@dcm@bookwyrm.social @UlrikeHahn @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

I like the term “constraint satisfaction” as it captures how conditions/experience can move an individual toward a regulated state (not unlike the synchronizing clocks).

cf: Blair describes causal role of SES, cortisone, etc., in emotional reactivity, school readiness.

Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobio conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. The Amer Psych, 57, 111-127.

@dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh Dylan, I like the notion of constraint satisfaction in many contexts, but I think my specific problem here with these three examples is identifying what exactly *is* the constraint and what is its nature.

@UlrikeHahn @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

I think I understand this difficulty. Not easy to describe a constraint... What caused your window to blow in, a specific wind or the entire storm? Any attempt to explain needs to account the big-picture storm, but then the explanation smacks of description.

Solution?.. I think the value of group discussion is that each of you brings diverse experience that can help all to "pan out" via concrete examples.

The Blair article is brilliant, btw.

@UlrikeHahn @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

Back to the clocks... Any one of the clocks cannot continue to do just what it was doing because the other clocks create conditions (constraints) that keep it from doing so. That is, the other clocks are "canalizing" the behaviour of the clock in question.

@UlrikeHahn @dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @uh @dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @UlrikeHahn @NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @uh The worry raised by critics of DST in CogSci is that talk of constraints, etc., is at best a shorthand for referring to complex causal relations, and only the latter do the real causal work.

To be clear, I don't endorse that view, at least not in general, as I think that pluralism about forms of explanation is the way to go.

@UlrikeHahn @dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @uh However, pluralism does not mean anything goes, and we need to try and figure out which explanations are appropriate for what and for what purposes.

DST explanations may be mere redescriptions in some cases, but may be good explanations in others. They need not exclude mechanistic explanations. On the contrary, they may complement each other, with the latter providing an explanation for why those dynamics arise, etc.

@UlrikeHahn @dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @uh on Ulrike's point about what counts as 'object' and what as 'constraint', I think this is a matter of explanatory needs, perspective, etc. But such a relativistic view seems at odds with Juarrero's project. As I understand it, she wants to claim that constraints are there in the 'fabric' of the universe. If so, then we get the issues you point out, especially given J.'s vagueness.

@dcm@social.sunet.se @UlrikeHahn @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @uh

For the record, I agree with Juerrero -- and like the way you've put it -- that constraints are there in the 'fabric' of the universe. I'd further offer that constraints coordinate to provide (all?) species-typical experience, but would also acknowledge that, like affordances, constraints for one species may not be constraints for a different species.

@dsmith @dcm@social.sunet.se @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @awaisaftab @uh Dylan, I personally don’t have a prior investment into the metaphysical status of constraints (in what way they are real or not) at all, and am totally happy to be convinced either way. My problem at the moment is that I feel like the examples aren’t (yet) clear enough to me one way or the other and the exposition in the book is still too fuzzy for me to really be able to work with….

1/2

@UlrikeHahn @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

These are excellent questions. A pragmatist might say that investigators have a choice to parcel the system however they please into levels for study, and that context is all that which is internal/external and deemed to factor.

@dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh agreed, but I’m with Dmitri here (and also @jef ‘s early comments on observers): that’s not the story the book is trying to tell. The claims of the book are much stronger. That makes them really interesting, but it also means they really need to be supported

@UlrikeHahn @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

I see. That alone is v. interesting!