Review of:
Development as Change of System Dynamics: Stability, Instability, and Emergence.
G. Schoner
Over all this is an interesting chapter that presents lucid overview of several of the key
concepts on the Dynamic systems account of development. I particularly liked the
author’s attempt to present the different flavors of dynamic systems as all falling under
the same umbrella. I have often personally wondered if this was possible. However, to be
useful as an introduction to an informed yet new audience, I think that the chapter still
needs clarification work in places. There are several places in which the terminology still
appears esoteric. This will simple alienate the readers as opposed to excite them.
I will list below my suggestion for clarification in the order that I encountered them. In
several places I have identified a few theoretical queries. I leave it open to the author he
wishes to address these in the current chapter. However, they should serve as the kinds of
thoughts that a typical reader may have when reader the chapter.
Comments
Turn off the hyphenation.. it doesn’t work
p. 1, bottom: insert: idea THAT differential
Throughout the chapter the author uses the term attractor to mean stable “point attractor”
Others, such as cyclical attractors are also possible. Perhaps this could be made clear.
p. 2, top line: “change; that is, they are
p2, 2md line: “patterns AS attractor states:
p2, line6;” changes IN the behavioral”
p2, line 7, THAT shift
p2, beginning of section2: This paragraph on the nervous system seems contradictory to
the statement on the previous page that this was not a neural model
p2, last sentence: I am not sure I understand this, please re-write. Also change NOT ->
NO
p. 3 explain what “relaxation” and “automatic update” mean
p.4 I can’t make sense of the paragraph starting “Stochastic switches…”, please elaborate
P. 5 the Amsterdam “bifurcation theory” group should be acknowledged explicitly in the
top paragraph. Also Figure 3 should be Figure 4.
P. 5 second sentence of paragraph 2 should be cut: “… are right. This can be
visualized…”
p. 6 last sentence of first paragraph should read: “ Conversely, the oscillator variables are
not directly related to neural activations…’
p. 6 paragraph 2, first sentence, the phrase “may be low-dimensional” needs to be better
integrated into the sentence structure.
p. 7 last sentence: “ will BE a theme”
p. 9 Need a better transition form the end of section 2 to the beginning of section 3
p. 9 We are told that the activation variables can span a range of behaviors, percepts,
etc… but isn’t identifying the relevant psychological dimensions of any situation the
hardest part of experimental psychology?
p.10 I think the discussion of peaks in the field could benefit from a concrete example
p. 10. An implication for the space code principle is that there is a continuous ordering of
states. So, if states are labeled a, b, c, it is impossible to go from a to c without passing
through b. I wonder whether this is actually true of psychological/cognitive dimensions.
P. 11, first sentence: curves THAT overlap
p. 12, line 3, “dynamics THAT do not…”, also please give an example of how “the way
inputs vary along a dimension defines that dimension” , define “sensory surface”
p. 13 Is there always a 1-to-1 mapping between the input field and the activation field?
p.13 Connectionist -> connectionistS. Also, please explain why it is not possible to
distinguish between recurrent and input connectionist. DFT, aren’t the direct links
between the input field and the activation field equivalent to input connections?
p.14: half way down we read that “fields make decisions”… whoa there… that seems a
little bit too anthropomorphic.
p. 15 please clarify that a bistable system is a system with two stable states. Also, I don’t
think that many readers will know what a flip-flop junction/switch is so I recommend
cutting the last sentence of paragraph 1 as it doesn’t really add anything central.
p. 16 Is it worth mentioning that the field’s ability “to make decisions” is the same
mechanism that operates in a competitive activation network?
p. 17: What does “metrically far” mean?
p. 18: This is the first mention of embodied cognition and seems to come out of the blue.
It needs to be removed or introduced earlier.
p. 18 Altough -> ALTHOUGH, also “were made invoked” -> were invoked
P. 18 What do you mean by preshape?
p. 19: Figure caption: Note THE bias
p. 20 motoric decision -> motor decision???
p. 21: figure 15: Preshape is misspelled in the figure
p. 24: Development is equated with a change in dynamics, but how does this actually
happen? What is the mechanism by which development occurs?
p. 25 In the discussion of the van Geert work, as an illustration of the dynamics operating
at a developmental time scale, I think that you should also discuss the van der mass and
molenaar work which also considers developmental time scale.
p. 30 Schoner is misspelled in ref 38.