Back

commented on Context Changes Everything by Alicia Juarrero

Alicia Juarrero: Context Changes Everything (2023, MIT Press, The MIT Press) 1 star

#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"

@uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust Thank you for this, Ulrike!

I'll leave to the side from now on all my (many) method and style misgivings with the book :)

I thought this chapter was okayish, although not containing anything particularly novel. I had lots to quibble with, but maybe the central thing I didn't get was the point in pp.54ff that context-independent constraints are vague or ambiguous, and not deterministic. Did you understand that one?

@dcm@social.sunet.se @uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust not entirely. On one level it seems just like a description of Waddington’s epigenetic landscape (?) as the point of his notion of canalisation is that development is constrained but not determined to a degree of specificity that each individual has to take the same narrow path. But I then found confusing the discussion on those pages that sounds like constraints themselves are multiply realisable. They could be but why “must”? 1/

replied to Ulrike Hahn's status

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

IMHO

Persistent balancing acts
(ie heartbeats)

Require both:

• 1 Innate & Vage Constraints
(ie pump this blood)

• 2. Multiple realizability
(ie use any neural net)

eg
https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12914
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.010

ps: a clarification paper is awaiting to be written for the overlapping confusing definitions in philos, cogni, neuro, comp,.. terms:






@UlrikeHahn @uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust right, I don't get it either. If things like gravity count as context-independent constraints, in what sense would it be multiply realisable?
I also don't get the implied (?) relation between multiple realisability and vagueness. Isn't the point of *all* constraints that they constrain trajectories in state space, but don't determine only one such trajectory?
I think this is a case in which the book's terminological obscurity hinders understanding.