‘To understand something is to stand under it, so that you may foster its development.”

Heinz von Foerster

" is a difference that makes a difference (G. Bateson, 1972, p. 315), and what it ‘‘does’’ or what it means is thus dependent on what is already in place and what alternatives are being distinguished."

(S. Oyama, 2000, p. 3)
dukeupress.edu/The-Ontogeny-of

Or, as more clearly defined in : is the difference between the results of -based (function A) and the (function B) of sensory inputs that will make a difference once integrated into a new knowledge of the dynamical (learning) system.

This brilliant essay by Robert Lawrence Kuhn (@CloserToTruth) about the *landscape* of all the **theories of consciousness** is a highly recommended reading for anyone interested in such things.

closertotruth.com/news/a-lands

Most theories of start with while a proper way to address any neural theory of consciousness should be as a science because the primary function of the nervous system is not to process information but to control the body.

Most control is internal to the system, a distributed, analog, homeostatic ***unconscious*** 1️⃣ of essential internal variables that are keeping the body alive and well. None of the mechanisms on this level "cares" about what is happening outside of the body.

Only on the next level do we find the kind of information necessary for the rate-dependent negative mechanisms 2️⃣ keeping some *external* controlled variables within limits engaging (through the use of regulators) in performing whole-body actions (behavior) in the immediate environment. Those actions can be conducted either ***consciously or unconsciously***.

Finally, on the highest level, we have the rate-independent, open loop always ***conscious*** 3️⃣ maintaining the long-term goals and providing stability and direction to the lower level of control that will plan, implement, and track the fulfillment of those goals.

Show thread

*Terrence W. Deacon* writes beautifully about this conundrum:

royalsocietypublishing.org/doi

I have a somewhat different position on his second statement, however.

I think there **is** a self that determines **how** the system responds to an external perturbation.

Show thread

A system doesn't ***feed*** on (or ) from the environment it has to ***create*** it.

You can't get your desk organized by just acquiring some order from the environment. You have to do some and use some of your . Schrödinger admits as much:

Show thread

1️⃣ Kihbernetic with
2️⃣ fundamental : a recursive self-production for growth and learning, and a linear production of "other things", such as behavior and waste, distributed in
3️⃣ Control , of , immersed in, and dealing with things in the system's environment, for managing the workload of different regulators, and to provide long-term goals and preserve the identity of the system, all using
4️⃣ : sensory of data and other resources, motor of behavior, as the difference that will make a difference in the subsequent (updated) state, all interconnecting
5️⃣ : the -ed to external stimuli, the of sensory states, the of the expected outcome of past behavior, and the repeated of new information into an updated knowledge state.

A 3D of a natural can be visualized as created from the interaction of 2D made of and of that modulate (change the form of or constrain) each other, leaving a 1D as a record of how their interaction unfolds in .

All must be open-ended. The learning agent (the ) must have the to set its own learning goals as well as plan and execute a of activities to achieve these goals.

One can never learn *all existing data* but rather refine their understanding of the data that is available to them. As true for human intelligence, you can either have "deep and narrow" specialized agents or "average and broad" . You can't have both in the same entity. Time and "limitation" are the main inspirations for and between learning agents.

People should have figured it out by now that the of processing power, not the in gargantuan data and control centers is the right thing to do.

Stop working on LLMs (Large Language Models) and start working on PCAs (Personal Customizable Assistants).

From: arxiv.org/pdf/2311.00344.pdf

I read a sample of Robert M. Sapolsky's new book *Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will* on Amazon, and I really don't see why some people find it "revolutionary". I find it full of half-baked contradictory claims that don't hold water even under quick superficial scrutiny like this.

Brains don't generate behaviors. They motor responses to sensory stimuli that an outside observer then interprets as the behavior of the observed individual in their immediate environment. The observer can also stick electrodes in the brain of the individual and then correlate the observed behavior with the measurements performed on some of the neurons and then conclude that those firings have caused the behavior. However, even if it was possible to replicate the exact sequence of the observed firings of all the neurons, the observed behavior would be different if the "response" of the environment was also not exactly the same as during the measurement.

Determinism alone doesn't "cause" anything even if there are no such things as "causeless causes". The current of the system is obviously determined by its previous state and the current sensory inputs, so there are at least two separate "determinisms" in play here all the time, and, as an individual existing in its particular environment, I have at least **some** over the unfolding of both, my biology (eating, drinking coffee), and my environment (writing this nonsense)😉.

I wish people who are coming up each day with a new "breakthrough" theory using physics and/or quantum mechanics to explain everything from complexity and life to consciousness and free will, would read first what has said about it.
This is from:
polanyisociety.org/MP-On--the-

This is so wrong I wouldn't know where to start.

>Hurricanes are ‘selected’ based on their ability to perform functions dictated by the environment, the researchers found.

Gimme a break!🤨

A dynamical system with with the ability to learn and adapt to its environment or to change it will need at most these three mechanisms:

1️⃣ The immediate control () of state variables essential for preserving the stability or of the system. This is a simple of the system to a perturbance, like, for example, sweating when the core temperature of the body increases beyond some preset margin.

2️⃣ The control of the surrounding environment is used when 1️⃣ is overwhelmed and there is a need for the coordinated engagement of different lower-level regulators, the (tracking), and negative control of multiple time-dependent variables like for example, when taking off layers of clothes, moving the body into a shade, or taking a cold shower until the temperature gets again within limits.

3️⃣ The , long-term, open-loop control with delayed feedback is the highest form of control, like for example when building a house with an HVAC system that will remove the necessity for a continuous employment of proximal control (2️⃣) by creating a private controlled environment.

All systems feature this 3-layered control architecture, with the only difference being in what degree the activities on each level are the result of deliberation as opposed to a natural, innate behavior.

People often "blame" Shannon's theory of for completely ignoring , maybe also because Shannon himself stated that "*the semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering aspects*"😀

However, if one recognizes that the content as defined by the is the measure of in a receiver about the sender's when producing the message, can it perhaps be interpreted that the receiver is trying to what the sender was to send?

The information the sender encodes in the message is never the *same* as that the receiver decodes from it on the other side of the channel.

Below is Shannon's description of the standard used for encoding and decoding the information in messages. The block diagrams are my rendering of the description (F is a "" function):

The purpose of is to new or/and different structures (artifacts), so speaking of design makes sense only if it is in the context of other creative activities such as writing, painting, engineering, manufacturing, etc.

Klaus Krippendorff has a nice description of the difference between and and the relationship to Gibson's in this 2007 paper published in "Kybernetes":

researchgate.net/publication/4

However, he is wrong, IMO, in accentuating the difference between and .

Every designer is often a scientist in "describing what can be observed" and every scientist also has to design new hypotheses, theories, and experiments for the "not yet observable and measurable".

in his "Design for a Brain" writes about the importance of the of . Following his ideas I've made this little experiment using a LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet that shows three different scenarios:

When re-tossing all of the 10 coins every time like in the first case there is no preservation of "1s" whatsoever. Every new toss starts from scratch.

In the second case, each coin is tossed separately until it shows "1" when the tosser moves on tossing the next coin until all 10 show "1" which usually happens around the 10th tossing.

In case #3 only the remaining "0s" of the previous toss are re-thrown until all coins show a "1" which is by far the most efficient way of preservation, needing less than half of the time and ending in about 4 tosses.

>"Given that organizations are filled with human beings, it doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to believe that a living system would emerge from all the life that shows up every day"

kathleenallen.net/works/

Unless I see evidence that someone else already introduced it in similar terms, I will claim here that I've come up with (yet another😀) theory of consciousness I will aptly name a "Kihbernetic Theory of " or "".

According to this theory in a dynamical system is always (innate or learned, like driving a bike), is always (i.e. it assumes there is , teleology, conscious seeking for answers), and can be either conscious or unconscious.

For example, one can be focused on (have conscious control over) a conversation while unconsciously controlling a vehicle they are driving, and then momentarily switch their to some unexpected situation on the road that the regulators were unable to resolve by themselves.

Show thread

Introducing the *qualitative* category of in the triad made of *quantifiable* , , and items adds nothing to the better understanding of the matter.

Saying someone or something is "wise" is just a subjective judgment made by an external about another () system's behavior *appropriateness* to the given situation in the environment without knowing anything about the observed system's internal state, goals, or motives.

In addition, a really "wise" entity would never identify itself as such.😀

The functions in a dynamical system such as a living organism are distributed on three levels:
1️⃣ The automated and predominantly *unconscious* functions are responsible for any *immediate* response and maintaining the system's *homeostasis* in the face of external disturbances.
2️⃣ The working parameters for these "regulators" are changed based on actions planned, directed, and modulated by the *conscious* functions seeking to optimize the use of the regulators and fulfill "high-level" goals, aspirations, and other *needs* that originate on
3️⃣ The "highest" control level which maintains *long-term* drives that the system may be either aware (conscious) of (voluntary), or deeply ingrained in some unconscious habits, or innate.

It is evident from this short presentation that resides primarily on the *middle* control level that has the ability to make *predictions* of future events and compare such expectations with the *perception* of reality as provided by the regulators. All in order to extract the *difference* between the two, or the that will be subsequently *integrated* into the structure of the system to improve control.

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.