Step 1. I've re-read the chapter called Coordination dynamics by Kelso ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301949127_Coordination_Dynamics). According to this chapter:

A synergy is a group of components that "behave" as if they were a whole, in line with what @theblub & @IrisVanRooij said. 1/n https://twitter.com/Lisette_dJH/status/1276132562075889665

Specifically, while these many individual components have many degrees of freedom, within a synergy these many degrees of freedom are constrained to only a few (re @PsychScientists). 2/n

Synergies are task/function specific. This means that individual components adjust to fluctuations in the environment and to fluctuations of other components to sustain integrity of function. These mutual adjustments keep the function stable (re @PsychScientists @OtherFoovian 3/n

Interestingly this stability only is relative, because synergies are ready to become something else in an instance (re @OtherFoovian @OlthofMerlijn). 4/n

This latter point also fits with @VivienMarmelat's reply about interaction with the environment, and with the discussion by @PsychScientists & @OtherFoovian about context sensitivity. 5/n

I think the border between remaining stable to sustain functional integrity and changing between synergies due to changes in the context is rather fuzzy. This might be in line with @Dobri_Dotov's comment about synergies being a loosely defined theoretical idea. 6/n

While Kelso writes: "The synergy hypothesis is [...] about how Nature handles biological complexity", I think we could also say that it is a way for us, scientists, to try to handle, describe & understand biological complex systems, cf. well-defined mathem. complex systems. 7/n

I think it's a very powerful idea to describe & understand biological complex systems, that also fits with the larger tendency of biological systems at all kind of scales to "do things together" (re @wbliekendaal, also see Kelso's chapter). 8/n

I think it's helpful to realize the huge difference in scope between synergies and complex systems (re @Dobri_Dotov). I like @Dobri_Dotov's & @OlthofMerlijn's effort to formally bring together synergies and attractors (& also https://twitter.com/PsychScientists/status/1276261476634894342?s=20) 9/n

I have to admit that it still feels tricky when to call something a synergy, or (a stable pattern of) a complex system. I tend to use the terms interchangeably regarding gestures/hand movements & speech across (but not within) papers, but the Introduction needs to cover both 10/n

To end with a new Q: Do you think it makes a difference whether two synergies are coupled, or whether these two synergies are actually one large synergy?

If you replace "synergy" with "complex system", would you think the same is true for two coupled vs. one large system? 11/11

And to invite more people in this discussion: @PAdrianFrazier @FredHasselman @NoahGuzman14 @fusaroli, what are your thoughts?