Re: [Fis] [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
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
Re: [Fis] [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
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
[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] feedforward
Dear FIS colleagues - I have just completed the first draft a paper entitled Feedforward, I. A. Richards, Cybernetics and Marshall McLuhan. Feedforward is a fascinating concept developed by I. A. Richards which I posit had a significant impact on the work of Marshall McLuhan. I am attaching the first page of the article in the body of this email. I am looking for feedback so I am feedforwarding you the first page of the article. If you are interested in receiving the whole article email me off line and I will email it to you. Thanks - Bob Feedforward, I. A. Richards, Cybernetics and Marshall McLuhan Robert K. Logan lo...@physics.utoronto.ca Abstract: I. A. Richards development of feedforward is reviewed. The impact of feedforward on the work of Marshall McLuhan is then surveyed and shown to have influenced his use of figure/ground, the user as content, the content of a new medium is some older medium, the use of the probe, effects preceding cause, avoidance of a point of view and roles versus jobs. The term feedback is a commonly used term that most people are familiar with. Googling the term feedback resulted in about 2.48 billion hits. Less familiar is the term feedforward, which elicited only about 2 million hits less than 1% of the hits for feedback. The concept of feedforward, which I will introduce to you in this essay, is a very powerful concept that was first formulated by I. A. Richards in 1951 and which subsequently had an important impact on the work of Marshall McLuhan. The thesis that I intend to develop in this essay is that I. A. Richards’ notion of feedforward had a feedforward effect of the work of Marshall McLuhan and helped McLuhan or at the very least influenced McLuhan to develop a number of his key ideas, including: 1. his notion of figure/ground, 2. the user is the content, 3. the content of a new medium is some older medium, 4. the use of the probe as a research tool, 5. the idea that effects can precede causes, and 6. the notion that a point of view is best avoided in doing research. 7. the prevalence of roles versus jobs in the electric age. We will first examine Richards’ development and use of the notion of feedforward in his study of rhetoric and then study how the notion of feedforward impacted McLuhan’s approach to the study of media. I. A. Richards’ area of research was rhetoric, which he considered to be more than just the art of persuasion. Richards was concerned with the accuracy of human communication. He considered the field of rhetoric to be about finding remedies for avoiding misunderstandings and hence improving communication as well as understanding how words work. He believed the notion of feedforward was an important tool for achieving these ends. Feedforward is basically a form of pragmatics where pragmatics is the use of context to assist meaning. Richards considered his formulation of feedforward to have been one of his most important accomplishments. In an article entitled The Secret of “Feedforward” he was invited to write for the Saturday Review summing up his life’s work, he wrote, The process by which any venture of [a] creative sort finds itself, and so pursues its end, is something I have learned, I hope, something about. Indeed, I am not sure I have learned anything else as important… I realize now what a prime role belongs to what I called “feedforward” in all our doings. Feedforward, as I see it, is the reciprocal, the necessary condition of what the cybernetics and automation people call “feedback.” The term feedforward according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was first introduced into the English language by I. A. Richards in 1951 at the 8th Macy Conference entitled Cybernetics: Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems in a talk entitled “Communication Between Men: The Meaning of Language.” __ Robert K. Logan Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
