Arches and Stones in Cognitive Architecture Reply to Comments

The original goals of the work described in the target paper were threefold. First, I wanted to encourage a direct confrontation of situated, embodied, and dynamical ideas with cognitive phenomena, in the hopes of furthering debate on the role of these ideas in cognitive science. Second, I wanted to describe a specific research methodology that could concretely ground such a debate, and to illustrate in some technical detail how a situated, embodied, minimally cognitive agent could be developed and dynamically analyzed. Third, I wanted to use this model agent as a springboard to begin to explore some of the larger implications of these ideas for explanation in cognitive science. Judging from the range of the commentary, it appears that, at the very least, the paper was successful at provoking a broader discussion of these issues. I would like to thank all of my colleagues for taking the time to provide detailed comments on my paper. I have certainly found the process constructive, and I hope that others do as well.