Action Theory Resolving Problems.txt

Action Theory Resolving Problems
Open sidebar
Action Theory Resolving Problems
Model: GPT-4
Summarize: mrormanion Theory and the Problem of Action
85
was to guarantee that the behavior issued from that intention and no
other source. The idea was to ensure that no deviant causal chains occur. Mele (1992) correctly objected to this approach, however, on the grounds that people's intentions are not usually that explicitly specified. Instead, itwill be recalled, Mele attempted to explain action as the effects of ongoing intentions. However, he provided no account of causality that incorporates the sustaining and guiding features that such intentions would
require.

Viewed from an information-theoretic perspective, appeals to self-referentiality are attempts to ensure that equivocation does not compro-
mise information flow from intention to execution. Requiring that action
be unequivocal accommodates the spirit of the self-referentiality thesis, as does thinking of action as information flow. By defining action not as the effects of a special type of efficient cause, but as the unequivocal flow of an intention's content from cognitive source to behavioral terminus, wayward causal chain objections can be preempted, In part II, T will flesh out
this idea in more detail, but before doing so, it is important to show how thinking of an action as an uncompromised trajectory from intentional source to behavioral outcome-a flow whose integrity can be determined by calculating the presence of noise and equivocation-can satisfactorily
handle many of the problems on which causal and behaviorist accounts of action have floundered
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The text discusses a theory concerning the problem of action and how intentions influence behavior. Previously, the dominant approach was to ensure behavior originates from an intention and no other source, thus preventing deviant causal chains. Mele (1992) criticized this view, arguing that people's intentions are usually not so explicitly specified. Instead, he suggested that action should be seen as the effects of ongoing intentions but failed to provide a causality account incorporating these intentions' guiding and sustaining features.
The text then introduces an information-theoretic perspective, where the self-referentiality of intentions is meant to ensure the uncorrupted flow of information from intention to action. Here, action is redefined as the unequivocal flow of an intention's content from the cognitive source to the behavioral terminus, not merely as the effects of a specific efficient cause. This perspective, the author suggests, is capable of preempting objections related to wayward causal chains.
The text indicates that thinking of action as an unbroken trajectory from the intentional source to the behavioral outcome can resolve many of the problems plaguing causal and behaviorist accounts of action. The trajectory's integrity can be determined by calculating the presence of noise and equivocation. The author hints at a more detailed exploration of this idea in the following section.
1 / 1
Chapter 13 
Threading an Agent's Control Loop through the 
Environment 
Recapitulation 
In chapters 11 and 12, I postulated that dynamical process es homologous 
to those of self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium ablotic and biological 
systems are also at work in people and their mental states . In response 
to disequilibrium either within an agent 's own cognitive organization or 
between the agent 's cognitive state and other internal dynamics (psychological 
, emotional, desiderative , motor, and the like), a person 's current 
frame of mind can undergo a phase change and recalibrate to rectify the 
disequilibrium.62 
Formulating a prior intention is just such a catastrophic bifurcation. 
Since the neurological system can be conceptualized as a multidimensional 
, dynamic landscape , we can think of this process in terms of plate 
tectonics and resulting earthquakes . When agents formulate a prior intention 
, the establishment of second -order contextual constraints dissipates 
the disequilibrium by reorganizing a more complex region of cognitive 
and affective space . By imposing new propensities on available pathways, 
the dynamics of that newly self-organized semantic space constrain (top- 
down) movements within it. Through the assignation of conditional 
probabilities, some act-types (some chutes ) are eliminated altogether; 
others are made more likely. Then, and as a result of further interaction 
among the prior intention, other internal dynamics , and the environment 
, one option from those weighted alternatives established by the 
new organization becomes a proximate attractor . By entraining motor 
dynamics to its own, this pathway directs and constrains action in the 
immediate future. And so the person acts . 
But not all actions are performed as a result of explicit deliberation. If 
in order to choose among the various alternatives available, agents first 
needed to implement a decision procedure to determine whether each 
option was meaningful , any behavior would be indefinitely delayed . If 
agents first had to consider and evaluate every basic act-type A for its 
significance , efficiency , parsimony, and other characteristics with respect 
to the intended nonbasic behavior A ', they would never act. We saw in 
Freeman's (1991a, 1991b) research on odors, Damasio's (1994) hypotheses 
about the role of emotions in cognition , and even Hinton 's (1992) 
and Elman's (1995) artificial networks , that the context in which stimuli 
are experienced or presented plays a primary role in dynamically fixing 
their identification . Does something similar happen with intention and the 
way it is implemented in behavior ?
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Chapter 13 discusses how dynamical processes similar to self-organizing systems in abiotic and biological entities are also at work in people and their mental states. It posits that when there's a disequilibrium within an individual's cognitive organization or between their cognitive state and other internal dynamics (psychological, emotional, etc.), the person's frame of mind can undergo a phase change and recalibrate to rectify the disequilibrium.
The formulation of a prior intention is compared to a catastrophic bifurcation within a system. This process can be thought of in terms of plate tectonics causing earthquakes, with the brain as the landscape. When agents formulate a prior intention, it dissipates the disequilibrium by reorganizing a more complex region of cognitive and affective space. This new organization establishes new constraints and propensities, limiting and directing actions.
However, the text acknowledges that not all actions stem from explicit deliberation. If agents needed to implement a decision procedure to evaluate the relevance and efficiency of each action option, any behavior would be indefinitely delayed. The author points to research showing that the context in which stimuli are experienced plays a primary role in dynamically fixing their identification, raising the question if something similar happens with intention and the way it's implemented in behavior.
1 / 1
Intentions "Ain 't Just in the Head" Either 
Dynamical systems theory tells us that because they are embedded in history 
as well as in a structured environment , people are not independent , 
isolated atoms just plunked into a completely alien environment that 
affects them through mechanical forces. As we saw earlier, by means of 
second-order context -dependencies established by persistent interaction 
with the environment , agents effectively import the environment into 
their internal dynamics by recalibrating these to incoming signals. Over 
time, that is, both phylo genetic ally and developmentally , people establish 
interdependencies between the environment and their internal dynamics 
such that the former becomes part of their external structure : their boundary 
conditions . Context -sensitive constraints established by positive feedback 
weave both the environment and history into the agent's cognitive 
and conative states, thereby achieving the embeddedness in space and 
time that characterizes those complex systems. The way adaptive systems 
function therefore strongly suggests that, as dynamical structures, intentions 
"ain' t just in the head" either. 
Consider flies. A control loop runs directly from their feet and the surface 
on which they are standing to their wings . As a result, the fly does 
not need to figure out how to fly ; it needs only to decide what to do 
(jump ). Once the fly senses the change in the surface under its feet, the 
wings immediately and automatically flap (reported in McClamrock 
1995). So only one decision is required : jump now . The external portion 
Threading an Agent's Control Loop through the Environment 197 
maneuver, we might not even remember whether the traffic light on our 
daily commute at the intersection of Elm and Maple was red this morning . 
Does that imply that driving was not our action? Of course not . 
The picture theory of meaning came under fire as a consequence of 
articles by Quine (1953) and Putnam (1975), who revolutionized epis- 
temology by arguing that "meanings just ain't in the head" (227). What a 
word means is no longer considered just a picture in the head; it is now 
thought to be intimately associated with how the word was learned, its 
causal history , what it is associated with , and similar factors. Empirical 
evidence from other complex adaptive systems, too, attests to the envi- 
ronment's role in the way they self-organize . Whether the subject is 
motor coordination , olfaction , or auditory perception , importing history 
and context into the organism by recalibrating its dynamics is necessary 
before those complex skills can develop . Even artificial neural networks 
appear to construct semantic, representational spaces when ongoing 
feedback embeds them in their environment and their history . Figure 11.1 
captured the way the network 's pattern of connection weights reset and 
organized to the stimuli on which it was trained. 
of the fly 's control loop (what I have called its external structure ) takes 
care of the rest. 
Homologously , we can suppose that once human agents settle on a 
prior intention , the control loop of the intention 's external structure 
threads through other attractors and self-organized neurological regions 
such as those embodying psychological and emotional properties . The 
overall context in which the prior intention is located can therefore be 
expected to add its own blases to those of the prior intention . As we saw, 
Oamasio (1994) postulates that the cognitive system simplifies its activ- 
ities by linking up with the affective system. The entrainment provides 
the biasing that imposes additional context -sensitive constraints on the 
decision-making and motor systems. As a result, given a particular environment 
, some behaviors will automatically be assigned a higher probability 
; others will be ruled out. This spares the cognitive , intentional level
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
This section discusses how intentions, like people, are not independent entities. It proposes that intentions, akin to human beings, are embedded in history and structured environments. Over time, both phylogenetically and developmentally, individuals establish interdependencies between the environment and their internal dynamics, making the former part of their external structure, their boundary conditions.
This viewpoint mirrors the dynamical systems theory's perspective, which argues that the external environment and an agent's history are woven into the agent's cognitive and conative states through context-sensitive constraints established by positive feedback. This perspective extends to intentions, which are suggested not to be solely contained "in the head," but are also influenced by external factors.
The text provides the example of flies to illustrate this point. A control loop runs directly from a fly's feet and the surface it's standing on to its wings. This means that the fly only needs to decide to jump; the automatic response of the wings to flap is taken care of by the control loop.
This concept is extended to humans, arguing that once a prior intention is decided, its control loop threads through other attractors and self-organized neurological regions, incorporating psychological and emotional properties. This integrated context biases the prior intention and provides additional context-sensitive constraints on decision-making and motor systems. This process allows the cognitive, intentional level to assign higher probabilities to certain behaviors automatically given a particular environment.
The author also discusses the idea that the meaning of words is not just contained "in the head" but is influenced by how the word was learned, its causal history, and associated factors, providing empirical evidence from complex adaptive systems that import history and context into the organism's dynamics. This argument further supports the concept of intentions being influenced by external factors and not just existing "in the head."
1 / 1
Explaining Self-Organizing Systems through Hermeneutics 
Within Stable States 
Random fluctuations and perturbations are critical to complex dynamical 
systems only at instability thresholds far from equilibrium . During dynamically 
stable periods between bifurcation points , even complex systems 
follow pathways their attractors carve out. Between phase changes, 
therefore, one can forecast that a complex system will select an alternative 
from the range described by its attractor 's thickness and shape. Far from 
being a substantive prediction , however , this statement amounts to little 
more than a tautology . Because complex systems are sensitive to initial 
conditions , irregularities and fluctuations in behavior will be so significant 
that any specific prediction of the next move will be practically useless. 
And the more complex the system, the less the prediction will tell you, 
even between phase changes. Since the individual trajectories of systems 
can diverge dramatically even while constrained by a strange attractor 
(just look again at figure 10.3), explaining why a complex system took 
the particular path it did will therefore always require interpretation . 
When nonlinear interactions result in interlevel relationships like those 
described in previous chapters, the meaning of individual events can be 
fully understood only in context : in terms of the higher -level constraints 
(the dynamics) that govern them. I propose that explaining complex systems 
, including human beings and their actions, must therefore proceed 
Narrative Explanation and the Dynamics of Action 223 
hermeneutically , not deductively . In textual interpretation "the anticipation 
of meaning in which the whole is envisaged becomes explicit understanding 
in that the parts, that are determined by the whole , themselves 
also determine this whole " (Gadamer 1985, 259). Interpreters must move 
back and forth : the whole text guides the understanding of individual 
passages ; yet the whole can be understood only by understanding the 
individual passages . This interlevel recursiveness, characteristic of hermeneutics 
, is thus "a continuous dialectical tacking between the most local of 
local detail and the most global of global structure in such a way as to 
bring both into view simultaneously " (Geertz 1979, 239). The interlevel 
tacking of the hermeneutic "circle" reproduces the self-organization of 
complex dynamical process es. By showing the dynamics of complex 
adaptive systems, hermeneutical narratives are uniquely suited as the logic 
of explanation of these strange-loop phenomena. 
The logic of explanation of hermeneutics is therefore appropriate for 
explananda whose very nature is a product of that strange circle of whole 
and part. In contrast to covering laws and algorithms and deductions 
therefrom , that is, interpretation or hermeneutics reproduces the very 
logic of nature's open, adaptive dynamics. Like intentional actions, interpretations 
are characterized by strange-loop , interlevel relations and are, 
in consequence, essentially contextual and historical . Interpretations 
therefore explain by showing those nonlinear , interlevel process es at 
work . Reversing Kant's epistemological turn, which privileged epistemol- 
ogy over ontology , Prigogine 's followers occasionally make the claim 
that science operates the way nature does, with parts constituting wholes 
that in turn provide the contextual framework for those components . My 
explicit claim here is only that human actions and. their explanations do.71
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
This section posits that the behavior of complex dynamical systems, such as human beings and their actions, is best explained through hermeneutics - the interpretation of texts and symbolic expressions. The author proposes that, like complex systems, explanations must proceed hermeneutically rather than deductively.
Random fluctuations and perturbations are crucial to these systems only at instability thresholds far from equilibrium. During stable periods, even complex systems follow pathways carved out by their attractors, but this doesn't allow for substantive prediction due to the systems' sensitivity to initial conditions and the potential for dramatic divergence of individual trajectories within the system.
The author likens the process of interpretation to understanding these systems' trajectories. Interpreters must move back and forth between the whole text and individual passages, a process described as a "continuous dialectical tacking." This same recursive process mirrors the self-organization of complex dynamical systems, suggesting that hermeneutical narratives are well-suited to explain the dynamics of these systems.
The logic of explanation of hermeneutics is seen as appropriate for phenomena whose nature is a product of the circle of whole and part. The interpretative, or hermeneutic, process reproduces the logic of nature's open, adaptive dynamics and helps to illuminate nonlinear, interlevel processes at work. The author also suggests a shift from privileging epistemology over ontology, advocating for a view that parts constitute wholes that in turn provide the contextual framework for those components.
1 / 1
The threat of relativism lurking in the hermeneutic circle has often 
encouraged philosophers to reject it . By drawing the explainer and the explanation 
into its strange loop , hermeneutics appears to forestall the possibility 
of any claim to truth and certainty . If we live in a dynamical universe, 
the novelty and creativity such complex systems display do indeed signal 
the end of eternal, unchanging , and universal certainty . Unlike modern 
science, however , dynamical systems theory provides an understanding of 
both the construction and integrity of wholes that does not dissolve their 
unity at that level. According to Gadamer (1985), the resolution to the 
circularity of hermeneutics is found in Heidegger 's recognition that "the 
circle of the whole and the part is not dissolved in perfect understanding 
but on the contrary , is most fully realized" (261). 
Reconstructing the Origin We make sense of persons and their actions 
through just such an interpretive dialectic between wholes and parts. 
Consider the hermeneutical flavor that permeates the following approach, 
adapted from Rueger and Sharp (1996). From descriptions of the dynamics 
of a particular instance of behavior it might be possible to reconstruct 
the agent's character or personality and therefore the intention that constrained 
the behavior . We can then examine other examples of that per- 
son's behavior to see whether the character that these additional examples 
suggest corresponds to the personality we inferred earlier. If the test is 
positive , we reason ably conclude that the first behavior was "in character." 
As a result, we judge it to have been the agent's action and hold him or 
her responsible. 
From empirically available information of a behavioral output 1(r), and 
taking care to note any interference from noise or equivocation , the 
explainer attempts to reconstruct 1(5), the cognitive source from which 
the behavior issued. The explainer attempts, in other words , to determine 
the mental dynamics from which a given instance of behavior flowed 
and the particular intentional attractor that constrained it. The purpose of 
examining several examples of behavior is to fashion an interpretation 
of the unknown dynamics (the intention ) that constrained the particular 
behavior in question . The explainer then checks his or her interpretation 
of the agent's character by examining whether subsequent behaviors fit 
that initial (always tentative ) interpretation . 
"How does Rueger and Sharp's procedure differ from any behaviorist 's?" 
someone might object . The answer goes as follows : (1) Between phase 
changes a complex system's behavior is governed by both the combined 
constraints of its own internal dynamics and the initial and ongoing conditions 
in which it finds itself . As a result, in contrast to the covering -law 
model, the direction of explanatory primacy in interpretation is not the 
usual downward , reductive direction (Wimsatt 1976). It moves up and 
down levels, from whole to parts, from inside to outside, and vice versa. 
This tacking reproduces the interlevel onto logical process es that created 
the explanandum. (2) In contrast to behaviorist analyses that attempt to 
bypass the subject's actual mental state, moreover , the hermeneut- 
explainer tries to reconstruct the particular internal dynamics from which 
the actual behavior issued, not bypass those dynamics . (3) Wright (1976) 
claimed that only the impact of the mental event must be taken into 
account; this impact, however , could not be determined through commonalities 
across stimuli -response patterns of behavior over time. Because 
complex attractors are often implicated in human actions, differences in 
behavior are sometimes more informative than commonalities . Variations
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
This passage addresses potential criticisms of the hermeneutic circle, particularly its alleged tendency to encourage relativism and obstruct objective truth claims. It suggests that, while the dynamical universe's novelty and creativity indeed challenge the concept of unchanging and universal certainty, dynamical systems theory allows for understanding the construction and unity of wholes without undermining their integrity.
The author suggests that we make sense of persons and their actions through an interpretive dialectic between wholes and parts. This process involves interpreting a person's character or personality based on their behavior, and then using additional examples of behavior to confirm or adjust the interpretation. The intention is to uncover the cognitive source or mental dynamics from which a given behavior emerged, and the particular intentional attractor that constrained it.
The author differentiates this approach from behaviorism by pointing out several key differences:
Unlike the downward, reductive direction of explanation in behaviorism, the hermeneutic approach moves up and down levels, from whole to parts, from inside to outside, and vice versa, mirroring the ontological processes that created the explanandum.
While behaviorist analyses often bypass the subject's actual mental state, the hermeneutical approach seeks to reconstruct the particular internal dynamics from which the actual behavior issued.
The author also highlights that it's important to consider the impact of the mental event in the explanation. They note that in human actions, where complex attractors are often involved, variations in behavior can sometimes be more informative than commonalities.
1 / 1
were untrue illusions, poets the "mothers of lies." Philosophers and scientists 
thus usurped the bard's divine authority by substituting for the concretely 
and messily real the absolutely and abstractly Real . Despite his 
respect for the individual and the embodied , even Aristotle gave pride of 
place to the eternal and universal. Through philosophical and scientific 
reflection, thinkers were expected to dismiss the here and now, discard all 
indexical references , and tap into Universal Truth, which exists only in 
eternity. Parmenides had won. 
In contrast, the logical form of mythic narrative, "In the beginning ... ," 
was both temporal and contextual. Not only did mythic narrative regard 
change and place as onto logically real. Myth also recognized the epis- 
temological role of such connections : in all stories , time and context are 
the crucially necessary cues for decoding the narrative's meaning (Eco 
1990). As Proust's descriptions of madeleines and Flaubert 's of dinner 
parties also vividly illustrate, stories explain in virtue of their rich 
descriptions , which trace the multiple temporal and contextual connections 
woven into the very being of a particular event. 
Definition, on the other hand, with its eternal unchanging definiens , 
aligned itself with the universal and general , with the eternal and absolutely 
true "one," which can only be so in abstraction from the profuse 
variation of contingent detail exhibited by the "many." Symbolic logic 
and mathematics advanced this trend away from time and context as their 
abstract notations put more and more distance between formal systems 
and the messy here and now. Newtonian science and covering-law theories 
of explanation followed in this tradition. And so for 2,000 years , the 
search continued for a perfect, that is, a universal , language (Eco). 
But neither the universal nor the abstract explains the particular as such 
when that particular is an open, dynamical system far from equilibrium. 
Discarding the unique characteristics that time and context impress on 
natural phenomena in favor of universal and eternal essences , therefore , 
had an additional consequence : the very contingent details exhibited by 
the "many"-those idiosyncratic characteristics and vicissitudes that make 
each individual unlike any other-disappeared from ontology and epis- 
temology as well. When time and context are banished , in other words, 
individuality is banished as well. Despite his claim that individuals are the 
only true substance , as we saw, even Aristotle was unable to break entirely 
with this approach and carve out a scientific role for the idiosyncracies of 
time and place , or for the peculiar -and creative-circularity of selfcause 
. Philosophy in general , and action theory in particular, have been 
living with the consequences 
ever since . 
Narrative Explanation and the Dynamics of Action 243 
Chapter 14 
244 
Rehabilitating a narrative logic of explanation as I have attempted in 
this chapter will be necessary if we are ever going to pay more than lip 
service to the individual . For centuries philosophers have spoken with a 
forked tongue : one the one hand they have praised and admired the free, 
unique individual ; on the other the universal and repeatable were considered 
the only grounds for scientific respectability . Dynamical systems 
theory 's value is that it does not zero in solely on the individual at the 
expense of the context or larger whole in which the individual is em- 
bedded. Nor does it dismiss the individual and unique in favor of the 
general and the repeatable. Both are given equal billing . Many implications 
follow from this position . The book's last chapter will offer a cursory 
survey of some of the social and political consequences that flow from 
this theory -constitutive metaphor
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
In this passage, the author argues against the idea of universal, unchanging truths, suggesting that philosophers and scientists historically have substituted the "concretely and messily real" for the "absolutely and abstractly Real." This essentially dismisses the reality of the individual, the here and now, and unique details of time and context.
In contrast, mythic narratives value change, context, and time as ontologically real. They utilize these elements as crucial cues for interpreting meaning. These narratives explain through their rich descriptions which trace temporal and contextual connections.
The author then criticizes the eternal, unchanging essence proposed by definitions, symbolic logic, mathematics, Newtonian science, and covering-law theories of explanation. These entities align with the universal and eternal, abstracting from the unique details that make individuals or events distinct. In doing so, the individuality and idiosyncrasies are effectively banished from ontology and epistemology.
The author advocates for rehabilitating a narrative logic of explanation, which values both the individual and the context in which they exist. This isn't about focusing only on the individual at the expense of the larger whole or dismissing the unique in favor of the general. Both are considered equally important. This perspective carries various implications, and the author proposes to examine some of its social and political consequences in the last chapter of the book.
1 / 1
The book we are discussing is called, dynamics in action by Alicia Juarrero
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
"Dynamics in Action" by Alicia Juarrero is an exploration of how complex systems, such as human action, can be understood through the lens of dynamical systems theory. In this work, Juarrero draws on fields like philosophy, cognitive science, and complexity theory to present a novel understanding of intentional human actions.
In the portions of the book you've shared, Juarrero discusses the interpretive approach of hermeneutics as a way of understanding complex systems, arguing that it mirrors the self-organizing nature of these systems. In particular, she proposes that understanding the actions of individuals and their larger systems should proceed hermeneutically, not deductively. This perspective means that one must consider the contextual, historical, and contingent details that shape actions and behaviors.
Juarrero also contrasts this view with traditional philosophies that privilege universal, eternal truths over the contextual and temporal details that characterize individual actions and experiences. She suggests that this traditional view, which abstracts away the contingent details of individual experiences, fails to capture the complexity and individuality inherent in human action.
In her conclusion, Juarrero advocates for a narrative approach that balances respect for the individual with the context in which they exist, moving away from reductionist perspectives that emphasize either the individual or the collective at the expense of the other. This shift, she suggests, has important implications for social and political thought.
1 / 1
What do you think the difference between hermeneutical and reductive approaches would be?
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The key difference between hermeneutical and reductive approaches lies in the methodologies used and the scope of understanding they provide, particularly in the context of understanding complex systems.
Hermeneutical Approach:
This method of understanding emphasizes the interpretation of a system's components in relation to their context and the whole system itself. The term 'hermeneutics' originates from biblical and literary studies, where it refers to the interpretation of texts. In the context of understanding complex systems, a hermeneutical approach would involve interpreting the behaviors and interactions of the system's components in light of their broader context and the overall behavior of the system. Hermeneutics thus respects the complexity and context-dependence of system behaviors and is often used in disciplines that deal with complex phenomena, like human actions and societal behaviors. In this approach, the understanding of parts and whole is mutual and recursive, each aspect illuminating the other.
Reductive Approach:
Reductionism is a scientific approach that aims to understand complex systems by breaking them down into their individual components and studying these in isolation. It asserts that the behavior of the whole system can be fully explained by understanding the properties and behaviors of these parts. This method is commonly used in many scientific disciplines, especially in the physical sciences. While the reductive approach has been successful in many domains, it has limitations when applied to highly complex, interdependent systems (such as ecosystems, economies, and human brains), where the interactions among components can give rise to emergent properties that cannot be predicted from the properties of the individual parts alone.
In summary, the main difference between the two approaches is that hermeneutics focuses on interpretation and context, considering the reciprocal influence between parts and the whole, while reductionism focuses on isolating and understanding individual components with the aim of understanding the system as a whole. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them often depends on the nature of the system being studied.
1 / 1
Agency , Freedom , and Individuality 
Free Will 
It is beyond the scope of this book to examine in detail the implications 
with respect to free will suggested by the claim that homologous dynamics 
may be at work in all complex dynamical systems , whether autocatalytic 
webs, slime molds, or people. However, I wish to note a few salient points. 
Despite the numerous attempts to "derive" free will from quantum uncertainty 
, the consensus -correct, in my judgment-is that quantum randomness 
provides little support for belief in free will; chance is as chancy 
a foundation for grounding moral and legal responsibility as is determinism 
. We are no more morally responsible for behavior produced by a random 
event than for behavior that results from mechanical , forceful causes 
operating deterministically . It is just as unwise to attempt to derive free 
will from the stochastic nature of some complex adaptive process es. The 
macroscopic fluctuation around which a phase change nucleates is as iffy a 
basis for imputing agency or moral responsibility as a quantum one. 
John Dupre (1993, 216) notes that "[w]hat is problematic about humans 
is ... that they are extraordinarily dense concentrations of causal capacity 
." In light of this fact, therefore , he proposes that we think of free will 
not as the absence of external determining (Newtonian) causes , but as the 
human capacity to impose order on a progressively disordered world. The 
dynamics of complex dissipative structures support Dupre's proposal. Let 
us see why . 
Whether a system will reorganize at a new level of complexity or, to 
the contrary, will disintegrate , is in principle unpredictable . And if it does 
reorganize , the particular form it will take is also in principle unpredictable 
. Even if the phase change is fundamentally stochastic , however, 
whenever adaptive systems bifurcate, the newly reorganized regime into 
which the structure settles (if one is found ) will lower the system 's rate of 
internal entropy production even as it increases total entropy production. 
So if the system does leap to a more differentiated organization, there will 
have been a method to its madness: reorganization always increases complexity 
and renews both internal order and overall disorder . 
246 Chapter 15 
On the view I have been presenting here, imposing order is what all 
top-down constraints of dynamical systems do (Pols 1975, 1982). Whether 
in autocatalytic cycles or human beings, significance is a result of the 
interplay between the system 's own top-down inhibiting constraints and 
the alternatives available to its components . In linguistics, constraints sup- 
plied by a sentence 's context narrow the potential meaning of individual 
words. In genetics , the overall context in which a particular DNA codon 
is located affects its phenotypic manifestation . There is no understanding 
meaning independently of those interlevel relationships . 
Recall the concept of ascendence : Ulanowicz (1997) labeled an organized 
entity "ascendent " insofar as it develops as a focus of influence that 
grows in cohesion and integrity and thereby withstands the environ- 
ment's destabilizing influence . The in-house pruning and streamlining of 
autocatalytic webs are carried out in the service of the higher level's focus 
of influence . While the system is ascendent , its overarching dynamics 
function as its formal cause, constraining the lower levels that make it up. 
In that way they ensure the continuity and enhancement of the global 
level. In self-organizing, that is, a complex system partly decouples from 
the environment, from which it wrests a measure of autonomy. As discussed 
in chapters 8 and 9, the difference between the behavior of objects
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
In this section, the author discusses the concept of free will in the context of complex dynamical systems. The text brings up several important points:
Quantum Uncertainty and Free Will: Despite some attempts to connect quantum randomness to free will, the author contends that chance events are not an appropriate basis for grounding moral and legal responsibility. In other words, random behavior at a quantum level doesn't provide us with a satisfying explanation for free will, as it doesn't explain our sense of personal agency and moral responsibility.
Dense Concentrations of Causal Capacity: Humans are viewed as "extraordinarily dense concentrations of causal capacity." This suggests that humans have a unique capacity to cause change and to impose order on the world.
Imposing Order: The author suggests viewing free will not as the absence of external determining causes, but as the human capacity to impose order on an increasingly disordered world. This perspective is supported by the dynamics of complex dissipative structures, systems that maintain and organize themselves by exchanging energy and matter with their environments.
Significance and Context: The significance of a part of a complex system, whether it's a word in a sentence or a DNA codon in an organism, is determined by its context and the overarching system it's a part of. The overall system exerts a top-down constraint that shapes the behavior and meaning of its components.
Ascendence: The author discusses the concept of "ascendence" in complex systems, a term used by Ulanowicz to describe a system's ability to resist environmental instability and develop a focus of influence. In essence, as a system self-organizes, it partially decouples from its environment and gains a degree of autonomy.
The text suggests that free will might be better understood not as a state of being unaffected by determinism or randomness, but as an ability to generate order and influence as part of a self-organizing, complex system. This perspective sees free will as emerging from the complex interplay between a system's components and the system as a whole. It hints at a view of free will that is not entirely deterministic or completely random but is a product of the complex dynamics of human behavior and cognition.
1 / 1
self . 
But in a world with room for unique individuals and the creativity and 
novelty they promote, precise prediction is impossible -thankfully. And 
this is the point the unhappy jurors must not forget. Too often we long 
for Newton's simple, clockwork universe , whose unambiguous , tidy formulas 
can resolve once and for all our uncertainty. The answer to the 
question , "When will the eclipse occur ?" can be determined with astounding 
precision : "At 3: 45 P .M . on December 11, 4022." We yearn for a 
metaphysics and an epistemology that will provide similar certitude when 
answering the question , "Was it first- or second -degree murder, or manslaughter 
?" For centuries , the theories of philosophers and scientists 
encouraged such yearnings . They are blameless , however (by reason of 
ignorance !), for not having understood that such a wish can be granted 
only to closed, linear systems, that is, to a determinist universe of cookie- 
cutter automata: " answered prayers," indeed. 
In a complex world of astronomical dimensionality, the amount of variation 
even within regularities is astounding. There may be ethical problems 
involved in cloning, but producing identical copies is not one of 
them. Not even monozygotic twins are identical , either in appearance or 
behavior. It would be a much impoverished world it they were. However, 
Chapter 15 
260 
living in a universe so richly creative as to have produced complex societies 
and unique individuals comes at a price. The very dynamics that 
allowed us to evolve the capacity to wink , and even to deliberate about 
whether we should wink , also prevent us from establishing with absolute 
certainty whether someone's past behavior was a wink or a blink , or from 
definitively predicting whether he or she will wink in the next few 
minutes. 
We are enmeshed in a fabric of time and space, which we unravel at 
our peril . In part, we are the product of a complex dance between our 
innate endowments and an already structured physical and social environment 
. We are never passive in this entire process, however . Even the 
environment in which we are situated is itself, in part, the downstream 
consequence of our own upstream doings, both phylo genetic ally and 
onto genetic ally . As such both culturally and individually , we bear a measure 
of responsibility for that environment . Once we are mature and 
aware, we can self-consciously select the stimuli to which we will respond 
and that will affect what and who we are in the future . At that point we 
are as responsible for who we will become as is the environment . And 
once again, this is true for each of us both as members of a community 
and as individuals . 
Complex dynamical systems suggest, in other words , that although 
there is an onto logical difference between a wink and a blink , and my 
vote as a juror will be based on my judgment as to which it was, it may 
be impossible to tell definitively and once and for all which was which . 
But the alternative is not total ignorance and impotence . We have the 
ability both to impart through example and to acquire as an exercise in 
personal responsibility the sensitivity to contextual nuances (spatial, historical 
, and cultural ) in others and in ourselves that will enable us to better 
understand the dynamics and behavior of both . With that ability comes 
the obligation to nurture the practical wisdom with which we can make 
reasoned, reflective judgments about ourselves and the messy, complex 
world in which we live -and to act from that wisdom . 
With any luck, we might be more often right than wrong .
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
In this section, Alicia Juarrero discusses the implications of individuality, novelty, and unpredictability in the context of complex dynamical systems. Key points include:
Unpredictability and Individuality: Juarrero suggests that the existence of unique individuals and the novelty they bring makes precise prediction impossible, which she argues is a positive aspect. The uniqueness and variability that come with individuality defy the ability to make exact predictions about human behavior and action, unlike predictable physical phenomena like solar eclipses.
Desire for Certainty: Juarrero critiques our longing for certainty and precision akin to the predictability of Newton's clockwork universe. This wish for certainty can only be granted in a deterministic world, devoid of complex individuality and creativity, a world that Juarrero suggests would be very impoverished.
Complexity and Variation: Juarrero highlights the vast complexity and variability of the world, even within seemingly identical entities such as monozygotic twins.
Time, Space, and Responsibility: We are part of a complex interplay between our innate endowments and the physical and social environment. However, we're not passive participants, we are in part, responsible for our environment and have the capacity to choose the stimuli to which we respond.
Practical Wisdom: Given the complexity of human behavior and our world, it's important to develop sensitivity to contextual nuances and practical wisdom. We are obligated to nurture this wisdom, and to use it in making reasoned, reflective judgments about ourselves and our complex world.
Right more often than Wrong: Finally, Juarrero ends with a hopeful note, suggesting that while absolute certainty might be impossible, with practical wisdom and understanding of the complex dynamics of human behavior, we can hope to be right more often than wrong in our judgments and actions.
1 / 1
Index 283 
of a system, 109- 110 
ignorance acting in (Aristotle ), 16, 57 
independence 
divergence of dynamical systems from, 
137- 140 
individuals and individuation, 8, 44 , 104 , 
219- 222, 243, 259- 260 
information 
auditory , 148 
in autocatalytic and self-organizing 
process es , 126 
as cause, 94- 97 
in communications channel , 8- 9, 88- 90 
context-free constraints to encode , 136 
created by enabling constraints , 143 
entropy as missing , 77 
generated by intention, 92- 94 
generation of, 190 
historical, 8 
in phase changes , 235 
received (I(r)), 79 
at source (1(5)), 78- 79 
informational closure , 126 
information flow 
for behavior to qualify as action, 86 
in information theory , 5, 78 
from intention to behavior, 82- 86 
noise and equivocation in, 79- 81 
output and source in trajectory of, 96- 97 
relationship between outcome and source , 
81 
time stretch es in , 93 
information theory 
applied to action, 92 
constraints in , 133 
decision process es in , 77 
introduction to , 78- 79 
meaningful information, 98 
noise and equivocation in, 77, 79- 82 
integration 
relation to stability , III 
of a system , 110- 111 
See also coordination of a system 's 
components 
intentions 
act-tokens (basic and non-basic ) generated 
by, 29- 30, 32- 34, 92- 94 
behaviorist reduction of , 51- 52 
in causal theories of action , 34- 35 , 42 
contextual constraints in , 7- 8, 186- 188 
intentions-in -action (Searle ), 34 
robustness of , 250 
of individual, 245- 249 
of self- organized systems, 249 
Furley, Do , 18 , 20 
Gadamer, H . G ., 218, 219, 223 , 234, 236, 
237 
Galileo, 45 , 104 
Gardner, Daniel, 171 , 172 
Garfinkel, Alan, 39 , 146 , 181 
Gatlin, Lila, 6 , 133- 135 , 137 , 143 
Geertz, C ., 223 
Georgopoulos, A ., 17 I 
Gillett, G ., 252 
Ginet, C ., 27 , 35 , 200 
Godfrey-Smith, P ., 68 
Goldman, Alvin, 29- 35 , 205 
Goodwin, Brian, 147 
Grobstein, C ., I I I , 124 
Gruengard, 0., 53- 54 , 182- 184 , 226 
Hacker, A ., 1, 237 
Haken, H ., 20 , 144 
Harman, G ., 84 
Harre, R ., 252 
Hausheer, R ., 258 
Hayies, N . K ., 239 
Heck hausen, H ., 34 
Heidegger, J. H ., 223 
He ' ll, J., 24 , 27 
Hempel, C ., 50 , 218, 219 
hierarchies 
con text -dependent/ contex t- sensi t ive 
constraints create, 140 
hierarchical systems, 113 
structural and control, 114 
in a system, 122- 123 
Hinton, G ., 164 , 166 , 167 , 172 , 188 , 196 , 
207 
history 
absent from classical thermodynamics, 
104- 105 
embeddedness of complex systems in , 219, 
221 ,250- 255 
in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, 142 
role in modern science and philosophy, 219 
Hofstadter, D ., 129 
holism, 130 
Holling, E ., 111 
Hume, David, 48- 49 , 56- 59 , 66 , 107 
identity 
of self- organizing process es , 123- 125
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The text you provided seems to be an index or table of contents for a book. It's a list of topics covered in the book, along with the pages on which they can be found. The topics range from concepts in information theory, action theory, philosophy, and complex systems to references to various thinkers, including philosophers like David Hume, Gadamer, Heidegger, and scientists like Galileo.
Specific concepts listed include:
"Information": Discussions around information seem to be significant, with different aspects like auditory information, information theory, information flow, and information as a cause being referenced on various pages.
"Individuals and Individuation": The topic of individuality appears to be discussed extensively throughout the book, with references to pages discussing the concept and implications of individuality and individuation.
"Intentions": The book seems to delve into the concept of intentions in great detail, exploring intentions in various contexts such as causal theories of action and behaviorist reduction of intentions.
"Complex systems": The book appears to discuss complex systems at length, touching on their behavior, self-organization, and the role of history and embeddedness in such systems.
References to specific scholars or thinkers, including "Hume, David", "Gadamer, H. G.", "Heidegger, J. H.", and "Galileo", indicating that their thoughts or ideas are discussed or referenced in the book.
Please provide more context or a specific question if you need further information.
1 / 1
It's from the same book. 

Explaining Self-Organizing Systems through Hermeneutics 
Within Stable States 
Random fluctuations and perturbations are critical to complex dynamical 
systems only at instability thresholds far from equilibrium . During dynamically 
stable periods between bifurcation points , even complex systems 
follow pathways their attractors carve out. Between phase changes, 
therefore, one can forecast that a complex system will select an alternative 
from the range described by its attractor 's thickness and shape. Far from 
being a substantive prediction , however , this statement amounts to little 
more than a tautology . Because complex systems are sensitive to initial 
conditions , irregularities and fluctuations in behavior will be so significant 
that any specific prediction of the next move will be practically useless. 
And the more complex the system, the less the prediction will tell you, 
even between phase changes. Since the individual trajectories of systems 
can diverge dramatically even while constrained by a strange attractor 
(just look again at figure 10.3), explaining why a complex system took 
the particular path it did will therefore always require interpretation . 
When nonlinear interactions result in interlevel relationships like those 
described in previous chapters, the meaning of individual events can be 
fully understood only in context : in terms of the higher -level constraints 
(the dynamics) that govern them. I propose that explaining complex systems 
, including human beings and their actions, must therefore proceed 
Narrative Explanation and the Dynamics of Action 223 
hermeneutically , not deductively . In textual interpretation "the anticipation 
of meaning in which the whole is envisaged becomes explicit understanding 
in that the parts, that are determined by the whole , themselves 
also determine this whole " (Gadamer 1985, 259). Interpreters must move 
back and forth : the whole text guides the understanding of individual 
passages ; yet the whole can be understood only by understanding the 
individual passages . This interlevel recursiveness, characteristic of hermeneutics 
, is thus "a continuous dialectical tacking between the most local of 
local detail and the most global of global structure in such a way as to 
bring both into view simultaneously " (Geertz 1979, 239). The interlevel 
tacking of the hermeneutic "circle" reproduces the self-organization of 
complex dynamical process es. By showing the dynamics of complex 
adaptive systems, hermeneutical narratives are uniquely suited as the logic 
of explanation of these strange-loop phenomena. 
The logic of explanation of hermeneutics is therefore appropriate for 
explananda whose very nature is a product of that strange circle of whole 
and part. In contrast to covering laws and algorithms and deductions 
therefrom , that is, interpretation or hermeneutics reproduces the very 
logic of nature's open, adaptive dynamics. Like intentional actions, interpretations 
are characterized by strange-loop , interlevel relations and are, 
in consequence, essentially contextual and historical . Interpretations 
therefore explain by showing those nonlinear , interlevel process es at 
work . Reversing Kant's epistemological turn, which privileged epistemol- 
ogy over ontology , Prigogine 's followers occasionally make the claim 
that science operates the way nature does, with parts constituting wholes 
that in turn provide the contextual framework for those components . My 
explicit claim here is only that human actions and. their explanations do.71 
The threat of relativism lurking in the hermeneutic circle has often 
encouraged philosophers to reject it . By drawing the explainer and the explanation 
into its strange loop , hermeneutics appears to forestall the possibility 
of any claim to truth and certainty . If we live in a dynamical universe, 
the novelty and creativity such complex systems display do indeed signal 
the end of eternal, unchanging , and universal certainty.
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
This passage is discussing how to explain self-organizing systems, using the approach of hermeneutics, which is a method of interpretation often applied in the humanities, particularly in the interpretation of texts. The author extends its use to understand complex dynamical systems.
In a nutshell, the text argues that complex systems, including human actions, can only be understood hermeneutically, not deductively. This means understanding the system is a process of back-and-forth interpretation between the parts and the whole.
Key points include:
Complex Systems and Sensitivity to Initial Conditions
: The author notes that because complex systems are sensitive to initial conditions, any specific prediction of their behavior will be practically useless due to irregularities and fluctuations.
Hermeneutics and Interpretation
: The author suggests using hermeneutics to understand complex systems. Hermeneutics involves the understanding of a whole by interpreting its parts and understanding the parts in the context of the whole. In this context, it means interpreting the behavior of complex systems by understanding the individual events within the system in relation to the overall dynamics of the system.
Hermeneutics and Nonlinear Interactions
: The author suggests that when nonlinear interactions lead to relationships between different levels of a system, the meaning of individual events can only be fully understood in context: i.e., in terms of the higher-level constraints that govern them.
Dialectical Tacking
: The author introduces the concept of "dialectical tacking," which involves a continuous shifting between the local details and the global structure of the system to bring both into simultaneous view. This concept reflects the self-organization of complex dynamical processes.
Role of Hermeneutics
: The author argues that hermeneutical narratives, which show the dynamics of complex adaptive systems, are uniquely suited to explain these systems.
Reversal of Kant's Epistemological Turn
: The author notes a reversal of Kant's epistemological turn, which prioritized epistemology over ontology, suggesting instead that the behavior of complex systems justifies a focus on ontology, the study of existence and reality.
Relativism and Hermeneutics
: The author addresses the criticism that hermeneutics, by involving the explainer in its interpretive loop, can lead to relativism, where truth and certainty are dismissed. However, the author argues that in a complex, dynamic universe, novelty and creativity are more important than absolute certainty.
1 / 1
It is important , nevertheless, to emphasize that interpretation can discover 
only whether a particular instance of behavior was "in character." 
That sometimes-perhaps often-it is possible to judge someone's 
behavior accurately as being "in character," however , should not lull us 
into believing that we have achieved certainty in judging a particular 
instance of behavior . That is, when we are dealing with complex adaptive 
systems, surprises are unavoidable . Because of their sensitivity to initial 
conditions -due, in turn, to their contextual and temporal embeddedness 
-complex adaptive systems are characterized by unusual twists and 
novel turns. We saw the havoc that equivocation and noise can wreak in 
interrupting and compromising an intended trajectory . l (r) can semantically 
satisfy 1(5) without being identical to Is(r). And yet circumstantial 
evidence often misleads us into supposing that it is. Since we will never 
be able to specify any dynamical system's initial conditions to the requisite 
(infinite ) degree, a fortiori we will never be able to capture all the 
details and circumstances of anyone's life and background . Given this limitation 
, we must always keep in mind that reconstructing specific instances 
of behavior will always be, at best, an interpretation and not a deduction 
-a much more fallible type of explanation than we had previously hoped 
was available. Interpretations of human action are always tentative 
(Metzger 1995). 
Absolute certainty about either what the agent just did, or what he or 
she will do-specifically -a year from now, is therefore impossible . As 
the title of Prigogine 's latest book (1996) announces, the dynamics of 
complex systems signal the end of certainty . The exact trajectory of any 
stochastic entity captured by a complex attractor , even between phase 
changes, is impossible either to predict or retrodict precisely, even in 
principle . It cannot be predicted with exactitude in part because of the 
multiple realizability that self-organized systems support and the mischief 
that initial conditions wreak, but also because open dynamical systems' 
control loop runs partly through the environment , as we saw in the last 
chapter. The dramatic fluctuations in behavior that strange attractors 
allow make any hope of predicting a dynamical system's specific future 
trajectory a futile wish . Knowing someone is ambitious will not tell you 
what specific path his or her behavior will take. 
Since it is equally impossible to retrodict with absolute precision, what 
would a hermeneutic explanation of chapter 5's maverick psychotherapist 
Narrative Explanation and the Dynamics of Action 225 
look like? Explaining the therapist's behavior as an act-token will require 
doing what I did when I presented the proposed counterexample : it will 
be necessary to identify and describe the many details and connections 
that illustrate how the unusual behavior flowed from and was constrained 
by the psychiatrist 's intuition that the moment represented a unique 
intersection of events and circumstances. The psychiatrist must describe in 
rich and vivid detail her interpretation of the patient 's situation at that 
moment , how it had reached that crisis, the history of the relations 
between therapist and patient , the unique events that precipitated the 
crisis, and so forth . Providing a robust and detailed historical narrative of 
all the background and context surrounding the unique moment can suggest 
the mental dynamics from which the psychotherapist 's unorthodox 
behavior flowed . Describing such concrete details of the entire historical , 
contextually grounded situation allows the explainer to situate the unorthodox 
intervention in context (both internal and external) such that the 
behavior reveals itself as an act-token, that is, as behavior constrained by 
meaning and purpose. 
Hermeneutical explanations must begin, that is, by describing the mental 
dynamics from which the action flowed into behavior . Recall the earlier 
discussion on contrastive stress: "It is the presence or absence of an 
alternative in the contrast set taken into account by the agent that draws 
the line between his unintentional actions and his non-actions" (Dascal 
and Gruengard 1981, 110). This claim has the following implications for 
the way actions must be explained : a correct explanation of why X Aed
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The passage continues the discussion about interpreting complex adaptive systems, focusing now on human behavior. It emphasizes that our understanding of an individual's actions is always interpretation rather than absolute certainty. Here are some of the main points:
Behavior "In Character" and Uncertainty
: The text underlines that the interpretation of behavior can only ascertain if an action was "in character" for the individual in question. However, due to the inherent complexity and sensitivity to initial conditions of human behavior, there can be unexpected outcomes. Interpretation can often lead to misunderstandings, as one might wrongly assume that the observed action represents the usual behavior pattern of the individual.
Limitations and Fallibility of Interpretation
: The author states that since it is impossible to fully understand an individual's initial conditions (i.e., the circumstances and influences that shaped them), our interpretations are, at best, estimates. This is why the author states that interpretations are a "more fallible type of explanation."
End of Certainty
: The author refers to the work of Prigogine, who posited that complex systems mark the end of certainty. Exact predictions or retractions of the behavior of such systems are impossible due to factors such as the influence of initial conditions, the multiplicity of possible outcomes, and the interaction with the environment.
Hermeneutic Explanation of Behavior
: The author proposes using a hermeneutic approach to explain complex behaviors, detailing how to apply it using the example of a maverick psychotherapist. This involves describing the historical and contextual details that influenced the individual's actions and decisions, thereby offering an interpretation of the mental dynamics behind the behavior.
Contrastive Stress and Mental Dynamics
: The author highlights the importance of understanding the presence or absence of alternatives considered by the individual. This helps differentiate between unintentional actions and non-actions, providing further insight into the individual's behavior.
Overall, the passage continues to stress that while hermeneutic explanations provide useful insights into understanding complex behaviors, they should not be misconstrued as providing absolute certainty. The inherent complexity and sensitivity to initial conditions of complex systems (including human behavior) mean that unpredictability and surprises are inevitable.
1 / 1
the system, the more explanatory work the dynamics do; the more 
complex the system, the more the initial conditions do. Between phase 
changes, on the other hand, it is first necessary to reconstruct the process 
that drove the system far from equilibrium . Did the agent's own internal 
dynamics drive him or her to a threshold point ? Or was it more a case of 
external perturbations driving (the agent's) weak internal dynamics to an 
instability ? 
There is no one-to-one relationship between the dynamics in place 
before the phase change and those that appear after. The direction that a 
stochastic dynamical system's bifurcation will take cannot in principle be 
predicted even by ideal, omniscient observers. The precise path that the 
phase change takes-the addict's sudden resolve to "go clean" rather 
than, say, go on methadone-can be explained only after the fact. Such 
explanation must take the form of a genealogical narrative that reconstructs 
the bifurcation by painstakingly describing (1) the interlevel and 
contextual interactions that took the system far from equilibrium in the 
first place, (2) the particular fluctuation or perturbation that drove it over 
the edge, and (3) the specific pathway that the bifurcation took (as 
opposed to other possible alternatives ). 
Narrative Explanation and the Dynamics of Action 233 
Because storytelling, narrative, and drama can reproduce the creative , 
temporal process of nature in a way that the deductive-nomological 
model cannot, Gadamer (1985, 420) states that "the primacy of hearing 
is the basis of the hermeneutical phenomenon ." When we listen to a 
melody, the notes we hear derive their aesthetic quality from their relationship 
to and dependence on the earlier notes. Similarly, a counselor 's 
appearance will be meaningful to the addict only in a particular historical 
context. Stories retell these temporal, concrete , and particular interactions 
in a way that deductive-nomological explanations do not. 
In the transformation across stable states , serendipitous events carry 
the explanatory load. In contrast to covering-law accounts , hermeneutic 
explanations of phase change transformations must therefore make note 
of and emphasize the particular case 's concrete and temporal details even 
more than when they explain behavior issuing from established dynamics . 
The narrative or dramatic reconstruction of those transformations must 
describe the role random, unique events and co incidences play. Recovering 
addicts often explain their turnaround by pointing to such events: 
"I had hit bottom and the counselor just happened by at the right 
moment." As historians and novelists have long known, those singular- 
ities are often responsible for the turning points in people 's lives. They 
serve as the chance fluctuations that can take a system already far from 
equilibrium over the edge and cause it to disintegrate. They can also be 
the focus around which the new system will nucleate, if it reorganizes at 
all . Singularities are thus crucial to the phase changes of historical pro- 
cesses constrained by positive feedback and context-dependence . Across 
phases , that is, unique events playa pivotal role, thereby complicating the 
explainer 's task even more. In short, to explain not only the everyday 
genesis of prior intentions but also dramatic personal transformations , it is 
often necessary to provide a retrospective and interpretive narrative that 
makes ample references to the particular physical, cultural, social , and personal 
circumstances that took the individual far from equilibrium. Special 
attention must then be given to the unique and chance events that precipitated 
the change . Why did the alcoholic quit just now? Any explanation 
must identify and interpret these dramatic turning points. "His 
daughter , whom he adores , ran into him, dead drunk, at a bar. She had 
never seen him like that before and he was devastated." 
Genealogical narratives reconstruct the leap that the e .rplal/a I1dum 
undergoes at a bifurcation point. If I am correct and forming a prior intention 
is just such a phase change , a historical interpretation recounting 
both the background conditions and dynamics that led to disequilibrium, 
as well as the singular circumstances that precipitated a particular course
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The passage continues to explore the complexities of interpreting complex adaptive systems like human behavior. It discusses the intricate relationships between dynamics and initial conditions, the unpredictability of phase changes, and the important role of storytelling in understanding these processes. Here are the key points:
Dynamics and Initial Conditions
: The text highlights that the more complex the system, the more the initial conditions contribute to the behavior, whereas in simpler systems, dynamics play a more significant role. The text suggests that it's necessary to understand the process that drove the system away from equilibrium before predicting the behavior between phase changes.
Unpredictability of Phase Changes
: The author notes that there isn't a one-to-one relationship between the dynamics before a phase change and those that appear after. The direction a stochastic dynamical system will take during a bifurcation (or phase change) cannot be predicted, even by an omniscient observer. This can only be explained retrospectively.
Narrative Explanation
: The passage emphasizes the importance of narrative in explaining these complex processes. Hermeneutic explanations, according to the author, should include genealogical narratives that describe the interactions, fluctuations, and specific pathways that led to the phase change.
The Role of Serendipitous Events
: The text discusses the significant role that random, unique events and coincidences play in transformations between stable states. For example, a recovering addict may attribute their turnaround to a serendipitous event. The author asserts that these unique events are critical to phase changes in historical processes.
Retrospective and Interpretive Narrative
: The author argues that to understand not only the everyday formation of intentions but also significant personal transformations, we must provide a narrative that references the specific circumstances that took the individual away from equilibrium. Special attention must be given to unique and chance events that precipitated change.
Genealogical Narratives
: The author suggests that genealogical narratives can help understand the leap that an entity undergoes at a bifurcation point. This would require an interpretation that recounts the background conditions and dynamics that led to disequilibrium, as well as the unique circumstances that precipitated a particular course.
In summary, the passage highlights the complexities of understanding human behavior and the crucial role of narrative, unique events, and context in interpreting these complex processes.
1 / 1
Tiesman, and Charles Bovary drive Nora, Hedda, and Emma to the edge. 
David Lewis's Logic of Explanation 
Hermeneutic interpretation , within a narrative framework , thus comes 
closest to the logic of explanation advocated by David Lewis (1973a). 
Twenty -five years or so ago, Lewis argued that causes should be analyzed 
in terms of counterfactuals : if x had not occurred, y would not have. 
Despite the potential objection , "What underwrites the counterfactual 
itself if not causality?" thinking of y in terms of its dependence on x can be 
helpful , as we saw with the concepts of equivocation and noise, incapturing 
the way meaning flows from intention into action. Remark ably, however 
, neither Lewis's ideas on cause nor Wesley Salmon's (1977) claim 
that a cause is whatever transmits a mark has found its way into mainstream 
philosophy 's literature on action . 
The Explainer 
In the nineteenth century , hermeneutics attempted to emulate the method 
of the natural sciences of the period , "the conquest of mythos by logos" 
(Gadamer 1985, 242). As was true of the natural sciences and philosophy 
of the time, experimenters and thinkers claimed to be able to detach 
themselves from the object of experimentation or analysis. In Schleier- 
macher's words , the goal of textual interpretation was "to understand a 
writer better than he understood himself " (quoted in Gadamer, 160), a 
result purportedly achievable through the application of a "canon of 
grammatical and psychological rules of interpretation " (163). Hence the 
desire to formulate accurate methodological principles that, when applied 
to the obscure object, would render it transparent . Correct hermeneutical 
interpretation , in other words , would approach the deductive -nomological 
limit . 
Complete understanding would be achieved by effectively detaching 
the interpreter from the object, text, or behavior under scrutiny . Hence 
the claim of nineteenth -century hermeneutics to objective knowledge : 
interpreters do not interpret ; like a clear mirror they simply reflect what is 
all there, always and objectively , in the text . Nineteenth -century hermeneutics 
thus shared with Newtonian science and modern philosophy the 
goal of achieving objective , certain, universal knowledge by escaping the 
constraints of time and other "anthropological considerations ." As unwit- 
Chapter 14 
236 
If causes are conceptualized in terms of counterfactuals-if x hadn 't 
been , y would not have , determining that y depended on , x, which in turn 
depended on lV, and so forth -an explanation will explain by retracing 
the phenomenon's entire historical trajectory. Providing a genealogical or 
historical narrative tracks all those dependencies . But if the dependencies 
are due , not to external forces impacting on objects , but to those contextual 
constraints that weave the phenomena and process es together into 
systematic wholes and then take those very wholes far from equilibrium 
and over the edge into a new regime , tracing that genealogy will not 
proceed in a simple straight line . A full -bodied historical and interpretive 
explanation will require a concrete and detailed narrative that describes 
all of those interrelationships. A complete and correct explanation must 
reconstruct the entire historical and contextual bramble bush , which it will 
do by taking full advantage of the polysemy of narrative or reenactment 
to describe the many temporal and spatial interconnections involved. 
When it comes to explaining the details of the paths we take , uncharacteristic 
behavior , or especially those dramatic turning points in our 
lives , Proust and Ibsen will therefore always trump Hume and Hempel
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
This part of the text continues the discussion about how complex systems, such as human behavior, are interpreted and explained, arguing that the explanation needs to take into account the historical, contextual, and singular elements of the system in question. Here are the main points discussed:
David Lewis's Logic of Explanation
: The author discusses David Lewis's perspective that causes should be thought of in terms of counterfactuals - the idea that if one thing hadn't happened, another thing wouldn't have happened. This approach can be beneficial in understanding how meaning flows from intention to action. However, these ideas have not found their way into mainstream philosophical literature on action.
Hermeneutic Interpretation
: The author then delves into the history of hermeneutics, noting its attempts to mirror the method of the natural sciences of the nineteenth century, striving to achieve objective knowledge. However, this approach also tried to detach the interpreter from the object, text, or behavior being analyzed, aiming for a clear reflection of the object itself rather than an interpretation.
The Explainer
: The author critiques this approach, arguing that it oversimplifies the process of interpretation. In reality, understanding complex systems requires reconstructing the entire historical and contextual 'bramble bush' - all the interrelationships and dependencies that contribute to the system's behavior.
Historical Narrative and Context
: If the dependencies are due to contextual constraints and not just to external forces, the process of tracing the system's genealogy becomes more complicated. A complete explanation requires a detailed narrative that encompasses all these elements, providing a full-bodied historical and interpretive account of the system.
The Primacy of Narrative
: Finally, the author posits that when it comes to explaining intricate behaviors or significant turning points in our lives, the narrative method will always trump a more deductive approach. The author suggests that the depth and richness of narrative or dramatic reenactment is more capable of capturing the complex interrelationships involved in human behavior. This position values the insights of artists like Proust and Ibsen over philosophers like Hume and Hempel.
In sum, the text advocates for an approach to explanation that involves a detailed narrative encompassing all the historical, contextual, and singular elements of the system in question, suggesting that this is the most effective way to understand complex systems such as human behavior.
1 / 1
A list of all of the topics we have discussed
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Here's a summary of the main topics we've discussed based on your series of text excerpts:
Complex Systems and Phase Changes
: We've discussed the idea of complex systems and how their behavior can change dramatically at certain 'threshold points' or phase changes. These phase changes may be driven by either internal dynamics or external perturbations, and the role of these drivers can vary depending on the complexity of the system.
Stochastic Dynamical Systems and Bifurcation
: The specific direction that a stochastic dynamical system's bifurcation (splitting or branching) will take cannot be predicted, even by an ideal observer. This unpredictability introduces a significant element of complexity into the behavior of these systems.
Narrative Explanation and Hermeneutics
: We've examined the importance of narrative explanation and the hermeneutic method of interpretation in understanding complex systems. These techniques emphasize the importance of historical context, singular events, and temporal details in interpreting system behavior.
Counterfactuals and Dependency
: We've discussed David Lewis's idea that causality should be considered in terms of counterfactuals, and how this idea can help to understand dependencies within complex systems.
Genealogical Narratives
: We've delved into the role of genealogical narratives in reconstructing the history of a system's behavior, particularly at points of phase change or bifurcation. These narratives can help to illuminate the complex interplay of factors that drive system behavior.
Role of the Interpreter
: We've talked about the role of the interpreter in understanding complex systems, contrasting the detached perspective of traditional natural science and 19th-century hermeneutics with the more engaged and contextual approach advocated in the text.
Contextual Constraints and Historical Trajectory
: The explanation of a phenomenon involves tracing its historical trajectory and understanding the interrelationships and dependencies formed by contextual constraints.
The Primacy of Narrative
: The author stresses the importance of narrative methods in understanding complex behaviors and major life changes, suggesting that the depth and nuance of narrative or reenactment can capture the complex interconnections involved in human behavior. This highlights the value of literary and dramatic insights over traditional philosophical perspectives.
This is an overarching summary of the topics discussed. Each of these topics are interconnected, illustrating the complexities and intricacies involved in understanding and explaining complex systems, particularly as they pertain to human behavior and historical process.
1 / 1
The author recently wrote a book called Context changes everything
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
As an AI developed by OpenAI, I have knowledge only up until September 2021 and I don't have the ability to search the internet in real-time, so I don't have information about any book titled "Context Changes Everything" written after that time.
However, given our discussion and the excerpts from the text you've shared, it's reasonable to infer that such a book by this author might explore themes like the following:
The Impact of Context
: The book could delve into how different elements of context (e.g., historical, social, cultural) can drastically alter the interpretation and understanding of events or actions.
Interpretation and Understanding
: Drawing from hermeneutic tradition, the book may explore how interpretations of actions, behaviors, or events can shift based on the context in which they occur. It might argue that gaining a full understanding of any event or action requires considering it in its full context.
Complex Systems and Context
: The author could expand on how context influences the behavior of complex systems. This could include discussions of phase changes, bifurcation, and the role of external perturbations.
Narrative Explanation
: The book might further explore the idea of using narratives to explain events or behaviors, emphasizing the importance of temporal and spatial details, and singular events in these narratives.
Context and Change
: The author could discuss how changes in context can lead to dramatic changes in system behavior, including bifurcations or phase changes.
The Role of the Interpreter
: Building on the idea of context, the book might delve deeper into the role of the interpreter in understanding and explaining complex systems, discussing the importance of considering context in this role.
If you can provide more details about the book or the specific themes or questions it addresses, I'd be happy to provide more detailed analysis or explanation based on the information available up until my last training cut-off in September 2021.
1 / 1
Context Changes Everything 
How Constraints Create Coherence
By Alicia Juarrero

$45.00
Paperback
eBook
296 pp., 6 x 9 in, 2 b&w illus.

Paperback
9780262545662
Published: June 20, 2023
Publisher: The MIT Press
Description
From the influential author of Dynamics in Action, how the concepts of constraints provide a way to rethink relationships, opening the way to intentional, meaningful causation.

Grounding her work in the problem of causation, Alicia Juarrero challenges previously held beliefs that only forceful impacts are causes. Constraints, she claims, bring about effects as well, and they enable the emergence of coherence. In Context Changes Everything, Juarrero shows that coherence is induced by enabling constraints, not forceful causes, and that the resulting coherence is then maintained by constitutive constraints. Constitutive constraints, in turn, become governing constraints that regulate and modulate the way coherent entities behave. Using the tools of complexity science, she offers a rigorously scientific understanding of identity, hierarchy, and top-down causation, and in so doing, presents a new way of thinking about the natural world.

Juarrero argues that personal identity, which has been thought to be conferred through internal traits (essential natures), is grounded in dynamic interdependencies that keep coherent structures whole. This challenges our ideas of identity, as well as the notion that stability means inflexible rigidity. On the contrary, stable entities are brittle and cannot persist. Complexity science, says Juarrero, can shape how we meet the world, how what emerges from our interactions finds coherence, and how humans can shape identities that are robust and resilient. This framework has significant implications for sociology, economics, political theory, business, and knowledge management, as well as psychology, religion, and theology. It points to a more expansive and synthetic philosophy about who we are and about the coherence of living and nonliving things alike.
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Based on this description of Alicia Juarrero's book "Context Changes Everything: How Constraints Create Coherence," we can deduce the following key points that the book might discuss:
The Role of Constraints in Causation
: The author challenges the traditional notion of causation as solely based on direct, forceful impacts. Instead, she proposes that constraints (rules, regulations, limitations, etc.) also play a crucial role in bringing about effects.
Emergence and Maintenance of Coherence
: Juarrero argues that coherence, or the logical and consistent interconnection of parts in any system, is induced by enabling constraints. Furthermore, this coherence is maintained by constitutive constraints, which eventually become governing constraints that modulate the behavior of coherent entities.
Identity through Interdependencies
: The book seems to redefine personal identity not as something derived solely from internal traits, but as something grounded in dynamic interdependencies that hold
1 / 1
Continue
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
coherent structures together. This perspective may challenge traditional conceptions of identity as stable, rigid, and inflexible. Instead, Juarrero argues that truly stable entities are not rigid but rather resilient and capable of persisting through change.
The Impact of Complexity Science
: Juarrero believes that complexity science can provide a new framework for understanding the world, human interactions, and the formation of robust identities. This perspective might pave the way for more integrated and interdisciplinary ways of understanding various fields, ranging from sociology and economics to psychology and theology.
Broader Implications
: The idea of understanding identity and causation through the lens of complexity science and constraints has profound implications across various disciplines. By proposing a new way of understanding causation and coherence, Juarrero potentially introduces novel perspectives to fields such as sociology, economics, political theory, business, knowledge management, psychology, religion, and theology.
Synthetic Philosophy
: The book seems to aim for a more expansive and synthetic philosophy that can address not only our understanding of our own identities but also the coherence of both living and nonliving entities.
In summary, "Context Changes Everything" seems to focus on the idea that constraints and complexity science have a significant role in explaining causation, coherence, and identity. It attempts to provide a new framework to understand these concepts, potentially leading to novel insights across various disciplines.
1 / 1
It seems she discussed some of the same topics: Contextual Constraints and Historical Trajectory: The explanation of a phenomenon involves tracing its historical trajectory and understanding the interrelationships and dependencies formed by contextual constraints.
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Yes, from your description and the summary of the book "Context Changes Everything", it's clear that some overarching themes and ideas appear both in the book and in your initial excerpt. These include:
Role of Contextual Constraints
: Both discussions emphasize the role of contextual constraints in shaping outcomes. In the case of the book, Juarrero discusses how enabling constraints induce coherence, while in your excerpt, the author explores how contextual interactions contribute to the system's trajectory, taking it far from equilibrium and potentially leading to bifurcations or phase changes.
Historical Trajectory and Dependencies
: Both sources emphasize the importance of understanding the historical trajectory of a system or phenomenon and the dependencies formed along that trajectory. In the book, Juarrero emphasizes the role of constraints in creating coherence, which is maintained by constitutive constraints. Similarly, in the excerpt, the author highlights the importance of retracing a phenomenon's historical trajectory to provide a genealogical or historical narrative that encapsulates its dependencies.
Identity and Transformation
: Both discussions explore the theme of identity and its transformation. In your excerpt, the author talks about genealogical narratives that can reconstruct the dramatic transformation of an individual, especially in cases like addiction. Juarrero, in her book, challenges traditional ideas of personal identity as conferred through internal traits and proposes that it is grounded in dynamic interdependencies that keep coherent structures whole.
Complexity Science
: In both the book and your excerpt, complexity science is used as a lens to understand and interpret phenomena. In your excerpt, the author discusses the unpredictability of complex systems and the role of stochastic dynamics. Juarrero's book also draws on complexity science to provide a novel understanding of identity, hierarchy, and top-down causation.
It's clear that both sources approach similar topics, albeit from potentially different angles and with different foci. They share a common emphasis on the importance of contextual constraints, historical trajectories, and the insights offered by complexity science in understanding and explaining phenomena.
1 / 1
A list of everything we have talked about so far.
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Absolutely! Here's a summary of all the topics we've covered in our discussion so far:
Complex Systems and Phase Changes
: We discussed how complex systems can reach thresholds or bifurcation points leading to phase changes. These can be driven by the system's internal dynamics or by external perturbations.
Stochastic Dynamics and Predictability
: We talked about the inherent unpredictability in the direction of bifurcation in a stochastic dynamical system, even for an ideal, omniscient observer.
Narrative Explanations
: We explored how narrative or genealogical explanations are often necessary to understand dramatic personal transformations or system phase changes, particularly those driven by unique or chance events.
Counterfactuals and Causation
: We touched on the idea proposed by David Lewis that causes can be analyzed in terms of counterfactuals. This perspective can be useful in understanding how meaning flows from intention into action.
Hermeneutic Interpretation
: We discussed the role of hermeneutic interpretation within a narrative framework as a way of understanding the context-dependent and historically contingent nature of phenomena.
Contextual Constraints and Historical Trajectory
: We delved into the idea that the explanation of a phenomenon involves tracing its historical trajectory and understanding the interrelationships and dependencies formed by contextual constraints.
Alicia Juarrero's Book "Context Changes Everything"
: We talked about this book, which discusses many of the themes we've touched on, including the role of constraints in creating and maintaining coherence, the importance of tracing historical trajectories, the role of complexity science, and a novel understanding of personal identity.
Comparing Topics in Excerpt and Juarrero's Book
: We compared the themes and ideas from the excerpt you provided and Juarrero's book, identifying commonalities such as the role of contextual constraints, historical trajectory, and the perspective of complexity science.
1 / 1
The title of the conservation is Action theory resolving problems
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Based on our discussion, it's clear that we've touched on several aspects of action theory and how it can help resolve complex problems. We've looked into the dynamics of complex systems and their impact on actions, the role of unique or random events in causing dramatic personal transformations, and the necessity for narrative or interpretive explanations in understanding such transformations.
We've also explored how causality can be understood in terms of counterfactuals as per David Lewis's proposal and discussed the crucial role of hermeneutic interpretation in understanding the context-dependent and historically contingent nature of phenomena.
Additionally, we reviewed Alicia Juarrero's book "Context Changes Everything," which introduces novel perspectives on action theory based on complexity science and the idea of constraints, which offers fresh ways of understanding personal identity and the coherence of both living and nonliving things.
Overall, these discussions give us a deeper insight into action theory and its potential in resolving complex problems through better understanding of the dynamics, context, and history of actions.
1 / 1
Action theory (or theory of action) is an area in philosophy concerned with theories about the processes causing willful human bodily movements of a more or less complex kind. This area of thought involves epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, jurisprudence, and philosophy of mind, and has attracted the strong interest of philosophers ever since Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Third Book). With the advent of psychology and later neuroscience, many theories of action are now subject to empirical testing.

Philosophical action theory, or the philosophy of action, should not be confused with sociological theories of social action, such as the action theory established by Talcott Parsons. Nor should it be confused with activity theory.
1 / 1
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
That's correct, action theory in philosophy is indeed concerned with the processes causing purposeful human movements. This theory is primarily concerned with the 'why' and 'how' of our actions, the understanding of what triggers or influences human behavior, and the intended and unintended consequences of our actions. This knowledge is valuable across numerous disciplines including law, ethics, and artificial intelligence.
The philosophical approach to action theory often involves the exploration of concepts such as free will, intentionality, and motivation. It seeks to answer questions like: What does it mean to act intentionally? How do we distinguish between deliberate and accidental actions? How does our consciousness influence our actions? And so on.
As you rightly noted, philosophical action theory differs from sociological theories of action, which focus more on the societal and group-level factors influencing individual behavior, as well as activity theory, which emphasizes the interaction between the individual and their environment. These theories, while related in some ways, each have distinct focuses and applications.
1 / 1
ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.
ChatGPT May 24 Version
ChatGPT