Thinking Through Tools: What Can Tool-Use Tell Us About Distributed Cognition?

Abstract

Abstract. In this paper, I question the notion that tool-use must be driven by an internal representation which specifies the "motor program" enacted in the behaviour of the tool-user. Rather, it makes more sense to define tool-use in terms of characteristics of the dynamics of this behaviour. As the behaviour needs to be adjusted to suit changes in context, so there is unlikely to be a oneto-one, linear mapping between an action and its effect. Thus, tool-use can best be described using concepts from Nonlinear Dynamics. Such an approach can be used to create a sort of cybernetic model of tool-use. However, there is a danger that such a model can either lead us back to internal representations (in that the comparator used to evaluate feedback during behaviour could be assumed to be pre-defined) or could fail to capture cognitive aspects of behaviour. In particular, the question of how the craftworker's intent can be enacted in the use of tools to produce a specific object seems to be lost in the cybernetic account. My solution is two-fold. First, the "model" is created on-the-fly and adapted through moment-by-moment interactions in the system of tool-user-tool-material-environment. This means that, rather than assuming a pre-defined internal representation that drives behaviour, I propose that cognition involves the selection of salient parameters that characterize the behaviour and the continued monitoring and management of behaviour in terms of these parameters. Second, intent is only loosely defined a priori but crystallizes through the continued interactions between craftworker and object through a process in which the affordances of the object become apparent to, and responded to by, the craftworker.

How Radical Is Embodied Creativity? Implications of 4E Approaches for Creativity Research and Teaching

“…In The Reflective Practitioner (which argued against Technical Rationality, rooted in CC) 4 Schön (1983) stated that designers “know more than they can say” (p. viii), that their knowing is embedded in their practice of creating (p. 60). Baber (2015, 2019) makes a similar argument, using examples from jewelry design to suggest how creativity need not rely on stored mental representations (Baber, 2015, pp. 33–34).…”

What affords being creative? Opportunities for novelty in light of perception, embodied activity, and imaginative skill

“…The fact that creative opportunities often owe to continuous interaction is demonstrated by Baber (2015, p. 25) who argues that a goldsmith’s “intent is only loosely defined a priori but crystallizes through the continued interactions between craftworker and object through a process in which the affordances of the object become apparent to, and responded to by, the craftworker.” How interacting with and changing the ecology can generate affordance-disclosing information is supported by Valée-Tourangeau’s work on insight problems (2014, p. 28). He states that “thinking is the product of a fluid and dynamic interaction with external resources that produces a shifting configuration of physical features and action affordances.” A similar emphasis is evident in studies of co-creative improvisation (Kimmel et al, 2018), sports, and dance (Correia et al, 2012; Hristovski et al, 2011; Passos et al, 2012; Vilar et al, 2013).…”

An “in vivo” analysis of crafts practices and creativity—Why affordances provide a productive lens

“…Fluid interactions with external resources produce shifting affordance configurations (Vallée-Tourangeau, 2014). Therefore, a person's creative intent can crystallize through continued engagement, when the evolving affordance constellation hints at new possibilities for action (Baber, 2015). Embodied probing, manipulation or perspective switches can render salient new affordancespecifying information or suggest new exploratory moves.…”