An example of why cybernetics is failing

[Michael Lissack]

Please read from the bottom up

IMHO unless we attempt to reach out to others using THEIR languaging we will witness the notion of cybernetics die before our eyes

Bernard spotted a good opening and then with the characteristic of hubris of much of the cybernetics community destroys it by insisting that the "others" must do the work to learn our language rather than we who must show the others potential benefits from considering a cybernetic point of view

Frustrating very frustrating 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Lissack <lis...@lissack.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CYBCOM] Anil Seth on 'consciousness'
To: <cyb...@googlegroups.com>

Bernard

unfortunately you are very clearly illustrating my point.  If you are unwilling to approach the discussion from the language stance of another person (especially one such as Seth who is not schooled in a cybernetics tradition) you will get nowhere

your unwillingness to even consider that non-cyberneticians may find your language use UNCLEAR just proves the point

Michael Lissack 

On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 7:47 PM Bernard C E Scott <bern...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear  Michael,

You say, "I remain confused what is it in your section 8 that you believe will "add to" Seth's understanding or perspective?". You also say, "All I find there is history and a lot of jargon." Well, one person's perceived  'jargon' is another person's perceived crystal clear elucidation. I do not know what prior understandings you bring to the questions I address., so it is difficult to respond constructively. 

Yes, I use etymology to help justify how I choose to use the terms 'awareness' and 'consciousness'. As I said in an earlier message, I am making a distinction between biologically rooted concepts (cognition, awareness) and socially rooted concepts (consciousness, self). This follows the usages of McCulloch, HvF, C S Lewis, Pask and others.

I see the 'hard problem' as a pseudo-problem. I thought I had made this clear.

As HvF says somewhere, "The meaning of a message is decided by the recipient." I'm disappointed that you cannot find much of value in part 8 of my book. I'm surprised also that you believe you can anticipate what Seth might make of it. I do compress much in that part. You might like to read Pask's own writings on 'consciousness'. You might also like to follow up the reference I give for the paper by Peter Hacker. 

Hacker, P. M. S. (2012). “The sad and sorry history of consciousness: being among

other things a challenge to the consciousness studies community”. Royal Institute
of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 70. Available at http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/

I believe the kind of conversation we are having is best carried out face to face rather than by email messaging, which can be both time-consuming and prone to misunderstandings.

I am happy to leave our exchanges at that.

Best wishes,

Bernard

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 23:06, Michael Lissack <lis...@lissack.com> wrote:

Bernard I remain confused what is it in your section 8 that you believe will "add to" Seth's understanding or perspective?  I just read it again.  All I find there is history and a lot of jargon.  You use etymology to distinguish awareness from consciousness but have what (sorry I cannot find it) to say about the issues for or against the existence of "the hard problem"

With all due respect, I very much doubt Seth cares about what Pask thought UNLESS those thoughts expand upon or contrast with his perspective in a meaningful way

Unless you or someone else is willing to provide that MISSING linkage, why would Seth get anything out of reading your dozen pages?

 

Michael Lissack 

On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 5:39 PM Bernard C E Scott <bern...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you, Michael, for your views about my book. Other commentators have expressed different views about its intelligibility for those unfamiliar with cybernetics. As per the title, my main aim was to speak in ways relevant to the social sciences, domains with which I have some familiarity. I certainly tried to speak "in the language already used by the other".

I recall Wittgenstein saying of his Philosophical Investigations that the work would probably only make sense to those who have had similar thoughts. One sows seeds as best one can, hopefully, on prepared ground. 

It is may be that cybernetics will remain a minority interest in the larger history of ideas. I have been encouraged by examples of younger scholars who have encountered cybernetics serendipitously and have subsequently become involved, even to the point of being active members of the ASC. :-)

Best wishes,

Bernard

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 22:14, Michael Lissack <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes Bernard i have read your book TWICE in fact

I regret to have to tell you I find most of the languaging you use in the book rather unintelligible to those who do not already have a well founded grounding in cybernetics

I do not think that sending your book to others outside the cybernetics community will accomplish much -- it places much too large a cognitive and interpretive burden on the non-community member

it is my experience that on must demonstrate a BENEFIT to another if one desires that other to take up what you wish

your book does not in and of itself offer such benefits

explanation and elucidation are needed

and again in my experience unless they are offered first and upfront in the language already used by the other -- nothing will happen

Michael Lissack 

 On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 5:07 PM Bernard C E Scott <bern...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Michael and Klaus,

Re Seth's paper,  I am interested both in the empirical findings of scientists and how those findings are interpreted

I suspect that neither of you have read my little book, esp. part  8., or, if you have, you have not interpreted my words as intended. in which case, mea culpa.

I also suspect that we have different views about cybernetics itself. (There is always another perspective.)

Incidentally, Klaus, you say, "The fundamental limitation of Seth and others is to conceive of cognition as a biological phenomenon whereas I am suggesting it to be a social phenomenon with consciousness being a construction in language (including in Seth’s)." This is, of course, IMHO, classic second order cybernetics, where everything is a 'construction in language' ("Everything that is said is said by or to an observer"). In language, one can choose to distinguish between 'cognition' as a general attribute of living systems and 'consciousness' as an attribute of the social. One thing that struck me about Seth's paper is that, unlike many in his field, he does acknowledge the importance of the social.

Best wishes,

Bernard

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 20:50, Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com> wrote:

Klaus thank you briliant as always

On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 1:49 PM Krippendorff, Klaus <klaus.kri...@asc.upenn.edu> wrote:

Hi Bernhard and Michael,

I’ve read Seth’s argument and agree with Michael but for different reasons. Cognition can be discussed from numerous perspectives. It is not the exclusive domain of cybernetics. In fact, I find little substance in Seth’s account of interest to cyberneticians.

That the brain is part of a living organism is a biological perspective. Perception, or observation in Maturana and von Foerster’s terms, links cognition to the world outside. Seth’s first confusion is to equate awareness with consciousness. First of all, we cannot observe someone’s awareness. We can observe what an organism responds to, but not what the frogs eye tells the frogs brain. Responding to something requires sensitivity to that something’s characteristics, dimensions or features like plant respond to our conception of water, but this is far from perception.

To know what someone is aware of requires the use of language: “I see a fly” or “I am aware of what is going on here”. Language is a social phenomenon, and reporting being aware of something requires someone linguistically competent and familiar with the use of “I”, “seeing” and “flies”. So awareness is a feeling that plays a social role in language and so does perception and cognition.

The more fundamental confusion of Seth and several cyberneticians is to confuse awareness with consciousness, I can’t get into lengthy arguments but am proposing with Julian Jaynes that consciousness is verbally expressed in something like “I see myself doing (seeing, observing, planning) something” whereas awareness is expressed by “I see something” further distinguished from merely “responding to something”

The fundamental limitation of Seth and others is to conceive of cognition as a biological phenomenon whereas i am suggesting it to be a social phenomenon with consciousness being a construction in language (including in Seth’s)

Klaus

---

 

Bernard 

I grant you all that BUT if you want Seth to respond and to ponder your insights you need to communicate with him in his language and give him a reason to engage.

Simply stating your conclusions from your perspective is NOT a way to gain influence nor to even gain interest.  If you believe his points are "cybernetic" and would benefit from a further elucidation of the entailments and enablements, that needs to be spelled out in terms he can relate to not merely asserted as "obvious".  You are asking Seth to in effect learning new language which you purport describes his area of interest and you are suggesting that in learning that new language he will gain useful (or at least interesting) new perspectives and understanding. 

I return to the suggestion in my prior email: to give such an effort the highest likelihood of success is to write an article along the lines of "A cybernetician looks at Amil Seth's ideas re consciousness" where the publication outlet and audience are the folks doing cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience,  consciousness studies etc

Show them what is to be gained with explicit examples rather than merely asserting that there are gains to be had.  Unless you (or someone) writes such am article the odds of Seth and his colleagues reading and deriving much from your book or any other "pure" cybernetics text are minimal at best.

On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 10:35 AM Bernard C E Scott <bern...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your responses to my email.

I see some misperceptions here.

1.Re.my background, my first ten years of employment were spent working as an experimental cognitive psychologist. I was employed in that role by Gordon Pask, one of the main sources of my interest in cybernetics. Since then, I have continued to pay attention to what is happening in the field that has now evolved into 'cognitive neuroscience'.

2. The history of that field shows the early influence of cybernetics. (See part 3 of my little book.)

3. My perception is that Seth's paper, with its concern with the brain/body system, is thoroughly cybernetic. I am impressed by his comprehensive knowledge of 'cognitive neuroscience', its conceptual challenges, and its history, as far as he is aware of it.

4. HIs discussions of  'consciousness' would benefit from an awareness of the sophisticated epistemological ideas to be found in second order cybernetics (esp. HvF, Pask, Maturana). (See part 8 of my little book).

5. I'm not interested in 'picking fights'. I am interested in engaging in conversations where the participants show a willingness to listen and learn, even though they may eventually decide to agree to disagree.

I attach a copy of my little book for your convenience.

Best wishes,

Bernard

 

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 13:15, Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bernard

I am confused.  Given your background you cognize and perceive the article through a cybernetic lens and see unspoken analogies or even unarticulated concept appropriation.  But, nothing in the article is itself dependent upon a cybernetic idea.  Seth draws on other traditions to make his points. Why does this trouble you?

It is hard for me to see how adding in either cybernetics or cyberneticians would enhance a readers understanding of the articles contents.

If you want to get such matter attended to, picking a fight is not the way to do it.

Write an article "how a cybernetician interprets Amil Seth's arguments re consciousness" and send it to a consciousness, cog Sci, or philosophy of mind journal.

On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 8:01 AM Bernard C E Scott <bern...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Friends,

FYI

https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Seth

I'm not concerned to contest or agree with this chap's ideas (see part 8 of my recent little book for that).

What troubles me is the lack of mention of cybernetics and cyberneticians (such as McCulloch, von Foerster, Pask and Maturana) in an article that so clearly draws on or reinvents cybernetic ideas.

 I'm too long in the tooth to engage with this work in detail. I might send him a message.

Regards,

Bernard

[Bernard C E Scott]

Michael,

I have already responded to your criticism. In my view, I speak as a social scientist to other social scientists.  I do my best use relatively simple English and provide explanations of what I see as key cybernetic concepts (in part 4). You say I do not. I do not see how one can explain what cybernetics is about without explaining what cybernetics is about and explaining what it offers as a transdiscipline and metadiscipline. This is something I have been doing with reasonable success for over 50 years.

I wish you well with your own attempts "to reach out to others using THEIR languaging".

Bernard

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAPmNe_YkHFOQuN_G_SNoxJdS%2Bkewv2Q8N_2rWhL7aMTFo423Kw%40mail.gmail.com.