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

Completely agree.