Reply to comment

 I take KT's definition of  "complication" within her argument to mean an addition of something with a negative connotation, but I'm not sure that "addition" is the right way to look at a "complication." In Dennet's algorithms, the more a process is broken down into its components, the easier it is to yield a certain result (because there's less room for interpretation). But what KT seems to be arguing is that addition equals more room for interpretation. Given that Dennet focuses on algorithms and their numerous components (or complications, if you take "complication" to be aligned with "addition") in a positive, useful way,  I would think that he defines "complication" in a different way. Perhaps he means to define complication as a deficit or a taking away; when something is taken out of the equation, I think there's more room to mess up the algorithm, more room to interpret, more room to "complicate" an ever-changing process.