Anil Seth on 'consciousness'

50 views
Skip to first unread message

Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 8:01:47 AM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, RC51onSociocybernetics, Paul Pangaro, Angus Jenkinson
Dear Friends,

FYI



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

Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 8:15:54 AM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, RC51onSociocybernetics, Paul Pangaro, Angus Jenkinson
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.



--
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/CAF7e6eKmaL6raF7eMAt3QSx-i%3D-jrKePsArmj4iTi%3DM1EA%3DfPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 10:35:33 AM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, RC51onSociocybernetics, Paul Pangaro, Angus Jenkinson
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
 




BScott Cybernetics for the Social Sciences 10 May 2021.pdf

Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 11:03:57 AM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, RC51onSociocybernetics, Paul Pangaro, Angus Jenkinson
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.

Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 1:05:01 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Michael,

Thank you for your suggestions. You say, "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."

I agree. He is speaking the 'language(s)' of science and philosophy and, given his mention of von Humbold in his discussion of the brain as a 'predictive system', shows an interest in the historical precursors of his ideas. He might, for example, be interested to learn about the 1943 paper by Wiener, Bigelow and Rosenblueth. Of course, he may already be aware of it.

If I do write to him, I will, for his convenience, attach a copy of my little book and point him towards relevant parts.

Best wishes,

Bernard

Krippendorff, Klaus

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 1:49:00 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, RC51onSociocybernetics, Paul Pangaro, Angus Jenkinson
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



From: cyb...@googlegroups.com <cyb...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 11:04 AM
To: cyb...@googlegroups.com
Cc: RC51onSociocybernetics; Paul Pangaro; Angus Jenkinson
Subject: Re: [CYBCOM] Anil Seth on 'consciousness'
 

Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 3:50:35 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Klaus thank you briliant as always

Jason the Goodman

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 4:04:43 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, RC51onSociocybernetics, Paul Pangaro, Angus Jenkinson
Hi Klaus,
I like your formula that 
Consciousness = “I see myself doing (seeing, observing, planning) something” 
Awareness = “I see something” 
Now, how about in the movie Avatar their special greeting phrase "I see you."  What would you name it - the emergence of a social bond? 
Best - Jason

Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 5:07:04 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
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






Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 5:14:42 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
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 

14 Stratford Rd Marblehead MA 01945 phone 617-710-9565


http://lissack.com


Academic, Entrepreneur, Realtor, Author

Opinions (if any) expressed are solely my own. 







Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 5:39:27 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
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





Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 6:06:02 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
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 
14 Stratford Rd Marblehead MA 01945 phone 617-710-9565


Michael is the immediate past President of the American Society for Cybernetics (2014-2020), Executive Director Emeritus of the Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence and Professor of Design and Innovation at Tongji University, Shanghai.  Opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the views of any of the institutions with which I have an affiliation.






Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 7:47:08 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
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



Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 7:51:48 PM8/8/21
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

Krippendorff, Klaus

unread,
Aug 8, 2021, 9:10:24 PM8/8/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Bernard,
Second-order cybernetics is the cybernetics of observing systems. The construction is limited to the subjectivity of observers making descriptions. Von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism is concerned with how individuals construct their cognitive reality. Acknowledging that language is a socio-cultural phenomena acknowledges merely that observers’ descriptions are phrased in a medium of representation that has a history beyond the life of most observers. 

I am suggesting with the two Stanford cognitive theorists, whose names escapes me right now, that “we can’t think alone”, (please Google this phrase) which makes consciousness a social phenomenon, one of eminent interest to a cybernetics that goes beyond second-order cybernetics as conceived by Heinz von Foerster,
Ernst von Glasersfeld, Humberto Maturana, and Gordon Pask (Think of Gordon’s famous image of the man in the bowler hat, containing representations of what he sees, including himself. The are no interactive constructions of social realities).

Besklaus

Best wishes
Klaus

Sent from my iPhone

Loet Leydesdorff

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 2:45:54 AM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Klaus and colleagues, 

I would like to go one step further: communication grounds consciousness, but not the other way round. The micro-foundation can, for example, be defined as "double contingenc:y:" Ego explects Alter to entertain expectations (among other things about herself) similar to --with the same status as --the expectations which Ego entertains herself. 

The network of expectations is auto-correlated over time, but changes when the distribution of expectations  at the level of consciousness (plural). Individual expectations reflect (1) these events which take place  at the supra-individual level and (2) can be informed by observational reports of individuals. Klaus' formulation to consider observations as a means to relate to an external reality (which remains unknown) enriches this model. . 

"Interpenetration" (Parsons, Luhmann) between consciousness and communication make for both systems of reference the complexity of the other reflexively available. Interprenetration can be asymmetrical and asynchronous. For example, the communication can update with a frequency different from consciousness,  etc. These frequencies can be changed in terms of the auto-correlations among the communication matrices. 

From this perspective, I am inclined to consider the "observer" as a biological reification. Von Glaserfeld-type radical constructivism is micro-founded  in terms of observations. However, expectations can be tested against observations, but not the other way round. The external world can be hypothesized, and then the discourse can be enriched by reporting observations.  

This model may be more akin to the models in science studies (including Popper) than the ones in socio-cybernetics. The meta-biology of an observer / a population of observers is accepted in sociocybernetics to a larger extent than in science studies and its type of radical constructivism (Haraway and others). The behavior of observers can be observed, but not their observations. Only observational reports have a status in the development of discourse. They can be reconstructed. 

best, 
Loet

Loet Leydesdorff

________________________________

Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam 
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

lo...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/


"The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge" at

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-59951-5 (Open Access)

Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 3:00:40 AM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Klaus,

I am bewildered by how you manage to misrepresent others, at least, differently from how I do. :-) I like to view second order cybernetics as being about 'explaining the observer to herself' (what it is to be a human being). I see HVF, Pask and Maturana as examples of those who pursued this aim, albeit, in different but complementary ways. The aim is, of course, open-ended. I am not a big fan of von Glasersfeld.

You say with approval, that "We can't think alone". The source (https://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/why-you-dont-and-cant-think-alone) seems to be a re-invention of a Pask P-Individual (psychosocial unity). I, myself, like to refer to G H Mead's "the self is a social process" and (like Gordon) to the ideas of Vygotsky and Luria about how outer speech becomes inner speech.

I'm still left wondering if you have read my little book. I suggest reading part 5, "On messages" and the section on "interaction" in part 4. I also attach for your interest a paper ("Cognition and language") that I wrote when I was training to be an educational psychologist (I was awarded an MSc in child development with clinical studies). It is quite old now but I still stand by most of what it says.

Best wishes,

Bernard





Scott Cog and Lang.doc

Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 3:22:25 AM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
There are many who believe that it is righteous to follow the Golden rule

Do unto others as you would have done unto you

Somehow they fail to see (or at least come to grips with) the inherent narcissism in that rule:  the standard of judgment therein is the self

If we were all alike there would be no issue.  But we are not.

The platinum rule alternative speaks very differently:  

Do unto others as they would have done unto themselves. 

Now the standard of judgment is the mindset of the other.  It becomes our righteous task to attempt to understand enough of that mindset to afford meaning to the platinum rule in the context in which it is being applied.

The "so-called" virtue of Midas is thusly exposed for its inherent cognitive laziness

The golden rule is but the Midas touch when applied to communication of meaning.

Krippendorff, Klaus

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 9:35:14 AM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com


Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2021, at 3:22 AM, Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com> wrote:



Krippendorff, Klaus

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 12:11:00 PM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Well Bernhard,

You define second-order cybernetics even more radically individualist than I ever characterized it as by claiming it to be “explaining the observer to herself”. Can this be more subjectivist than as you conceive of it? Where is the social dimension? My reading of von Foerster acknowledges second-order cybernetics as providing descriptions and in Maturana’s terms, “sayings” to which von Foerster added his corollary: “Everything said is said (by one observer) to another observer - implying the social conception of sharing (a Paskian term for understanding each other’s) individual perceptions - somewhat undermined by what you correctly attribute to von Foerster’s saying that the meaning of messages is determined by their recipients.

I don’t dispute that i read what you read differently or rather with other entailments in focus. I have always given von Foerster’s second-order cybernetics credit for moving cybernetics out of the clutches of objectivism, a description of the world as if the observing scientist had nothing to do with it. However, I also always said it does not go far enough. It relies on von Glasersfeld’s radical (meaning individual) constructivism, echoed by your definition of second-order cybernetics (although you said you don’t care too much about von Glasesfeld’s work).

for me, Second-order cybernetics does not go far enough in plain view of the fact that society is being converted to a digital machinery, dominating nearly all spheres of human life, enslaving us to become cyborgs of algorithmically run institutions. Norbert Wiener had a glorious vision of a future society that embraces cybernetic intelligence, but he did not come close to what cybernetics is in the process of doing to all of us. Yes, i am reading the world differently and am proud of putting cybernetics in the context of what its discourse constructs. 

Best wishes
Klaus



From: cyb...@googlegroups.com <cyb...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Krippendorff, Klaus <klaus.kri...@asc.upenn.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 9:35 AM
To: cyb...@googlegroups.com

Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 1:56:56 PM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Klaus,  

There are many ways of characterising second order cybernetics. I said I like the aim of "explaining the observer to herself" (what it means to be a human being) You ask, "Where is the social dimension?" That lies in the content of the explanations provided and in the act of providing those explanations. I follow HvF in arguing that second order cybernetics is always a 'social cybernetics'.

As you note, HvF also stresses the pragmatic nature of communications (as do Pask, Maturana and Bateson) in his dictum that "The meaning of a message lies with the receiver." . Yet again, you misrepresent Pask and his technical use of the term 'understanding'.

I agee with your concerns about the need for a cybernetics of the 'cybernation' of the world. I have raised these concerns myself and have looked to see the rise of a global 'cyber-nation', with what I refer to as 'cybernetic enlightenment' concerning the human condition.

The world appears to be going to hell in a hand cart. There is much to be done to improve the quality of the global conversation, a cybernetic task with a role for cyberneticians as per HvF's "Responsibilities of competence", which I am sure you must have read.

There is too much repetition in our conversations. I would like to end this one here.

Best wishes,

Bernard

Lucas Pawlik

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 2:21:38 PM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Klaus,
Dear Bernard,

Thank you very much for addressing what is happening in the world! Only a few days ago I have written Bernard that we are just experiencing the worldwide new edition of the Eastern Bloc cybernetics 50 and 60ities of the Soviet Union.  The attempt of the digitally organized supervision state is so obvious and far advanced that even Putin can speak about it publically, and it is ignored. Everyone is silent like lambs in the hope that they will not have to go to the slaughter first.

Of course, I could now point out that Heinz von Foerster in "Future of Perception- Perception of the Future" simply and clearly described how this social process is driven by the abuse of language, the trivialization of people in the process of adapting to their machines and the instrumentalization of education.

But I did that this year at the ASC conference, and also our Club of Rome meeting, where I spoke that obesity and physical inactivity, account for most of the deaths of the covid pandemic, and are both a direct product of our digital lifestyle, of trivialization.  

In the case of chickens and pigs, we are already paying attention to species-appropriate husbandry.  But we, as special farm animals who feed ourselves and convince ourselves to spend the day in front of the computer in order to be allowed to play in the digital society, have already learned too well to ignore the destruction of our world, our language, and our social life.

Of course, I could say that it's a shame that academics, and especially cyberneticists, who should understand and organize against the fact that the fox has broken into the henhouse, are instead discussing which grain to peck. But what's the point of pointing out, these decades-long discussions about who didn't understand whom correctly are self-deceiving substitute actions.

All this I could say, but I prefer to remain silent and would like to thank you, Klaus, that you address what is happening in the world. And also to you Bernard, for still not giving up on communicating how one might reasonably communicate with other disciplines and scientists. Of course, it's too late for that, but you are honored by the attempt.

All the best

Lucas


Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 2:33:22 PM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Thank you, Lucas. 

I'm afraid you may be correct that it is too late for my exhortations to have much effect. Some of my seeds might fall on fertile ground.

I wish you good progress with your own endeavours.

Bernard

Jason the Goodman

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 4:31:15 PM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, Carl, jonathan...@gmail.com
What Mike mentioned here - Golden Rule and Platinum Rule - were key parts of the WINTOP Roundtable Leadership Program, but we had the third level: Diamond Rule - take the responsibility to the difficult situation. The format we use is to ask questions - Platinum Question and Diamond Question.
A Platinum Question - "What can I do for you?"
A Diamond Question - "What are some efforts that I can do now to help?" 
Platinum Question (and conversation) does require using a (subset of) language that BOTH sides can engage.
Diamond Question (and following action) does require a fuller assessment of the situation including efforts to understand the perspective of the other side involved.
The above content is in a section named "Two Birds Listening & Two Gems Questioning" in our communication module. Interested colleagues, please let me know.

Best - Jason

Jason the Goodman

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 7:48:59 PM8/9/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Lucas, 
I would like to invite you to further your discussion at CoR, this time not about seating in front of computers to live our digital life, but making a comparison of what you observed that concerns you with the predictions already offered us in "1984", "Animal Farm", and "Brave New World"?
Elon Musk brought my attention to the 2015 movie "Eye In the Sky" when he was talking about the immediate danger of AI much higher than the invention of nuke. I would suggest for colleagues check it out if you have not seen the movie - the fact that half people consider it excellent and outstanding and half people consider it BS is very interesting. 

I second your message to Klaus and Bernard with this picture, as an illustration of something going on in our world:
image.png

Best - Jason

Jason the Goodman

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 1:49:05 AM8/10/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Also relevant to this topic, please consider the thoughts of Yuval Harari in this article: 

Lucas Pawlik

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 3:46:40 PM8/10/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, Petra Schwarz
Dear Jason,
                         To the extent that I am linguistically, technically, and health-wise capable, I am happy to participate in a discussion of the relationship between the history of cybernetics and the current world situation, a hybrid world war over the data that one hopes will control the world. Since it is difficult to talk about much of what I learned second-hand in German long ago or more recently in English about topics that are actually unfamiliar to me, I would like to elaborate on a few points in writing.
The picture that you sent is unfortunately very appropriate. As is the reference to Elon Musk, who is not unjustly trying to escape to Mars.  Just briefly note that when asked about the Covid-19 pandemic in the interview with Joe Rogan, he hesitantly replied that he is now seeing this film for the second time because at the time of the outbreak was in China to warn of the danger of A.I.  He pointed out that both issues are related, but refused to tell me about it so as not to get into trouble.  I am nobody, so I can talk easily.  Developing a deadly virus for which you have the only vaccination is an elegant way out of the delicate balance of terror of mutual extinction. If all the rich countries pay along, and research along, the A.I. will also finally get enough relevant data for a breakthrough in genetic engineering. Francis Boyle, who wrote the American Anti-Biological Weapons Act, because of which the research had to be moved to Wuhan, has already written about the danger of such a development in his book "Biowarfare and Terrorism" in 2005, that civil society will become an experimental field if the danger of a nuclear confrontation becomes too probable. That is why Luc Montagnier, the 90-year-old Nobel laureate and discoverer of the HIV virus, informed him when he found out that the Covid virus was artificial. The Americans had to cooperate with the Chinese in order not to fall behind in the bioweapons race.  In "Dancing with Demons" in the ASC Newsletter, Kathleen described this Batesonian game-theoretic dynamic very nicely, using the example of the gradual alignment of police and organized crime in the United States. Both parties are becoming more and more alike as they struggle with each other.  

Years before, the East German journalist and cyberneticist Peter Krieg had drawn my attention to this problem at the memorial service for Heinz von Foerster. I got into conversation with him because I had been fascinated by his description of cybernetics in Kybernetes -in Memoriam Heinz von Foerster.

"For nearly 30 years, from the early 1950s to the late 1970s, cybernetics was the most important scientific and technological movement, a frenzy that gripped the scientific communities on both sides of the Iron Curtain. The Cold War provided the backdrop for this movement, which promised total control over complex, nonlinear processes ranging from biological to social systems and was even seriously considered as a potential neo-religious foundation by the communist regimes of the Soviet bloc." (Broecker/Krieg 2005, p. 551-552)

This lined up so wonderfully with Joseph Weizenbaum's description of the hardliners of cybernetics and A.I. people:

The whole man, like the ant, viewed as a behaving system, is quite simple. The apparent complexity of his behavior over time is largely a reflection of the complexity of the environment in which he finds himself.)(Herbert Simon, cited in Weizenbaum, 1976, p. 260)

It is possible to look at Man himself as a product of(...) an evolutionary process of) developing robots; his ethical conduct (is) something to be interpreted in terms of circuit action of(...)Man in his environment - a Turing machine with only two feedbacks determined, a desire to play and a desire to win. ( Anonymus 1952 quoted from Weizenbaum, 1976, p. 240)

I can still remember how he said to me: "Dear Lucas! Of course, nobody wants to remember cybernetics! Digitalization is one big labeling scam, in which the ideas of cybernetics the most theoretical are reimplemented with the most beautiful names!" Then he took out a cell phone and said, "Wait a while and no one will be able to afford to walk around without one of these. People will be clamoring to get the best micros and cameras built-in, never mind being monitored 24/7 with it.  People in the West are just too naive because they never experienced what people in East Germany and the East went through under totalitarian regimes."  

Unfortunately, he died too soon after in very unfortunate circumstances. Since then, I always look at what happens to the critical journalists of society when I want to foresee the future of the general public. Heinz and Peter Krieg were very good friends. Heinz knew those things, and because he was educated in Second World War he decided not to take Second Order Cybernetics from the theoretical into the social context. Thus he died peacefully...

Beste Regards, 

Lucas 


Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 2:27:51 AM8/11/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anil Seth <A.K....@sussex.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [CYBCOM] Anil Seth on 'consciousness'
To: Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Martin <rma...@truman.edu>, Stuart Umpleby <ump...@gmail.com>, Brenden MEAGHER <brenden....@gmail.com>, Pille Bunnell <life....@mac.com>, Thomas....@xjtlu.edu.cn <Thomas....@xjtlu.edu.cn>


Dear Michael, Bernard, all

Thank for you for copying me in on this fascinating exchange. I’m delighted to learn that vigorous discussions among cyberneticians is still taking place.  I’m also glad that my work has resonated with some prominent cybernetic concepts.

I should first say that I readily acknowledge an enormous debt to cybernetics.  I was trained at Sussex, where the cybernetic tradition - especially regarding the British School of Ashby &co - was kept well alive.  I drew on some Ashbyan concepts back in the 1990s when studying for my PhD, and reading Dupuy’s The Mechanization of the Mind was a formative experience.  (My former supervisor, Phil Husbands, has co-authored a history of the Ratio Club including interviews with, among others, Gordon Pask.  Pask’s Ear was taught at Sussex right up until the 2010s - in fact I used to teach about it myself)

I owe cybernetics one of the most important insights I have come to, in thinking about cognitive neuroscience - the interpretation of predictive perception as a form of allostatic control. This owes plenty to concepts of the Homeostat and the Good Regulator Theorem.  More generally, my emphasis on dynamical systems and embodiment/embeddedness (as opposed to disembodied, abstract representation/computation) draws directly on cybernetic influences. 

Unfortunately, in short articles such as the Aeon piece, I’m unable to do justice to this rich history of influences. If you are interested, I make the connections more strongly in my 2015 article “The Cybernetic Bayesian Brain”



… and I try to connect the dots in my new book, which brings together my various ideas about consciousness and self (out in the US in mid October)


Though I confess I am by no means an expert on cybernetics, past or present. To one of Bernard’s points, I never found that much of great relevance in second order cybernetics - with the grand exception of Maturana (and Varela, to the extent he counts within this circle) - as compared to the first wave. Perhaps this is because I became influenced by other approaches to phenomenology, and that I am wholly unconvinced by arguments that propose a constitutively social basis for consciousness.

Perhaps it will help to clarify how I have been using the terms consciousness, awareness, sensation, and perception (note that I have no wish to be dogmatic about these usages - it just pays to be clear). I indeed treat consciousness and awareness as synonymous - both referring to the presence of any experience (qualia) at all - roughly following Thomas Nagel’s definition. Sensation carries no implications about consciousness or awareness - it can be mere mechanical sensitivity.  Perception, the way I use the term, is an act of interpretation of sensory signals (in the predictive processing framework, an inference about their causes). Perception can be either conscious or unconscious.

Bernard - thank you for attaching a pdf of your book.  I will try to read the relevant parts, since I remain fascinated by different takes on cybernetics.  I cannot promise it will be soon though. I have a reading list which already fills me with much guilt.

Finally, one of the great recent academic pleasures I was lucky to have was to meet Humberto Maturana in Chile, in 2019, where we spent a number of hours discussing his ideas and how they pertain to modern cognitive neuroscience. His recent passing was a very sad event.

Thank you again - and keep the cybernetic flag flying!

With very best wishes

Anil Seth
 

On 8 Aug 2021, at 16:04, Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com> wrote:


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [CYBCOM] Anil Seth on 'consciousness'

-------------------------------------------
Anil Seth, D.Phil.
University of Sussex, UK
Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience
Being You - A New Science of Consciousness is out on September 2nd
Co-Director, Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science
Co-Director, CIFAR Program in Brain, Mind, and Consciousness
Editor-in-Chief, Neuroscience of Consciousness
Engagement Fellow, Wellcome Trust
www.anilseth.com
@anilkseth





Message has been deleted

stur...@alumni.harvard.edu

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 4:20:05 AM8/11/21
to Cybernetic Communications, A.K....@sussex.ac.uk
Dear Bernard

Thank you for sharing  your "little book".
It has clarified how we think so differently.
One instance is on page p.34 where you state:

"Ashby (1956) refers to the use of hierarchies of regulators as a way of ‘amplifying intelligence”.
Ashby only uses the words “amplifying intelligence” once in the second last page of his book and then in a speculative manner, not as you describe it.
Ashby does talk about amplifying control but not intelligence. He notes the ambiguous meanings of intelligence.

On page 35 you provide an useful definition of a heterarchy.. This reveals both how similar it is to a holarchy but also how deficient heterarchies are in describing the natural world with its dual paradoxical properties as also illustrated in human nature. (Refer to: Kelso, J. A. S. & Engstrøm. D. A. (2006) The Complementary Nature, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press (Introduced the tilde “~” symbol to show the interdependency between complementary ~ contrary relationships) 

The most profound point I discovered in only scanning your book are the words on page 7:-
“We can include all systems that are usually distinguished as ‘living’ (plants, animals)”
Please might you be able provide references on the cybernetics systems of plants?

Plants are conscious of time of day, seasons, sun, temperature, gravity, type of terrain, soils, water, other plants and animals and change their behaviour accordingly.
They obviously have highly refined communication and control systems with a requisite variety of feedback loops, etc etc.
Plants are sentient living systems capable of volition, altruism and understanding kinship, etc according to my quick google search https://www.nathab.com/blog/research-shows-plants-are-sentient-will-we-act-accordingly/ 
This raises two questions:
1.  Is the search for what Amil Seth refers to as consciousness” in humans similar to that of plants and/or is it just an inherent "Ghost in the Machine/"living system?
2. Is the idea of introducing the concept of "second order cybernetics" just a human social construct accepted by some, or does it have relevance for plants and the rest of natural world?
If it does apply then it would no longer be "second order" but become an inherent characteristics of nature that I describe as: “Tensegrity” and what Kelso & Engstrøm describe as “complementary”.
Cheers
Shann

Shann Turnbull PhD; Principal: International Institute for Self-governance
PO Box 266, Woollahra, Sydney Australia, 1350
Ph:+612 9327 8487; Cell: +61 (0) 418 222 378
Skype and Google ID: shann.turnbull


On 11 Aug 2021, at 6:05 pm, Bernard C E Scott <bern...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear Anil,

Thank you for taking the time to compose the message below. I wasn't aware that anyone had contacted you directly, nor was I aware that you are part of the Sussex tradition, with which I have some familiarity. I am most pleased that you are aware of and give credit to the work of cyberneticians.

Thank you for the additional sources for accessing your writings. I find your surveys of contemporary empirical findings in neuroscience most helpful

Thank you also for your definitions. You will see that, in part 8 of my book, I make a distinction between 'awareness' as a general biological phenomenon and 'consciousness' as a label for the human processes of knowing with oneself and knowing with others (con-scio). This follows the usage of Warren McCulloch, Heinz von Foerster and Gordon Pask. It is the distinction that is important, not the labels used. I note that in your article you do refer to the 'social'. I have a major interest in child development and the ontogeny of the 'self', which is also mentioned in my book. My influences have been G H Mead, Lev Vygotsky, Alexander Luria, and, of course, Pask, von Foerster, and Maturana.

Re second order cybernetics, if you have not done so, I suggest consulting the master, Heinz von Foerster. I attach a pdf of his book, Understanding Understanding, which is a collection of some of his papers. I particularly recommend chapters 1, 5 and 10. Other chapters I like very much are 8, 11 and 14.

Best wishes,

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/CAF7e6e%2BzzG%3DVLXeMQy8eQbSDrDjsRyshN%2B8p6CdtiWqK7fzw6A%40mail.gmail.com.
<Heinz_Von_Foerster-Understanding_Understanding.pdf>

Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 9:15:09 AM8/11/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shann,

Thank you for your comments and queries about my book.

Yes, I seem to have overstated the case about Ashby and the 'amplification of intelligence'. It was a long time since I had read that chapter. Any social scientist will know 'intelligence' is a contested word. The concepts I had in mind are 'hierarchies of regulators' and Pask's 'hierarchies of problem solvers' as models of learning (double loop, triple loop and so on ...). 

Re heterarchy: Charles Francois' International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics lists many definitions of 'heterarchy' and 'holarchy' I was working to a word limit so could not hope to go into more detail. Words are words. They do not have intrinsic meanings. As Wittgenstein advises, one should not ask what a word means but look to see how it is used. Thank you for the Kelso and Engstrom reference. I'm already aware of Kelso and have occasionally referenced him.

I'm puzzled why you ask about a reference to the cybernetics of plants. You yourself go on to describe them as cybernetic systems. Those attributes are what I had in mind.

Re your two questions, I have already contrasted my use of the words 'consciousness' and 'awareness' with the usage by Seth. For me, 'consciousness' is not a thing to be sought (ghostly or not) it refers to human psychosocial processes of conceptualisation/thinking that are embodied in the biomechanical brain/body system and its extensions, the dynamics of which generate the 'free energy' which, subjectively, give rise to the experience of 'awareness' (being awake) and, objectively, to the observable to the behaviours of seeking variety and resolving uncertainty.  In my book, I argue that (following Pask and vast numbers of social scientists) we need both categories - the psychosocial and the biomechanical to talk about the human condition. 

Second order cybernetics provides us with the understanding that all the 'things, objects, concepts and so on' that we human observers talk about are human social constructs. The concept becomes relevant for all living systems insofar as we regard them as 'observing systems' that live in their own constructed realities rather than just as objects to be observed, dissected and analysed as biomechanical entities. Is your pet dog just a 'biological machine' or do you attribute to him/her aspects of 'personhood'?

Cheers,

Bernard

 

Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 9:25:28 AM8/11/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, A.K....@sussex.ac.uk
Bernard writes:

 'consciousness' is not a thing to be sought (ghostly or not) it refers to human psychosocial processes of conceptualisation/thinking that are embodied in the biomechanical brain/body system and its extensions, the dynamics of which generate the 'free energy' which, subjectively, give rise to the experience of 'awareness' (being awake) and, objectively, to the observable to the behaviours of seeking variety and resolving uncertainty

if the dynamics "which generate the 'free energy' which, subjectively, give rise to   "the experience of 'awareness' (being awake) and, objectively, to the observable to the behaviours of seeking variety and resolving uncertainty" are predicated on "human psychosocial processes of conceptualisation/thinking" then Bernard how do you explain or what do you use as predicates for the "experience of 'awareness' (being awake) and the behaviours of seeking variety and resolving uncertainty" which we can easily observe in non human animals?

Michael Lissack 
14 Stratford Rd Marblehead MA 01945 phone 617-710-9565


Michael is the immediate past President of the American Society for Cybernetics (2014-2020), Executive Director Emeritus of the Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence and Professor of Design and Innovation at Tongji University, Shanghai.  Opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the views of any of the institutions with which I have an affiliation.





Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 9:50:48 AM8/11/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Michael,

If you have read my book and other postings, you will know that ((following McCulloch, Pask and von Foerster) I use the term 'awareness' to refer to an attribute of all living systems and 'consciousness' as I have defined it (again in the message to Shann). Seth uses 'awareness' and 'consciousness' as synonyms.

Your 'critical' interventions are becoming tedious. You claim to be a cybernetician but seem to lack in-depth knowledge of the work of those who helped create cybernetics. You seem to make things up as you go along. Forgive the directness but this is what I am experiencing.

I already said I would like to end our conversation. Given how all these ideas in cybernetics are interconnected, please interpret this as meaning I no longer wish to have personally addressed communications from you. You can, of course, say what you like about me in the public space of cybcom but do not expect me to respond.

May the living God have mercy on you - and, of course, all of us.

Bernard

Michael Lissack

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 10:00:24 AM8/11/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Bernard

I take it that you only want affirmations.

Your unwillingness to entertain questions is anything but productive.

I am glad that you believe you have found the royal road to enlightenment and dismayed at your unwillingness to share with others how they too might find it.


Be thusly affirmed

Message has been deleted

Jason the Goodman

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 2:20:26 PM8/11/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, Petra Schwarz
Hi Lucas, 

Thanks. Would you like to edit your thoughts here into an one-page "TAO" - Title/Abstract/Outline so that we can send out a Call For Discussants and schedule a discussion?
I think this topic -"Comparing Current Cybernetic/AI Related Concerns with the predictions already offered us in '1984', 'Animal Farm', and 'Brave New World', and what can we do now?" - qualifies as the Club of Remy criteria - Important and Urgent.

Best  - Jason 

Lucas Pawlik

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 3:09:42 PM8/11/21
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, Petra Schwarz
Dear Jason, 
                      thank you very much for doing it!  Perhaps you could add the link to Kathleen's wonderful paper "Dancing with Demons; Pathogenic Problem-solving" for those who want to understand the overall pattern of what I was writing about. '1984', 'Animal Farm', and 'Brave New World', our current dance with A.I., and our genetic makeup are all terrible excellent examples of pathogenic problem-solving. 

Best regards, 

Lucas 


Jason the Goodman

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 9:00:34 PM8/11/21
to Carl Goldberg, cyb...@googlegroups.com, jonathan...@gmail.com
Not really, dear Carl:

Sometimes "to draw a distinction" is good, I now call it "Feed-right" (as "feed-left" means to make things simpler at the cost of precision and accuracy.)

If you compare two versions of Golden Rule - Western, English version versus Confucious version, there is a tiny difference and the distinction means something:
English version starts with "Do onto... if you like..."
Confucian version starts with "Don't do... if you don't like..."

Some say that the Western aggressiveness is hidden in that "Do onto..." and Eastern passiveness is in that "Don't do..." But that I think is an exaggeration. The real difference is the respect of the cultural difference in the "like" and "don't like". Let's say you like to eat stinky cheese (some Chinese like to eat "smelly Tofu", or Southeast Asian people like a tropical fruit that smells terrible (so that fruit is banned by the airlines). Because you love those, you treat your guest with them, "do onto..." will end up in an awkward situation.  

The difference becomes more important when you move from food to cultural norms and religious beliefs.  So, that distinction is significant/useful.

Best - Jason

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:01 PM Carl Goldberg <cgold...@cox.net> wrote:
Thank you for this, Jason.

 I had never heard of these "improvements" on the Golden Rule. Actually, it seems to me that the Platinum and Diamond rules are subsumed in the Golden Rule. Wouldn't we want others to offer their help in times of need? Wouldn't we want them to help us now? 

If we do unto others what we would want them to do unto us, then that includes wanting others to ask us what they can do to help us (Platinum) and wanting them to help us now (Diamond).

N'est-ce pas?
Carl

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages