|
Some general comments on anticipation...
JZ wrote:Anticipatory Systems is
explained in Essays on LI but not efficient cause. AS states that current change of state depends on future state. I don't know what efficient cause is. I just posted something that addressed "efficient causation", but I think a discussion of anticipation is warranted also. Bear in mind that anticipatory systems are also living systems (not just complex systems). Anticipation emerges as an observable of system behavior (in naturally occurring systems) only with the type of complex organization from which life also emerges. The statement that "current change" depends on "Future change..."
is a quick sketch of a much larger set of ideas-- it assumes you've already read
(or will read) the detailed reasoning that was developed in
"Anticipatory Systems" (the book). In that book, he (RR) described the behavior
of living systems as being characteristically "model-based" behavior. He said
their behavior could not be understood as "purely reactive" because organisms
consistently and verifiably behave in ways that aren't reactive but,
instead, anticipate future events. Since it is clear that single celled
life forms don't "think" and hardly, therefore, consult reference
materials, he said that logic dictates there must be some built-in mechanism
which is responsible for this ability. He referred to this built-in aspect as a
set of "internal predictive models" which constitute the basis
of an anticipatory form of system control: a feed-forward loop rather than
a feed-back loop. (However, this is not to say that organisms don't also have
feedback loops and reactive behavior capability as well).
As such, he observed that certain types of information must be
encoded into these models in order to generate the kind of behaviors he was
trying to understand. Information about "self", information about "evolutionary
environment"(context), and information about how both regularly change over
"normal" cycles of time (seasons, day/night, etc), including sequencing
information, rate information, durational information, and how these relational
aspects influence all other relations between "self" and "context".
But there is another aspect of time which must be a part of
this control mechanism: the rate at which the
models are running is either faster than, or is always
independently ahead of, that which it models.
So it isn't the "real" future which is dictating present behavioral
change, it is a "predicted" or expected future, based on encoded
information within the models, which directs change in the present. The benefits
in terms of system stability are obvious: a reactive mode of system control
detects when the system has entered an "error state" and initiates changes to
return the system to non-error parameters. An anticipatory mode of system
control, in contrast, uses relational models of self, environment, and
time (the relational aspect is critical; it is what specifies the nature of
the interactions between "things" like self, environment, and time) to
predict immanent/future changes in environment and institute changes in
"self" such that the system will avoid being in an error state when the
changes in environment occur. It's not a foolproof mode of system control,
clearly. But it's far superior to a purely reactive mode. It's the only way
living systems can survive radical environmental change like the winters in
temperate climates, for example. I've said it before: transplanted living
organisms that did not evolve in a temperate climate do not survive
here when winter comes. They cannot anticipate winter because it is not
encoded into their internal predictive models. They react to winter--
by dying.
How the information in these internal predictive models is
encoded, how it is integrated with "real" behavior of self/environment, how it
acts on system behavior... these are all wide open areas which are just
screaming for one of you guys to pursue. I've been pursuing it on my own, in an
informal way, for years, but I don't really consider that I'm qualified to
generate "new science" in the sense of formally publishing any assertions
(except as speculation in BioTheory, perhaps-- to spur on the "real" scientists
to pursue these ideas!). I used to pass along any insights I had to my Dad, and
was always gratified when something I'd seen in his work or in the
world inspired new insights or integrations in him. That was one of my
definitions of "fun" and HE was qualified! But he's gone,
now.
This is partly what I think the list is good for... passing
along various notions to all you qualified folk. What else am I going to do with
them?
Judith
|