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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de
> Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón
(CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> [email protected]
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
--
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor,
ISTIC, Beijing;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
