Once more, you said it more clearly than me Luc!

On 21 Mar 2010, at 11:30, Luc Hoebeke wrote:

> Alfredo,
> Roger,
> 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,
> Luc
> 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 -
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 -