Martin writes:
>I think a key issue here is that even self organizing systems have values.
>The core or primary values are emergent properties that develop from the
>interaction of all the pieces in the "system". All the individuals that
>contribute are going to contribute to the core values of the SuperBrain.
Things may work out in this way, but if systems are self-organized it is
only _because of_ their specific values, i.e. the higher level integrative
purposes which selectively support those functions which make integration
and system unity possible. Core values do not emerge with inevitability.
There is risk and perhaps drama involved in whether new entities will
survive and find a sustaining environmental or social/cultural niche. Not
all contributors will in fact shape core values. Some will not be able to
contribute enough or adapt to the new organization. This is not a
sentimental view.
>I think most everyone will agree that is going to be impossible to create a
>"value-free" SuperBrain. What you can do is be very explicit about the
>values of those involved or that you think will be propagated. If one of
>the ideas is to not exclude anyone from participating, then the values of
>adaptability and flexibility should be part of the equation.
Many important values are not, and cannot be made, explcit. For example,
the artistic integrity or unity of a performance of a Beethoven symphony is
carried out by the orchestra under the leadership of a conductor, but every
player, with the conductor's explicit direction if need be (error
correction in rehersal, etc.) must be highly aware of exactly how his/her
own contribution fits into the purposes of the whole. While more abstract
concepts and plans provide the framework, they really only describe in an
inadequate way the much more subtle emotional and existential processes
which play out so much faster in real time. In my view these more subtle
and continuing assessments are the valuing functions, values as manifested,
ideas as they operate.
Historically it has been the human experience that it is necessary at times
to exclude some disruptive individuals or else groups and organizations
cannot survive. So values of flexibility must operate within a structure of
values which sets limits and conditions in the interests of the whole,
presumably another part of the equation. I see values as immanent within
the structure and function of an integrated system, part of an individual's
perceptual world, not primarily verbal and not an add-on i.e. not to be
superimposed by instructions or authority.
>The ethics, as I see it, is the maintaining of values, as well as adhering
>to socially acceptable norms....
O.K., with the proviso that ethics, or the working answer as to what is
right in the circumstances, is not simply the application of static values
or fixed formulae, although these will be useful (as a composer's score is
useful), but rather a choice which considers all the circumstances and
possibilities. This choice, in principle at any rate, cannot be reduced to
any formula since it is a creative search for specific conditions which may
allow increased freedom and benefit for all components - without which
stability is hardly possible.
Martin also comments on Values and emotions, as follows:
>I think that the ability or desire to accept conspiracy theories, etc.
>comes out of living in a certain world view. There are a couple of values
>theories that suggest that if most of a person's values cluster around a
>certain area (on a developmental scale) a common world view will appear
>even if individuals clustered in the same are do not necessarily have the
>same values. One of these world views that seems to emerge is summed up in
>"a mystery over which I have no control". The persons or individual can
>and will begin to think that they are being "done to", etc. I could really
>see how conspiracy theories would arise out of this....
Yet for some individuals beliefs in a conspiracy may be fundamentally
different from others. I would see values as the resultants of highly
individual aspects of the perceptual world of each of us.
For some (paranoid) individuals, unfounded beliefs in conspiracy are not
open to corrective information, possibly associated with neural pathology
due to previous emotional stress, etc. Feelings that one is caught in a
conspiracy, on this view, may well be a reaction to avoid otherwise
incapacitating anxiety and disorganization. This would be control by
(patho)physiology, not by abstract values (except as conceptualized by an
observer - who risks missing the existential aspects).
I think that the precise individual factors which are manifested in
personal choices, even those described abstractly as values, are unlikely
to be captured by statistical methods. I guess this is just my view that
statistical methods in relation to individual human beings cannot be
expected to identify the key specific causal factors and feedback-loops or
operating valuations. Statistical methods may be better than nothing, but
should not lead to illusions about the adequacy of insights to be gained by
such methods.
I wrote:
>> The question arises whether a more precise
>>description can be given of the relation between the adaptive requirements
>>of free thought (for analysis of optimal purposes, objective and values at
>>the higher levels) and personality structures involving as they do habitual
>>emotional and physiological reactions.
>
>I would say that you can do this if you can believe that values or other
>human behaviors can be given standardized defintions. That is really the
>only way to create an objective playing field for discussion...
To create an objective or shared conceptual framework for discussion is one
valuable objective. However, it has seemed to me that the really important
values for each of us individually, which serve to integrate our own unique
life experiences, are superordinate to what we can capture in our language.
For example, the integrative life purposes or values must also include
emotional assessments of our situation and our relation to environmental
contingencies, etc., in terms of which we will decide upon action. While we
can try to verbalize these things we should not imagine that our
definitions can be anything more than pointers to the moon, as it were.
What I was trying to get at, and perhaps expressed rather poorly, was the
problem of how the prison-like constraints of habitual thought and action
can be freed up to utilize more potential, for more possibilities. I would
not think standardized definitions would go very far in assisting in this.
>Values are vehicle by which humans perceive the world around them. They
>are the filters for perceiving reality. Your emotional state is heavily
>influenced by your perception of the world. Values will have a strong
>influence on your emotions.
O.K. recognizing also reciprocity, and hierarchies of control. Of course,
what we perceive is our perceptual world, not the world of reality. But I
do agree that the world that we perceive, and the emotions which are part
of our response, are also shaped by our purposes and values (not by
*Values*, though, in the formal or traditional sense of abstract ideals
alone).
>>This way of looking at emotions is abstract and philosophical, as it were,
>>but is also interdisciplinary, involving as it does psychology, values, and
>>cybernetics.
>
>I would probably add to this philosophy and maybe sociology since the study
>of values are heavily influenced by these areas.
>Aristotle is a good start to this....he discusses values (virtues) in terms
>of individual and societal (political). He says that they are both needed
>for the complete man. ...
>There is quite a bit of coverage of these ideas in the philosophical and
>values literature. Also psych texts in the 50's and 60's seemed to delve
>into this area.
O.K. but I am really trying to capitalize on possible insights of cybernetics.
My reading in the area of values as traditionally considered, viz as
abstract ideals, which is admittedly limited, gives me the impression that
too much traditional philosophy, sociology and indeed psychology has been
badly lacking in approaches to these questions (human needs, purposes and
values) which are really useful rather than problematic. By comparison I am
looking for a clearer and more adequate conceptual and existential frame of
reference which includes but, as a matter of principle, reevaluates and
goes beyond any particular conceptual formulation. If I feel puzzled and a
bit lost in this, I reflect that perhaps this is indeed the nature of the
human situation, and it may be best to be aware of it.
Cheers and best wishes.
Bruce Buchanan