Hi Gavin,
The last sentence in this paragraph caught my attention:
"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."
I would assert that the attainment of this "poised state" serves as the
very source of my curiosity and creativity. Let me explain it this way.
We humans communicate primarily through the transmission of intentional
and unintentional messages. Personally I don't think many people
consciously think about the unintentional messages that they send (e.g.,
body language, keywords), but that's besides the point.
What we do not typically notice is that there are other channels of
communication with our environment, such as the Stochastic Channel, if
you will. To find this channel of communication, you need to view your
environmental surroundings in their totality as a signifier of
meaningful potentiality created just for your needs and use. To attain
such a heightened level of sensitivity to your environment, you
literally need to be poised at the bifurcation point, that is, you must
be constantly vigilant of the completion of repeating subroutines in
your environment that signal the possibilities of your own specious
present.
The word I use for this process is permanent curiosity (i.e., Plato's
eros), but what I am really talking about is the development of a
sensitivity to the spaces/interactions between things in your
environment because that is where these bifurcation signs emerge.
I suspect there are other channels of communication. For example,
imagine if we developed the ability to scan our own bodies for signs of
disease (i.e., the Health Channel). I would not be at all surprised if
we attained this feat in the 21st century. 
Chad
Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
Gavin Ritz <garritz@XTRA.CO.NZ> 11/2/2010 12:25 AM >>>
(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 syst
em.
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 th
e 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
