Active - Not Enactive - Vision

Noë’s (2004) enactivist account of perception and enactivism more generally, are critically examined. Of specific concern is visual perception. It is argued that enactivism is not compatible with the dual visual systems hypothesis of Milner & Goodale (1995) and that the currently most promising approach to explaining our sense that our visual experiences are richly detailed and coherent, does not lead to enactivism. Both results are contrary to what Noë suggests. Beyond criticizing enactivism, it is granted that concerns about the neglect of action in vision research are well placed. However, instead of pushing us to embrace a radical thesis such as enactivism, such concerns provide a motivation to attend to methodological issues tied up with attempts to weave together results from both active and passive approaches to vision research.