Processes, Acts, and Experiences: Three Stances on the Problem of Intentionality

By Robert Shaw. 2001

95 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce4c70fcdb1c538e17a6eb2eacd74e7e776b2bf3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Keith Davids
2. Duarte Araújo
3. Jia Yi Chow
4. Claire F. Michaels
5. Henderien W. Steenbeek
6. P. V. van Geert
7. Hanne De Jaegher
8. E. D. Di Paolo

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Duarte Araújo
2. Keith Davids
3. Claire F. Michaels
4. Henderien W. Steenbeek
5. P. V. van Geert

Citations in the corpus

• The development of decision making skill in sport : an ecological dynamics perspective (2009, background): “They are used to narrow the possible actions available for the movement system, until ultimately, at the moment of goal accomplishment, the emergent path becomes uniquely defined (Shaw, 2001), i.e., with fewer degrees of freedom.”
• What exactly is acquired during skill acquisition (2011, background): “there is a need for a law-based understanding of discrete and dynamic aspects of human behaviour (Shaw, 2001; Shaw and Turvey, 1999).”
• Self-organization of cognitive performance. (2003, background): “This example concerns nonliving systems, but it introduces a different way of thinking about living systems (cf. Depew & Weber, 1995; Kelso, 1995; Kugler & Turvey, 1987; Shaw 2001; Ulanowicz, 1997).”
• Explaining After by Before: Basic Aspects of a Dynamic Systems Approach to the Study of Development. (2005, background): “Various authors, working in a dynamic systems framework, have argued that a non-representationalist dynamic systems treatment of intentions and goals is very well possible (Gibbs & Van Orden, 2003; Juarrero, 2002; Kappas, 2002; Shaw, 2001).”
• Affordances: Four Points of Debate (2003, background): “The alternative view of the affordance–effectivity relation has been evolving in recent work by Shaw and his coauthors (e.g., Kadar & Shaw, 2000; Shaw, 2001).”
• Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System (2003, unknown): “These are issues for future resolution (for initial treatments, see Shaw, 2001; Shaw, Kadar, & Kinsella-Shaw, 1995; Shaw, Kugler, & Kinsella-Shaw, 1990).”