No better example of organizational closure than the fact that we are  
struggling with written words on this Sunday morning. Words and  
language are not, I repeat not representation of things there outside.  
The reading of Roger's text is not providing data to you, nor  
information. You interpret them in your own way, your own  
idiosyncracies, your own history. Interpreting means to attribute  
meaning. The origin of meaning is not information, nor data, but your  
own lived experience as a human being. This is why appreciate so much  
"misunderstandings", because they appeal to discover meaning or better  
to create meaning. I agree completely with Roger about the  
misdirection of AI and the misunderstandings of decision making. A  
decision is an action in a phenomenal world, is a behaviour. The  
nefarious split between thinking and doing is the model behind  
information processing, data processing, knowledge processing, etc.

As Mephisto states in Faust: in the beginning was the deed.

Kind regards,


Op 21-mrt-10, om 11:56 heeft Roger Harnden het volgende geschreven:

> Alfredo,
> In my understanding it is as follows......but don't forget this is  
> Sunday morning, so my opinion might be a little sloppy.....
> There is organisational closure, and there is the observer.  
> Organisational closure (and all it entails) is an explanatory  
> principle for how such phenomena as the observer may (scientifically- 
> speaking) emerge.
> Maturana shows how, through a simple recursive mechanism  
> (coordinations of coordinations of actions/behaviours), the human  
> being with all its human attributes (emotions, the spiritual,  
> reason, language and so on) can be explained to emerge from a  
> biological fabric. His criticism for most of the human sciences is  
> that they make no attempt to consistently bed human higher  
> attributes in such a biological fabric, but talks as if language,  
> mind, spirit etc somehow appear from nothing. His critique of  
> 'objectivist' physics would be similar. And he is saying that such  
> hard' sciences (as physics, chemistry etc) should take account of  
> the fact that the observer (the one who practices them) is a  
> biological being. This is the same consistent message from McCulloch  
> and Bateson onwards.
> This is not about decision making. Human decisions are in the domain  
> of the observer, and include all the conventional aspects such as  
> intentionality. The 'decisions' of other organisms may be said to  
> exist, but the observer (ourselves) must take account of the scale  
> of different orders of recursive operations. For example, a  
> flagellum (is that correct?) has two degrees of freedom - right  
> rotation or left rotation. A slug has rather more ..........And  
> these are functions of the structural coupling of an  
> organisationally closed nervous system with a molecular fabric in a  
> phenomenal world, the complexity of that nervous system, and the  
> richness of the motor-sensory architecture. The observer should bear  
> this in mind, and - for instance - be cautious in attributing the  
> term 'decision' to the behaviour of a flagellum.
> A decision (as is he case for William Powers) emerges in the domain  
> of behaviour, rather than in the domain of information. Artificial  
> Intelligence fell into the trap of believing that such things as  
> decision might be considered relevant for an isolated brain - that  
> information was somehow, mysteriously a function of brain activity  
> and some sort of external, physical data. Hence its limited  
> achievements.
> As is the case for Stafford (and VSM), information is grounded in  
> the coupling of nervous system, the molecular organism and  
> phenomenal environment along a dynamic trajectory of cyclical  
> recurrences which contain no singularities (no data). Singularities  
> are abstracted from this patterning through the higher human  
> attributes (reflection, experimentation, language, thought, social  
> exchange etc). An 'item' (a datum) must be something denoted, else  
> does not exist as 'a datum'. Organisms of all sorts, abstract  
> phenomena that they connote as data, that they treat as if denoted,  
> but which are determined in their significance for the particular  
> organism through recurrent behavioural interactions. Human are no  
> exception. We point to 'that tree there' and in our languaging  
> interactions assume that an item (a datum) has been indicated. What  
> has actually occurred is that a convention of language has been  
> attached to a behavioural interaction, and a general term ('tree')  
> has been treated as if it might particularise or specify a  
> singularity. A singularity might indeed have been indicated but  
> language cannot deal with it.....and hence the whole of the  
> scientific endeavour.
> To repeat, our languaging interactions do not and cannot accommodate  
> singularities. Languaging interactions generate and depend  upon  
> meaning (cyclical recurrences).
> A decision exists as part of this process of languaging. Mistakes  
> are liable to arise when things such as decisions, are treated as  
> existing outside this process - as if they have a privileged place  
> over such a process. This doesn't lessen the significance of such  
> things as decisions, but brackets any claims that either decisions  
> or information 'leading to' decisions are somehow to do with  
> objectivity.
> Best wishes
> Roger
> On 21 Mar 2010, at 10:07, Alfredo Moscardini wrote:
>> I have been following the exchanges on Information closure very  
>> carefully and wish to know if my thoughts below are correct.
>> 1 Organisationally closed means that all decision making is internal.
>> 2 Autopoetic entities are structurally coupled with their  
>> environment in the sense that changes in the environemnt can ( or  
>> may)  trigger changes in the entity and vice versa
>> 3 To enable this to happen, an autopoetic entity has sensors that  
>> pck up parameter changes in the environment
>> 4 these are simply data sensors and what is passed from the  
>> environment to the entity is simply facts or data - it is not  
>> information
>> 5 information is data that has been embued with meaning or purpose  
>> which is not needed by the entity - only data
>> 6  So there is information closure but exchange of data
>> Is this a correct interpretation of what has been said - I am  
>> particularly interested to know if it fits with Lucs interpretation
>> Alfredo
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
>> more information go to: For the Metaphorum  
>> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: 
>>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - 
>>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - 
>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For more information go to:
> For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
> METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
> Archive of CYBCOM eList available at -
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more information go to:

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at -