Skip to content

Michael D Kirchhoff

3 papers in the library · 570 citations · publishing 2014-2020

Papers

A tale of two densities: active inference is enactive inference.

Adaptive behavior August 1, 2020 Maxwell Jd Ramstead, Michael D Kirchhoff, Karl J Friston 387 citations

The free-energy principle (FEP) and active inference are often conflated with predictive processing frameworks, leading to misunderstandings about their core constructs, generative models and variational densities. This article argues that these models have been systematically misrepresented as structural representations. Instead, under the FEP, generative and recognition models function to realize inference and control—the self-organizing, belief-guided selection of action policies—not as representations with the properties structural representationalists ascribe. The authors propose an enactive interpretation, termed enactive inference, as a more accurate account of these constructs.

Extensive enactivism: why keep it all in?

Frontiers in human neuroscience January 1, 2014 Daniel D Hutto, Michael D Kirchhoff, Erik Myin 94 citations

Rejecting mental representation as the basis of cognition, radical enactive and embodied approaches challenge mainstream cognitive science. This paper argues that abandoning representationalism for pure empirical functionalism fails to provide a clear criterion for what counts as cognitive and lacks adequate ways to distinguish cognitive activity. It also contends that commonsense functionalism is undermined by how people actually use psychological concepts. Instead, the authors advocate for extensive enactivism, which differs from extended mind and distributed cognition theories by grounding cognition in embodied action without relying on internal representations.

A New, Better BET: Rescuing and Revising Basic Emotion Theory.

Frontiers in psychology January 1, 2018 Daniel D Hutto, Ian Robertson, Michael D Kirchhoff 89 citations

Basic Emotion Theory (BET) has been central to affective science for decades, guiding research on facial expressions, neuroimaging, and evolutionary psychology. Philosophers have recently called for abandoning BET entirely. This paper defends BET against those criticisms, arguing that the theory should be retained. It also addresses concerns that BET's reliance on affect programs makes it outdated. The authors propose that with minor adjustments, BET can overcome these objections when reinterpreted through a radically enactive account of emotions. Rather than discarding BET, the paper shows how its core ideas can be revised and preserved, concluding that the revised BET remains a valuable framework.