(Gavin Ritz, 2010.11.02.16.00NZT)
[From Erling Jorgensen
(2010.11.01 16:00 EST)]
Gavin Ritz (Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:37:28 +1300)
Hi there Erling
Hi Gavin,
Preface: You have a very condensed writing
style, which sometimes
makes it difficult for me to follow everything that
you raise. What
I’d like to do is map some of the concepts that
I find most helpful
onto what you are saying, to see if more clarity
(and/or newness)
emerges for me. This may or may not do justice
to your concepts
from your vantage point, because of course you work
with your own
particular mapping system. It may, however, help
others on CSGNet
to gain better access to the compact formulations that
obviously
matter to you.
With that said, let me try to respond or paraphrase
some of your
conceptualizations, using the maps of PCT and
Evolutionary Epistemology
in particular.
I hear you advocating for an educational model that
incorporates both
evolutionary and revolutionary outcomes. Evolutionary,
as I see it,
is the refinement of what already exists, while
revolutionary seems
to be the emergence of what is not yet.
Yes, however once a
revolutionary structure emerges it’s still young, it sort of needs to
mature. A Revolutionary transformation is like a worm to pupa to butterfly.
You then make the statement –
The problem is, learning is creation and HPCT
locks this down
into a negative feedback which is ok for
evolutionary learning
but not okay for emergences (revolutionary learning),
which
require a positive feedback system.
It is quite true that Hierarchical Perceptual Control
Theory gives
primacy to negative feedback processes. Indeed,
the whole project
of HPCT could be conceived as raising the
question: How far can we
take it, utilizing (basically) negative feedback
processes alone?
I believe this is a worthy corrective to what I
consider was a
somewhat simplistic promotion of positive feedback
processes,
within General Systems Theory and the Second Cybernetics
(“the
Cybernetics of Cybernetics”) camp. By
definition, positive feedback
is ultimately a runaway process. So even if it
comes into the
equation, at some point I believe it must be limited
by negative
feedback processes.
Many enzymatic processes
are positive feedback processes, from what I can gather and they don’t
run away. Positive feedback amplifies the situation. There are many positive
feedback loops that are well controlled.
Having said that, developmental HPCT does have to
allow for
emergences, which you rightly note. However
“intelligent” a
given outcome may be, I don’t think we need
Intelligent Design
as the means to get there. This is where the
carefully specified
notion of E-coli Reorganization comes into PCT and
HPCT.
Okay not sure why you are
saying intelligent design. Can you explain this?
Where I start to differ from what I think you’re
saying is in the
weight you are giving to positive feedback.
Perhaps I haven’t
thought through the implications sufficiently. But
it seems to
me that what is needed for emergence is some form of
randomness.
I don’t think that is the same as requiring
positive (runaway)
Feedback.
I’m not saying
this, it’s not random, there is only required entropy production for
there to be the chaos of process, but to create a new structure (say new neural
networks) it’s contingently required to have specific qualities for this
form to take place. If the manifestation does not have these specific qualities
one gets an immergence (destruction).
I do want to take the notion of positive feedback
‘under advisement,’
so to speak. Because I believe a lot happens at
the interface of
positive and negative feedback. This is the
whole question of
“loop dominance” that some of the System
Dynamics people raise.
Okay not so sure
I’m up with the play here too comment.
In my work as a psychotherapist, I think I frequently
encounter
clients whose emotions or thinking processes get into
a runaway
(i.e. positive feedback) state, and the first order of
business
is helping them get the acceleration under control,
Yes that would be correct
and the reason this model says one or more of the 7 Essential qualities of
creation is omitted or ignored then no revolutionary creation can take place.
so that they
can then get where they want to go. Perhaps this
biases me against
seeing positive feedback as indeed
“positive,” or in your words,
creative.
Yes, it can be highly
destructive; one only needs to look to the Nazi Regime for its ultimate
expression.
I think there is some room for synergistic processes,
which do seem
like positive feedback. But I still hold the
belief (or, as a
one-time professor of mine might call it, the
“fruitful prejudice”)
Fruitful is one of the
qualities (abundance) of the 7E’s.
that all such systems need to be encompassed within a
negative
feedback dynamic, if they are to be stable and
ultimately effective.
Let me do a bit more paraphrasing of your language, to
see if it is
compatible with what you are saying. You state
–
In other words in creating (learning) the first
manifestation
of creation is naturally acquired through massive
entropy
production…
When I see your term “entropy production,”
I take that to mean
we need “the random” if we are to get
genuine novelty.
Entropy production is
given by the following formula d/dt= sum (Forces(j) *Fluxes (j)) >0
In written form the
entropy production is the sum of the forces multiplied by the fluxes is more
than zero. So what you see is the randomness (chaos) bleeding to the
environment of the flux (process). But this is only a small part of what is
going on. The focus also needs to be on the system producing the entropy
production. Because what’s coming is an either an entirely new form or a
destruction. The organism is poised at the bifurcation point.
This is
consistent with the first requirement posed by Donald Campbell
(as well as Gary Cziko, and
others), with Evolutionary Epistemology.
They summarize the process as “random
generation, and selective
retention,” and apply that to the development of
knowledge systems.
But let me backtrack to your position that the first
step in
learning or creating is “through massive entropy
production.”
I want to key on that word, massive. Why not
local? Why is it
not sufficient to generate local randomness, whenever
a prior
solution has gotten stuck? Or at the very least,
why not start
local, and then expand outward as needed?
It’s the system in
focus. (any system)
I believe this question of ‘locality’ is
embedded in Bill Powers’
conception of e-coli reorganization, as applied to the
development
and alteration of an HPCT hierarchy. Apply the
(potential) remedy
where it might be needed – as signaled by
increasing amounts of
error for intrinsic variables – before
reorganizing away control
systems that may not be involved. Granted, the
issue of targeting
of reorganization has not been fully solved (i.e.,
modeled),
although the specificity of effect of more generalized
hormones
or neurotransmitters offers some ideas in that
direction.
I also perceive Bill as sharing that ‘fruitful prejudice’ that
most living processes must be contained within
negative feedback
I’m not sure about
this; I think I agree with the living “processing structure” being
contained within a negative feedback system. But maybe the mind is not as the
model suggests.
I note that you use the
word “living processes” I assume you mean “living processing
structures”. This is an important distinction within the model as one of
the 7 Essentials is called an “active living power”, a “process-structure”.
No living organised system is just a process. All contain a form (structure) and
content (process).
if they are to remain stable. E-coli
reorganization itself consists
of a dance between generating randomness and then
assessing its
effects via negative feedback. There is no
inherent requirement
that it be applied massively at first. Indeed,
the objective of
maintaining structure that currently is working just
fine would
argue for a ‘start local’ strategy as
generally being preferable.
Some living
“processing structures” may never be creative in the revolutionary
sense. And maybe only evolutionary. And again I’m not sure about this.
I do acknowledge that you argue for a second process
involved in
learning / creating, which you say is “created
contingently”
involving “7 Essential Creative
Qualities.” I have to admit that
I did not really follow the gist when you presented in
the past
about those essential creative qualities, so I
can’t really comment
on that “second manifestation” of
learning.
This is a model developed
by a colleague on mine at the University
of Pretoria in South
Africa.
I do notice that you pose there is some correspondence
of the
HPCT levels (or the upper levels?) and the seven
essentials of
creativity. So I will take that recommendation
of yours under
advisement as well, and see if I understand it better
from other
things that you write.
A further notion of yours that is still under
suspension for me
is “the nested PCV.” You state
–
What this model does not have that PCT has is the
very robust
concept of a negative feedback with the Controlled
Perceptual
Variable (PCV). I believe that this gives PCT a
big plus over
other human mental model concepts. If my notion of
the nested PCV
is taken seriously then there are just a few steps
to go for
synthesizing PCT with 3 other models…
Your diagrams in the past about nested PCV were,
again, too
compact and telegraphic for me to yet make sense of
them. I’ll
listen for more on that front, but for now that notion
doesn’t
yet enter into my thinking.
They are actually very
simple. All the research in PCT has been done on the actual physical controlled
variable level “so called”. But linking it the higher HPCT level is
then problematic. So like all negative feedback models they contain a mirror of
its self. This way it’s simple to abstract in the PCV. It also
opens an entire vista of ideas with the PCV.
I certainly agree with your perception that
PCT’s emphasis on
negative feedback is exceedingly robust. That is
what I like
the most about it.
I don’t have the mathematical background to
evaluate your project
of “a very powerful framework for a mental model
that can be
mathematically circumscribed,”
The learning model has
been mathematical circumscribed with an Imperative logic.
but I think the endeavor is a
worthy one. I like the straightforward equations
that are already
part of elementary control systems in PCT, (with the
exception of
not having good algorithms as yet for how several
different types
of perceptions would be modeled.) I would hope
that the rigor of
such PCT equations could be incorporated as modules in
other
attempts at modeling mental processes.
I agree the models in PCT
are very good but they don’t cover the entire picture the maths needs to
include the HPCT levels too. AND
What PCT lacks is precisely
a number of the 7 Essential Creation Qualities that are required for
revolutionary creation. (PCT wants to be born too and wants to gobble up the psycho
field).
This can only happen
if-and-only-if PCT can digest psychology (in its entirety). Just like Ostwald’s
Ripening (Digestion) with barium sulphate crystals. Or the Predator-prey model.
This is an evolutionary aspect. It requires requisitely enough Free Energy (of
its proponents) plus the 7E’s to digest its competition. In other words
the Quality of one Theory must be largely better than the other and there must
be enough agents that accept this. So there’s a link between quantity and
quality. Eg in Ostwalds Ripening a smaller crystal (less ion pairs –ie quantity)
with less crystal defects (quality) then a bigger crystal (with more defects-
quality) and more ion pairs can digest the bigger crystal.
Here are two of 7E’s
that are lacking in PCT. One I mention above, {process-structure (active power)},
the other {unity-association (wholeness- a giant network)} like in Monodacity (Leibniz)
or Smut’s Holism. In fact PCT has an intense focus on really only two of
the 7 Essentials of Creation the one is {quantity-limit (parsimony)}. Which
means the quantitative nature of reality which implies; extending quantity
measurements resulting in different quantities and the closer one gets to the
limits the more parsimonious the change is. So measuring is only one aspect of
reality.
Regards
Gavin
All the best,
Erling
