pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26856 · v1 · pith:SQWQ6OQSnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · 🧬 q-bio.NC · cs.AI· cs.RO

The Sensation Modulating Network:Haltability as the architectural ground for object-directed phenomenology

G. Nagarjuna , Durgaprasad Karnam This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 14:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC cs.AIcs.RO
keywords Sensation Modulating Networkhaltabilityobject-directed phenomenologyopponent dynamicsembodimentcognitivismaction patternsintentional directedness
0
0 comments X

The pith

Haltability in opponent body dynamics supplies the architecture for object-directed phenomenology without added modules.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Cognitive science splits between cognitivist accounts that handle recursion and symbols but struggle to ground meaning and 4E approaches that ground cognition in the body but rarely detail its architecture enough for generativity. The paper proposes the Sensation Modulating Network as the cognitive agent conceived as the whole body organized at every anatomical scale by opponent dynamics from sensation modulators paired into coordinated action zones and routed by a body-wide broadcast network. Haltability recruits antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium, which enables attention and thereby intentional directedness. The dual-signal property of self-modulatable action patterns makes the self/world distinction structural, and a four-level hierarchy from basal to transactional patterns traces a single path from autonomic regularity to conventional generativity.

Core claim

Haltability—the recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium—provides the architectural locus that object-directed phenomenology requires: opponency enables co-activation, co-activation enables halt, halt enables attention, attention enables intentional directedness, with no module added on top. The SMN realizes this through sensation modulators and coordinated action zones under a broadcast network, while the dual-signal property of self-modulatable action patterns and the four-level action-pattern hierarchy (Basal, Haltable, Negotiable, Transactional) locate recursion in modifiable dynamics and embodiment in the opponent substrate.

What carries the argument

Haltability, the recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium within the Sensation Modulating Network of opponent dynamics.

If this is right

  • Recursion and generativity reside in the modifiable dynamics of Negotiable Action Patterns.
  • The self/world distinction is a structural feature of the wiring via the dual-signal property of self-modulatable action patterns.
  • Grammar-grounded generativity arises as an architectural transition across the four-level hierarchy rather than an added layer.
  • The cognitivism-4E impasse is resolved because recursion lives in modifiable dynamics while embodiment lives in the opponent substrate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The seven testable registers listed in the appendix supply direct empirical checks on whether haltability suffices for intentional directedness.
  • The body-wide broadcast network implies that attention can propagate across anatomical scales without requiring a separate centralized controller.
  • The transition from Haltable to Negotiable patterns suggests a route by which public conventions could emerge directly from private bodily equilibria.

Load-bearing premise

The cognitive agent is the whole body organized at every anatomical scale by opponent dynamics built from sensation modulators paired into coordinated action zones routed by a body-wide broadcast network.

What would settle it

An observation or simulation of object-directed attention that requires a dedicated mechanism independent of co-activated equilibrium in bodily opponent dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26856 by Durgaprasad Karnam, G. Nagarjuna.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The CAZ as a balance with a messaging beam. The two opponent zones Z+ and Z− are the pans: they exert pull-only forces along the shared configuration of the joint (the fulcrum at the bottom). The communication board (the messaging beam at the top) routes each zone’s afferent signal to its opponent partner as the reciprocal activation — the same message channel carries Z+’s afferent upward and Z−’s activati… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Layered organization of the SMN. The autonomic layer (visceral CAZs running cardiac, respiratory, digestive cycles) sits at the metabolic core. The axial layer (postural and locomotor CAZs along the trunk) is bilaterally opponent and coupled to the autonomic layer through interoceptive broadcast. The appendicular layer (limb, oral, ocular CAZs) operates with selectable coupling to the axial layer, allowing… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The morphogenetic progression that scaffolds the SMN. Each feature, once gained, persists through all subsequent stages (shown by the cumulative colored bars beneath each diagram). (1) Polarity establishes a directional axis. (2) Tubularity creates a through-gut with haltable peristaltic flow. (3) Segmentation distributes CAZs along the axis. (4) Bilateral symmetry creates matched left–right zones. (5) Pai… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Anatomy of the SMN architecture, at three nested scales. Left: the Sensation Modulator (SM) — the elementary unit, a tissue complex that senses and acts through one substrate, with a mechanical interface engaging body geometry (red, downward) and a messaging interface engaging the SMN’s network (blue, sideways). Middle: the Coordinated Action Zone (CAZ) — two opponent SMs (the pans), a communication board … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The two interfaces of a zone. Messaging interface (top): the zone receives an efferent activation from the rest of the SMN — a message generated by the opponent zone and routed through the communication board — and emits an afferent signal from its embedded receptors. Mechanical interface (bottom): the zone exerts a pull-only force on the body’s geometry (a joint, a chamber wall, an aperture) and shares a … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Coordinated Action Zone. Two zones Z+ and Z− (realized as Sensation Modulators) are coupled to a joint through pull-only mechanical contact with the habitat (red double-arrows). The communication board B reads the afferent signal each zone emits at its messaging interface and routes it to the opponent zone as the reciprocal activation; there is no direct mechanical link between Z+ and Z−. Transducers d… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The reafference architecture as a closed information loop. The transducer converts the world stimulus into a sensor reading. The predictor combines the agent’s body pose (from proprioception) and its current world estimate to produce a predicted reading. The comparator subtracts prediction from actual sensor reading, yielding the residual — what the world has done that the agent’s model did not anticipate.… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The three configurations of contact the dual-signal property identifies, with the same CAZx and CAZy retained across panels. Self-contact (left): both CAZs sit in the same SMN, and both efferent streams live in one broadcast; the predictor has access to both veridical configurations and the residual stays at the noise floor without adaptation. World-contact (centre): CAZx contacts an external object that h… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The four action-pattern regimes, nested from Basal (innermost) to Transactional (outermost). Each outer layer presupposes the inner ones: TAPs build on NAPs, NAPs on HAPs, HAPs on BAPs. The architecture’s default is the autonomic backdrop of BAPs; halting, negotiating, and externalizing are the architectural moves that successively wrap that backdrop. Transactional Action Patterns (TAPs). NAPs whose phase-… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Functional dependency graph of the SMN formalism. Each box names a sub-system and lists the equations that live in it; arrows label the variables that flow between sub-systems. (A) The Sensation Modulator and the joint produce force from received activation and emit proprioceptive afferents. (B) The communication board takes afferents, the broadcast state, the halt gate and the alert-energy bias, and prod… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Trace comparison of an SMN CAZ (solid blue) against a classical-inhibition CAZ (dashed red) in a reach-halt-reverse protocol. From top to bottom: joint angle θ(t); activations of flexor and extensor zones; forces; alert energy ER(t). The shaded band marks the halt interval. Register 2 — post-halt resumption latency. Latency to threshold-crossing after halt release, as a function of halt duration, shows a … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Register 1: tonic load coupling. Left: an agent holds a load with one outstretched arm; the active zone (deltoid, filled triangle) drives the load while the unloaded arm’s deltoid sits at a tonic engagement that scales with the load. Right: the partner zone’s steady-state tonic activation scales linearly with the active zone’s force under SMN haltability (slope ≈ βρτE), and is flat under classical inhibit… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Antagonistic tension and posture stability. Root-mean-square (RMS) posture deviation under ran￾dom torque perturbations grows sharply as the antagonist’s maximum force F max R is reduced (axis inverted to read left-to-right as “decreasing antagonism”). The signature predicts measurable destabilization under pharma￾cological manipulations that selectively reduce antagonist gain. 0.0 0.1 0.2 Configuration (… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Register 3: self-generated versus world-generated sensory change. Left: same change in sensor reading produced two ways: the agent moves through a static world (self ) or holds still while the world’s stimulus moves through the receptive field (world). Right: from top, joint angle and stimulus position; actual sensor reading and prediction; residual r = s − sˆ; alert energy ER (here driven by surprise rat… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Register 4: sensorimotor contingency mastery. Left: the agent reaches toward an object that periodically jumps to new positions; with adaptation, prediction tracks the moving stimulus. Right, top: residual r(t) for an agent with κ = 0 (no learning, orange) versus an agent with κ > 0 (with learning, blue). Middle: rolling RMS residual showing the contrast — the no-learning agent stays surprised; the learni… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Inter-body case of mutual contact: two SMN agents in perceptual crossing. Each agent’s transducer reads the other’s joint angle as the stimulus position. A: agent 1’s residual under three conditions: solitary (alone with a static stimulus), crossing (mutual contact with agent 2), and decoupled-exafference (both agents active, but each reading an independent exogenous stimulus rather than the other agent).… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Register 6: surprise-driven attention and auto-halt. Left: an agent reaching toward an object is frozen mid-reach when the world unexpectedly displaces the stimulus. Right, top: joint trajectory of an auto￾halt-enabled agent (solid) and a no-halt control (dashed). Second: actual sensor reading and prediction. Third: residual r(t) with halt threshold ±τh. Bottom: alert energy ER (left axis, green) and halt… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Register 7: shared intentionality through mutual adaptation (hypothesis). Left: two SMN agents engaged in mutual contact (a high-five), each with the reaching arm marked at the active CAZ; the dashed arc represents the shared crossing. Right: A mutual residual p r 2 1 + r 2 2 over time under three conditions: neither agent adapts (gray), only one adapts (orange), both adapt symmetrically (purple). The mut… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_21.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cognitive science remains split between cognitivism - which accounts for recursion and language but cannot ground formal symbols in meaning - and 4E approaches - which ground cognition in the body but rarely specify the body's architecture in enough detail to support generativity. We argue the impasse stems from an incomplete account of the embodied agent's architecture, and propose one: the Sensation Modulating Network (SMN), the cognitive agent conceived as the whole body, organized at every anatomical scale by opponent dynamics, built from Sensation Modulators that sense and act through one substrate, paired into Coordinated Action Zones routed by a body-wide broadcast network. Three commitments give the SMN its purchase. Haltability - the recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium - provides the architectural locus that object-directed phenomenology, in Husserl's sense, requires: opponency enables co-activation, co-activation enables halt, halt enables attention, attention enables intentional directedness, with no module added on top. The dual-signal property of self-modulatable action patterns (SMAPs) makes the self/world distinction a structural feature of the wiring rather than a category the agent applies. And a four-level action-pattern hierarchy - Basal, Haltable, Negotiable, Transactional - gives a single trajectory from autonomic regularity to public conventionalization, locating the conditions for grammar-grounded generativity as architectural transitions. The SMN reconciles the cognitivism-4E debate: recursion lives in the modifiable dynamics of Negotiable Action Patterns, embodiment in the opponent substrate that supports them. A tentative formalism and eight predicted registers (seven testable, one hypothetical), with reference simulations, are given in an appendix.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Sensation Modulating Network (SMN) as the architecture of the embodied cognitive agent: the whole body organized at every scale by opponent dynamics built from Sensation Modulators paired into Coordinated Action Zones and routed by a body-wide broadcast network. It claims that haltability—the recruitment of antagonistic affordances into co-activated equilibrium—supplies the architectural locus for Husserlian object-directed phenomenology via the direct chain opponency enables co-activation, co-activation enables halt, halt enables attention, attention enables intentional directedness, with no additional module required. Two further commitments are advanced: the dual-signal property of self-modulatable action patterns (SMAPs) makes the self/world distinction structural, and a four-level hierarchy (Basal, Haltable, Negotiable, Transactional) locates generativity in architectural transitions. A tentative formalism, eight predicted registers, and reference simulations appear in an appendix.

Significance. If the central architectural claim can be made rigorous, the work would supply a concrete, body-scale substrate that reconciles cognitivist recursion with 4E embodiment without postulating extra mechanisms, and would generate seven testable registers plus one hypothetical. The explicit credit given to the appendix formalism and simulations is a strength; the absence of free parameters in the core proposal is also noted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Haltability commitment paragraph] The section stating the three commitments (abstract and main text): the enablement chain 'opponency enables co-activation, co-activation enables halt, halt enables attention, attention enables intentional directedness' is asserted as following directly from the SMN definitions, yet no derivation is supplied from the stated components (Sensation Modulators, Coordinated Action Zones, body-wide broadcast, or SMAP dual-signal property). This step is load-bearing for the claim that haltability alone grounds object-directed phenomenology with 'no module added on top.'
  2. [Haltability commitment paragraph] The definition of haltability itself (same section): haltability is introduced as 'the recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium' and then said to produce the phenomenology it is introduced to explain; the causal sequence therefore risks circularity rather than independent derivation from the opponent-dynamics wiring.
  3. [Appendix] Appendix (tentative formalism and reference simulations): if the formalism does not contain an explicit mapping from the four-level hierarchy and SMAP properties to the attention/directedness steps, the architectural-locus claim remains unclosed; the simulations are referenced but not shown to close this gap.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Four-level hierarchy paragraph] Notation for the four-level hierarchy (Basal, Haltable, Negotiable, Transactional) is introduced without a diagram or table summarizing transitions; a single table would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments identify places where the central architectural claims require more explicit justification. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions that will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Haltability commitment paragraph] The section stating the three commitments (abstract and main text): the enablement chain 'opponency enables co-activation, co-activation enables halt, halt enables attention, attention enables intentional directedness' is asserted as following directly from the SMN definitions, yet no derivation is supplied from the stated components (Sensation Modulators, Coordinated Action Zones, body-wide broadcast, or SMAP dual-signal property). This step is load-bearing for the claim that haltability alone grounds object-directed phenomenology with 'no module added on top.'

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation of each link in the enablement chain from the SMN components was not supplied in the text. While the definitions of Sensation Modulators paired into Coordinated Action Zones and routed by the broadcast network imply that opponent dynamics permit co-activation of antagonistic affordances, that co-activation can reach equilibrium (halt), and that halt permits selective attention, this sequence was presented as following directly rather than derived step by step. We will add a dedicated subsection that derives each transition from the architectural elements, including the routing role of the body-wide broadcast network. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Haltability commitment paragraph] The definition of haltability itself (same section): haltability is introduced as 'the recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium' and then said to produce the phenomenology it is introduced to explain; the causal sequence therefore risks circularity rather than independent derivation from the opponent-dynamics wiring.

    Authors: Haltability is defined independently as an architectural property arising from the opponent-dynamics wiring of Sensation Modulators in Coordinated Action Zones: the recruitment of antagonistic affordances into co-activated equilibrium. This definition does not presuppose phenomenology. The subsequent claim is that this property supplies the locus for object-directed phenomenology via the enablement chain. We will revise the relevant paragraphs to separate the architectural definition more clearly from the derived phenomenological consequences and to state explicitly that the definition itself is independent of the phenomenology it is later shown to enable. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Appendix] Appendix (tentative formalism and reference simulations): if the formalism does not contain an explicit mapping from the four-level hierarchy and SMAP properties to the attention/directedness steps, the architectural-locus claim remains unclosed; the simulations are referenced but not shown to close this gap.

    Authors: The appendix formalism models the four-level hierarchy and SMAP dual-signal properties, and the reference simulations illustrate haltability, but we agree that an explicit mapping from these elements to the attention and directedness steps is absent and that the simulations do not demonstrate the full chain. We will expand the appendix to include this mapping, showing how the hierarchy and SMAP properties support the intermediate transitions, and will augment the simulation descriptions to address the relevant steps where the model permits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Haltability is defined in terms of the equilibrium that is then said to ground the phenomenology

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "Haltability - the recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium - provides the architectural locus that object-directed phenomenology, in Husserl's sense, requires: opponency enables co-activation, co-activation enables halt, halt enables attention, attention enables intentional directedness, with no module added on top."

    Haltability is introduced by defining it as recruitment into co-activated equilibrium; the same concept is then asserted to enable the full chain to intentional directedness. The reduction is by construction: the explanatory mechanism (co-activated equilibrium producing attention and directedness) is already contained in the definition of the term that is said to derive the phenomenology.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that haltability supplies the architectural locus for Husserlian object-directed phenomenology via the asserted chain (opponency enables co-activation, co-activation enables halt, halt enables attention, attention enables intentional directedness). The provided abstract defines haltability explicitly as 'the recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium' and immediately states that this supplies the required locus 'with no module added on top.' The enablement sequence is presented as following directly from the SMN architecture, yet no independent derivation from the definitions of Sensation Modulators, Coordinated Action Zones, or the broadcast network is exhibited; the explanatory power is embedded in the choice of definition. This is the self-definitional pattern. No self-citations, fitted predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear in the text. The appendix is referenced only for tentative formalism and simulations, without evidence that it supplies an external mapping. The result is therefore forced by the definitional construction rather than derived from independent benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 5 invented entities

The proposal rests on several domain assumptions about body organization and introduces multiple new entities without external evidence or derivations supplied in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cognitive science remains split between cognitivism and 4E approaches due to an incomplete account of embodied agent architecture.
    Opening premise of the abstract.
  • domain assumption The cognitive agent is the whole body organized at every anatomical scale by opponent dynamics.
    Core architectural commitment stated for the SMN.
invented entities (5)
  • Sensation Modulating Network (SMN) no independent evidence
    purpose: To serve as the complete embodied cognitive architecture reconciling the cognitivism-4E debate.
    Newly proposed framework.
  • Haltability no independent evidence
    purpose: To supply the architectural ground for object-directed phenomenology through co-activated equilibrium.
    Defined as recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium.
  • Sensation Modulators no independent evidence
    purpose: Basic units that sense and act through one substrate.
    Invented component of the SMN.
  • Coordinated Action Zones no independent evidence
    purpose: Paired modulators routed by a body-wide broadcast network.
    Invented structural unit.
  • Self-modulatable action patterns (SMAPs) no independent evidence
    purpose: To render the self/world distinction a structural feature of the wiring.
    New concept with claimed dual-signal property.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5846 in / 1769 out tokens · 67412 ms · 2026-06-29T14:56:38.122067+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Adams, Stewart Shipp, and Karl J

    Rick A. Adams, Stewart Shipp, and Karl J. Friston. Predictions not commands: Active inference in the motor system. Brain Structure and Function, 218: 0 611--643, 2013. doi:10.1007/s00429-012-0475-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00429-012-0475-5 2013

  2. [2]

    Micah Allen and Karl J. Friston. From cognitivism to autopoiesis: towards a computational framework for the embodied mind. Synthese, 195 0 (6): 0 2459--2482, 2018. doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1288-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1288-5 2018

  3. [3]

    Bernard J. Baars. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988

    1988

  4. [4]

    Bernard J. Baars. Global workspace theory of consciousness: Toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Progress in Brain Research, 150: 0 45--53, 2005. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50004-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(05)50004-9 2005

  5. [5]

    Active perception

    Ruzena Bajcsy. Active perception. Proceedings of the IEEE, 76 0 (8): 0 966--1005, 1988. doi:10.1109/5.5968

    work page doi:10.1109/5.5968 1988

  6. [6]

    Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology

    Gregory Bateson. Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. University of Chicago press, 2000

    2000

  7. [7]

    The Brain's Sense of Movement

    Alain Berthoz. The Brain's Sense of Movement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000. Originally published in French as Le sens du mouvement, 1997

    2000

  8. [8]

    Emilio Bizzi and Vincent C. K. Cheung. The neural origin of muscle synergies. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 7: 0 51, 2013. doi:10.3389/fncom.2013.00051

    work page doi:10.3389/fncom.2013.00051 2013

  9. [9]

    Wolpert, and Christopher D

    Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Daniel M. Wolpert, and Christopher D. Frith. Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 1 0 (7): 0 635--640, 1998. doi:10.1038/2870

    work page doi:10.1038/2870 1998

  10. [10]

    Language Models are Few-Shot Learners

    Tom B. Brown et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 2020. arXiv:2005.14165

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Sean B. Carroll. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. W. W. Norton, 2005

    2005

  12. [12]

    An outline of a theory of affordances

    Anthony Chemero. An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol. Psychol., 15: 0 181--195, 2003. ISSN 1040-7413. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5

    work page doi:10.1207/s15326969eco1502_5 2003

  13. [13]

    Syntactic structures

    Noam Chomsky. Syntactic structures. Mouton, 1957

    1957

  14. [14]

    Cortical mechanisms of action selection: the affordance competition hypothesis

    Paul Cisek. Cortical mechanisms of action selection: the affordance competition hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362: 0 1585--1599, 2007. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2054

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2054 2007

  15. [15]

    The affordance competition hypothesis: The brain as a continuously predicting and action-selecting device

    Paul Cisek. The affordance competition hypothesis: The brain as a continuously predicting and action-selecting device. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365 0 (1531): 0 1135--1145, 2010

    2010

  16. [16]

    Paul Cisek and John F. Kalaska. Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33: 0 269--298, 2010. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135409

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135409 2010

  17. [17]

    Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again

    Andy Clark. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997

    1997

  18. [18]

    Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension

    Andy Clark. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford University Press, 2008

    2008

  19. [19]

    Crapse and Marc A

    Trinity B. Crapse and Marc A. Sommer. Corollary discharge across the animal kingdom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9: 0 587--600, 2008. doi:10.1038/nrn2457

    work page doi:10.1038/nrn2457 2008

  20. [20]

    Kathleen E. Cullen. Vestibular processing during natural self-motion: Implications for perception and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20: 0 346--363, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41583-019-0153-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41583-019-0153-1 2019

  21. [21]

    Cullen, Jessica X

    Kathleen E. Cullen, Jessica X. Brooks, and Soroush G. Sadeghi. How actions alter sensory processing: Reafference in the vestibular system. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1164: 0 29--36, 2009. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.03866.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.03866.x 2009

  22. [22]

    Antonio R. Damasio. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putnam, 1994

    1994

  23. [23]

    Antonio R. Damasio. The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harcourt, 1999

    1999

  24. [24]

    Antonio R. Damasio. Descartes' error revisited. J. Hist. Neurosci., 10: 0 192--194, August 2001. ISSN 0964-704X, 1744-5213. doi:10.1076/jhin.10.2.192.7250

    work page doi:10.1076/jhin.10.2.192.7250 2001

  25. [25]

    Antonio R. Damasio. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. Pantheon, 2010

    2010

  26. [26]

    Antonio R. Damasio. Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious. Pantheon, 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts

    Stanislas Dehaene. Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. Viking, 2014. ISBN 9780520274503

    2014

  28. [28]

    Di Paolo

    Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4 0 (4): 0 429--452, 2005. doi:10.1007/s11097-005-9002-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11097-005-9002-y 2005

  29. [29]

    Hubert L. Dreyfus. What Computers Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Harper & Row, New York, 1972

    1972

  30. [30]

    Hubert L. Dreyfus. What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992

    1992

  31. [31]

    Dreyfus and Stuart E

    Hubert L. Dreyfus and Stuart E. Dreyfus. Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Free Press, New York, 1986

    1986

  32. [32]

    Anatol G. Feldman. Once more on the equilibrium-point hypothesis (lambda model) for motor control. Journal of Motor Behavior, 18: 0 17--54, 1986. doi:10.1080/00222895.1986.10735369

    work page doi:10.1080/00222895.1986.10735369 1986

  33. [33]

    Anatol G. Feldman. Referent Control of Action and Perception: Challenging Conventional Theories in Behavioral Neuroscience. Springer, New York, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2736-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2736-4 2015

  34. [34]

    Jerry A. Fodor. The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press, 1975

    1975

  35. [35]

    Karl J. Friston. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11 0 (2): 0 127--138, 2010. doi:10.1038/nrn2787

    work page doi:10.1038/nrn2787 2010

  36. [36]

    Karl J. Friston. What is optimal about motor control? Neuron, 72 0 (3): 0 488--498, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.018 2011

  37. [37]

    Di Paolo

    Tom Froese and Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. The enactive approach: Theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19: 0 1--36, January 2011. ISSN 0929-0907, 1569-9943. doi:10.1075/pc.19.1.01fro

    work page doi:10.1075/pc.19.1.01fro 2011

  38. [38]

    Di Paolo

    Tom Froese and Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. Motivation, meaning, and the phenomenology of life. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10: 0 543--564, 2011

    2011

  39. [39]

    How the Body Shapes the Mind

    Shaun Gallagher. How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005

    2005

  40. [40]

    Enactivist Interventions: Rethinking the Mind

    Shaun Gallagher. Enactivist Interventions: Rethinking the Mind. Oxford University Press, 2017. Summary: Argues for enactive, embodied accounts of cognition, emphasizing how body and environment co-constitute experience; supports the shift from CNS-centric to body-as-network perspectives. Keywords: enactivism, embodiment, phenomenology, cognition

    2017

  41. [41]

    Action and Interaction

    Shaun Gallagher. Action and Interaction. Oxford University Press, 2021

    2021

  42. [42]

    James J. Gibson. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, 1979

    1979

  43. [43]

    Biological pattern generation: the lamprey as a model

    Sten Grillner. Biological pattern generation: the lamprey as a model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7 0 (1): 0 53--60, 2006

    2006

  44. [44]

    Current principles of motor control, with special reference to vertebrate locomotion

    Sten Grillner and Abdeljabbar El Manira. Current principles of motor control, with special reference to vertebrate locomotion. Physiological Reviews, 100 0 (1): 0 271--320, 2020. doi:10.1152/physrev.00015.2019. URL https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/physrev.00015.2019

    work page doi:10.1152/physrev.00015.2019 2020

  45. [45]

    World Models

    David Ha and J\"urgen Schmidhuber. World models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1207631. arXiv:1803.10122

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.5281/zenodo.1207631 2018

  46. [46]

    Hermann Haken, J. A. Scott Kelso, and Herbert Bunz. A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biological Cybernetics, 51 0 (5): 0 347--356, 1985. doi:10.1007/BF00336922

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00336922 1985

  47. [47]

    The symbol grounding problem

    Stevan Harnad. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42 0 (1-3): 0 335--346, 1990. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 1990

  48. [48]

    Towards a theoretical foundation for morphological computation with compliant bodies

    Helmut Hauser, Auke Jan Ijspeert, Rudolf Marcel F \"u chslin, Rolf Pfeifer, and Wolfgang Maass. Towards a theoretical foundation for morphological computation with compliant bodies. Biological Cybernetics, 105 0 (5--6): 0 355--370, 2011. doi:10.1007/s00422-012-0471-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00422-012-0471-0 2011

  49. [49]

    Hauser, Tecumseh W

    Marc D. Hauser, Tecumseh W. Fitch, and Daniel J. Penn. The evolution of cognitive architecture: Reshaping the debate. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12 0 (3): 0 118--126, 2008

    2008

  50. [50]

    Being and Time

    Martin Heidegger. Being and Time. Harper & Row, New York, 1962. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson; original Sein und Zeit published 1927

    1962

  51. [51]

    The theory of event coding (tec): A framework for perception and action planning

    Bernhard Hommel, Jochen M\"usseler, Gisa Aschersleben, and Wolfgang Prinz. The theory of event coding (tec): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 0 (5): 0 849--878, 2001. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000103

    work page doi:10.1017/s0140525x01000103 2001

  52. [52]

    Logical Investigations

    Edmund Husserl. Logical Investigations. Routledge, London, 1900--1901. English translation by J. N. Findlay, Routledge 2001 (orig. Logische Untersuchungen, 1900--1901)

    1900

  53. [53]

    Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy

    Edmund Husserl. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1913. English translation by F. Kersten, 1983 (orig. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie, 1913)

    1913

  54. [54]

    Reafference and the origin of the self in early nervous system evolution

    G \'a sp \'a r J \'e kely, Peter Godfrey-Smith, and Fred Keijzer. Reafference and the origin of the self in early nervous system evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376 0 (1821): 0 20190764, 2021. doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0764

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0764 2021

  55. [55]

    Kandel, James H

    Eric R. Kandel, James H. Schwartz, Thomas M. Jessell, Steven A. Siegelbaum, and A. J. Hudspeth. Principles of Neural Science. McGraw-Hill, New York, 5th edition, 2013. ISBN 978-0-07-139011-8

    2013

  56. [56]

    J. A. Scott Kelso. Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. MIT Press, 1995

    1995

  57. [57]

    Mark L. Latash. Evolution of motor control: From reflexes and motor programs to the equilibrium-point hypothesis. Journal of Human Kinetics, 19: 0 3--24, 2008. doi:10.2478/v10078-008-0001-2

    work page doi:10.2478/v10078-008-0001-2 2008

  58. [58]

    A path towards autonomous machine intelligence

    Yann LeCun. A path towards autonomous machine intelligence. Open Review preprint, 2022. Version 0.9.2, June 2022. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf

    2022

  59. [59]

    7553, 436–444, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning. Nature, 521: 0 436--444, 2015. doi:10.1038/nature14539

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14539 2015

  60. [60]

    Morphogenetic fields in embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer: Non-local control of complex patterning

    Michael Levin. Morphogenetic fields in embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer: Non-local control of complex patterning. BioSystems, 109 0 (3): 0 243--261, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2012.04.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2012.04.005 2012

  61. [61]

    Molecular bioelectricity: how endogenous voltage potentials control cell behavior and instruct pattern regulation in vivo

    Michael Levin. Molecular bioelectricity: how endogenous voltage potentials control cell behavior and instruct pattern regulation in vivo. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 25 0 (24): 0 3835--3850, 2014. doi:10.1091/mbc.E13-12-0708

    work page doi:10.1091/mbc.e13-12-0708 2014

  62. [62]

    Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling evolutionary and developmental scaling of goal-directedness in biology

    Michael Levin. Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling evolutionary and developmental scaling of goal-directedness in biology. Animal Cognition, 26: 0 1–20, 2023. doi:10.1007/s10071-023-01780-3. URL https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-023-01780-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10071-023-01780-3 2023

  63. [63]

    Endogenous bioelectric signaling networks: Exploiting voltage gradients for control of growth and form

    Michael Levin and Giovanni Pezzulo. Endogenous bioelectric signaling networks: Exploiting voltage gradients for control of growth and form. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 18: 0 243--268, 2016. doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071114-040647

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071114-040647 2016

  64. [64]

    I of the vortex: From neurons to self

    R R Llin \'a s. I of the vortex: From neurons to self . The MIT Press, Massachusetts, 2001. ISBN 9780262621632

    2001

  65. [65]

    Variability, compensation, and modulation in neurons and circuits

    Eve Marder. Variability, compensation, and modulation in neurons and circuits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 0 (Suppl 3): 0 15542--15548, 2011. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010674108. URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1010674108

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1010674108 2011

  66. [66]

    New insights from small rhythmic circuits

    Eve Marder. New insights from small rhythmic circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 76: 0 102600, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2022.102600. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438822001040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.conb.2022.102600 2022

  67. [67]

    Central pattern generators and the control of rhythmic movements

    Eve Marder and Dieter Bucher. Central pattern generators and the control of rhythmic movements. Current Biology, 11 0 (23): 0 R986--R996, 2001. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00581-4. URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11728329/

    work page doi:10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00581-4 2001

  68. [68]

    Calabrese

    Eve Marder and Ronald L. Calabrese. Principles of rhythmic motor pattern generation. Physiological Reviews, 76 0 (3): 0 687--717, 1996. doi:10.1152/physrev.1996.76.3.687. URL https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/physrev.1996.76.3.687

    work page doi:10.1152/physrev.1996.76.3.687 1996

  69. [69]

    Maturana and Francisco J

    Humberto R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Number 42 in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. D. Reidel, 1980. ISBN 9027710155

    1980

  70. [70]

    Homeobox genes and axial patterning

    William McGinnis and Robb Krumlauf. Homeobox genes and axial patterning. Cell, 68 0 (2): 0 283--302, 1992. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(92)90471-N

    work page doi:10.1016/0092-8674(92)90471-n 1992

  71. [71]

    Mehta, Diane Whitmer, Rodolfo Figueroa, Bryan A

    Sachin B. Mehta, Diane Whitmer, Rodolfo Figueroa, Bryan A. Williams, and David Kleinfeld. Active spatial perception in the vibrissa scanning sensorimotor system. PLoS Biology, 5 0 (2): 0 e15, 2007. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050015

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050015 2007

  72. [72]

    Phenomenology of Perception

    Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge, London, England, April 2013. ISBN 9781135718602. doi:10.4324/9780203720714

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203720714 2013

  73. [73]

    Chris Miall and Daniel M

    R. Chris Miall and Daniel M. Wolpert. Forward models for physiological motor control. Trends in Neurosciences, 19 0 (10): 0 329--336, 1996. doi:10.1016/S0893-6080(96)00035-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(96)00035-4 1996

  74. [74]

    Moss and Annemarie Surlykke

    Cynthia F. Moss and Annemarie Surlykke. Probing the natural scene by echolocation in bats. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 4: 0 33, 2010. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2010.00033

    work page doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2010.00033 2010

  75. [75]

    Animal Evolution: Interrelationships of the Living Phyla

    Claus Nielsen. Animal Evolution: Interrelationships of the Living Phyla. Oxford University Press, 3 edition, 2012. ISBN 9780199606023

    2012

  76. [76]

    Action in perception

    Alva Noë. Action in perception. MIT Press, 2004. ISBN 9780262140881

    2004

  77. [77]

    Kevin O'Regan and Alva No \"e

    J. Kevin O'Regan and Alva No \"e . A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 0 (5): 0 939--1031, 2001. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000115

    work page doi:10.1017/s0140525x01000115 2001

  78. [78]

    Peterson

    James L. Peterson. Petri nets. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 9 0 (3): 0 223--252, 1977. doi:10.1145/356698.356702

    work page doi:10.1145/356698.356702 1977

  79. [79]

    Navigating the affordance landscape: Feedback control as a process model of behavior and cognition

    Giovanni Pezzulo and Paul Cisek. Navigating the affordance landscape: Feedback control as a process model of behavior and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20 0 (6): 0 414--424, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.03.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.03.013 2016

  80. [80]

    How the Body Shapes the Way We Think: A New View of Intelligence

    Rolf Pfeifer and Josh Bongard. How the Body Shapes the Way We Think: A New View of Intelligence. MIT Press, 2007

    2007

Showing first 80 references.