Seminar 3: Information
In the Scientific World View there is the observing self and the environment. In the Ecological World View we are all parts of a larger whole. The quality of our life is not found in the individual essence, but it the quality of our relationships.
The seminar will discuss belonging, and relationships.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Categories Allow For A Meta-Level
"Information has become the fundamental concept for the study of all living systems."
Rogers and Kincaid
In order to understand the way that cybernetics looks at information we have to define information and communication. Mind has traditionally been understood to be the area of information and communication. But we have to look closely at the definitions to see if they are in fact the same, or whether we are calling things "information" and "communication" that are not what we usually mean by those terms.
The concept of ideas as the fundamentally constant in a world of change goes back to Plato's idealism. Plato felt that there is an ideal realm where the ideas are the reality. The earthly world since it was subject to change and decay was merely a shadow of this "real" world of ideas.
We have a tendency to think of mind in static terms, as an idea or a category. But Mind is best considered as an active process. Descartes did not say "I have ideas therefore I am." He said "I think, therefore I am." It is the processes of mind that we are primarily concerned with. The concept of ideas changing developed into the historical dialectic of Hegel. Another powerful analysis of ideas has seen the processes of mind as the processes of communication.
An essential part of the Shannon-Weaver model of communication was the definition of "information." Information is a formal term and thus involves the problem of defining form.
The approach that Shannon took was to define it in terms of the choices in a set. The basic concept of information is the concept of either...or, choice within a limited set of alternatives. Given a particular set of options, the information involved in one element is related to the number of choices available in the set. For example in the English alphabet there are twenty-six letters, therefore every letter in a word has 26 elements of information in it. (Twenty-seven if you count the space.) This number can then be manipulated mathematically. It can be translated into "bits" (binary digits) and used to calculate questions of redundancy, probability, and entropy.
Shannon's analysis allows us to see number as choice within a set of alternatives. This is comparable to the shift from Roman numerals to Arabic numerals. The Roman numerals began with the idea of counting fingers. Our word "digit" is from the Latin word for "finger." "V" was a whole hand and thus "IV" could be conceived as one less than a whole hand, and "VI" as one more than a hand. These are usually called "natural" numbers. In contrast the system of Arabic numerals was a system of choice within a positional set. The meaning of each numeral is determined by its position. Each position is a set: ones, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. Each numeral is a choice within that set. For this system "zero" is essential for it allows for a null set. This translates easily into the "one or zero" of binary. With Roman numerals binary is inconceivable.
This binary definition of form is easy to see on a video screen. The presence of an illuminated dot is a choice between alternatives; either hitting the phosphor dot with an electron flow or not. It is either x or not x.
The system of "real" numbers which conceives of a number as a point on a continuum is a combination of the positional definition of arabic numerals with the continuum as the set within which choices are made, and the natural number system where each point is given a number. This combination of the "unit" within the "continuum" gives rise to the paradoxes of Zeno.
It is easy to see how these definitions shade into statistics, for statistics is concerned with the frequency of occurrence of alternatives within a set.
When we compare this definition to the usual definitions of information, we see that they are the same.
The study of form is called logic. Logicians tell us that the other logical operators can be derived from two: "v" either...or, and "~" not. These two operators create sets. This corresponds to Shannon's definition of information as "choice within a set." And Bateson's definition of information as "a difference that makes a difference."
If we look at the standard symbol of a category or set, the Venn diagram, we can see the basic disjunction implied by any set. The Venn diagram is also a binary form.
A set or a category is basically a boundary. There can be null sets, because a set is simply a boundary, a distinction. All boundaries have a basic characteristic. There can be no inside, without an outside. There can be no {x} without a corresponding {-x}. Deductive logic is based on this assumption, usually called the law of the excluded middle. Even fuzzy logic does not challenge this, only the clarity of the distinctions or boundaries. If there are no distinctions then there is no information, no sets and no logic.
What a disjunctive basis implies is that choice is the primary act in the creation of information. The set is a result of the choice. Without a choice there are no sets. Every category is the expression of a choice that creates a distinction. To choose is to create alternatives. To choose is to establish boundaries.
This implies that all boundaries, sets, classes and categories are arbitrary, since all categories are a product of choice. Boundaries are real, because choice is real. The boundaries can be true. They can correspond to something beyond themselves.
If categories are a product of choice then categories are historical. There is a time at which they are chosen. Choices create history.
The experience that convinces me that choice is the basis of experience is the experience of the Gestalt shift. We have the familiar picture that can be looked at in two different ways. In the first instance we do not see two different pictures. In the first instance we see one picture. When we finally see the second picture it comes with an "aha" of surprise. We are not aware of the perceptual choice until it is made.
The neurological basis of this is the neuron. The neuron makes a choice, either it fires or it does not fire. It was McCulloh's exposition of the neurological basis of perception that lead to Von Neumann's development of the digital computer with its switches that are either on or off.
Descartes talked about ideas that were clear and distinct. When we look at ideas as distinctions, then we see that the power of the idea is the intensity of the distinction. Like the charge on a battery, the greater the difference the more power.
At the same time that difference is power, there is a tendency to towards harmonizing and the erosion of difference. There is entropy. In thermodynamics work is heat and heat is work. But since heat will not pass from a cooler to a hotter, the differences in heat that creates work are slowly being dissipated. The end of entropy means no more heat and no more work.
There is a tendency for information differences to break down, and that means no more heat and no more work. That is what we mean by inertia. There is no longer the ability to create change. Depression is the inability to make decisions, to create difference, to create heat, to create change, to create work. Thus in the electoral process all candidates try to be who the electorate wants them to be. They all move to the mushy middle, trying to harmonize with everyone. The result is that they are perceived as all the same. Since they are all the same there is no reason to vote. It makes no difference.
One of the more interesting studies of depression is that by Martin Seligman. He developed the idea of learned helplessness. When a person has something bad happen to them, and then thinks that this is persistent, pervasive and personal, then they will feel helpless and become depressed. Persistent means that it can't change. Nothing you do will make a difference. Pervasive means that it affects everything. There are no bright spots. Personal means that it is your fault. You can't fix it by changing the situation. You are the problem. Each of these interpretations of a negative event is a process of eliminating the possibility of choice by eliminating the existence of difference.
Bateson (1972) saw information as a difference, or more precisely a difference that makes a difference. Bateson was concerned to show that the formal characteristics of information are not material. A difference does not have "extension."
The point here is so important that it is worth quoting Bateson (1979) on the nature of the switch.
"The entities or variables that fill the stage at one level of discourse vanish into the background at the next-higher or -lower level. This may be conveniently illustrated by considering the referent of the word switch, which engineers at times call a gate or relay. What goes through is energized from a source that is different from the energy source which opens the gate...
We do not notice that the concept "switch" is of quite a different order from the concepts "stone," "table," and the like. Closer examination shows that the switch, considered as part of an electric circuit, does not exist when it is in the on position. From the point of view of the circuit, it is not different from the conducting wire which leads to it and the wire which leads away from it. It is merely "more conductor." Conversely, but similarly, when the switch is off, it does not exist from the point of view of the circuit. It is nothing, a gap between two conductors which themselves exist only as conductors when the switch is on.
In other words, the switch is not except at the moments of its change of setting, and the concept "switch" has thus a special relationship to time. It is related to the notion "change" rather than to the notion "object." p.116
The switch has a formal or informational character, and like all formal distinctions it raises the ontological question: "In what sense can the choices not chosen be said to exist? Clearly they are real, but they do not in the strict sense "exist."
Some physicists would like to argue that for every possible choice there is an alternative world. This way lies madness. Chess computers have attempted to exhaust the alternative worlds of a chess game. A chess game is a very small world, but even this taxed the resources of the biggest computers.
Once we accept the formal nature of material events, that they involve choices within a set of possibilities, we are operating at a holistic level.
It is with the set or category that we have the possibility of a holistic analysis, and the development of logical levels. We must make a distinction between two different kinds of parts. The set allows us to conceive of a whole that is made up of parts that are elements. The elements all share the same distinguishing characteristics, and thus are part of the same category. This is the quantitative analysis much like marbles in a jar. But there is a second kind of part that is formed by the intersection of two or more sets. Each of the two sets is a part of the intersecting set.
Our concept of an element or a unit is not the set itself but the intersection of two sets. The point where something enters our discussion is the point where it can be named. The point where anything can be named is the point at which at least two choices have been made. The traditional form of a definition is the "simuls et differens." (What category does it belong to and what makes it different from the other members of that category?)
This is the reason that all named sets are fundamentally fuzzy. No matter how absolute and abstract the distinction there is always a second quality that creates a continuum. Analysis is the search for the ultimate distinctions that will eliminate the fuzzy quality of names. But that distinction is probably nameless.
Shannon's definition of information as "choice within a set" is equivalent to the treatment of ideas in deductive logic. This definition also implies that information is immaterial. And it is the formal dimension that allows us to look at things in a holistic way.
INFORMATION OPENS UP THE POSSIBILITY OF SEEING THE WORLD AS HOLISTIC
Von Bertalannffy and other biologists saw the problem of biological systems as the problem of holistic systems. The atomic theory which sees everything as made up of atoms assumes that everything can be explained as the action of atoms. The problem for the biologist is that biological events do not lend themselves to atomistic explanations. The parts of a biological system do not have an independent existence. The reality of a part only makes sense in relation to the whole. There is no point where a heart, a liver, a stomach, and a head got together and said, 'Hey gang, let's get together and form a body.' An organ is a part of a body. When it is cut out of the body, it dies. Ultimately the atomic theory does not have room for wholes, and therefore does not have room for life. Biology is the study of life. Life cannot be explained as atomistic.
Information allows for the concept of a whole. In fact, that is really what the category that is established by a fundamental distinction of X or ~X is. The difference between Mathematics and Logic is that mathematics deals with integers, and logic deals with categories. What Bertrand Russell and A. N. Whitehead proved in the Principia Mathematica was that mathematics is a branch of logic. All of the basic assumptions of mathematics can be derived from logic. They did the derivations.
The reason that old view scientists insisted on using mathematics is that the atomic theory is built into it. It assumes that every thing is made up of integers, or atoms, or individuals, and that you can count them. Logic on the other hand begins with categories.
The problem with categories is that they are hierarchical. They are thus subject to paradox. Russell argued very persuasively that paradox was primarily due to the confusion of logical levels, and that it could be solved by a rule that would forbid using the whole category as though it were a part of its own category.
McCulloch
's work began with his fascination with the work of Russell and his desire as a neurologist to understand how the brain could deal with categories. His landmark paper was "How the Brain Perceives Universals." It was McCulloch's paper that was the basis for the Von Neumann architecture that is the basis of modern computing. It is the reason that computers were referred to as electronic brains. Computers were conceived as imitating the processes of the brain.INFORMATION ALLOWS US TO SEE WHOLES
The atomic theory has only one level, one unified field. The categorical nature of information allows us to see things in levels. If we use the Venn diagram we can diagram this series of levels.
Categories or information or boundaries allow us to see things at different levels. In the atomic model there is only one level. This was what frustrated the biologists. Thus they moved to systems theory. The credo of systems theory is the statement that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
The category creates a level to which things belong. This is radically different from a sack in which things are placed. In the atomic theory there are containers that you can put things into. You put a marble into a bag, and you can take a marble out of a bag. On the other hand, Zorba is a man. Being a man is not something that Zorba was put into, nor something that he can be taken out of. This is the battle between nominalism and realism that created the modern. Griffins, woozles. Take time to talk about the two great shifts and how Shannon's idea of counting information allowed this shift to happen. BITS. Empirical, sense data, shared, quantitative.
Categories can change. A good example is nationality. Joan is a Canadian. Whether she is in Canada, or outside of Canada she is still a Canadian. When she goes to the United States she is in the United States, but she is not an American. She could apply to become an American. She could change who she is. But that change requires a change in relationships, and therefore identity.
An aggregate is a bag of marbles. If you take a series of individuals and put them together, then you have an aggregate. They are still a collection of individuals, the only thing that has changed is their position.
You can take a series of individuals and incorporate them. At that point they become a whole. The individuals become part of something larger. Categories create the possibility of being part of something larger.
In the atomic vision, there are individuals. Each individual has a unique quality. Each individual is encouraged to express themselves. Individuals never belong anywhere.
In an organic vision an individual is a unique set of relationships. The meaning of an individual is in the quality of their relationships. For example, I am a Canadian, a man, a Master of Divinity, a lecturer, a father, a husband, a parishioner, a Clergyman, a politician, an intellectual, a brother, a friend, a playwright. None of these are things that I have in myself, they are all relationships. They express they way that I am part of larger wholes. I express myself, by the quality of my relationships. My uniqueness is the unique mix of relationships, and the unique role I play in those relationships. Pierre Elliot Trudeau when he retired from politics made the argument that any one could be Prime Minister of Canada, but only he could be a father to his sons. Others would say that he brought a unique quality to the office of Prime Minister.
A system usually has subsystems. Each subsystem plays a role in the larger system.
The human body is a whole, but it has a number of subsystems: the circulatory system, the digestive system, the nervous system, etc. Each of these subsystems plays a role in maintaining the health of the whole system.
The human body begins with a single cell. The maintenance of cell structure and metabolism is essential to the human body. It is basic. The health of the body depends on the health of all the parts. Every cell in the body is basically the same as the original cell. Then the cell divides. The fact that a cell divides is amazing. There is a process of differentiation that leads to separation. A body grows by dividing.
Now that there are two cells they are united by a piece of common information or shared information. What makes the body one whole is the identical molecule of DNA in each cell. What unites a group is a shared identity.
The cells continue to divide and to differentiate. In the single cell differentiation leads to separation. Cell division does not go on for very long before the scientist can observe the differentiation of the cells into ectomorphic, mesomorphic and endomorphic. These cells then differentiate again and become the parts of the skin and nervous system, the skeleton and musculature, and the digestive system. In the cell group differentiation leads to functional specialization, or role. A role is a way of converging and diverging at the same time. The development of roles is an example of communication leading to differentiation.
If we look at the digestive system, the nervous system, the musculature, the cardiovascular system, the blood, immune and endocrine system, the respiratory system, the reproductive system, etc. The systems are concerned with the movement and sorting of material, and the creation, sorting, and movement of information.
As the cells differentiate they change form. The form is not determined by their nature as cells, but by their relationship to the other cells in the body, and to the whole body. The cells become sub-systems of the organs which are sub-systems of the body.
The whole exists as common or shared information, and a framework of communication.
CATEGORIES ALLOW FOR A META-LEVEL
A meta-level is a level of category that is reflexive. Thus the meaning of meaning is a meta-level. Grammar is the language of language. This is the level where paradoxes tend to blossom and confusion is rampant. Bertrand Russell wanted to make a rule that you could not combine two of these levels in the same statement or syllogism. He felt that this would prevent paradox. Bateson dealing with the same phenomenon called it the double bind.
Therapists often give clients positive double binds. They tell them to do the behaviour that they claim to have no control over. Whether they do it or don't do it, they demonstrate that they do have control over it.
The meta level is also seen in other concepts. The slope of a slope, the motion of motion, the curve of a curve, the perception of perception, the value of values, choices about choice. The meta level is not available at the atomic level. You can have a message about a message, but you cannot have an atom about an atom.
The Meta Level
When we talk about human choice we are usually talking about something more complex than the automatic choices of a physical system, such as a computer, or a governor, or a thermostat. Our experience of choice is that we become aware of having to make a decision. We become aware that we have options. We then become conscious of our values and apply them to the options. We evaluate the options. We then choose one of the options. This is operating at a meta-level, because we are making choices about choices.
This same meta-level allows us to see our models of reality and our values as alternatives about which we have choices.
We can go up another level. We can seek to expand our options, that is change our model of what constitutes an option. This would be change at a third level. This development of more and more abstract levels is capable of an infinite regress. There is no theoretical limit to it. R. D. Laing's knots are examples of this kind of regress.
E.g. if you don't know that I don't know that you don't know that I know that you don't know that I know . . . There is probably a practical limit of three or four, beyond which we simply become confused.
POWERLESSNESS AND HOPELESSNESS
Powerlessness and hopelessness generally come from a sense that we have no choices, that we are stuck. Martin Seligman developed a theory of depression called "Learned Helplessness." A person faced with an adversity would see the adversity as permanent (it will always be this way), pervasive (it destroys my whole life), and personal (it's because I'm no good). The permanent quality means that there are no choices. The pervasive quality means that there is no other area of life that can be used as a lever to overcome this adversity. The personal quality undermines any sense of personal power of being a person that can make decisions and change things.
Seligman recommended a process of learned optimism. That meant learning to see adversity as temporary, limited, and impersonal. Studies seem to show that optimistic people accomplish more, but pessimistic people are more realistic. He thinks that the rising tide of depression in America is due to the rise of the maximal self and the decline of the commons. His prescription is to give 5% away, volunteer one night a week, write letters for 3 hours a week, give to beggars after talking to them, teach your children to give.
DOES ANYTHING EVER REALLY CHANGE?
History versus immutable laws
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."
Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (1948)
The core problem of metaphysics is the mind-body problem. This book exists as a book. I have an idea of the book. The idea of the book is different from the book, but they are related. The problem is how are they different and how are they related?
Modern Classical Philosophy tended to be dominated by two competing monisms, each lamenting the existence of dualism. Materialism argued that the idea of the book is not really real. For example: The idea of the book is only a chemical imbalance in the brain. Rationalism argued that we can know the reality of ideas, because we experience them directly, but we cannot be sure of the reality of material things because our experience of them is always mediated.
What has developed in the modern world as the de facto metaphysics is Process Dualism. Reality is made up of matter/energy. Energy can be transmitted, thus creating energy processes. Matter/energy has form. Form can be transmitted, as information, thus creating information processes. "Information is information, not matter or energy."
The symbol of the old Newtonian materialism was the clock, isolated inter-related pieces all transmitting energy to each other to create a precision movement. The symbol of the new process dualism is the transistor. A transistor takes a signal (information) and amplifies it (reproduces the same signal at a higher energy level). It blends an information process and an energy process in the service of the information process.
For Process Dualism reality is process, and there are two distinct but inter-related processes: energy processes and information processes. The two processes form a gestalt. You can look at an event as an information process against a background of energy process, or you can see it as an energy process against a background of formal relationships.
To return to our opening example: The book has form. That form is transmitted to my mind. The idea of the book is information. In other words, a metaphysics of process dualism, implies an epistemology of sophisticated realism. The form of the book is real, and that form is transmitted to my mind. Any transmission process is subject to distortion or noise, but something real is being transmitted.
Mathematics is inadequate to describe matter/energy. The problems of modern Physics arise because the physicists are attempting to deal with formal issues within the boundaries of mathematics. Most of the problems that are easily contained within the atomic assumption have been solved. The problems currently on the agenda require the movement up a logical level. e.g. A wave does not exist at the material level. The wave is a formal construct, an information phenomenon.
Is the biosphere a single entity? We look at the way that a group of cells comes to form itself as a single being. Is the human race part of a single being that is the biosphere? It has the same cellular structure, in the sense that all parts of the biosphere are descendants of the original single celled creatures. The various plants and animals form a series of coordinated systems that maintain a set of constant land, air and water variables. Just as our body consists of a set of coordinated systems that maintain a set of physiological constants. When we describe the annual changes in carbon-dioxide as the earth breathing, we are not talking about a bunch of trees, but of a coordinated atmospheric system. The composition of the atmosphere is not random.
When you look out across the beauty of the lake, does this communicate something? It is not something that is expressed in words, but could it be a fundamental sense of belonging?
The old scientific world view had us looking out at the immense universe and feeling small and alone. The new organic view has us looking out at a vast living system, of which we are a part. We are alive, and part of all living things.
Seminar 4: The Future