>I am hoping to encourage
>both humility and caution, as it seems that we know VERY little.
Individuals who played the world-historical roles of originating the values
of Western civilization - Socrates and the founder of Christianity - also
emphasized the values and virtues of humility. Unfortunately the great
majority, who have understood so much less, have also not understood that
advice nor taken it seriously!
Christopher Jaynes <jaynes@CS.UMASS.EDU> writes:
> . . .The individual
> cells in your body, for example, cannot influence (to any measurable
> degree) your Will even though they make up a great deal of your
> overall system.
A case might be made that some cells, at least in groups, do have decisive
influence, and even single cancer cells might have vital consequences.
Whatever else it may be, the Will must be in major part a resultant of
contributing and contending forces in dynamic play. Cells and systems form
the background of structure and function which mostly support the organism
in its ennvironmental niche. When cells begin to lack for glucose the Will
becomes inclined to the pursuit of food. When we get a sliver or other
injury or inflammation, the pain and impaired function take our attention.
Absent such distractions the Will can attend to higher level concerns, but
only on the grounds of a familiar biological equilibrium.
> The great difference between this example and the Super-Brain that
> could form is a matter of awareness. I believe that the strict
> separation between system/metasystem begins to break down when the
> lower levels become aware of the metasystem.
Strictly speaking, lower levels are lower because, by definition, they have
only limited range and scope. For example, the elements within a pattern,
or the notes in a melody, have nothing within them, and no adequacy or
complexity, to enable them to symbolize or take into awareness organization
at a higher level. (Perceptual Control Theory emphasizes this point.)
However, some lower levels may be influenced by input signals which,
unknown to them, originate as feedback from detectors at higher levels.
Thyroid cells are influenced by pituitary hormones, etc. But this is
organized feedback, not awareness. The themostat is aware of nothing, even
if it is influenced by the values or settings of the detector which is
connected to it.
All human beings play multiple roles in daily life. To the extent that
anyone becomes not just vaguely or theoretically aware of a metasystem but
really begins to function in some related role, however minor, then they
are also part of the metasystem and may have an effect on its practices,
development and policy.
> If we can control the formation of Will, then the question then
> returns again: Who should decide upon the Metasystem Will? How?
As an abstract question of principle this is unanswerable. An empirical
approach would suggest that all those who through their knowledge and
practical competency have an effect will at the same time influence
decisions. This is an evolutionary process, not to be decided in advance
from on high or by theoretical or ideological positions. Those who
demonstrate competency in identifying problems and organizing for solutions
and convincing others will be the ones trusted to decide. The search for
these as well as other societal values is thus, in the proper sense, a
political process.
On a related point, relating to values of responsibility, security and trust,
(I had written)
>>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.
On this, martin@netcom.com (Martin L.W. Hall) wrote:
>Yes, that is usually related to values conflicts. If the organization does
>not have enough variety (Ashby) to have a diverse organization, then the
>organization will likely become vigilant in making sure members have
>congruent values, or else get rid of them.
This is one of the most difficult problems of leadership and values.
Sometimes the problem is not inadequate variety in the organization but the
destructiveness of values controlling some individuals. A sentimental
approach to what was known in ancient times as evil, and appears in modern
jargon as incorrigible psychopathy and paranoia, poses immense problems, in
part because people with normal or typical values are not aware of the
dangers, or in various ways deny the realities of the problems and the
stakes. Problems and values related to survival and deliverance, salvation
and acceptance, are about as fundamental to universal human experience as
can be conceived, and persons who have never aquired these, or have given
up on them, are terrible threats to others and may be hard to recognize.
Even a SuperBrain would require its own supersensitivities to detect
specific dangers.
So I would say that some conflicts, while they may be described in value
terms, are existential, and not resolvable, since there is no common
ground.
As a case in point: I wrote:
>>For some (paranoid) individuals, unfounded beliefs in conspiracy are not
>>open to corrective information, . . . This would be control by
>>(patho)physiology, not by abstract values (except as conceptualized by an
>>observer - who risks missing the existential aspects).
Martin commented:
>I think the idea of corrective information is irrelevant. If you are
>operating in a certain world view you will stay there until your values
>shift. . . . over time, the values will shift and consequently
>also the world view...
For the psychiatrist, paranoia is _ defined by_ incorrigibility, and the
incapacity to shift values is the intractible problem to be dealt with. So
it seems to me that the possibility of corrective information is really key
to mental health and life, as it is for any open system. In a hypothetical
state of nature the inability to learn from experience must soon bring
death. In society such inability brings into play all sorts of educational
and reform measures, which too often do not deal with the problem
adequately.
I think that key functions of any SuperBrain, if it is to survive and serve
those who trust it, will be sensitive indicators of any such dangers,
whether of viruses or takeover attempts which threaten to restrict
information, impose censorship blackouts by overloads, etc. This requires
vigilance. Security policies need to be thought through and put in place
if trust is to be justified. This too is a value consideration, and a
suitable process would require discussion and decisions about this.
>The reason that outside observer can get some idea of what is valued, is
>through observing decisions. The process of "valuing" is a decision making
>process. The observer does not know what brought the person to this place
>in time but the can observe the decisions being made. If these decisions
>are made around commonly defined entitys, then standard definitions of
>values can arise.
O.K. as long as there is not an absolute insistance on classifying all
values, decisions and purposes in terms of previously recognized
categories. In the nature of the case I cannot at present conceive of an
example for the future, but most historical advances have been associated
with value concepts which appeared outlandish and bizzare to people at the
time, often meriting rejection and death for the proponents, for the
presumed protection of society (and its power structure) at the time. For
example, while Liberty may be a value, are there subcategories of freedom
which might not be allowed? Might this relate to the selectivity required
to prevent the blackout of important information? What values should guide
such an adjudication? The price of liberty will still be eternal
vigilance, understood to include vigilance at every level of valuation and
hierarchical control processes.
> From a cybernetic point
>of view, I look at understanding values (and getting at core values) as a
>way of creating a "cleaner" communication between human beings. The idea
>is not to sanitize the communication but to lay the assumptions out a
>little better so that information can be best conveyed in the manner in
>which it was intended.....
I very much agree with this. As long as nobody is allowed to get away with
cutting the wires, or, which has the same effect, overloading all the
systems with noise... Survival and freedom will always require selective
safeguards for vital processes, which include better information and
clearer communications.
Cheers and best wishes.
Bruce B.