Re: Entering the Observer

Dear Fellow FISers,

I am new to your group and this is my first time entering into the rather
exciting, heated dialogue to date. I speak out now, as the work I am doing
addresses a point under discussion: the issue of complex new models at the
level of human consciousness that address the issue of the observer in the
observed. I am a clinical psychologist and this is just the area I've been
working in.

I believe the key lies in recursive dynamics, such as indicated by Varela in
his early extension of Spencer-Brown's calculus of indications.
Self-referential dynamics, by which equations re-enter themselves, provide
the paradoxical foundations for identity and autonomous functioning at
multiple levels. The paradox involves boundaries that are both structurally
open (exchange of matter, info and energy across permeable boundaries) and
functionally closed (autonomous functioning and cohesive identity). The
paradox of boundaries both open and closed also means the observer melds
inextricably with the observed.

Such dynamics tie in with ancient mythology in the form of the uroboros, the
snake that bites its tail. They connect with primitive consciousness that
circles around to re-enter itself, so that observer and observed meld,
especially at the level of self-reflection.

I and colleagues Robin Robertson and Allan Combs have just written an
article about this, currently in press in Soren's journal, "Cybernetics
&Human Knowing." I am now working on an extension of these ideas. My main
thesis is that recursive iteration on the complex plane, in the form of
fractal geometry, provides the underlying architecture of these paradoxical
reentry dynamics at multiple, recursively embedded levels of existence,
including the biological, psychological, social and cultural.

Best wishes,
Terry Marks-Tarlow
>
> >1. ENTERING THE OBSERVER. In most branches of science the observer is
>left
> >out the picture (eg, mechanics, Shanon's communication theor., economics)
> >notwithstanding the curious, and very different, idealized properties
> >he/she may be endowed. But in info science the observer intrudes into the
> >picture quite crudely (e.g., meaning)... and so the mess. My contention
>is
> >that if he/she enters with the usual, idealized properties, it means the
> >end of the interesting business ­the different reductionist approaches to
> >info finally win the day. But if the observer is admitted within sort of
>a
> >'limited prehension' framework (superseding the 'principle of
>rationality'
> >so dear for physicists--Anderson, Gell-Mann), a few curious consequences
> >may follow. I have briefly explored this issue regarding the info
>dynamics
> >of the sciences and the emergence of interdisciplinary overlappings,
> >somehow it becomes an expansion on what is contemporarily called in AI &
>AL
> >'swarm intelligence', or a new version of Ortega y Gasset's
> >perspectivism... I was reminded the theme by some recent comments (Gyuri
> >and Juan) about info and the limitations of the observer in physics
>itself,
> >and by Koichiro's comments on book-keeping. But apart from us, limited
> >human observers, at least another couple of paradigmatic observers have
>to
> >enter into the info science picture: cells and firms... Economist
> >Schumpeter 'creative destruction' in economic systems becomes quite an
> >interesting piece of reflection about the structural peculiarities
>inherent
> >in these informational observers.
>
>
>Dear Pedro
>Your theme "entering the observer" addresses several interesting
>items, among them the horizon of observers and the risk of
>reductionism that the observer introduces in info sciences. Let me
>try to join these two points vs the degree of complexity addressed.
>I agree with you that the horizon of observers is wide: from cells
>to firms, including insects (swarm intelligence) and humans. And
>perhaps the spectrum could be widened even more with your other
>theme "molecular recognition" (assuming we can consider
>molecule as an observer. Would you ?).
>Now, regarding the risk of reductionist approaches to info entering
>the game, I also agree with you about the reality of that risk,
>especially when pointing at the notion of meaning. But with so wide
>an horizon of covered items, I feel the risk can be managed. And
>one can estimate that there is place for several different models of
>observers, so avoiding being taxed of reductionism. The question
>will then be about the coverages of the proposed models and about
>the completeness of used hypothesis.
>For cells or insects, I believe we can look at them as
>"living machines" and find some ways to modelize them as
>observers with little risk of reductionism.
>When we reach the level humans (sorry for the gap...), then
>comes for sure a risk of reductionism: modelization of human
>as observer is not possible today. I mean globally. Our
>ignorance about the nature of human brings us to address
>only limited and very partial possible models. This because we
>do not understand the nature of reflected consciousness, of
>emotions, of free will, and so. Philosophy, neurosciences,
>psychology, cognisciences and others are still turning around
>these subjects, looking for a way in. The "hard problem"...
>But coming back to the level of insects, a simple modelization can
>do it. Like the one proposed for a "meaning generator system"
>(Information and Meaning. FIS 2002). For instance, pheromone
>smell can be looked at as a signal creating a meaningful
>information in an ant. The meaningful information being
>"pheromone smell has some positive link with vital constraints to
>be satisfied, so trail is to be followed".
>Now, observer/meaning at the level of human or firms address
>degrees of complexity that have little to do with insects. Other
>models are needed, ŕ priori. But it is interesting (and risky
>reductionism wise) to investigate a possible usage of previous
>model by transfering the complexity increase to the constraints
>of the meaning generator system. More precisely, by trying to
>imagine how some new constraints to be satisfied came up during
>the course of evolution. This approach is to be looked as an
>hypothesis to be validated (not validated as of today).
>And there may come in also some form of the Schumpeter
>"creative destruction" you propose to introduce. A constraint
>could be satisfied only at the expense of a new (cheaper)
>constraint, coming in as more acceptable for the system
>(group survival vs individual survival, pleasure/reality and
>Freudian repressions, ...).
>
>Many are the Foundations of Information Science......
>
>Regards
>
>Christophe Menant

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Received on Thu May 30 06:35:48 2002