Re: Amil Seth

[Michael Lissack]

Bernard

I go back to your first post.  If all you wanted to do was complain that Seth could have (and in your mind should have) cited and made use of cybernetics ideas and people in his piece, fine you uttered your complaint.  I took your posting as a pondering: "perhaps we can make use of this intersection of ideas to get cognitive neuroscientists such as Seth to recognize and make use of cybernetics in their research." I suggested that to successfully open a productive dialogue would likely require that someone write an article along the lines of "how a cybernetician sees Amil Seth's current views on consciousness." Such an article would lay out parallels and oppositions. Your responses to that reaction of mine all have been:  "I said all that needs to be said in my little book -- it would be incumbent upon Seth to read it and to realize the same."  No article necessary because  you have made it obvious.   Well NO it is anything but obvious and on that point both Klaus and Loet agree with me.  I take it from the reminder of your responses that you somehow are of the belief that people in other fields and coming from other perspectives will -- without further incentive -- decide to learn YOUR VERSION of cybernetics.   To me that is hubris and nonsense.  

I am thrilled for you that you find your "little book" to be filled with correct insights.  I fail to see them.

In what I take to be your view -- that is my loss.

From my view it is a great opportunity for dialogue and learning, but your "it speaks for itself and is impeccably clear" stance renders any such opportunity moot.

As you say ... go well.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 3:38 AM Bernard C E Scott <bern...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ah, well. You must forgive me if I fail to 'language' with you in ways you understand. You are a bit of a mystery to me. I do not know what qualifies you to make the judgements that you do nor do I know how and when someone managed to gain your interest in cybernetics.

Go well ...

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 08:22, Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com> wrote:

You keep proving my point.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 3:14 AM Bernard C E Scott <bern...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not know what you intend by this message, Michael.

You seem to have a very contentious style of conversing. Perhaps you are declaring yourself to be 'the winner' (?), in which case, "Congratulations!".

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 08:10, Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Bernard C E Scott]

Dear Michael,

You seem to have picked a fight with me. I do not know why. I can understand that you have misread my intentions re Amil Seth. However. I find some of your epithets about me and my work not worthy of a scholar and a gentleman. I refer to such practices as 'ways of making conversation that end conversation'. 

You also manage to misquote me in your last email. These are not my words or my sentiments: "I said all that needs to be said in my little book -- it would be incumbent upon Seth to read it and to realize the same."

I see cybernetics as being about communication and control/circular causality). As an educator, I try to follow the central tenet that a teacher should learn about the student and adapt his teachings accordingly. This is, of course, a cornerstone of Pask's conversation theory as applied in education. I have tried to consciously follow this tenet throughout my adult life. I take to heart Confucius's advice that a scholar should be always ready to teach, always ready to learn.

As already noted, the main targets of my book are social scientists, largely members of the academic community, as students, teachers, and researchers, many with PhDs. As such they will have some knowledge of the historical and philosophical roots of their disciplines and the competing paradigms that exist. Many will have come across cybernetics in one form or another in their intellectual journeys. As already noted, I believe I am not speaking to an unprepared ground.

Thus, I see myself as already following your advice about adapting to the' languaging' of one's audience.

If I decide to communicate with Amil Seth, it will be with similar thoughts in mind. I would not be 'complaining' about his not referencing 'cybernetics', I would be complimenting him on his work and making some connections he might find of interest. 

I am not interested in writing an academic article about cybernetics and neuroscience. I've already written one ("Cybernetic foundations for psychology" - attached) that covers much of what I have to say.

Unlike you and others in our community, I am not trying to persuade a lay audience (managers, politicians, administrators, journalists, and so on) about the merits of cybernetics.

BTW, I clearly acknowledge in my book that I am presenting my version of cybernetics. I see no hubris in that.

You say you find nothing of value in my book. As I noted in my reply to the private email you sent me, "You must forgive me if I fail to 'language' with you in ways you understand. You are a bit of a mystery to me. I do not know what qualifies you to make the judgments that you do nor do I know how and when someone managed to gain your interest in cybernetics."

May I remind you of Scott's Laws of Observation and Action. (I admit to some hubris in using my name in this title but, at my age, I gave myself permission to name these commonplace insights after me. :-) )

There is always a bigger picture.

There is always another level of detail. 

There is always another perspective.

There is always error.

There is always the unexpected.

As always, I wish you well,

Bernard

[Michael Lissack]

Bernard

I am not trying to pick a fight.  I genuinely do not understand why you made your initial post if you had no intention of reaching out to Amil Seth in his own terms.  Reaching out to him in your terms is INHO useless.  You disagree.

As for my "misquoting" you.   I wrote how I interpret your comments and responses of "it leads me to suspect you have not read my little book."  I perceive you to be making a blanket assertion about your book and it's contents that I cannot subscribe to.

Once again IMHO you seem to be insisting that all that matters is what you intended to communicate rather than how the communication was received and processed.  Sorry but I find that approach to be anything other than cybernetic

I never said I saw no value in your book. I said I do not see it as providing much value to those not already well acquainted with the subject.  I find the definitions you expound to be quite clear and helpful (to the initiated).

I suspect that there is an unarticulated distinction here which matters:  you have a focus on first order cybernetic ideas (communication and control) where my focus is on how second order cybernetics (which IMHO you have mislabeled and understated) can be further developed and applied.

But I never would have had any of these understandings or perhaps misunderstandings if you had not articulated what you did in your last few responses.

I leave this discussion where I joined it:  why have you told this list of your complaints re Seth's essay and what do you intend to do as a follow-up?

--
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%2B7KA2BR6KOaDmdetHosWT4M6a2%3D0CTZAVKneBF0_LV-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Stickle]

Please excuse my ignorance, and my butting in, bu is this in reference to Anil Seth at Sussex? 

Best,

Alex

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAPmNe_ZEBS%2BjNr6Y9tdpqKD3DQS64dKTLZzS1wy5kn%3DkJ1ZAFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Lissack]

Yes

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAAVniLAx17o3RYfKvTGun4pzNSLR6rL%2Bgi3xZ8jZndGuVeorVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Lissack]

Apologies for the typos and to Professor Seth for misspelling his name.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 1:37 PM Alex Stickle <alex.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAAVniLAx17o3RYfKvTGun4pzNSLR6rL%2Bgi3xZ8jZndGuVeorVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bernard C E Scott]

Dear Michael,

"I am not trying to pick a fight.  I genuinely do not understand why you made your initial post if you had no intention of reaching out to Amil Seth in his own terms.  Reaching out to him in your terms is INHO useless.  You disagree."

This is not what I said. Nowhere, have I proposed 'reaching out to him in my terms'. I have acknowledged this is how you interpreted my initial posting. Mea culpa for not being clearer about (a) what I find valuable in his article and (b) what I might say to him. I remain surprised that, knowing something about me, you should suspect other than that I would tailor my message to the need. ( BTW, Ilike Louis Coufignal's proposal that, "La cybernetique et l'art d'assurer l'efficaté de l'action.")

I see first and second order cybernetics as complementary. ( I say this in my book.)

Thank you for your remarks about the book, especially re my definitions. As I say in part 1, I hope the book will be of interest to those already conversant with cybernetics. I see the definitions as being a necessary part of explaining what cybernetics is about. In part 1, I advise the uninitiated reader to return to them as necessary, as they progress through the book.

I hope we can end this conversation here.

Best wishes,

Bernard

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAPmNe_ZEBS%2BjNr6Y9tdpqKD3DQS64dKTLZzS1wy5kn%3DkJ1ZAFg%40mail.gmail.com.