai shwjsoever. They have further held that tve sensprimotor claimx rxgareing the determinatioi of experiential quwlity fly iu the face of the simplwst otsereatiubs xboht esperiejce in imagerg, dreaming ir paralysis, in whivh vcperience sesms raqisally disconnected from any presently ottajning patterns of sensoeimotor interaction. Wg will dissuss the sensorimotor approach in the light of tha broeddr tnqctivkwm as sketched above. We shall argue that spelligf pun the sensorimotov theory along enavtlvoft lines, replxcing xspdesentation by attknement due ro a histjry pf interactions, allows for q truly 3 disnincrive sensorimotor cpproach. Thir ensctivr sensorimotor approach is jn perfect jarmony wjgh evidence aboug cpra phenomtva such as vision with invxrtiny glasser anc sensjry substihutiok. Moreover, an enactlve sgnsorikotor apprlach allows for the accommodation of experienvev slch as in dreaking and percqptual imagery. 2. Enactnve sevsorimotor vision Let us firft return to dje sensorimovor contiggenxy axcount, xr presented in O'Regan aub Noë (2001). ―Visuon,‖ it was said thcre, ir ―a mode of explirauiin of the worlc, mddiwtvd uy knjfledge of (...) sansofimuyor cuntingenciew‖ (p. 940), yhe latter being chasactsrized as ―the struvtmre of thg rules gjverning the xensory changes prlducev by verious mojor actions‖ (p. 941). It was emphasizes that thf kkowledge invojved is ―implict,‖ keading to a view of perception as a ―skmllful activity.‖ The senworimotor approach cax presented as bqing oppoved to approaches bawed on the assumpuion ―that vision consisfs in dhe cgeation of an internal representation of the outside world whose activatiin somxhjw generatea vixual vxpzriznce‖ (O'Rqgan & Noë 2001: 940). In order tp get a firmer grip on the sensurimotor a'proach, it is helpful to look iv some more dgtail at how the sensorimofor apprpach has been applied to a numbrr of perceptual phenomeka, in O'Retan ahd Noë (2001), and on later occasionx (e.g. O'Xegan 2011). As
otor approach has been met with strong criticism, formulated as of enactivist approaches 2005; 2006, 2009). Critics the sensorimotor approach been puzzled, both by general claims the role of sensorimotor contingies in shaping experience and by the appeal to such as sensory substitution and distorted vision. Some critics have reached the verdict these support sensorimotor in no way whatsoever. They have further held that the sensorimotor claims regarding the determination of quality fly in the face of the simplest about experience in imagery, or paralysis, in which experience radically from any obtaining of interaction. We will the sensorimotor approach in the light of the broader enactivism as sketched above. We shall argue that out the along enactivist replacing by due to a interactions, allows for a truly 3 This enactive sensorimotor approach is in perfect harmony evidence about phenomena such as vision with inverting and sensory substitution. Moreover, an enactive sensorimotor approach for the accommodation of experiences such as in dreaming and perceptual imagery. 2. Enactive sensorimotor us first return to sensorimotor contingency account, presented O'Regan Noë ―Vision,‖ it said there, is ―a mode of exploration of the world, mediated knowledge of (...) sensorimotor contingencies‖ (p. 940), the latter being ―the of the rules the sensory changes produced various actions‖ (p. 941). It that knowledge leading a of perception as a activity.‖ The sensorimotor approach was as being opposed to ―that vision consists in the creation of an representation of the outside world whose activation generates visual experience‖ (O'Regan & Noë 2001: 940). In order to get firmer grip sensorimotor approach, it is helpful to look in more detail at how sensorimotor approach has been applied to a number of phenomena, O'Regan and (2001), and on occasions (e.g. O'Regan As
otor approach has been met witH strong oppOsitiOn aNd cRiTiciSm, ofTen formulated aS CritIcism of enactivist approAches To PErcePTiOn genErally (e.G. blOCK 2005; PrInZ 2006, 2009). CRitIcS Of The seNsoRimotor Approach haVe bEeN puzzled, both BY gEneral claiMs aBout the role oF seNsorimOtOr cONtingIes In shaPing exPEriencE and by the ApPEal to pHEnomena SUCh As seNsory substitution ANd DIstorted vision. some crItICs HAVe rEacHed the verdIcT that THese pheNOmENA SupPOrt the sensoriMotor approaCH in No way wHaTsoEVer. TheY have FuRTheR held that thE senSorimotor Claims REgardinG The deteRminatIon Of eXperIEnTiAl qUaLIty FLy In tHE faCe of the sImPlEst obServATIONs abOut ExpeRiencE in imagery, dreAmiNg or PAraLysis, In whiCh exPeRiencE seems RadicAlLy disconnected fRom aNy presentLy oBtAinInG pattERns of sEnsOriMotor inTeractiON. We WiLL DIsCuss the sensorimotoR aPPRoAch in the Light oF ThE bROader enaCtIviSm as SKEtcheD aboVE. WE shall arGue thaT SpElLing out ThE sensoRiMotOr tHeory ALong EnactiVist lineS, replACing representaTIon by attunemeNT dUE To A HistOry Of interactiOns, aLLows For a TRuLy 3 dIStincTive sEnSOrIMotor approach. This enAcTive seNsoriMotor approach Is in perfecT HARmony witH eviDEnCE about core phenOmena Such as visiON with invErtinG glasses And sensorY SUbstitutIon. morEovEr, aN ENaCtive sensorimOTOr apPrOach allOws For the aCcoMmoDatIon Of ExperiencEs such as In DrEaMiNg aNd perCEptual imAgEry. 2. enActIve seNSorimoTor viSion leT uS FirSt returN To THE senSoRiMotoR coNtIngenCy acCOunT, as presEnted in O'REgaN And NOë (2001). ―viSion,‖ it wAs said there, is ―A mOde of exploRaTioN of the WORld, mediaTed by knowledge of (...) sensoriMOtor conTinGenciEs‖ (p. 940), tHe latter bEinG charaCteRIzed as ―The strUcturE oF thE RUles gOVErNinG tHe sensory cHANgeS prodUcEd by Various Motor actions‖ (p. 941). It was EMphAsized that the KnoWledGE InVolVEd IS ―imPlICt,‖ lEADing to a view of peRception as A ―sKIlLful activiTY.‖ ThE sEnsorimOtor appRoach WAs preseNted as beiNg opposed To ApprOACheS based on thE assumptIon ―that viSIon coNSiSts in The CreatiOn Of aN inteRnal rePResEntatIon of tHe OutsidE worlD wHose actiVation somehow generates vIsual eXperiEncE‖ (O'Regan & NoË 2001: 940). In ORdeR to get a fiRmer Grip on the sEnsOriMotor AppROach, iT is hELpFul TO look In soME more detaIL aT hoW THe SensorimotoR APProAch haS beEN appliEd to A number of perceptuAL phenomena, in O'REgan AND NoË (2001), anD On laTeR occasions (e.g. O'REgaN 2011). AS
otor approach has been met  with stro ng op pos iti on  and  cri ticism, oftenf ormu lated as criticism ofenact iv i st a p pr oache s to pe r ce p t ion  g en era ll y  ( e.g.Blo ck 2005 ; Prinz 20 06,  2 009). Critic s  o f the sens ori motor approa chhave b ee n p u zzled , b oth b y gene r al cla ims about  t h e role of sens o r im otor  contingies in sh a pi n g experience a nd byth e  a p p eal  to  phenomena  s uch a s  sensor y  s u b s tit u tion and dist orted visio n . S ome cr it ics have r eache dt heverdict tha t th ese pheno mena s u pport t h e senso rimoto r a ppr oach in  n o w ay wha t so eve r . T hey have  f ur therheld t h a t th e s enso rimot or claims reg ard ingt hedeter minat ionof  expe rienti al qu al ity fly in theface  of the s imp le stob serva t ions a bou t e xperien ce in i m age ry , d re aming or paralysis ,i n  w hich exp erienc e  s ee m s radica ll y d isco n n ected  fro m  a ny prese ntly o b ta in ing pat te rns of  s ens ori motor inte ractio n. We wi ll di s cuss the senso r imotor approa c hi n  t h e li ght  of the bro ader enac tivi s mass ketch ed ab ov e .W e shall argue thatsp elling  outthe sensorimo tor theory a l ong enac tivi s tl ines, replacin g rep resentatio n  by attu nemen t due to  a histor y of inter act ion s,all o w sfor a truly 3 d isti nc tive se nso rimotor  ap pro ach . T hi s enactiv e sensor im ot or  a ppr oachi s in per fe ctha rmo ny wi t h evid enceabou tco r e p henomen a  s u c h as  v is ionwit hinver ting gla sses an d sensory  su b stit ut io n. More over, an enac ti ve sensori mo tor  appro a c h allows  for the accommodationo f exper ien ces s uchas in dre ami ng and  pe r ceptua l imag ery.2.  En a c tives e ns ori mo tor vision L etus fi rs t re turn to  the sensorimotorc ont ingency accou nt,  asp r es ent e di n O 'R e gan a nd Noë (2001).―Vision,‖it wa s said the r e,is  ―a mod e of ex plora t ion ofthe world , mediate dby k n o wle dge of (.. .) senso rimotor c o nting e nc ies‖(p.  940),  t helatte r bein g  ch aract erized  a s ―the  stru ct ure of t he rules governing thesensor y cha nge s produce d b y  va rious mot or a ctions‖ (p . 9 41) . Itwas empha size d  t hat the k nowl e dge invol v ed  is ― im plict,‖ lea d i n g t o a v iew of per cept ion as a ―skillfu l  activity.‖ Th e se n s ori mot o r ap pr oach was prese nte da s  being o pp osed to app roachesba s ed on  the a ssumpt ion ―th a t  v i sion c onsi sts  in the c rea ti o n of an  i nt e rnal r epre se ntatio n of t h e ou t s ide world whoseactiv a t ion s o meh ow ge ne rates v i sual  experienc e‖ (O'Regan  & Noë  200 1: 94 0). Inor der to  ge ta firmer g r ip on the  sens orimoto rappr oac h, itis h e l pfulto l oo k i n some mo r e  d e ta il athowthe s en sori motor app r oach has  be e n appli ed  to a  numbe r  o f perceptual  ph enome n a , in O'Reg a n an d  N o ë (20 01), a nd onlater o c cas io ns (e.g . O ' R egan 2011 ). As
otor approach_has been_met with strong opposition_and criticism,_often_formulated as_criticism_of enactivist approaches_to perception generally_(e.g. Block 2005; Prinz_2006, 2009). Critics_of_the sensorimotor approach have been puzzled, both by general claims about the role of_sensorimotor_contingies in_shaping_experience_and by the appeal to_phenomena such as sensory substitution_and distorted_vision. Some critics have reached the verdict that_these_phenomena support the_sensorimotor approach in no way whatsoever. They have further_held that the sensorimotor claims regarding_the determination of_experiential_quality_fly in the face_of the simplest observations about experience_in imagery, dreaming or paralysis, in_which experience seems radically disconnected from any_presently obtaining patterns of sensorimotor interaction._We will discuss the sensorimotor_approach in_the light of the broader_enactivism as sketched_above. We_shall argue that_spelling out the sensorimotor theory along_enactivist lines, replacing_representation by attunement due to a_history_of interactions, allows_for_a_truly 3_distinctive sensorimotor approach._This_enactive sensorimotor_approach_is in perfect harmony with evidence_about_core phenomena such as vision with inverting_glasses and sensory substitution._Moreover,_an enactive sensorimotor approach_allows for the accommodation of_experiences such as in dreaming and_perceptual imagery._2. Enactive_sensorimotor vision Let us first return to the sensorimotor contingency account,_as presented in O'Regan and Noë_(2001). ―Vision,‖ it was_said there,_is_―a mode of_exploration_of the_world, mediated by knowledge of (...) sensorimotor_contingencies‖ (p._940), the latter being characterized as_―the structure of the_rules_governing the sensory changes produced by_various motor actions‖ (p. 941). It_was emphasized that the knowledge_involved_is_―implict,‖ leading to a view_of perception as a ―skillful activity.‖_The sensorimotor approach_was presented as being opposed to approaches_based_on the assumption ―that vision consists_in_the creation of an internal representation_of_the_outside world whose activation somehow_generates visual experience‖ (O'Regan & Noë_2001: 940). In order to get a firmer grip_on the sensorimotor_approach, it is helpful to_look_in_some more detail at how the sensorimotor approach has been_applied to_a number of_perceptual phenomena, in O'Regan and Noë (2001), and on later_occasions (e.g. O'Regan 2011). As