Through the theory of complexity, we place at the center of our investigation the person as the source of her knowledge. Knowledge is our embodied know-how that we learn to recognize and observe through the help of others. We consider learning as a process of cooperation and mutual coordination in which the relational aspect becomes the foundation of all knowledge, rather than an adaptive ability to a given context. Through the personal perception of the world in which we take part by acting in it, we enter the context that changes while we transform ourselves.

1. THE ‘MAGIC EIGHT MODEL’
THE ENACTIVE APPROACH OF FRANCISCO VARELA
AND THE GENERATIVE LEARNING CIRCLE*
(*to be published in World Scientific, 2011)
MARINELLA DE SIMONE
SEECO – Scuola di Educazione all’Etica della COmplessità
Rapallo (GE) – Italy - info@seeco.it
DARIO SIMONCINI
Faculty of Managerial Sciences – G. D’Annunzio University
Pescara – Italy – dariosimoncini@gmail.com
In our work, we will focus our attention on what we define as 'personal learning' process, trying to
answer the following question: how do we build a coherent meaning from our experience? Through
the studies of Francisco Varela on the fundamental role played by the sensory-motor coordination in
cognition, we propose a model called the „Magic Eight‟, which we use to show recurring patterns in
the learning process of the person, focusing on interdependent relationships among perception,
emotion and action, which define a self-organizing system that allows the emergence of coherent
meanings for the person. These relationships are based on the activity of the entire body, allowing
the emergence of both the „inner‟ world of the person and what she considers her „outer‟ world, in a
process of generating interrelated and consistent meanings.
1 Introduction
Starting from Francisco Varela‟s studies on enaction, our aim is to outline the meanings
we give to our everyday experiences and to our reality as emergent phenomena from the
sensory-motor couplings with our context, rather than ready-made information that we
extract from a pre-given world.
Through the theory of complexity, we place at the center of our investigation the person
as the source of her knowledge. Knowledge is our embodied know-how that we learn to
recognize and observe through the help of others. We consider learning as a process of
cooperation and mutual coordination in which the relational aspect becomes the
foundation of all knowledge, rather than an adaptive ability to a given context. Through
the personal perception of the world in which we take part by acting in it, we enter the
context that changes while we transform ourselves.
Therefore we will focus our attention on what we define as 'personal learning', as the
process that occurs between the person and her context when they relate to each other,
through which the person changes herself - not only at a purely cognitive level, but in
every part of her body – changing her context: it is a form of embodiment of experience
and cognition.
1

2. 2
The aim of our work is to try to answer the following question which, in our view,
necessarily follows from this premise: how do we build a coherent meaning of our
experience?
Through the studies of Varela on the fundamental role played by the sensory-motor
coordination in cognition, we propose a model called the „Magic Eight‟, which is used to
show recurring patterns in the learning process of the person, focusing on interdependent
relationships among perception, emotion and action, which define a self-organizing
system that allows the emergence of coherent meanings for the person. These
relationships are based on the activity of the entire body, allowing the emergence of both
the „inner‟ world of the person and what she considers the „outer‟ world, in a process of
generating interrelated and consistent meanings.
2 Levels of observation
A first important step to be taken is, in our opinion, to define different observation levels
that specify different contexts. A first level, that we might call the 'basic level', regards
directly the subject as a living being who interacts with its environment, and reflects the
local effects of its actions and the way they are perceived. At this level, the body is the
biological context that specifies its own activities, and the internal dynamic processes of
cognition define limits and possibilities of the living being [9]. At the same time, we can‟t
forget to consider the body as a lived, experiential structure: therefore, the living body
represents the milieu of both biological processes and lived experience.
A subsequent level, that we might call „level 1‟, can be referred to an observer, who can
see the „global‟ effects of the interaction between the living being and the context; from
that point of observation, the environment becomes a key factor in understanding their
possible interaction.
This distinction is crucial to outline a „first-person approach‟ and the way in which a
person gives significance to her local reality, her own world, her experience, according to
a phenomenological way of analysis [32] or, as the definition of a new field of studies
sponsored by Varela himself, namely 'neurophenomenology' [38]: “By first-person events
we mean the lived experience associated with cognitive and mental events. Sometimes
terms such as „phenomenal consciousness‟ and even „qualia‟ are also used, but it is
natural to speak of „conscious experience‟ or simply „experience‟. These terms imply here
that the process being studied (vision, pain, memory, imagination, etc.) appears as
relevant and manifest for a „self‟ or „subject‟ that can provide an account; they have a
„subjective‟ side” [39]. This approach focuses its attention on the experience lived by the
person and how it can be expressed. The first-person approach accounts for a review of
the meaning of that experience to the subject, as an explanation of the subjective
experience [15] .
This allows us to distinguish it from an analysis of knowledge that we could consider as
'third person', carried by an external observer, who in turn gives his meanings to the
effects of mutual interactions between the person and her frame of reference through a

3. 3
global vision. It is the observer that relates what happens in the cognitive domain of one
with what happens in the context.
A flattening between these two levels, such as finding a 'cause' and 'effect' relation of one
level to another, is certainly a source of confusion and different simplifications of reality
[13]. A widespread approach is to study the brain as a computational system and the
cognitive functions that it absolved are closely related to the individual, material neurons
[4,7]; consciousness is sought as the result of strictly neuronal activities, and the
subjective experience is considered irrelevant.
The linking between these two levels, observing both the local level and the global level,
allows to further deepen the analysis through the conceptual tools offered by complexity
theory, such as self-organization, network attractors and the emergence of increasingly
complex systems [19,17]. This allows the study of cognition as emerging configurations
for hierarchical levels of increasing complexity, from the local - interactions among
neurons – to the global – cognitive activities. The study of the dynamics of complex
systems can therefore help in understanding cognition without the need to simplify it to
material or computational aspects.
3 Adaptive and enactive cognition
We may differentiate the learning process of a living being and, in general, its cognition,
in two main ways: the first considers the learning process as an adaptive necessity of the
individual to its environment, the second considers the learning process as a co-generative
modality between the individual and the environment: the enactive approach to cognition.
Traditionally, the environment is considered dominant over the living beings; they have to
conform to it to 'survive'. Under this approach, subject and environment are separated and
the only relationship that binds them is the direct causal link input / output from one to
another, without any form of interdependence. The relationship between them is therefore
an instructive one-way. The frame of reference is the traditional cause and effect
relationship, the behavior of living being appears to be appropriate only if it is able to
adapt as best possible to a given context, according to a classical approach of „problem
solving‟ skills of the nervous system [24,1,25]. Learning becomes a process that finds its
„raison d'être‟ outside the person: it is the environment, both natural and social - the
external reality – that defines and specifies a process of adaptation for the subject. This
view implies a sort of „cognitive realism‟: cognition is grounded in the representation of a
pregiven world by a pregiven subject.
The learning process can not only be understood as a process that embodies a causal
relationship with the environment; it can also be understood, in our opinion, as a
phenomenon that may have its origin in the inter-relationship established between the
subject and its environment. In this case, learning can be considered as an emerging
phenomenon that occurs when subject and environment come into relationship in a
dynamic and recursive process. The learning that emerges from this connection is a
generative phenomenon that influences both the subject and its context.

4. 4
Francisco Varela has repeatedly stressed in his studies that the process of cognition is
strongly related to the possibility that we, as living beings, have to cope with our milieu
through our bodies. The context in which we interact is something we take part in:
touching, seeing, tasting, moving in it.
The term „enaction' emphasizes precisely this possibility of 'emergence': to make active,
to bring forth something that through our manipulation appears real in itself [37].
4 The ‘embodied cognition’ as a natural transformation
According to enaction, essential elements of cognition are the dynamic sensory-motor
skills of the person: it is through the ability to perceive and act in one‟s own context that
can trigger a process of learning, a close relationship between agent and environment in
the cognitive process. By 'environment' we mean broadly any external „disturbances‟ to
the person, including other people who are part of that context.
Maturana and Varela write in this sense of „structural couplings‟ between living beings
and their milieu to emphasize reciprocity and consistency that is established between one
another, without any prevalence of one over the other [23].
Each of them - living being and environment - is only a 'trigger' for the other that can give
rise to reciprocal structural changes, in their material manifestation. Once those changes
occur, we can speak of structural coupling between a living being and its environment and
vice versa. We are therefore at the observer‟s level of analysis.
It is through these repeated structural couplings that one can speak of cognitive process,
since every action becomes in itself a cognitive act, an experience that is embodied in the
person. The body becomes a central tool - an 'ontological machine' - to take part in one‟s
own reality by defining the boundaries and possibilities of understanding. According to
enaction, it is therefore relevant to study how the human being acts in its local situations
and how these local situations change constantly as a result of its activity: “knowledge
depends on being in a world that is inseparable from our bodies, our language, and our
social history – in short, from our embodiment” [36].
This is a fundamental circularity between action and experience that allows both the
embodiment of these changes in the living being, and the emergence, through these
actions, of the context within it operates. Intelligence is no longer the ability to solve
problems already given, but rather the ability to access a common world [35].
The living system is able to maintain its identity through a circular process of interaction
with the environment and of self-reproduction; all interactions operating within the
network of cognitive acts are coordinated between perceiver and perceived.
The cognitive process becomes the evolution of living organisms along a path chosen by
them in the course of time in their structural couplings. Time thus becomes a key aspect in
the analysis of cognition and learning, in which the personal history of a being becomes
an embodied know-how: skills learned and experiences are full of all those aspects that
make its history unique, defining it as a specific 'identity' [22].

5. 5
The closed circular organization of the lived body defines a field of dynamic interactions,
creating a boundary which defines the unit system as a specific identity, according to the
principles of self-organization. The focus is therefore on the nexus among the components
that define the organization of the living system and not on individual, material
components, which define the structure instead.
While the structure actually occurs while changing, the underlying network organizational
structure and its dynamics seem more diaphanous, having no substantial and material
existence. However, it is the continuity of these connections that allows the life of the
unity: "The key point is that such systems do not operate by representation. Instead of
representing an independent world, they enact a world as a domain of distinctions that is
inseparable from the structure embodied by the cognitive system" [36].
5 ‘I see if I act, I act if I see’: recurrent sensory-motor patterns
The living being comes into contact with the surrounding environment through structural
couplings which generate its own inner world related to the environment, as a dynamic
process of mutual co-definition. Perception, unlike what we are led to believe, is
accomplished with the body and through the body, becoming a global experience that
involves the whole person together with her context. The brain participates in the process
of perception as an active configuration of interactions between the environment and the
body: the structure of the perceiver is closely interrelated with the perceived reality [2].
Perception is an active process involving not only our senses but also our nervous system,
including the brain, our body in general and the environment in which we are immersed
[5].
Enactive perception emphasizes two fundamental and interrelated aspects: first, that
perception consists of perceptually guided actions. This aspect shifts attention from the
signals coming from the outer world to the way the person guides her actions in her local
situation, through her sensory-motor system. Second, that cognitive structures emerge
from recurrent sensory-motor patterns that enable perceptually guided actions. It is no
longer the outer world that specifies a perception, but rather the inner world, the
embodied sensory-motor patterns, that guides actions while changing the external
environment as a result of its activity [31,20,6]. This is what is meant by the inseparability
of the perceiver from its reality. This is also the relevance of repeated interactions as an
evolutionary path of the system over time, and the importance of complex dynamic
systems studies to understand this evolution.
There is therefore a strong interdependence between what we call reality and the sensory-
motor structure of a person: each of us creates his own perceived reality and each of us
perceives the world differently, depending on our own lived experience. There is thus a
visual control of action, and vice versa; objects become „hypotheses of action‟ for our
body, transforming them into a life experience [28].
This sensory-motor experience is embodied in us as a habit of which we are unaware:
perception is a phenomenon that can be determined only if there is a relationship between

6. 6
what we usually call subject - the perceiver - and what we commonly call the object -
what is perceived through action. The sensory-motor patterns of the body are recursive
and capable of self-organizing and self-generating, according to a circuit that generates
not only itself but also the meaning of action and the reality with which it interferes:
The cognitive system as a virtuous circle:
circle:
the sensory-motor pattern of Varela
sensory-
motor system
sensor system
At the basic level, that directly concerns the inner dynamic processes, these appear as
operationally closed systems: the nervous system, which includes the brain, functions as a
closed, self-organizing network of interactions, rather than as a system which - following
a stream of reception and transmission - receives information (input) from an outer,
objective reality, turning them into specific behaviors (outputs): "The cognitive system is
not a computer, it is a dynamical system. It is not the brain, inner and encapsulated;
rather, it is comprised of the whole system nervous system, body, and environment" [27].
Self-organization of simple elements, such as neuronal cells, makes possible the
emergence of complex phenomena that show overall consistency, such as specific human
cognitive abilities. Entering in relation among themselves, these local elements can
spontaneously coordinate themselves and cooperate so as to move from a purely chaotic
state to a state that is configured as a coherent 'attractor' of the entire network allowing the
emergence of a consistent configuration that we call 'cognitive ability' and 'intelligence'
[30,14,21], which, in turn, has downward effects on the elements from which it has
emerged [33]. However, what enables the emergence of a common sense is the recurrent
event, we could say its redundancy, so that the living being is able to recognize it among
others. Here is the embodied history, the experience of repeated contacts with the
environment that allows the emergence of consistent configurations.

7. 7
6 The generative role of emotions: interdependent relationship between
perceptions, emotions and actions
Our question now is: when may we consider a perception as effective, since it is not
objectively determined?
We have seen that perception is not merely the representation of a given reality, but rather
a process of organization between inner and outer world, in which they change through
repeated sensory-motor processes; therefore the validity of a perception depends on its
ability to keep alive a being appropriately [16]: to procure food, shelter and everything it
needs to live, providing a sense of inner satisfaction.
It is a process of action and feedback between the environment and human being through
a continuous trial and error: if the signal is interpreted as contrary to expectations, it leads
to a negative feedback that modifies the perceptual process, if the signal is interpreted as
corresponding to expectations, the process of perception is reinforced by a positive
feedback. To achieve an inner satisfaction, and conversely, an unpleasant feeling of
discomfort means to give an emotional content to the experiences made: emotion is the
moment of recognition of the received signal [8]. It is clear that the two moments,
perception and emotion, are closely related [29]; a perception is retained in memory if it
has an emotional content [18].
Motivation is closely linked to emotion: they share the same etymological root;
motivation means "what drives, inspires to do; impulse”, while the etymological meaning
of the word 'emotion' is “to take out, to put in motion, to give birth." The motivation to act
is closely related to instinct, because it often surpasses and dominates our higher cognitive
faculties; this is, for example, the case of immediate and strong emotions like fear; it
causes a structural change of the person who receives the signal and is highlighted by the
action:
From sensor to motor system:
Emotion as motivation to action
-Motion
Emotion
-E- as
feed-forward
feed-
Perception-

8. 8
Perception of an external signal can trigger a process of internal self-generation of the
external world, which forms a hypothesis of reality, through an emotion that we could
define as a 'yes' or a „no‟, as a fear or a desire. It is an emotion that accepts and confirms
what the system has perceived or, on the contrary, denies it, rejects it as dangerous or
unpleasant. It is this permanent sense of „being-there' through the emotions that we can
understand, in spite of all and first of all. It is a process that transforms the environment
in our body, our self. The inner experience, in fact, participates in the generative process
bringing out - as in the etymological meaning of the word - the construction of its
perceived world.
Emotions, in turn, define and structure the perception that we experience in a closed circle
in which the perception 'fires' the emotion, and the emotion, in turn, defines what we can
perceive as 'our reality' and that is interpreted as the outer world, leading us to interact
with it. The strong correlation between perception and emotion creates the outer world:
the identity of the other emerges.
The meaning of reality:
the emergence of the Outer World
M
Outer World
E
P
Emotion is the moment of transformation of the world that we consider outside of us,
regardless of whether the cognitive process that generated the emotion is conscious or
unconscious; it is a moment of transformation of what we consider our outer world in a
feeling inside our body that we are capable of recognizing.
The action done activates a feedback into the subject on an emotional level, bringing into
its cognitive system the outside world transformed by its verbal and nonverbal actions.
The emotions reinforce behaviors which provide a feeling of pleasure, and change
behaviors which provide a feeling of discomfort; emotions, in turn, activate a feedback to
the perceptual level, determining those lenses through which we interpret the surrounding
environment. The action is a communication of the perceived reality, generating in turn an
internal emotion which is a confirmation or a disconfirmation of our behavior, in a circle
of co-definition of our intentions and in a manner consistent with our feelings.

9. 9
From motor to sensor system:
Emotion as meaning of the action
Motion-
Emotion
as
-E- feed-back
feed-
-Perception
On the other hand, the action taken and the result obtained in relation to our expectations
and predictions generate an internal emotion, by which emerges our inner world: our
identity or self-consciousness. Through the emotional analysis of our behavior in our
environment, we report as a feed-back return that realigns our cognitive system in relation
to our experience of the world, redefining ourselves, our identities.
The way back:
the emergence of the Inner World
M
Inner world
E
P
This circuit defines, in turn, the perceptive modality of the whole cognitive system: it
transforms what is perceived in relation to the effects of its actions and the achievement of
their expectations, that brings us back to the starting point by linking the entire process. A
process takes place that explores the outside world by acting on it and by transforming it,
which leads to a continuous interior realignment compared to expectations and results.
7 The ‘Magic Eight Model’: the generative circle of personal learning
Action and perception are the moments through which one builds both own‟s external
reality and own‟s inner world, through the embodied simulation of what is perceived as
other, and through the actions of what is perceived as self.

10. 10
Emotions are the immediate meaning that is given to what is experienced and that exceeds
and precedes the rational-logical meaning, representing the feedback loops of the
cognitive system. Every cognitive act is modulated by emotions; they function as a system
of self-regulation, defining the cognitive process as a self-organized system.
In this process emotions become the feedback loops that amplify and reinforce (positive
feedbacks) or that self-regulate (negative feedbacks) the belief system and the thought
patterns through which we perceive the external reality and the whole experience: “The
basic emotional systems may act as “strange attractors” within widespread neural
networks that exert a certain type of “neurogravitational force” on many ongoing
activities of the brain, from physiological to cognitive” [26].
The ‘Magic Eight Model’:
Model’
the generative Circle of personal Learning
M
Inner World
Outer World
(the Self)
(the Other)
E
P
This circular process defines the evolutionary history of one‟s cognitive system, defining
a unique memory in a process that determines the historical memory itself as irreversible.
The cognitive process involves continuous changes of the system: perception, emotion,
and behavior, in a continuous transformation and generation of the self, without ever
returning to previous states. This process is what we call 'personal learning circle' along
an evolutionary path that is quite unique [10,12]. Each time there is a different experience
that is stratified, as if this model is theoretically infinite, while maintaining the same type
of movement, represented schematically as a strange attractor. The experience is
stratified, becoming a long-term memory by changing the structure of the attractor and
continuously transformed into embodied knowledge.
This double loop determines within it a coherent world, with a sense and meaning, whose
boundary becomes its own cognitive domain: the system itself produces its own world,
according to a recursive process constantly changing, just like a fractal or a strange
attractor. It is a pattern that represents the principle of self-organization of internal
cognitive processes, closed with respect to its surroundings.
The cognitive process is therefore the individual learning process, in the context of its
evolutionary process. We use the 'Magic Eight Model' as a pattern representing a double-
closed circle of learning when the person enters into a relationship with her own

11. 11
environment, highlighting how the recurrence of interrelationships between perceptions,
emotions and actions become incarnate in her personal experience.
This organizational pattern takes the form of a strange attractor, in which the emotional
aspect is the central point of activity, the diaphragm, between perceiving and acting,
between the emergence of the inner world and the emergence of contextual outer world,
between the self and the other, along a circle that repeats itself endlessly, and yet is
finished, closing the space of possibilities - the phase space.
The learning process structures a knowledge embodied in the person that is expressed in
her behavior, her language, her emotions, her perceptions, and that defines her history and
memory. The recurrent experience becomes a 'know how' of the person, which manifests
itself in the naturalness of everyday life [11]. It is a dynamic and evolving process, a real
learning process: the process of learning is a process of signification, in which any action,
any interaction, has a meaning within a coherent network of meanings. It is this body of
skills ready to be activated automatically without the need to 'think up' that we can define,
together with Francisco Varela, as the 'know-how' embodied in the person: it is the ability
to immediately cope with the surrounding world, that 'readiness for action' that allows the
emergence of 'micro-worlds' within which a person can easily move [37].
Therefore, the structure of the living being embodies the history of its continual changes;
this process of ongoing structural changes keeps firm the identity of the subject. Through
this cognitive process we define our own identity, with reference to our environment, as a
form of differentiation of ourselves from the environment.
The Self-Other Relationship
Self-
as generative circle of reality
The Other The Self
(Outer World) (Inner World)
The emergence of our inner world, according to this analysis, is something intangible and
not concretely defined. This is in fact a process that can emerge from the intertwined
elements and their iteration, namely the continuous repetition of similar phenomena,
although never identical, giving rise to a seemingly constant reality, as something stable,
although always in motion and always co-determining in a seamless flow.

12. 12
8 Concluding remarkes
In the generative „Magic Eight Model‟, cognition is represented as a process of
transformation of the person, both inside and outside herself, changing her internal world
and, simultaneously, changing her own context.
The emergence of what we call our „identity‟ is therefore a circular relationship with the
emergence of what we call our „reality‟; the self is a continuous process of realignment, in
which our identity can not be defined separately as something with an actual existence,
but rather as a process of continual transformation, a co-definition of the self mutually
with the co-definition of the other. Our outer world - the other - and our inner world - the
self - move in a mutual becoming, in a process of co-determination, that only an attempt
to objectify it can try forcibly to separate.
The other does not exist per se, but for what we perceive as another identity; it is
generated by a cognitive act giving it a meaning, a description as another identity.
Through our cognitive acts – touching, speaking, perceiving – we communicate our inner
world generating the outer world, and vice versa, in a mutual specification. This process
is generative only if we acknowledge the other with whom we dependently co-generate.
It becomes an infinite and indefinite iteration at the same time, that does not begin and
end anywhere, with the emergence of coherent meanings in a common cognitive domain.
Learning can thus be seen as a process of cooperation and mutual coordination, in which
the relational aspect becomes the foundation of all knowledge. Through the personal
perception of the world in which we take part with an action, the domains of self and
other are intertwined making it impossible to remain outside.
References
1. H. J. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby, The adaptive mind: evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture, (1995)
2. V. Bonnardel and J.F. Varela, in Biological Research (1) 36, (2003)
3. M. Cappuccio, Neurofenomenologia. Le scienze della mente e la sfida
dell’esperienza cosciente, (Bruno Mondadori, Milano, 2006)
4. S.P. Churchland and J.T. Sejnowski, The computational brain, (MIT Press, 1994)
5. A. Clark, Being there: putting brain, body, and world together again, (MIT Press,
1998)
6. A. Clark, in Trends in Cognitive Sciences (3) 9, (1999)
7. F. Crick and C. Koch, in Seminars in the Neurosciences 2, 263:275, (1990)
8. A. Damasio, L’errore di Cartesio. Emozione, ragione e cervello umano, (Adelphi,
Milano, 2005)
9. N. Depraz, J.F. Varela and P. Vermersch, On Becoming Aware, (John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2003)
10. M. De Simone and D. Simoncini, Il Mago e Il Matto, (MacGraw Hill, Milano, 2008)
11. M. De Simone and D. Simoncini, in Etica, Economia, Società. Sistemi sociali ed
economici in transizione, 115:165, (Edizioni Universitarie Romane, Roma, 2010)
12. M. De Simone and D. Simoncini, in Persone e Conoscenze 59, 55:59, (2010)

13. 13
13. M. De Simone and D. Simoncini, Lo stato dell’arte degli studi organizzativi
manageriali, in Proceedings WOA, (Bologna, 2010)
14. J. W. Freeman, in Scientific American (2) 264, 78:85, (1991)
15. S. Gallagher and D. Zahavi, The phenomenological mind: an introduction to
philosophy of mind and cognitive science, (Routledge, 2008)
16. W.J. Hayward and J.F. Varela, Gentle bridges, (Shambhala Publications, 1992)
17. H.J. Holland, Emergence. From chaos to order, (Oxford University Press, 2000)
18. R.E. Kandel, In search of memory. The emergence of a new science of mind, (Norton
& Company, 2006)
19. A.S. Kauffman, The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution,
(Oxford University Press, 1993)
20. S. Kelso, Dynamic Patterns, (MIT Press, 1995)
21. G.M. Kitzbichler, L.M. Smith, R.S. Christensen and E. Bullmore, in PLoS Comput
Biol (3) 5, (2009)
22. R.H. Maturana and J.F. Varela, Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the
living, (Springer, 1980)
23. R.H. Maturana and J.F. Varela, The Tree of knowledge: the biological roots of
human understanding, (Shambhala, 1987)
24. A. Newell and H. Simon, Human Problem Solving, (Prentice Hall, 1972)
25. E.D. Over, Evolution and the psychology of thinking: the debate, (Psychology Press,
2003)
26. J. Panksepp, Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions,
(Oxford University Press, 2004)
27. F.R. Port and T. Van Gelder, Mind as motion: explorations in the dynamic of
cognition, (MIT Press, 1995)
28. G. Rizzolatti and C. Sinigaglia, So quel che fai. Il cervello che agisce e i neuroni
specchio, (Cortina, Milano, 2006)
29. T. Sacco and B.Sacchetti, in Science (5992) 329, 649:656, (2010)
30. A.C. Skarda and J.W. Freeman, in Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 161-173,
(1987)
31. E. Thelen and L. Smith, A dynamic systems approach to the development of
cognition and action, (MIT Press, 1994)
32. E. Thompson, Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind,
(Harvard University Press, 2007)
33. E. Thompson and J.F. Varela, in Trends in Cognitive Sciences (10) 5, (2001)
34. J.F. Varela, in La sfida della complessità, (Feltrinelli, Milano, 1985)
35. J.F. Varela, Scienza e tecnologia della cognizione, (Hopefulmonster, Firenze,1987)
36. J.F. Varela, E. Thompson and E. Rosch, The Embodied Mind. Cognitive Science and
Human Experience, (MIT Press, 1991)
37. J.F. Varela, Un know-how per l’etica, (Laterza, Bari, 1992)
38. J.F. Varela, in Journal of Consciousness Studies (4) 3, 330:349, (1996)
39. J.F. Varela and J. Shear, The view from within. First-person approaches to the study
of consciousness, (Imprint Academic, 2002)