Joseph, Loet -- I like to distinguish The (supposed ontological) World, which I refer to as 'actuality', from 'reality', our logical/scientific model of actuality.
As I see it, Loet would be concerned with a version of reality, but ignores the possibility of actuality, while Joseph ignores the difference between actuality and reality. LIR is a part of reality. It is a socially constructed tool for negotiating actuality. STAN On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>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 <l...@leydesdorff.net> > *To:* Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > *Cc:* fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *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 > <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>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" <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 >> > > > > -- > Professor, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of > Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > _______________________________________________ > 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
