@dcm @uh Thx, I have the (e-)book, but it is on my to read list. So I have to promote it to first on the list.

@uh Ulrike and Dimitri, I have been busy elsewhere. Returning to your excellent summaries and replies I have to make some comments on where I come from. I will reread the chapters and come up with comments later, if I think I have to say something valuable. I am a (psycho)pharmacologist from education and a (partial?) neuroscientist because I studied more than pharmacology. I am certainly not a philosopher like you. Your comments help me to understand that angle of reading the book. What is appealing to me is that Juarrero (and some other writers I studied, like Collier, Jaeger, Metzinger) leave the 'old school' approach of how the brain works behind. I think the approach of the brain doing calculations, using algorithms, certain nuclei or parts doing specific tasks etc is at least one-sided and maybe wrong. I am pretty sure that the reductionist view that what the brain does can in the end be explained bottom-up, ie the total of neuronal (and other cells) activity, is wrong. That is why the idea of top-down causation eg (and emergence and more) is appealing to me. Your discussions and previous ones on Mastodon help to keep (or get) me grounded. I think my intuition that Juarrero is on to something is healthy, but I search for information that helps me evaluate to what extend my intuitions are correct (it is stupid to deny intuitions, but they are dangerous to trust). So thanks so far and I will be back.

@dcm @UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org @dcm@social.sunet.se @uh Thx Dimitri, I have to digest your comments first. My first impression is that she did not state the affairs as you cite them. But if that is true (I have to reread in the light of your comments) there is a problem anyway in what the interpretation of the chapter must or can be.