[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.02.18,15:55 EST)]
Martin Taylor 2005.02.17.00.01
I don't see how "cognition" in the everyday sense could be identified
with the control of a perception. We control so many perceptions of
which we are not cognizant, and we are cognizant of much that we
aren't controlling. The dictionary definitions Marc A introduced
hinge around the word "knowing", which to me suggests a conscious
awareness that one is aware (a recursive notion, which I ascribe to
what I undestand to be Bill P's "Observer").
I expected comments after my:
I think a "cognition" is the same as control of a perception. I am not
enthusiastic to name control of perceptions at levels above the event
or sequence level for "cognitions", as Martin gave expression to.
That's because we very often put such "cognitions" into words. And
I feel it not correct to say that the "cognition" stops at the event level
(down).
I think it was Marc who introduced the concept "cognition"(this time). He
has studied System theory and Dynamical System Theory where Cognition is a
central concept (I think). I try to understand System Theory, but there I am
still a student. So far, I understand that "Cognition is defined as a domain
of interaction in an autopoietic system like human beings or parts of a
human being. This tells me that a Cognition is a limited region or field
marked in an autonomous and self-maintaining system . This system generates
recursively the same network of processes which produced them.
With my words a Cognition is a controlled perception in PCT nomenclature.
I also studied the Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems and found that
a Cognition designates all information processing activities of the brain
including perception, thinking, decision making, linguistic competence and
motor control. (Krippendorff).
I read "information" as everything which reduces uncertainty or everything
which changes us.
When you say we control so many perceptions we are not cognizant, and we are
cognizant of much that we aren't controlling, I of course agree. But the
definition tells us that we talk about perceptions which reduce uncertainty
(changes us). Do we not control those perceptions?
Bjorn
[From Bill Powers (2005.02.18.1008 MST)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.02.18,15:55 EST) --
I try to understand System Theory, but there I am
still a student. So far, I understand that "Cognition is defined as a domain
of interaction in an autopoietic system like human beings or parts of a
human being. This tells me that a Cognition is a limited region or field
marked in an autonomous and self-maintaining system . This system generates
recursively the same network of processes which produced them.
Your patience far exceeds mine. It was stuff like this that persuaded me to abandon the Society for Cybernetics as a place where PCT might flourish.
Best,
Bill P.
[Martin Taylor 2005.02.18.17.18]
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.02.18,15:55 EST)]
I think it was Marc who introduced the concept "cognition"(this time). He
has studied System theory and Dynamical System Theory where Cognition is a
central concept (I think). I try to understand System Theory, but there I am
still a student. So far, I understand that "Cognition is defined as a domain
of interaction in an autopoietic system like human beings or parts of a
human being. This tells me that a Cognition is a limited region or field
marked in an autonomous and self-maintaining system . This system generates
recursively the same network of processes which produced them.
With my words a Cognition is a controlled perception in PCT nomenclature.
I don't think that your words are a proper paraphrase of the foregoing. The autopeotic definition does deal in feedback, but it doesn't refer to control (nor does it need to).
Since I lay no claim to knowing what any particular person menas by "cognition", I'm not going to argue with you as to whether a cognition is a controlled perception. It is for you. It isn't for me. If we want to use it in technical discourse, it would be useful for it to mean something different from a concept for which we already have a good technical term.
I also studied the Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems and found that
a Cognition designates all information processing activities of the brain
including perception, thinking, decision making, linguistic competence and
motor control. (Krippendorff).
I read "information" as everything which reduces uncertainty or everything
which changes us.
Shannon's definition of the quantity of information was the reduction of uncertainty about something in the recipient. So, your reading of "information" as everything that reduces uncertainty is technically the same as Shannon's. As for "everything that changes us", I think that's a bit broad
When you say we control so many perceptions we are not cognizant, and we are
cognizant of much that we aren't controlling, I of course agree. But the
definition tells us that we talk about perceptions which reduce uncertainty
(changes us). Do we not control those perceptions?
A few of them, yes. Most of them, no.
Martin
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.02.19,00:55 EST)]
Martin Taylor 2005.02.18.17.18
I don't think that your words are a proper paraphrase of the
foregoing. The autopeotic definition does deal in feedback, but it
doesn't refer to control (nor does it need to).
I should have stopped here.
May I take one more step away? A living cell is an autopeotic system. A
certain gene codes for a certain protein.
Control is the process by which an organism (the gene) acts on the
environment to make some aspect of it conform to an inner image, standard,
or reference condition that the behaving system selects.
Isn't protein production Control?
bjorn
[Martin Taylor 2005.02.18.21.42]
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.02.19,00:55 EST)]
Martin Taylor 2005.02.18.17.18
I don't think that your words are a proper paraphrase of the
foregoing. The autopeotic definition does deal in feedback, but it
doesn't refer to control (nor does it need to).
I should have stopped here.
May I take one more step away? A living cell is an autopeotic system. A
certain gene codes for a certain protein.
Control is the process by which an organism (the gene) acts on the
environment to make some aspect of it conform to an inner image, standard,
or reference condition that the behaving system selects.
Isn't protein production Control?
It may be, but I don't see it at the moment -- not in the sense that external influences tending to make the actual deviate from the ideal are corrected by countering the external influence.
A press pushing a metal sheet into a mold produces many copies that conform to the "inner image" posessed by the designer, but I wouldn't call that effect control. If a piece of grit gets into the mold, the pieces stamped out are defective and remain so. Likewise, a mutated gene may result in an altered protein that is unlike the earlier copies. I don't see any reference version in this case, so it's even less like control. In the case of the stamping press, if the designer were to come round, he might notice the defects and remove the grit. Nothing is going to bring the defective gene back to its original form.
Maybe I'm wrong and there is control in this. I'm sure there is at other points in the operation of the cell, but a lot of stability is due to simple negative feedback, which is an element of control but not the whole thing.
Martin