ᛕᎥᕼᗷᗴᖇᑎᗴ丅Ꭵᑕᔕ @Kihbernetics@qoto.org

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.

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.

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)😉.

Wiener was wrong. There is ***no*** #communication ***in*** either the animal or in the machine, only #control by the application of #constraints to their inner flow of matter and energy.

Communication is established ***between*** animals and/or machines, and, as Shannon correctly recognized, requires an independent communication #channel susceptible to the environmental disturbance called #noise.

In order to be able to communicate animals and machines must share a common #language or cipher #rules used to code their respective messages. Communication is always one-way and does not require feedback. The sender has no control over the message after it is sent through the channel.

A special case of communication is #observation where the communication is established between the observer system and phenomena in its environment not necessarily produced by other systems "languaging".

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.

Anil Seth thinks "*Conscious AI Is a Bad, Bad Idea*" because
>*our minds haven’t evolved to deal with machines we believe have #consciousness.*

On the contrary, I think we are *"genetically programmed"* to ascribe intent to anything that *"wants"* to communicate with us.

He is also saying that:

>*Being intelligent—as humans think we are—may give us new ways of being conscious, and some forms of human and animal #intelligence may require consciousness, but basic conscious experiences such as pleasure and pain might not require much species-level intelligence at all.*

If, as he says, "*intelligence is the capacity to do the right thing at the right time,*" any organism that has survived long enough to procreate must have some kind of intelligence, regardless of its consciousness.

Wrt "*basic conscious experiences such as pleasure and pain*," IMO they are conscious **only** if the organism is intelligent enough to suppress the urge of an innate "*genetically programmed*" response to pain or pleasure in order to achieve some "higher goal," even if it goes against the original goal of "to survive."

The bottom line is that consciousness is **not** just a function of intelligence. Machines can become much smarter than us without becoming conscious.

In order to be really #conscious, a machine would first have the experience of being #alive and the desire to remain in that state, have some #agency and #control over its internal and external states, the ability to develop short and long-term goals and plan and execute complex time-dependent actions to fulfill those goals.

Anything less than that is just a clever simulation.

https://nautil.us/why-conscious-ai-is-a-bad-bad-idea-302937/

Most commenters do not realize that no "information processing" (#computation on symbol sequences) of any kind is necessary for an agent to have #control over their internal #states and surroundings.
Think of a #homeostat or comparator such as in #PCT (Perceptual Control Theory).

The premise of this article is solid. The brain evolved first and foremost as a #control mechanism. Symbolic "information processing" is a later development.

However, just from reading the reactions in the comments section, one can easily see that #computationalism is still very much the mainstream theory of mind.

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

Talking about the "nervous system" in isolation from the rest of the body and its environment is like trying to figure out what is the automobile about by looking at its motor running on a stand. You need to look at where the "rubber hits the road" to really understand what's going on.

Only "bodies can do things" not the isolated nervous systems. Of course, brains have a #function within the body, the same way that individual bodies (with their respective brains) have a function within a social organization.

The nervous "(sub)system" has no need to be in direct contact with the environment, but it also can't function or even survive (is not viable) without the support of all the other body parts, some of which *are* and *must* be in direct contact with the #environment.

According to #HH_Pattee, The whole purpose of the nervous system and cognition is the survival of the body:

>"The major function of the brain is actually not to sit around and discuss things like we are doing now, but it is to make decisions - it has to decide whether to fight or run or eat ..."

https://www.academia.edu/6576779/Rosen_and_Pattee_on_Theoretical_Biology

Thinking about the nervous "system" in isolation is typical for #Cybernetics thinking which separates the #control (management) system from the #controlled system (the plant) and does not recognize the fact that they depend on each other and should be thought of as one system.

People are "social animals" and the emergent capability and knowledge of an #organization as a system of people are quite different from the collection of all the individual learning capabilities and knowledge of the individuals it is composed of, so it is, therefore, appropriate to treat the organization as another dynamical #learning system.

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.

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.

Some pretty obvious and standard things are described here as novelties:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/re-wilding-leadership-seven-threads-rich-watkins?trk=news-guest_share-article

Basically:

1️⃣ #Leaders exist because they have #Followers,
2️⃣ Leaders are here to provide #Guidance within the #Regulation and #Control "hierarchy"
3️⃣ All #Measurement is personal and beneficial only to the measurer
4️⃣ The "hated" #Matrix organizations are connecting silos
5️⃣ Removing what is #NOT determines what IS #Possibile (the cone of possibilities)
6️⃣ Groups of people will form #Living systems that cannot be engineered but can only be maintained as a "garden"
7️⃣ #Negative feedback is the only useful #feedback. A "pat on the back" never helped anyone. 😀

Also, this is all set backward:

> How can we ensure there are useful leadership Artefacts (tools, processes) and leadership Heuristics (rules of thumb, ways of doing things) - as well as Skills, Experiences and (of course) Natural talent.

I understand that as a consultant you have the "urge" to sell something tangible (a product) but you always have to start with the #People and their experience, skills, and natural talent, then identify the #Processes, what they do, and how are they connected (collaborate). Selecting the #Products (tools, SW, forms, space, facilities) that will support that is the last and the least important thing.

Btw, a process is not an #artifact (product). Only the "rule book" that describes the process is, and there is a huge difference between the two.

Another very interesting passage showing a deep understanding and appreciation of Pattee's work:

>This is how the two processes that necessitate symbolic description connect in Pattee’s theory: **the biological function of #measurement is to #control**. Living organisms are able to form many kinds of such measurement–control networks. The outcome of the measurement process may feed directly into the control network (as in tropisms). But, according to Pattee, for control to be displaced in space and time (e.g., delayed with respect to measurement), a symbolic coding must exist. **The two processes of measurement and control fulfill the difficult ‘‘cementing’’ role between the #symbolic and the #dynamic, the discrete and the continuous, the static and the time-dependent**. Even though the measurement process may be a dynamical one, its function, according to Pattee, cannot usefully be described by the same dynamics it is measuring. It is only in this sense that dynamics and symbols (the informational record of a measurement) are irreconcilable’’ or complementary

Not all #control in real #life requires an immediate response of the dynamical #system to what's happening in its environment.

>Constraining the behavior of a system in a functional way, i.e., control, can be exerted here and now—by the specific parameters of environments. Such is the case of tropisms: a plant turns in the direction of a light. However, in cases in which control is displaced in time, the functional ‘‘freezing’’ of some degrees of freedom has to be written somehow and somewhere (i.e., some form of memory must occur), and—if one wants to have a physical description of this memory process—according to Pattee, one has to employ an alternative sort of description in the form of time-independent constraints. This description is "symbolic’’ in the sense of consisting of timeless structures, having external significance, that—themselves—form a system, being non-arbitrarily linked together by certain rules. According to Pattee, the two kinds of description (symbolic code and physical laws) are incommensurate. Neither is reducible to the other.

J. Rączaszek-Leonardi building on #HH_Pattee's work on Reconciling #symbolic and #dynamic aspects of #language

https://www.academia.edu/899225/Reconciling_symbolic_and_dynamic_aspects_of_language_Toward_a_dynamic_psycholinguistics

#Democritus (Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning *chosen of the people*) claimed that everything starts from *atoms*, in a *bottom-up* #causation.

#Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') can be described as #emergent *top-down* #control mechanisms based on the free association and decision of autonomous individuals.

All #causation is *bottom-up* or from the *inside-out*. There is no such thing as *top-down causation* imposed from the outside. There is only an emergent (internal) level of constraints and other control mechanisms generated by the interaction of individuals fulfilling a common need or objective.

>#Life must have emerged from the physical world. This emergence must be understood if our knowledge is not to degenerate (more than it has already) into a collection of disjoint specialized disciplines.

>... #physics and #biology require different levels of #models ... physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical #laws that have no #memory, while #evolution depends, at least to some degree, on #control of dynamics by rate-independent memory #structures."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12009802_The_physics_of_symbols_Bridging_the_epistemic_cut

#DNA is not a #blueprint describing the #structure or the #function of an #organism.
It is rather a #recipe (an algorithm) that describes (#control) the #process of #construction, i.e. specifies what #action the #constructor has to perform at any moment depending on the constructor's own #state and that of its #environment.

The #function of the #organism is defined by its #structure as constructed by following the #DNA algorithm. Besides the functions involved in this process of self-construction and maintenance, a mature organism is also involved in the #production of #artifacts (messages, seeds) for dissemination (#communication) in the environment.

Paraphrased #HH_Pattee from the same source:

This "#error_duality" (error in the #descriptions or error in the #operation) can be identified at all organizational levels:

➡️ Computer programs may have either an error in the program itself (#software error) or an error may happen because of the machine (#hardware error) that executes an otherwise correct program.

➡️ At higher levels it is possible to make an error in the choice of algorithm which is being programmed or even make a mistake in the choice of problem that the developed algorithm is supposed to solve.

➡️ Similarly in social and political organizations we distinguish between a faulty policy and the failure to execute a policy properly.

In other words, we try to distinguish between the ***error in our #models*** of reality which leads to incorrect policies (#predictions and descriptions), and the ***error in #control #constraints*** which leads to a failure of a (good) policy implementation.

I think Maturana may have "jumped the gun" here by succumbing to the cybernetic #control vs. #controlled type of thinking and using a gun (a mere passive #product or #structure) as a metaphor for an active, living #system.

In my mind, the notion of ***external control*** so pervasive in #cybernetics does not fit well with the notions of #autopoiesis and #constructivism.

Unlike a (living) system, the gun has no other #choice but to react to the trigger, except, as Maturana notes, in case of malfunction (which is not equivalent to choice).

Control in #Cybernetics always has to come from the outside or is exerted, not internally onto the elements that make the system but onto something else outside of the "control" system.

Even such brilliant thinkers as #FJ_Varela, one of the "fathers" of #autopoiesis could not escape this profoundly ingrained "cybernetic" assumption:

>"#Autonomy means, literally, self-law. To see what this entails, it is easier to contrast it with its mirror image, #allonomy or **external law**. This is, of course, what we call #control. These two images, autonomy and control, do a continuous dance."

**Francisco J. Varela** - *Principles Of Biological Autonomy*

http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/f17/phil204A/readings/Varela%201979%20Principles%20of%20Biological%20Autonomy.part1.pdf