Surprise! Why enactivism and predictive processing are parting ways: The case of improvisation

Improvisational performance involves the integration of knowledge, skill, habit, and environmental constraints. Predictive processing (PP), a neuroscientific theory that frames the mind as minimizing surprise, cannot explain this integration without violating its own principles. Enactivism, a form of embodied cognition that treats the brain-body-environment as a unified system, offers a better account. Habit is central to this explanation, as it allows performers to respond fluidly without relying on surprise-minimizing predictions.

Study at a glance

Abstract

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.