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" <l...@leydesdorff.net> > To: <fis@listas.unizar.es> > Cc: "'Joseph Brenner'" <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > 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) > l...@leydesdorff.net ; 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: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] > On > Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:42 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > 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 <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > Reply-To: Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > To: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > > > > > 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) > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > ------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
