Re: [Fis] Fw: [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
Dear Loet, On 17 Feb 2014, at 21:32, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: 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 de cette hypothese-la." Actually, if we assume that the brain (or whatever responsible for my consciousness) is Turing emulable, (computationalism) not only we don't need that hypothesis "of external reality", but we cannot use it to singularize the coupling consciousness/realities. We still need to assume some reality, of course, but no more than anything Church-Turing universal, and I assume usually the natural numbers with addition and multiplication, for the ontology, and the same + induction axioms, for the "reasoner/observer" (already mirrored in the ontology). The physical reality emerges from the number "dream" sharing, in a logical comparable way that species evolved through genome sharing. The math leads to an arithmetical quantization, and an arithmetical quantum logic, and we can look if it emulates or not a quantum computer. All this seem quite coherent with Loet, as far as I can judged. LIR is interesting but already described an internal collective view, and I, perhaps Loet, might be more concerned with the global picture, where, at least with computationalism, the actualities are indexical views on different type of (arithmetical) truth and possibilities. Best Bruno On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Joseph Brenner > 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 a
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 de cette hypothese-la." Best wishes, Loet On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Joseph Brenner 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" > > To: > > Cc: "'Joseph Brenner'" > > 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 y
[Fis] Fw: [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
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" > To: > Cc: "'Joseph Brenner'" > 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]). Additionall
