"#Information 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)
https://www.dukeupress.edu/The-Ontogeny-of-Information/
Or, as more clearly defined in #Kihbernetics: #Information is the difference between the results of #Knowledge-based #Prediction (function A) and the #Perception (function B) of sensory inputs that will make a difference once integrated into a new knowledge #state 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.
Most theories of #consciousness start with #information while a proper way to address any neural theory of consciousness should be as a #control 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*** #regulation 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 #feedback_control 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*** #governance 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.
*Terrence W. Deacon* writes beautifully about this conundrum:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2022.0282#d7508913e1
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.
A system doesn't ***feed*** on #order (or #negentropy) 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 #work and use some of your #free_energy. Schrödinger admits as much:
1️⃣ Kihbernetic #System with
2️⃣ fundamental #Processes: a recursive #Autopoietic self-production for growth and learning, and a linear #Allopoietic production of "other things", such as behavior and waste, distributed in
3️⃣ Control #Levels, of #Regulation, immersed in, and dealing with things in the system's environment, #Control for managing the workload of different regulators, and #Guidance to provide long-term goals and preserve the identity of the system, all using
4️⃣ #Variables: sensory #Input of data and other resources, motor #Output of behavior, #Information as the difference that will make a difference in the subsequent (updated) #Knowledge state, all interconnecting
5️⃣ #Functions: the #Control-ed #Reaction to external stimuli, the #Perception of sensory states, the #Prediction of the expected outcome of past behavior, and the repeated #Integration of new information into an updated knowledge state.
All #learning must be open-ended. The learning agent (the #observer) must have the #autonomy to set its own learning goals as well as plan and execute a #sequence of #exploration 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 #AI agents or "average and broad" #AGI. You can't have both in the same entity. Time and #memory "limitation" are the main inspirations for #diversity and #cooperation between learning agents.
People should have figured it out by now that the #distribution of processing power, not the #centralization 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).
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 #produce 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 #state 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** #control 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 #M_Polanyi has said about it.
This is from:
http://www.polanyisociety.org/MP-On--the-Modern-Mind-1965-ocr.pdf
A dynamical system with #memory with the ability to learn and adapt to its environment or to change it will need at most these three #control mechanisms:
1️⃣ The #internal immediate control (#regulation) of state variables essential for preserving the stability or #homeostasis of the system. This is a simple #reaction of the system to a perturbance, like, for example, sweating when the core temperature of the body increases beyond some preset margin.
2️⃣ The #proximal 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 #measurement (tracking), and negative #feedback 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 #distal, 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 #living systems feature this 3-layered control architecture, with the only difference being in what degree the activities on each level are the result of #conscious deliberation as opposed to a natural, innate behavior.
People often "blame" Shannon's theory of #communication for completely ignoring #meaning, maybe also because Shannon himself stated that "*the semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering aspects*"😀
However, if one recognizes that the #information content as defined by the #entropy is the measure of #uncertainty in a receiver about the sender's #state when producing the message, can it perhaps be interpreted that the receiver is trying to #understand what the sender was #meaning 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 #transducer used for encoding and decoding the information in messages. The block diagrams are my rendering of the description (F is a "#memory" function):
The purpose of #design is to #create new or/and different #artificial structures (artifacts), so speaking of design makes sense only if it is in the context of other creative #production activities such as writing, painting, engineering, manufacturing, etc.
Klaus Krippendorff has a nice description of the difference between #object and #artifact and the relationship to Gibson's #affordances in this 2007 paper published in "Kybernetes":
https://researchgate.net/publication/45597493_The_Cybernetics_of_Design_and_the_Design_of_Cybernetic
However, he is wrong, IMO, in accentuating the difference between #scientists and #designers.
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".
#WR_Ashby in his "Design for a Brain" writes about the importance of the #preservation of #adaptations. 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"
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 #Consciousness" or "#KTC".
According to this theory #regulation in a dynamical system is always #unconscious (innate or learned, like driving a bike), #guidance is always #conscious (i.e. it assumes there is #intention, teleology, conscious seeking for answers), and #control 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 #attention to some unexpected situation on the road that the regulators were unable to resolve by themselves.
Introducing the *qualitative* category of #Wisdom in the triad made of *quantifiable* #Data, #Information, and #Knowledge 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 #observer about another (#observed) 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 #control functions in a dynamical system such as a living organism are distributed on three levels:
1️⃣ The automated and predominantly *unconscious* #regulatory 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* #control functions seeking to optimize the use of the regulators and fulfill "high-level" goals, aspirations, and other *needs* that originate on
3️⃣ The "highest"#governance 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 #consciousness 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 #information that will be subsequently *integrated* into the #knowledge structure of the system to improve control.
#Kihbernetics is the study of #Complex #Dynamical #Systems with #Memory which is very different from all other #SystemsThinking approaches. Kihbernetic theory and principles are derived primarily from these three sources:
1️⃣ #CE_Shannon's theory of #Information and his description of a #Transducer,
2️⃣ #WR_Ashby's #Cybernetics and his concept of #Transformation, and
3️⃣ #HR_Maturana's theory of #Autopoiesis and the resulting #Constructivism
Although applicable to any dynamical system with memory (mechanisms, organisms, or organizations) we developed our Kihbernetic worldview mostly to help people navigate their #organization through times of #change.
We define* an organization as:
"An integrated composite of people, products, and processes that provide a capability to satisfy a stated need or objective."
*Definition of the word "system" in MIL_STD_499B
#People are at the forefront of our thinking (the #who and #why are we doing this for and/or with?).
We then focus our efforts on understanding all the functions or #Processes in your organization (#how and #when something happens or has to happen?).
Finally, we get to analyze the #Products and/or services that you put on the market but are mostly interested in the tools that you use or may need to buy or develop in order to fully integrate your production system (the plan for #what and #where things will happen?).
Our goal is to make the people of your organization self-reliant to the point that they shouldn't need our assistance with the continuous maintenance and adaptation of the system.
In any case, we've got your back while you do the heavy lifting of establishing a better future for your organization!