Image 01

3, 2, 1… The Future of the Embodied Mind

September 3rd, 2011 by Xabier Barandiaran

We are about to start the Summer School, it is twenty years since the first publication of The Embodied Mind and it is time to look forward into the open challenges and paradigmatic progress made throughout these years. We are glad to welcome all the participants to this event.

  • Please get to the venue no later than 9.15am. There will be a registration desk next to the conference room, please make sure you get there on time to pick up your badge and tickets for the coffee break. Registration desk will be open at 8.45am and the first talk will start at 9.30. The registration desk will remain open till 15min after the end of the morning session in order to allow for late registrations during the coffee break and at the beginning of the lunch break
  • The venue is easy to locate and visible, but the location of the entrance is not very intuitive, check out the Venue section to find out how to get there.
  • We will provide a folder with a printed copy of the full program, the instructions for the afternoon discussion groups, a map of restaurants around the venue and the night activities. There will also be pen and paper available for those that need it, but we highly recommend you bring your laptops with you to make online participation and collaboration fluent.
  • For those who have not done it yet: please check out our resources page to find out relevant contributions by the speakers, select those that are relevant to you and read them beforehand, that will make the discussions and the whole summer school more productive.

2 Responses to “3, 2, 1… The Future of the Embodied Mind”

  1. Mario Villalobos says:

    Group 3

    Is there a preferred language to talk about what is really going on in the cognitive system?

  2. Mario Villalobos says:

    Group 3

    Beer mentioned that both mathematical tools of DST and Information theory are neutral with respect to what is really going on in a specific system. But is one way of looking at the system perhaps more fruitful for understanding embodied cognition? Or should we be pluralistic with regard to descriptions? If there is a difference in appropriateness of application, doesn’t this reveal an ontological commitment?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.