Villalobos and Razeto-Barry suggest that extended enactivist interpretations of the autopoietic theory do not adequately address the bodily dimensions of living beings. In reply, we suggest that the extended enactivist view provides a richer account of living beings than a theory confined to autopoiesis, and therefore should not be supplanted by a modified autopoietic theory.
De JaegherH.Di PaoloE. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6, 485–507.
2.
Di PaoloE. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 429–452.
3.
Di PaoloE.De JaegherH.CuffariE. (2018). Linguistic bodies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
FroeseT.Di PaoloE. (2011). The enactive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19, 1–36.
5.
Merleau-PontyM. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris, France: Gallimard. (Phenomenology of Perception, by LandesD. Trans, 2012, London, England: Routledge)
6.
TorranceS.FroeseT. (2011). An inter-enactive approach to agency. Humana Mente, 15, 21–53.
