The Body Writes What AI Cannot

Nov 25, 2024

The Problem

As a fairly recent field of research, embodied cognition1 offers useful insights for thinking about differences between human writing and synthetic text generation. Synthetic devices are incapable of distinguishing reliably between wT (written text) and sT (synthetic text), a problem among teachers concerned with plagiarism.

Teachers' anxiety has evolved from one era of academic dishonesty to another, though the core concern remains unchanged: the integrity of learning through writing. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a 2emerged where students would sell their successful essays through websites like schoolsucks.com and cheathouse.com, often earning $10-20 per paper. More enterprising students would even customize their essays for different buyers, making minor changes to evade detection.

This human-to-human marketplace prompted universities to adopt Turnitin3 in the early 2000s. A tool that would compare student submissions against a growing database of previously submitted papers and online content, Turnitin left teachers anxiously awaiting those similarity scores, watching for telltale signs like sudden changes in writing style or suspiciously polished prose.

Today's AI tools represent a new chapter in this ongoing struggle, but with a crucial difference. Instead of students copying each other's authentic writing experiences and learning, they're potentially submitting work that never involved human learning at all.

This shift from copying human thought to generating synthetic thought has transformed plagiarism from an issue of academic dishonesty to something more existential, a question of whether the practice of learning through writing can survive.

One way to solve the problem is prohibition4. Any use of an LLM during a writing assignment is a breach of intellectual integrity. Some teachers reportedly require students to do their writing in class using paper and pen. False positives inspire terror for students and teachers alike.

A second way, one I could argue for, organized experimentation in classrooms, is unpalatable for several good reasons. First, actionable information is a distant deliverable, perhaps years; then, researchers may find that LLMs diminish writing growth. Second, schools in America are so incredibly varied in every imaginable way that no meaningful generalizations can be easily drawn.

In my view, a third core problem cascades in multiple strands from the fact that there is no coherent theoretical model of wT. To be clear, wT is a construct in opposition with sT. Prior to AI there was no need to ask about wT. Humans value and privilege wT while they are suspicious of sT, and they are conflicted about its appropriate use during composing wT.

A Proposed Start

The opening paragraph referenced the emergence of a fresh approach to thinking about a theoretical model of wT. Embodied cognitive theory provides conceptual and analytical tools to afford disentangling wT from sT.5 What is the one most profound difference between an LLM as a text generator (sT) and a human writer (et)? Humans have a brain and a highly sensitive, social, embedded body6. wT is embodied. sT is not.

Writing engages our entire bodily being, far beyond just moving fingers across keys or a pen across paper or bouncing a foot to release excess energy. When we write, our posture shifts with our emotions as uncertainty, conflict, or joy flows through our muscles, changes our breathing, and influence how we think and express ourselves. Our eyes furrow, our head nods or looks up, our lips smile, This embodied experience shapes meaning at every level.

Consider how we map abstract concepts through our physical experiences. The somatosensory cortex doesn't just process skin receptor sensations, it creates maps for how we understand ideas. "First" and "second" emerge from sequential bodily movements. "Up" and "down" come from our sense of balance and position. "Inside" and "outside" grow from our experiences of containment. These aren't just metaphors; they're physical patterns our bodies know, the primal rudiments of text structure.7

Our internal bodily awareness, processed through the insular cortex8, weaves together feelings and meanings. When we write about emotion or with feelings, our bodies activate those same feeling states, which then flow back into our words. The rhythm of writing itself synchronizes with our breathing and heartbeat. Even the way we organize text on a page reflects how our bodies understand relationships in space.

Writing is also inherently social, engaging our mirror neuron systems9 as we imagine readers' responses. Our bodies unconsciously simulate these social interactions, adjusting posture and tension as we anticipate how our words will land. This physical rehearsal of reader reaction shapes our writing choices.

Time and space in writing mirror our bodily experience of moving through the world. Narrative structure follows physical movement patterns. Page layout emerges from embodied spatial understanding. The sequence of ideas flows from how we physically experience time.

This deep embodiment has profound implications for how we teach and support writing10. Writer's block isn't just mental; it's a physical-emotional state. Writing environments need to support our full bodily engagement. Teach methods should work with, not against, this physically embodied and socially embedded nature of writing.

Understanding writing as fundamentally embodied transforms how we approach everything from classroom instruction to writing technology design. It reminds us that authentic writing emerges from our whole being—from our body, in a physical posture embedded in space and time and emotion, and mind working as one.

Starter Experiences

Caveat: I have no direct experience with these suggestions. My point in imagining them is to spark thought and discussion, not to suggest a carefully documented and prepared lesson sequence. The pedagogical problem is to scaffold student experiences with embodied writing to develop a deep understanding of the whole body, whole language approach to writing. The emphasis on body in space and time, sensing the external environment, working to identify and name details in the space and becoming aware of personal responses, and the like may pay dividends in sane and safe LLM engagement.

Embodied Writing: A Speculative and Rough Draft Pedagogical Framework

Framework Overview

This framework develops students' awareness of writing as an embodied process, helping them distinguish between human-generated and synthetic text through experiential learning. The framework scaffolds increasingly complex engagements with embodied writing, from basic sensory awareness to integrated physical-temporal composition.

Learning Objectives

By completing this sequence of exercises, students will be able to:

1. Sensory Integration

- Identify and articulate how physical sensations influence their writing process

- Demonstrate how different sensory inputs affect word choice and description

- Generate writing that shows clear connection to immediate physical experience

2. Spatial-Temporal Awareness

- Analyze how different physical positions affect their writing voice and perspective

- Demonstrate how movement through space shapes narrative structure

- Create texts that effectively integrate temporal and spatial awareness

3. Embodied Metacognition

- Reflect on the relationship between physical state and writing quality

- Evaluate how their writing differs when composed in different bodily states

- Articulate specific ways their embodied experience shapes their writing process

4. Critical Distinction

- Compare embodied human writing with AI-generated text

- Identify markers of embodied experience in written work

- Develop strategies for authentic integration of AI tools while maintaining embodied writing practice

Exercise Sequence

1. Basic Exercise: Writing in Motion (2-3 class sessions)

Learning Outcomes:

- Develop awareness of immediate sensory experience

- Connect physical movement to writing process

- Practice translating bodily sensation into written language

Activities:

1. Walking Tour (45-60 minutes)

- 3-4 stops, 10-15 minutes each

- Silent observation (1 minute)

- Stream writing (3 minutes)

- Location reflection (1 minute)

2. Classroom Integration (30 minutes)

- Passage selection and sharing

- Guided reflection

- Group discussion

3. Home Extension

- Personal space writing

- Time/state documentation

Assessment:

- Writing Portfolio (40%)

Collected location writings

Reflection on physical-writing connection

* Analysis of how movement affected writing

- Class Participation (30%)

Quality of discussion contributions

Engagement in group reflection

- Final Reflection Essay (30%)

Analysis of personal writing-movement connection

Specific examples from exercise experience

2. Sensory Layering (3-4 class sessions)

Learning Outcomes:

- Differentiate between various sensory inputs in writing

- Analyze how sensory limitation affects writing

- Develop rich sensory-based descriptive techniques

Activities:

1. Full Sensory Integration

2. Selective Sense Restriction

3. Memory vs. Present Experience

4. Comparative Analysis

Assessment:

- Sensory Writing Collection (40%)

Multiple versions of same scene

Analysis of sensory influence

Comparison of memory vs. present writing

- Process Journal (30%)

Documentation of physical responses

Reflection on sensory awareness

- Peer Review (30%)

Feedback on peers' sensory writing

Collaborative analysis sessions

3. Embodied Perspective Taking (2-3 class sessions)

Learning Outcomes:

- Understand how physical position affects narrative voice

- Develop awareness of postural influence on writing

- Create position-conscious narrative perspectives

Activities:

1. Position-based Writing

2. State Documentation

3. Perspective Analysis

4. Voice Synthesis

Assessment:

- Position Portfolio (40%)

Writing samples from each position

Analysis of positional influence

Synthesis of findings

- Observation Log (30%)

Physical state documentation

Emotional state tracking

- Final Presentation (30%)

Demonstration of position-voice connection

Analysis of personal discoveries

4. Physical-Temporal Integration (2-3 class sessions)

Learning Outcomes:

- Synchronize writing with physical rhythms

- Analyze temporal aspects of composition

- Develop sustained embodied awareness

Activities:

1. Breath-synchronized Writing

2. Movement Integration

3. Extended Observation

4. Rhythm Analysis

Assessment:

- Integration Portfolio (40%)

Timed writing samples

Physical state documentation

Analysis of temporal patterns

- Research Journal (30%)

Documentation of physical-temporal connection

Analysis of writing quality correlation

- Final Project (30%)

Extended writing piece demonstrating integration

Analytical reflection on process

Final Course Assessment

Cumulative Portfolio (50%)

- Selected writings from each exercise

- Analysis of personal growth

- Reflection on embodied writing understanding

- Comparison with AI-generated text

- Strategy document for maintaining embodied practice

Research Project (30%)

- Investigation of specific aspect of embodied writing

- Data collection and analysis

- Presentation of findings

Participation and Process Documentation (20%)

- Consistent engagement

- Quality of peer feedback

- Development of metacognitive awareness

Implementation Notes

1. Adapt assessments to specific institutional contexts

2. Maintain flexibility in timing based on student needs

3. Document unexpected discoveries and insights

4. Create opportunities for student feedback and course adjustment

5. Consider accessibility accommodations for all exercises

Learning to Read, Reading to Learn

Discussion about this post