There are several problems with the models view, I think: 1) what Joseph raised, 2) our models can contain information about the world even if they are not fully accurate, allowing for correction rather than replacement (sequential idealism, as one of my colleagues has called it), and 3) our models are seldom complete, and often not even fully consistent, so they are always open-ended and subject to revision and greater clarity; this is another major point that Peirce pressed (his article, How to make our ideas clear is a good source). If we just add clarity without external motivation, then we are playing word (or symbol) games, which can be fun, no doubt.
John
At 12:27 PM 2014-02-18, Joseph Brenner wrote:
Dear Loet and Colleagues,
In this most interesting comment by Loet, there is a fascinating inversion of roles! Laplace told Louis XV that "I don't need the hypothesis of God", something, let us say, rather abstract compared to the solar system. Loet is telling us, however, that what he does not need is the hypothesis of an external reality of energy, since he can explain 'everything' with a set of discursive perspectives, which I consider far too abstract.
My position is that I do not need the hypothesis of abstract, epistemological perspectives that are not grounded in reality. I do not know exactly what this is, nor everything about it, but I know some things and understand some real dynamics of their evolution. If a system (such as Loet's) excludes all of these as ungrounded beliefs, something may be missed in the understanding of complex processes, e.g., information.
Loet is, perhaps, closer to Newton in his attitude to his own (Loet's) system: "Hypotheses non fingo". I'll go with Laplace.
Best wishes,
Joseph
----- Original Message -----
From: Loet Leydesdorff
To: Joseph Brenner
Cc: fis
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
Dear Joseph,
The "energetic" terms are external referents to the communication (scholarly discourse). These external referents can differently be codified; for example, in terms of thermodynamics or various forms of physics (e.g., in terms of classical physics). The dynamic properties can only be studied from one discursive perspective.or another.
The ontological status that these dynamics are nevertheless attributed in your "logic in reality" requires an act of belief in an external reality that is assumed to be given (so that can enter into the dialectics of "logic in reality".)
"Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese-la."
Best wishes,
Loet
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Joseph Brenner <[email protected] > wrote:
- Dear Loet,
- I am still hoping that there will be more comments on both my original note
- and your significant emendation of it, for which many thanks. Here is my
- response to you now. I have, more than before, the feeling that you have
- agreed that LIR can add something to the sufficiency of the overall
- picture.
- Three things might make this even clearer:
- 1. You wrote:
- > From this perspective, the "reality" in "Logic in Reality" (LIR) is res
- > cogitans: an inter-human construct about which we remain uncertain.
- JEB: But LIR applies also INTRA-human constructs, that is how human agents
- change one another, including their expectations. Thus,
- 2. > The codes in the reflexive communications can be considered as the
- > (hypothesized!) eigenvectors of the networks of relations among
- expectations (carried
- > by human minds).
- JEB: Same comment as above. The logical values of actuality and
- potentiality
- of real process elements, which include communications, have the dimensions
- of vectors.
- 3. > However, this reality has the epistemological status of a hypothesis,
- > whereas you seem to reify it and identify it with "nature" (energy?) as a
- given. From my
- > perspective, this presumes a reduction of the complexity using the
- communicative codes of
- > physics and biology. There is nothing against this coding, but it can be
- > considered as one among an alphabet of possible ones.
- JEB: This is an interesting _expression_ of our different points of view. You
- see my approach as reducing complexity and reifying 'this reality' and I
- think it is your approach that reduces and reifies it!! Perhaps we are both
- right!!
- Logic in Reality does not deal with a /certain/ complexity, which can be
- associated with complicated epistemological entities or states. Your theory
- seems to me to abstract away qualitative, energetic highly complex
- relational/cognitive states that are outside the hypothesis.
- > The specific reduction to the perspective of a "sociology" of
- expectations
- > enables us to study the dynamics among differently coded expectations in
- other domains.
- JEB: If one includes, in the zoo of expectations, their dynamics in
- energetic terms, one does not have to see the 'zoology' of expectations as
- a
- reduction. It is already and remains open since the dynamics is not only
- between the coded expectations or other cognitive features but their
- critical, non-coded dynamic properties. Application to all domains in which
- there are significant dynamic interactions follows naturally. The dynamics
- of LIR, however, is not a standard non-linear dynamics but rather an
- extension of the concept of recursion as you and Dubois use it.
- As I have remarked previously, but rephrasing it now the interpretation of
- reality as involving a process of coding is something that I see necessary
- for epistemology but not necessary for ontology. The entire Peircean
- structure can be seen as a 'coding', and this makes it attractive to many
- people because it seems manageable, but I much prefer yours.
- I look forward very much to your comments on the above.
- Best,
- Joseph
- > ----- Original Message -----
- > From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <[email protected]>
- > To: <[email protected]>
- > Cc: "'Joseph Brenner'" <[email protected] >
- > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:53 AM
- > Subject: RE: [Fis] [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
- >
- >
- > Dear Joseph and colleagues,
- >
- > I owe you a reply on the last mail in which you counter-positioned our two
- > approaches. I agree with some of what you say; for example, replacing the
- > concept of circularity by saw-tooth or spiral evolution. In my opinion,
- > the
- > two arrows have to be specified instead of being attributed to all living
- > and cognitive systems (as you state a few sentences later). What is
- > evolving?
- >
- > My interest is in the evolution of expectations. Expectations can be
- > entertained by discourses (or other inter-human communication systems) and
- > be reflected (and reconstructed) specifically by human agency. Different
- > from other species, the expectations can be codified and therefore operate
- > at the supra-individual level. For example, many of your statements can be
- > considered as the specification of theoretically informed expectations.
- > From
- > this perspective, the "reality" in "Logic in Reality" (LIR) is res
- > cogitans:
- > an inter-human construct about which we remain uncertain. The uncertainty
- > co-evolves with the codification because of enabling us to process more
- > complexity.
- >
- > More specifically, you formulate as follows:
- > "I found I could differentiate between his and my perspective as follows:
- >
- > - Dubois: anticipation is the potential future value of a system's
- > variables
- > - LIR: anticipation is the current potential value of a system's
- > variables"
- >
- > Dubois (1998) distinguishes between incursion and hyper-incursion. In the
- > case of incursion, the anticipation is based on the current value of a
- > system's variable, and in the case of hyper-incursion on the future value
- > (x[t+1]). Additionally, recursion is based on using the previous state as
- > the independent driver of the system: x[t] = f(x[t-1]). If the system uses
- > its future variable-values for its reconstruction-reproduction may sound
- > too
- > biological in this abstract context-Dubois (2003) called this "strong
- > anticipation;" to be distinguished from "weak anticipation" when one uses
- > a
- > model for the prediction.
- >
- > It seems to me that the only system that can operate hyper-incursively is
- > the social system because its rooting in history is provided by the
- > carrying
- > agents. The carrying agents can thus be considered as incursive and weakly
- > anticipatory (that is, entertaining models), while their physical bodies
- > add
- > the recursive dynamic to the reflexive minds. The next-order system,
- > however, can operate in terms of interactions among expectations (e.g.,
- > formalized in a model), and thus generate a non-linear dynamics of
- > expectations co-evolving with the capacity of the carrying agents to
- > extend
- > their horizons of meaning (Husserl, Luhmann). The codes in the reflexive
- > communications can be considered as the (hypothesized!) eigenvectors of
- > the
- > networks of relations among expectations (carried by human minds).
- >
- > Among other things, such a social system of expectations is able to
- > develop
- > the sciences at the above-individual level; as a sociology of highly
- > codified expectations. Individuals provide the variation in terms of
- > knowledge claims based on specific reflections; that is, perspectives.
- > Since
- > the two (different!) selection mechanisms-at the individual and
- > supra-individual levels-operate upon each other, one can expect a spiral
- > (co-) evolution or, in your terminology, a "logic in reality". However,
- > this
- > reality has the epistemological status of a hypothesis, whereas you seem
- > to
- > reify it and identify it with "nature" (energy?) as a given. From my
- > perspective, this presumes a reduction of the complexity using the
- > communicative codes of physics and biology. There is nothing against this
- > coding, but it can be considered as one among an alphabet of possible
- > ones.
- > The specific reduction to the perspective of a "sociology" of expectations
- > enables us to study the dynamics among differently coded expectations in
- > other domains.
- >
- > I hope that this makes sense to you and allows us to move this further.
- >
- > Best,
- > Loet
- >
- >
- > Loet Leydesdorff
- > Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam
- > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
- > [email protected] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
- > Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
- > Beijing;
- > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London.
- > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
- >
- >
- > -----Original Message-----
- > From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]]
- > On
- > Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
- > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:42 PM
- > To: [email protected]
- > Subject: [Fis] [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
- >
- >
- >
- > -------- Original Message --------
- > Subject: Fw: Feedforward II and Anticipation
- > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:20:01 +0100
- > From: Joseph Brenner <[email protected] >
- > Reply-To: Joseph Brenner <[email protected] >
- > To: Pedro C. Marijuan < [email protected]>
- >
- >
- >
- >
- > Dear FISers,
- >
- > This subject was introduced late last year by Bob Logan with reference to
- > his draft paper entitled "Feedforward, I. A. Richards, Cybernetics and
- > Marshall McLuhan". I feel feedforward deserves more then the limited
- > discussion it received because it embodies, rather visibly, dualistic
- > process aspects of both information transfer/communication and the
- > distinctly human cognitive process of anticipation. First, just three
- > points
- > about feedforward to remind ourselves of its characteristics:
- >
- > 1. Feedforward is anticipatory control, the reciprocal of feedback.
- > 2. Feedforward transfers context as well as content.
- > 3. Both feedforward and feedback are 'circular'.
- >
- > Second, I make the claim, for discussion purposes, that my logic of
- > energy,
- > Logic in Reality (LIR), provides a somewhat more rigorous basis for
- > discussion and clarification of the dialectics of feedforward, better, of
- > feedforward and feedback. This means that in all complex
- > biological/living
- > systems, feedforward is always accompanied by feedback. In particular, LIR
- > replaces the unworkable concept of circularity by saw-tooth or spiral
- > evolution.
- >
- > Third, it provides interpretations for McLuhan's concept of probes for
- > studying media, quoted by Bob:
- >
- > 1. Figure/ground: partial simultaneous instantiation of the elements of
- > figure/ground dichotomies. LIR supports Deacon's view here.
- > 2. Meaning determined by context plus experience.
- > 3. A basis for reversal of standard cause effect; effects as a form for
- > feedforward leading to new causes.
- >
- > My vision of feedforward and feedback is thus as non-separable attributes
- > of
- > living biological and cognitive systems, one or the other of the above
- > dynamically interacting pairs predominantly actualized or potentialized as
- > the case may be, alternately and reciprocally. In LIR, the potentialities
- > of
- > a process are available to consciousness, only more vaguely than what is
- > usually referred to as 'knowledge'. The experience of potentialities is to
- > all intents and purposes equivalent to anticipation of them.
- >
- > I have analyzed elsewhere the approach to anticipation of Daniel Dubois,
- > with whom Loet has also worked, referring to Robert Rosen. I found I could
- > differentiate between his and my perspective as follows:
- >
- >
- > - Dubois: anticipation is the potential future value of a system's
- > variables
- >
- > - LIR: anticipation is the current potential value of a system's variables
- >
- >
- > In conclusion, and in anticipation (;-) of Loet's constructive comments, I
- > re-emphasize that as far as I am concerned, both analytical and energetic
- > perspectives are necessary for an adequate picture of feedforward outside
- > purely electro-mechanical control systems. I look forward to further
- > discussion of the issues just touched upon above.
- >
- > Best wishes,
- >
- > Joseph
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >