" 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.

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

A is not something that can be found in an observer's mind. Representations are physical copies or models of the object they represent and they are all residing in the same domain external to the observer's mind.

According to , a (the ***representation***) is something that brings its (the ), into *the same sort of correspondence* ( of mind) as the it stands for. Therefore, and exist in a different domain internal to the system

= .

The representation can be a , or the re- of the object using the same the object is made of (e.g. a *carbon copy* of a page or a copy of a living cell). In contrast, a (a map) is the reproduction of the object's form in a different substance.

Unlike real (artisanal) art, the reproduction (copy) of "digital art" is indistinguishable from the original. In addition, what is usually referred to as the "digital copy" of a physical work of art, is, in fact, a digital *model* of the real object it represents.

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 .

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):

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.

on the origins of

>For reasons that still baffle me, it was the pragmatic American engineers and scientists, not the romantic Europeans, who began to toss anthropomorphic sand into the gear box of evolving notions and ideas. To name two such cases, the computer people began to talk about a machine's storage system as if it were a computer's , and the communication engineers began to talk about signals as if they were .

>Perhaps these were the precursors for the second derailment which, ironically, was the inverse of the first. lt worked as follows. The first phase was : mental functions projected into machines. However, we knew how these machines worked because we built them and wrote the programs. Consequently, an appropriate "," the concepts dealing with computer hard- and software were projected back into the workings of the brain and, presto!, we knew how the worked.

*Heinz Von Foerster
*To know and to let know - an applied theory of knowledge*
Canadian Library Journal, Vol. 39, No. 5, October l982.*

The of is in the process where is generated when:
>"our rhythmic are violated, (*and*) our brains behave in a different manner because of our inherent (*innate*) internal sense of rhythm."

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the

Reading this recent (2022) article from Fritjof Capra:
The organization of the living:
Maturana’s key insights
included in the latest Constructivist Foundations volume 18(1): 005–011

constructivist.info/18/1/005

and I am continually bewildered by the fact that no one in the field figured out yet that , although necessary, is not the sufficient condition for .

All are in fact with memory made of , , and structures participating continually in both auto- and allopoietic processes.

In fact, the recursive, processes of learning and growth depend only on (are "structurally coupled" with) the linear work processes dealing with all the things (resources, waste) in the system's environment and producing the externally observable of the living (dynamical) system.

A momentous recent paper from the most consequential thinker on the matter of the , , and has only 124 views and I must be responsible for at least a dozen.

"Folding is entirely a lawful physical process, leaving neither freedom nor necessity for interpretation. Similarly, the initial converse action-to-symbol conversion of sensory inputs also leaves no freedom for interpretation until after the action-to-symbol conversion"

academia.edu/66621846/Symbol_G

" might, in fact, be defined as the study of systems that are open to but closed to and
control—systems that are “information-tight”."

W. Ross Ashby (1956): An Introduction to Cybernetics, (Chapman & Hall, London): now available electronically.

pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASHBBOOK.htm

Qoto Mastodon

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