A short description explains that the talk introduces a doctoral project on stammering, arguing that dominant cognitive and mechanistic models face conceptual difficulties and misplace the explanation of speech production. It also critiques representational approaches for assuming content without explaining its grounding (the “Hard Problem of Content”), and proposes a shift toward a radical enactive account of speech.
The slide is divided into three numbered sections, each in a colored box.
1. The first section asks: “What does ‘loss of control’ have to do with ‘lack of integration’?” It raises questions about whether these are identical, causally related, or merely correlated, and if correlated, what explains the relationship.
2. The second section asks: “How does neurobiological integration (or its lack) explain normativity?” It notes that neural processes themselves are not normatively assessable, yet stammering is experienced as failure, and asks where this sense of normativity comes from.
3. The third section asks: “What exactly do we mean by ‘loss of control’ and ‘lack of integration’?” It questions the nature of integration, whether it is neurobiological, how to interpret the experience of loss of control, and whether it reflects lived reality, a symptom requiring interpretation, or different types of control such as executive or sensorimotor.
Today I attended another wonderful webinar organised by ENPA: "Rethinking Fluency and Disfluency: From Representational Models to Radical Enactivism" by Jonathan Brooks (Oxford). A rich conversation on #enactivism & its potential for analysing #neurodiversity beyond mainstream neurocognitive models