From: NET%"gwer1@bga.com" "Gerhard Werner" 23-OCT-1995 11:29:24.94
To: NET%"jprideaux@Gems.VCU.EDU"
CC:
Subj: More 2nd order Cybernetics
It seems t me that Franciss post of 10/19 raises the
question of a continuity between 1st and 2nd order
cybernetics, or whether there are indeed some
fundamental differences. Clearly, Ashby was already
aware of the need to include the observer, although he did
not to my knowledge pursue the implications. The
clarification of the implications became the point of
departure for 2nd order Cybernetics (SOC). The
committment to constructivism is only one part of this.
Geyer states in the review cited in prior post correctly:
the real break is with the notion of unity of method of
inquiry. In other words, that there are domains of study
which require a different method of legitimate inquiry
than what is commonly understood as the Scientific
Method. This domain is the study of systems which can
reflect on their own operations on the environment, and
concurrenty also on themselves .
The substantive implication of this position --I believe
not fully appreciated in the early stages of SOC, hence
giving the impression of a continuity of transition-- is an
Ontology in which the thinking--observing subject is on
par with, and reciprocally interacting with the objects of
its environments (recall that the Ontology which underlies
the Scientific Method excludes the subject from discourse
and consideration, and can address the subject only as
another object).
The difference in Ontology also mandates a different
Logic: therein, I submit, lies the central issue. The two-
valued classical logic of the Scientific Method (and
classical Ontology) is not equipped to represent the three-
place relation: subject-reflecting- the object, the object,
and the subject-refecting-itself.
While there have been efforts to explore formal systems
for accomplishing this (e.g. Gotthard Guenther in the early
years of SOC, in close interaction with W. McCulloch), no
convincing demonstrations have thus far been
forthcoming.
There is sometimes a tendency to bring the Theory of
Autopoiesis under the same roof with SOC: this, I suggest,
is unwarranted and confuses the issue. At best, one may
view this as a family resemblance (albeit remote).
Application of SOC to Sociology may well be at this time
<a bridge too far> (Geyer, and emphasized by Francis): the
problem of a ternary logic(or something functionally
equivalent) must first be solved. But I for one resist
throwing the baby out with the bathwater: I put my bets
on the social ecology of multi-robot (agent) systems as
laboratory for study and exploration, to develop formal
systems which emulate what we as humans are so good at
doing:
<<To be a subject is not only to be aware of things in the
world but also to be aware of oneself as having a point of
view on that world, for integration into actions for the
satisfaction of desires and projects; and to view the
Other as another self-aware subject which also has its
own point of view >>. [Parenthetically, this is a
paraphrased and sanitized excerpt from Hegel,s
Phenomenology !]
For better or worse: 1st and 2nd order Cybernetics have
rather different ideological roots !
------
Gerhard Werner, M.D., Emeritus Professor University of
Pittsburgh, Center for Emergent Technologies, Motorola
Inc, P.O. Box 161178, Austin TX 78716. GWER1@bga.com
---------