Can we explain how the various factors of knowledge, skill, habit, environmental constraints and affordances interact or integrate in improvisational performance? In attempting to explain how this integration takes place, I’ll consider two possible approaches: predictive processing (PP) and enactivism. I’ll argue that PP, which, on a neuroscientific view, conceives of the mind as set up to avoid surprise, will not be able to explain improvisation if it remains true to its own principles. In contrast, I’ll argue, enactivism, as a form of embodied cognition that takes the explanatory unit to be the brain-body environment, can offer a better explanation of improvisation. I’ll also argue that the notion of habit is central to this account.
BarrettL. F.BarM. (2009). See it with feeling: Affective predictions during object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1325–1334.
2.
BruinebergJ.KiversteinJ.RietveldE. (2018). The anticipating brain is not a scientist: The free-energy principle from an ecological-enactive perspective. Synthese, 195(6), 2417–2444.
3.
ChristensenW.SuttonJ.McIlwainD. J. (2016). Cognition in skilled action: Meshed control and the varieties of skill experience. Mind & Language, 31(1), 37–66.
4.
ClarkA. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204.
5.
ClarkA. (2016). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford University Press.
6.
ClarkA. (2018). A nice surprise? Predictive processing and the active pursuit of novelty. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(3), 521–534.
7.
ClarkA.ToribioJ. (1994). Doing without representing?Synthese, 101(3), 401–431.
8.
ColomboM.WrightC. (2018). First principles in the life sciences: The free-energy principle, organicism, and mechanism. Synthese, 198, 3463–3488.
9.
ConstantA.ClarkA.FristonK. J. (2021). Representation wars: Enacting an armistice through active inference. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 598733.
10.
DeweyJ. (1922). Human nature and conduct. Henry Holt & Co.
11.
Di PaoloE.ThompsonE.BeerR. (2022). Laying down a forking path: Tensions between enaction and the free energy principle. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2022.9187
FristonK.AdamsR. A.PerrinetL.BreakspearM. (2012). Perceptions as hypotheses: Saccades as experiments. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00151
14.
FroeseT.IkegamiT. (2013). The brain is not an isolated “black box,” nor is its goal to become one. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 213–214.
15.
GallagherS. (2021). Performance/Art. Mimesis International Edizioni.
16.
GallagherS. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford University Press.
17.
GallagherS.AllenM. (2018). Active inference, enactivism and the hermeneutics of social cognition. Synthese, 195(6), 2627–2648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1269-8
18.
GallagherS.HuttoD. D.SlabyJ.ColeJ. (2013). The brain as part of an enactive system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 421–422.
19.
HelmholtzH. (1867). Treatise on physiological optics (Vol. III, 3rd ed.). Dover.
20.
HohwyJ. (2013). The predictive mind. Oxford University Press.
21.
HohwyJ. (2016). The self-evidencing brain. Noûs, 50(2), 259–285.
22.
HøffdingS. (2019). A phenomenology of musical absorption. Palgrave-Macmillan.
23.
KimmelM.HristovaD.KussmaulK. (2018). Sources of embodied creativity: Interactivity and ideation in contact improvisation. Behavioral Sciences, 8(6), 52.
24.
KiversteinJ. (2020). Free energy and the self: An ecological–enactive interpretation. Topoi, 39(3), 559–574.
25.
KronstedC. (2021). An enactivist model of improvisational dance (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Memphis).
26.
KronstedC.GallagherS. (2021). Dances and affordances: The relationship between dance training and conceptual problem-solving. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 55(1), 35–55.
McDowallL. (2018). Exploring uncertainties of language in dance improvisation. In MidgelowV. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of improvisation in dance. Oxford University Press, pp. 185–205.
29.
Merleau-PontyM. (2012). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
30.
MichaelJ.WolfT. (2015). Why apply a hierarchical predictive processing framework to music perception and performance?Empirical Musicology Review, 9(3/4), 177.
31.
OrthD.KampJ. van derMemmertD.SavelsberghG. J. P. (2017). Creative motor actions as emerging from movement variability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1903. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01903
32.
ParrT.Da CostaL.FristonK. (2020). Markov blankets, information geometry and stochastic thermodynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 378(2164), 20190159.
33.
RamsteadM. J. D.KirchhoffM. D.ConstantA.FristonK. J. (2021). Multiscale integration: Beyond internalism and externalism. Synthese, 198(Suppl 1), 41–70.
34.
RietveldE.KiversteinJ. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.
35.
RyanK. (2020). Embodied cognition and jazz improvisation(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Memphis).
36.
RyanK. J.JrGallagherS. (2020). Between ecological psychology and enactivism: Is there resonance?Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01147
37.
SchaeferR. S. (2015). Mental representations in musical processing and their role in action-perception loops. Empirical Musicology Review, 9(3/4), 161.
38.
SchiavioA.RyanK.MoranN.van der SchyffD.GallagherS. (2022). By myself but not alone: Agency, creativity and extended musical historicity. Journal of the Royal Musical Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/rma.2022.22
39.
SchwartenbeckP.FitzgeraldT.DolanR. J.FristonK. (2013). Exploration, novelty, surprise, and free energy minimization. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 710. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00710
van der SchyffD.SchiavioA.WaltonA.VelardoV.ChemeroA. (2018). Musical creativity and the embodied mind: Exploring the possibilities of 4E cognition and dynamical systems theory. Music & Science, 1, 2059204318792319.
42.
WaltonA. E.WashburnA.Langland-HassanP.ChemeroA.KloosH.RichardsonM. J. (2018). Creating time: Social collaboration in music improvisation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(1), 95–119.
43.
WieseW.FristonK. J. (2021). Examining the continuity between life and mind: Is there a continuity between autopoietic intentionality and representationality?Philosophies, 6(1), 18–18.
