#juarrerobook — Public Fediverse posts

#JuarreroBook Ch. 7 Part 2

The remainder of h. 7 focusses on “catalytic closure” – closed loops of process or reaction that are self-reinforcing and hence self-sustaining mechanisms.

J’s first example is the Belousov–Zhabotinsky (BZ) chemical reaction, which involves an autocatalytic step (where the same catalyst is both an input and an output embedded in a loopy 4 step hyper-cycle, whereby the product of the reaction in the last step catalyses the first. Because this recursive process self-renews the “hypercycle itself becomes an enabling constraint that induces its own production and maintenance.”

As such, it is ‘self causing’. Following Montevil, Ruiz-Mirazo, Moreno, and Mossio, J maintains that this kind of autocatalytic system “still depends on externally set (context independent) boundary conditions over which they have minimal influence”. Their constraint regimes are “not yet self-constraining”.

This is achieved through “closure of constraint” which gives rise to life (and with it self-determination and autonomy).

“As articulated by Montevil, Mossio, and Moreno, the word closure in closure of constraint refers to a specific mode of dependence between constraints whereby recursion in the chain [of constraints] “folds up and establishes mutual dependence” (Moreno and Mossio 2015, 20) among constraints. To wit: Formally, “a set of constraints C realizes closure if, for each constraint Ci belonging to C: Ci depends directly on at least one other constraint of C (Ci is dependent); There is at least one other constraint Cj belonging to C which depends on Ci (Ci is enabling).” (Moreno and Mossio 2015, 20)”

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 102)

#JuarreroBook Ch. 7 “Catalysts, Loops, and Closure” Part I

This chapter (finally) moves the book to more interesting examples: systems and processes exhibiting “self-organizing self-cause” and richer mereological (part-whole) relationships.

The example is catalysts and the way they function as context-dependent constraints (reminder: the constraints that create dependencies).

“Catalysts speed up chemical reactions by lowering barriers to energy flow and thereby facilitating irreversible interactions without being consumed themselves.”

as such, they illustrate the general property of context-dependent constraints whereby they “weave together interlocking dependencies without directly injecting energy”

nb “Folding-back-on-themselves processes such as feedforward and feedback loops are also catalysts. Iteration and recursion are two such examples”

“In recursive iteration, full sequences are fed back on themselves. This looping causes processes and sequences to become self-referential; recursive iteration blurs the distinction between parts and wholes.”

“Iteration and recursion feed information from the context back into the next sequence as newly initialized conditions and constraints. Such looped and contextually constraining and constrained interactions effectively import spatial and temporal information about the world into those processes and their properties. As a result, the processes become interdependent and covary with events in the world.”

One example J. lists is backpropagation and the way weight modification in neural networks leads the system to attune to meaningful real-world distinctions

“It is important to note that recursion and iteration are possible only after temporal dependencies (straightforward sequences) have already formed in response to enabling, context-dependent constraints. That is, recursion and iteration are not possible without previously constrained ordinal relations. That said, however, when the last step of a sequence feeds back to become the first in the next iteration, the looping creates self- referential configurations and nonlinearities. Nonlinearities generate multiscale and multidimensional interdependencies.”

Iteration and recursion are “hybrid constraints”: “Both take systems farther from equilibrium ..so.. qualify as context-independent constraints. But by feeding real world information back into the process, iteration and recursion also weave context, history, and the subject’s own actions into a more encompassing coordination dynamic—the spatiotemporally more extended nterdependencies of a new context. In this role, ..they..function as context-dependent constraints. Once recursive or iterative loops close thanks to integration by enabling constraints, real-world spatiotemporal information becomes embodied in a qualitatively distinct set of interlocking relations with novel properties"

one example discussed later in the chapter is the Plaut & Shallice (1991), Hinton & Shallice (1991) connectionist model of deep dyslexia

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 90)

#JuarreroBook Ch. 6, final part

We’ve been on context-dependent constraints- constraints that create non-independence. There are two types:

“Some context-dependent constraints are enabling constraints; others are constitutive (Mossio 2013; Moreno and Mossio 2016) or governing. Enabling constraints (Pattee 1973; Salthe 1985; Juarrero 1999) are context-dependent constraints that irreversibly link and couple previously separate and entities at the same scale as the constraints.”

These enabling constraints generate “constitutive constraint architectures of complex interdependencies” which in turn do “double duty as governing constraints”.

“Governing constraints ..exert control on their components and behavior in cascades of mutual constraint satisfaction” and “tie together individual and population levels dynamics, parts, and wholes”, ..stabilizing “the possibility space” within which the behavior of individual parts “must remain for the constrained global pattern to persist.”

Basically, “governing constraints of context-dependent coherent dynamics generated by enabling constraints keep mutually dependent relations coherent. They regulate component processes top down such that the overarching dynamic remains metastable. Collective properties of constitutive constraint regimes do so by raising or lowering barriers to energy flow, adjusting timing and activation strength, as conditions warrant.”

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 86)

#JuarreroBook Ch. 6 Interlude: Game of Life

We’ve had problems seeing what we're meant to be seeing in the book's examples. This week we drifted off to one of our own, Conway's Game of Life. I'd like to continue a bit with that. GoL is fascinating, and helpful in contexts such as ours, see web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DCDRealPatterns1991.pdf

So can it give us informative examples of constraints? Here 3 examples for discussion

1. general mathematical relationships that express possibilities/impossibilities with respect to patterns in GoL. These seem analogous to the threshold for connectedness in J's button example (we didn't reach a definite conclusion on that..)

2. variants changing topology and/or synchronicity of updating, please see here arxiv.org/pdf/nlin/0405061

these seem possible examples of 'context' and 'constraint' to me. The way I'm seeing these is as external to the fundamental entities (squares) and their interaction rules. None of that has changed. But tweaking the temporal synchrony of updating, or having 'gaps' in the topology, alters the possibility space/the behaviour of GoL

So how would we describe these? (in what way) are they 'real'? are they causal or causal like? what explanatory role do they play? are they context dependent or independent constraints?

1. (now hypothetical) Imagine there were timing or topology parameters that made glider guns much more likely (instead of the "labyrinth pattern"). Would this be an "enabling constraint"? Would we be missing something without such a notion (by just continuing to point to the individual squares and rule set)? Are glider guns a ‘whole’ that we need for explanation etc?

[discussion on GoL started here: social.sunet.se/@dcm/112372763988712787]

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 79)

#JuarreroBook Chapter 6 Part 2

so, moving on... The examples were meant to illustrate the notion of context dependent constraint, specifically context dependent enabling constraints:

"Enabling constraints (Pattee 1973; Salthe 1985; Juarrero 1999) are context-dependent constraints that irreversibly link and couple previously separate and entities at the same scale as the constraints."

e.g., "The rolling columns of fluid that constitute a Bénard cell are nothing other than interdependent, coherent dynamics generated by enabling constraints"

such " coordinated and coherent dynamics have emergent proper-ties their components severally do not, not least of which is their capacity to affect the properties and behaviors of those components that make them up. Phase locking, resonance, synchronization, and entrainment are emergent properties of coherently organized interdependent dynamics.Enabling context-dependent constraints are therefore constraints that make the probability of one event conditional upon another. "

"They irreversibly generate emergent and coherent, metastable patterns of matter and energy flow"

these patterns are coherent in the sense that the "interlocking and covarying interdependencies brought about by enabling constraints hold systemwide patterns of mutual dependence together across spatiotemporal scales."

"Complex systems ranging from convection cells to economic and ecosystems form and function in this fashion" (e.g., the pendulums and metronomes swing as one; the convection cells rotate as a unit)

These "complex entities formed by context-dependent constraints under conditions of nonequi-librium are coherent and persistent. Those interdependencies satisfy the second law: energy, matter, and information flow with greater ease as coordinated interdependencies than separately."

and "such coherent structures and dynamics constitute real and novel, interactional types of entities."

"Interactional types .... are internally consistent, multiscale,mutual dependencies brought about by enabling constraints operating against a stable background set by context-independent constraints ... They are measured with conditional probabilities..and ... they are multiply realizable in distinct tokens"

"They are the outcomes of multiple constraint satisfaction, a process of continuous adjustment of rates, weights, timing, and so on that satisfies as many constraints as possible."

hence "constraint satisfaction is an important form of “causality” that has been systematically ignored by modern science and philosophy. It can explain the generation and persistence of coherence."

and "in response to multiple constraint satisfaction, components acquire new relational roles and properties" that "reflect a real reconfigured probability distribution of events in possibility space."

Such enabling constraints include temporal enabling constraints - "contextual constraints that turn entities interdependent in time"

"Complex systems are therefore historical, not merely temporal; they embody temporal constraints in their very logic. They carry their history on their backs, as it were"

"Spatial and temporal constraints.. produce indexical ordering." that is

"First, second, and third, or before and after, are emergent ordinal properties of points in phase space structured by temporally organized constraints. Significantly, this distinction is possible only because individual steps in temporally constrained sequences are not independent of each other. The burst of entropy with which irreversible phase transitions are paid marks a qualitative transition to a now temporally organized phase space. This new space represents a novel four-dimensional landscape,a new distinct constraint regime organized by time as well as space."

"Long- lasting temporal constraints and the long-range temporal dependencies they induce also underpin persistent coherence, the temporal counterpart of stability"

Finally, ...." examples make clear that enabling constraints generate coherent dynamics whose boundaries need not be tangible, material structures"

"When enabling constraints weave together new coherences, autocorrelated dynamics are“lifted”—differentiated—from the contextual backdrop from which they emerged. Hurricanes, for example, are coherent structures sufficientlydistinct from their environment to be visible from space This notion of identity is quite different from the inherent essential traits of Aristotelian and Cartesian substances. It is grounded in persistent, extended, and dynamic interdependencies among individual entities; between entities and processes on the one hand and conditions in the environment on the other; and between all of these and the past."

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 79)

@uh @[email protected] @[email protected]

Indeed this is a much longer chapter! I stopped at p. 73 for now.

I share your concern about the ontology here: Juarrero talks constantly about constraints 'doing' things, and even being a form of causality (though she doesn't say how). But her examples suggest that what she calls constraints are just ways of describing patterns that appear when certain entities interact with each other in specific organised ways. This impression is reinforced by the apparently circular treatment of context-dependent constraints on p.70: they are characterised by appeal to constrained interactions...

But then, rather than being something ontologically additional that does things, constraints are just ways of talking about features of such patterns, which are in their turn constituted by the familiar kinds of causal interactions between entities. So, nothing ontologically new, just, at most, new-ish alternative explanatory tools.

(This connects, I think, to the Deacon vs Heil discussion we had last week. Hat tip: @[email protected], @[email protected]) (Also connected, perhaps, to the traditional criticisms of Dynamical Systems Theory, when applied to CogSci, in terms of it offering just redescriptions, rather than explanations)

Though I promised not to complain any more about the general obscurity and lack of rigour, I can't help myself. Juarrero talks about enabling constraints 'locking in' (??) information and energy flow to 'real-world traits/characteristics' (what others are there? what do such constraints do that has to do with real-world traits rather than... what exactly?). Then on p.71 she seems to give 3 non-equivalent characterisations of enabling constraints in the space of two paragraphs...

#JuarreroBook

#JuarreroBook Chapter 6 Part 1 There's a lot in this chapter, and some of it I find hard to understand. So I'd like to split things up. We are now on context dependent constraints, the nature of which is to "take conditions away from independence"

The ch. outlines "three examples of the emergence of long-range correlations generated in virtue of context-dependent constraints. The first serves as a metaphor of phase transitions. The second illustrates inter-dependent dynamics among oscillators. The third is the textbook case of self- organizing, nonlinear, and far from equilibrium processes in the natural world. All three show how context-dependent constraints, operating against a backdrop established by context-independent constraints, weave global forms of order".

The examples are: 1. the phase transition of a random graph with sufficiently many links that it moves to connectedness

1. synchronising pendulum clocks on a shelf

2. convection patterns such as Bernard cells

What do people make of these examples? do they involve "transitions to a new possibility space" (pg. 70)? Do the constraints seem 'real' (metaphysically)? Is 'constraint satisfaction' as seen in these examples "an important form of "causality" that has been systematically ignored by modern science and philosophy" (pg. 72) ?

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 72)

@uh @[email protected] @[email protected] what did you think of this recasting of the epidemiology stuff in terms of contextual and 'mereological' factors? It struck me as just a terminological variant that does not add much. I'm also a bit confused as she seems to be going into context-dependent constraints before she actually explains what they are, which is supposed to happen in the next chapter...

#JuarreroBook

Ch. 5 #JuarreroBook “Why context matters- an Interlude”

To illustrate the role of context ch. 5 uses C-19 and other infectious diseases to introduce widely used notions in epidemiology: direct, indirect, and total effects of an intervention such as vaccination.

These seem to be recast as ‘effects of context’ (e.g., ‘indirect effects of context dependent phenomena’).

J notes (p. 66) “Indirect and total effects are not anomalies; they are real, but top-down, mereological effects of a transformed collective dynamic (marked by a different periodicity and different parameters). It all depends on the role context plays in some disease dynamics.

and “independence or dependence on context is itself dependent on the scale and periodicity of that embedding context. It might be necessary to look further back in time and/or zoom out spatially to reveal the scale at which context dependence kicks in or washes out. Independence or dependence on contextual constraints at each of those scales and time frames, however, is real. Context dependence is not subj., it is objective, but rather relational- and induced by constraints” (pg. 60)

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 66)

#JuarreroBook Ch. 4 goes into more depth on the nature of context-independent and context-dependent constraints.

"Context- independent constraints take conditions away from equilibrium. They render conditions, events, and processes that were equally likely no longer equiprobable (Gatlin 1972). They establish the boundaries of uneven possibility landscapes (like fields) within which energy can flow and other constraints can emerge. Context-independent constraints turn the space of possibilities in which a system’s events and processesp lay out nonuniform or inhomogeneous. They induce nonequilibrium." e.g., gradients of inclined planes, polarities, diffusion or concentration gradients, the epigenetic possibility space of an organism (see Waddington's epigenetic landscape)

they 'initialize the prior probability distribution, of the possibility space'

"Context- dependent constraints are defined as constraints that take particles of matter and streams of energy flow away from independence from one other. They weave together streams of matter and energy into the coherent and covarying pattern of a coordination dynamic. They make distinct entities and processes interdependent without fusing them into a monolithic entity"

"In contrast to context-independent constraints, context-dependent ones generate complex forms of coherence such as multiply realizable interactional types, degeneracy, pluripotency, individuation, and evolvability. Context-dependent constraints also underlie metastability"

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 58)

@uh @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

#JuarreroBook

Nice summary! What were your thoughts about the merits of the proposal?

As I mentioned earlier, I'm rather bothered by the rhetoric, unexplained jargon and lack of argumentation, which still persists in this chapter, which should not be introductory any more. Cases are briefly mentioned, e.g. major transitions in evolution, are then claimed to be examples of constraints operating, but no argument is provided to back those claims and little detail on what those constraints are is provided.

From what I could understand, the proposal seems to be the normal sort of complex system analysis of things, right? What does the chapter add to the tools of that sort of analysis?

I was also puzzled by the fact that she lists several scientific examples from several fields in which there is attention to constraints and dynamics. But I had thought that part of the motivation for the book is that science has neglected that kind of approach. Or is that criticism moved just against modern science (thus understood as the period roughly between XVIII-XIX)? Her points about space being seen as a passive container in modern science at the beginning of the chapter, followed in the end by some points about spacetime becoming a gravitational influence would suggest that reading (i.e. in XXth century science we stopped seeing space as a passive container).

If so, then I'm unclear on the dialectics: instead of being a radical revision of scientific ontology, it would rather be providing philosophical treatment of ontological views already operant in much of science.

What do you think?

#JuarreroBook Ch. 3 starts out by again highlighting the importance of “context” – which can by temporal, spatial or hybrid (includes aspects of both).

Spatial context is understood extremely broadly and includes “psychosociocultural situations such as economic conditions and social activities, as well as those physical, material, chemical, and biological conditions in which events and processes take place”

Context exerts influence through constraints. Constraints come in two variants: context-independent and context-dependent.

“By precipitating symmetry breaks and making entities and processes covary conditional on each other, constraints turn possibility spaces irregular.”

“Because numerous constraints must be continuously satisfied on many dimensions and time scales simultaneously, possibility spaces also reconfigure moment by moment in response to those multiple constraints, entrenched as well as current new ones. Possibility spaces are thus defined by their probability contour (Buchler 1977) or dynamic signature (Kelso 1995). I call it its profile.”

These possibility spaces are not just epistemic (possibilities we can conceive) but “real, bounded, and sculpted by constraints”.

She refers to phil. John Collier who identifies three pre-requisites of complexity: an energy source, gradients and interactions that convert some of the energy influx made available by gradients into structure.

She considers gradients to be constraints and interactions “can also be subsumed under the general notion of constraint” (are constraints?). The notion of ‘interaction’ here is one that goes beyond the ‘reversible bumping and jostling of Newtonian forceful impacts’.

‘coherence’ is a term for the “unity relations of complex systems like snowflakes, tornadoes, ..living things..ecosystems…cultures”

The rest of the chapter is examples of these various concepts some of which might be worth discussing

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 48)

#JuarreroBook Ch. 2

The chapter gives a roadmap of the book. The goal: the conclusion that coherence, wholeness, and identity arise from the operation of constraints. More specifically, an argument that “that complex systems, living and nonliving, are coherent dynamics analogously generated by enabling constraints”.

The means: consideration of the dynamics of complex systems which reframes notions of cause and effect, wholeness, relations, context and history.

The systems of interest are so-called dissipative structures – open systems far from equilibrium that exchange matter, energy, and in information with their environment. Such systems “self organize and act as coherent totalities in response to constraints” and “persist as themselves in a paradoxical state of dynamic stability despite being in non-thermal equilibrium”.

Context-dependent constraints induce integration and coordination that leaves marks on interacting ‘parts’ or elements in the sense of multiscale and multidimensional coherent dynamics (patterns of energy, matter, and information flow) that “transform erstwhile separate and isolated elements into interdependent skeins”.

“erstwhile independent elements from which the coherent dynamics were generated are in- formed by the constrained relations in which they are now embedded and on which they are now conditional. These interlocking relations become governing constraints that hold those coherent dynamics together and contribute to their persistence.” “These dynamics are simultaneously constraining AND constrained.”

“constraints” are factors (both context independent and independent) that shapre the possibility space of a system. They are not “forceful causes” (efficient causes transferring energy billiard ball style), and the word “constraint” is chosen to avoid the baggage of past causal language. An example is a roundabout that constrains traffic flow and to give rise to very different possibilities than traffic lights.

They give rise to wholes with meta-stability (flexible and dynamic steady state behaviour that remains in thermal non-equilibrium). The constraints and dynamics involved simultaneously span multiple scales, and allow ‘downward causation’ from wholes to parts, ie elements constrained to interact in certain ways loop down to affect those very parts. That mereological influence is “real”, as are the interactions, the wholes and their powers. None of this conflicts with causal closure, because constraints are not forces.

“Context“ includes both time and space and it modulates/co-determines outcomes.

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 34)

@uh @UlrikeHahn

Comments on "Identity" in ch 1.

"Wisdom is seeing the edges" is a thought that struck me strongly in a moment back in the 70s while I was enjoying an altered state of consciousness and listening to Pink Floyd. I wrote a reminder to consider it later.

What I meant was that what matters about knowing something is not its "essence", whatever that might be, but its interactions—how it behaves at the edges, its interface with its context. That thought stuck with me and has been key to unraveling many of the common philosophical conundrums of "identity", "consciousness", "the self", moral agency at multiple levels of organization, and more.

It's reassuring to see Juarrero coming to a similar understanding seen from different angles. The main difference in our views appears to be my emphasis on the ineluctable role of the observer in any _description_ of reality.

"Paradox is always a problem of insufficient context—in the bigger picture all the pieces must fit."
- Jef

#JuarreroBook #identity #buddhism #paradox

@uh @MolemanPeter @[email protected] @[email protected]

#JuarreroBook

Thanks for your thoughts Ulrike and Peter! I agree that those seem to be the aims of the book as stated in this chapter. However, I rather disliked this chapter. It provides a rather partial, oversimplified, and partly false historical reconstruction of many of the topics mentioned, making the dialectical setup rather unconvincing to me. In more detail: - the points about relations, interactions and context being seen as irrelevant or causally impotent fails to take into consideration the past 20 years or so of work on neo-mechanistic explanation, e.g. Bechtel, who tackle these things explicitly - similarly, the supposed mainstream consensus that cause and effect are purely a matter of energy-transferring processes does not exist. Currently (one of) the most influential theories of cause-effect is manipulationism (e.g. work by Woodward), in which energy-transfer plays no central role - it is not true that the consensus is that tokens of a kind differ only in secondary properties. Her own example of scorpions belonging to the same species denies this, as each scorpion differs from each other in many of their primary properties. There seems to be a conflation between primary properties and essential properties in her treatment. - saying in p.8 that the reason Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was controversial due just to its rejection of essence and immutability is a wild oversimplification - the whole depiction of reductionism is rather uncharitable, focusing exclusively on its crudest version, which pretty much no philosopher subscribes to today. Moreover, reductionism has been attacked and rejected by many philosophers of science already starting in the 70's, so it's very far from being anything like being the mainstream view - same for causation being only to be found at the level of quarks and electrons (actually, it's the opposite, it's difficult to make sense of causation at that level). Very few philosophers subscribe to this strong view. - there is a crude misinterpretation of the nature and motivations of Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness, oversimplifying the whole debate. - on p.17, she seems to imply that naturalistic accounts of mind are just a no-go in current philosophy. The opposite is the case. Since at least the 1950s very few are dualists, and from the 70s on there has been a flurry of work on how to naturalise the mind, with a rather broad consensus around some version of functionalism + teleosemantics today. - the ontological picture she claims to be mainstream in philosophy today, the desert landscape sort of approach, is anything but. Since the 70's philosophers have been claiming that ontology, natural kinds, etc., are legion and go much beyond the kinds posited in physics.

In brief, I found this first chapter very frustrating. Hopefully the positive view she wants to put forward will not suffer from the weakness of this first, mostly negative chapter.

What do you think?

@uh @UlrikeHahn

I see that Juarrero defines "coherence" as the property of complex systems whereby their parts are integrated and coordinated into a unified whole. This integration and coordination is brought about by constraints, which operate across different scales and dimensions to weave together streams of energy, matter, and information flow.

It's a good definition, in my estimation. I have been concerned with the question of "coherence" and how relative coherence of two systems might be measured and compared, for a couple decades now, My specific interest is in application to comparing different models of (human) values, hierarchical and fine-grained. [I often refer to this in terms of "increasing coherence over increasing context"]

The best approach I have envisioned so far is in terms of maximizing flow through a network, and I'm inspired by her reference to weaving together streams of energy, matter, and information flow. I see some parallels to notions of trophic flow in ecological networks, and a certain "resonance" with Ulanowicz's thinking on "Ascendancy".

#coherence #context #ArrowOfMorality #JuarreroBook

@uh @UlrikeHahn

I will focus here on "context" as more than the "space and time" in which something is observed to be/happen. I would emphasize that this sense of "context" is always _relational_ and is always plays some active role in shaping/constraining the perceived object system.

You may notice my use of words such as "observed" and "perceived". I may be taking this notion further than Juarrero, but I have long thought that _any_ meaningful description of a system is incomplete without including the context of the _observer_. (Often the observer goes without saying, but is always there.)

I am reminded of my high school physics class back in the 1970s, where I baffled and frustrated the instructor by my insistent questions asking for clarification of his definition of "entropy" as disorder. I kept trying to get him to see that the state of disorder must (it seems to me) be relative to the state of some observer. He never got it. I gave up and answered his test question about whether a scrambled egg has more entropy than a pristine egg in the shell, neglecting that the state of scrambledness may have been precisely the outcome for which work was done, to constrain the outcome.

Still bothers me... I'll sit down now and behave.

#entropy, #context, #constraint #JuarreroBook

#JuarreroBook Ch. 1

This chapter is stage setting for where we seem to be headed: understanding context- dependent interdependencies

“Relational types are real and coherent patterns of energy flow, structure, and activities that form locally from contextually constrained interactions among individuals and that, in turn, as coherent dynamics, constrain the individuals and circumstances from which they emerge. Reimagining cause-and- effect relations, especially mereological relations between parts and wholes, and the influence of context and history on those relations, will be the hinge on which this reformulation turns”. Pg 20

I understand this to mean that the goal is setting out a perspective that gives a proper role to interactions (as are crucial for complex systems) can reshape our understanding of what makes something ‘a thing’, that is, how it ‘coheres’ (or ‘hangs together’), in such a way that we will be able to make sense of currently seemingly problematic cause-effect relations such as “mental causation” (how can my intentions cause something) or ‘downward causation’ (higher levels seemingly exert causal effects on lower levels) that invariably arise in a picture of the world where at root is physics, and higher level properties, ‘objects’, or theories as they figure in higher level disciplines (chemistry, biology, social sciences) and in our everyday life are to be understood in terms of (‘reduced to’) lower level properties, ‘objects’ or theories of physics.

The key inter-related themes crucial to this ‘reimagining’ that makes relations and interactions real lie in reconsidering mereology (part-whole relations), the notion of ‘cause’ (as more than just billiard ball, “efficient causation”), and the role of context (space and time) as more than just a container in which entities are plonked

Did I get that right?

@[email protected]

(comment on Context Changes Everything, p. 20)

Dear fellow readers of Juarrero's Context Changes Everything, here's what I've thought up for the collective reading of the book.

1. a hashtag that I will use #JuarreroBook (to allow people to mute or follow the conversation)

2. a start date: I will read the first chapter by next Wed. and then post something on it that Wed. using this hashtag (of course, anyone can post anything any time, I'm simply pledging a schedule for myself here!)

3. some tools ....

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262545662/context-changes-everything/

1/3