In this opinion, I examine the benefits of the enactivist approach in the study of perception and hallucination, which have traditionally been studied in the context of analytic philosophy. I consider some arguments that rescue the role of objects and the body in the perceptual experience, which allow certain clarities regarding the case of hallucination.
BeatonM. (2013). Phenomenology and embodied action. Constructivist Foundations, 8, 298–313.
2.
BeatonM. (2016). Sensorimotor direct realism: How we enact our world. Constructivist Foundations, 11, 265–276.
3.
CampbellJ. (2009). Consciousness and reference. In McLaughlinB. P.BeckermannA.WalterS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind (pp. 648–662). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Di PaoloE. (2016). Participatory object perception. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23, 228–258.
7.
Di PaoloE.BuhrmannT.BarandiaranX. E. (2017). Sensorimotor life: An enactive proposal. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
DorschF. (2010). The unity of hallucinations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9, 171–191.
9.
FarkasK. (2013). A sense of reality. In MacphersonF.PlatchiasD. (Eds.), Hallucination: Philosophy and psychology (pp. 399–415). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10.
FishW. (2008). Disjunctivism, indistinguishability, and the nature of hallucination. In MacphersonF.HaddockA. (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, action, knowledge (pp. 144–167). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
FishW. (2009). Perception, hallucination, and illusion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
FishW. (2010). Philosophy of perception: A contemporary introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
GallagherS. (2011). Embodiment and phenomenal qualities: An enactive interpretation. Philosophical Topics, 39, 1–14.
14.
GallagherS. (2013). The socially extended mind. Cognitive Systems Research, 25–26, 4–12.
15.
GallagherS. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
MacphersonF.PlatchaisD. (2013). Hallucination: Philosophy and psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17.
MartinM. G. F. (2004). The limits of self-awareness. Philosophical Studies, 120, 37–89.
18.
Merleau-PontyM. (1975). Fenomenología de la percepción. México City, México: Trillas.
19.
NanayB. (2015). The representationalism versus relationalism debate: Explanatory contextualism about perception. European Journal of Philosophy, 23, 321–336.
20.
NoëA. (2005). Real presence. Philosophical Topics, 33, 235–264.
21.
PapineauD. (2016). Against representationalism (about conscious sensory experience). International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 24, 324–347.
22.
PautzA. (2007). Intentionalism and perceptual presence. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 495–541.
23.
RatcliffeM. (2013). Touch and the sense of reality. In RadmanZ. (Ed.), The hand: An organ of the mind (pp. 131–157). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24.
SilvermanD. (2018). Bodily skill and internal representation in sensorimotor perception. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17, 157–173.
25.
SmithA. D. (2002). The problem of perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ThompsonB. (2008). Representationalism and the argument from hallucination. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 89, 384–412.
28.
TyeM. (2014). What is the content of a hallucinatory experience? In BrogaardB. (Ed.), Does perception have content? (pp. 291–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
TyeM. (2015). Yes, phenomenal character really is out there in the world. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91, 483–488.
30.
Vega-EncaboJ. (2010). Hallucinations for disjunctivists. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Science, 9, 281–293.
31.
ZeedykS. (2006). From intersubjectivity to subjectivity: The transformative roles of emotional intimacy and imitation. Infant and Child Development, 15, 321–344.
