The binary divide between traditional cognitivist and enactivist paradigms is tied to
their respective commitments to understanding cognition as based on knowing that as opposed
to knowing how. Using O’Regan’s and Noe’s landmark sensorimotor contingency theory of
perceptual experience as a foil, I demonstrate how easy it is to fall into conservative thinking.
Although their account is advertised as decidedly ‘skill-based’, on close inspection it shows
itself to be riddled with suppositions threatening to reduce it to a rules-and-representations
approach. To remain properly enactivist it must be purged of such commitments and indeed all
commitment to mediating knowledge: it must embrace a more radical enactivism.