Difference between revisions of "Anarchy 31/Anarchism and the cybernetics of self-organising systems"
imported>Ivanhoe |
|||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
{{tab}}An im­port­ant phe­nomenon in self-<wbr>organ­ising systems is inter­action between the in­forma­tion flowing in the system and the struc­ture of the system. In a complex system this leads to ''Redund­ancy of Poten­tial Com­mand''{{dash}}it is ''impos­sible to pick out the crit­ical de­cision-<wbr>making element,'' since this will change from one time to another, and depend on the in­forma­tion in the system. It will be evident that this implies that the idea of a hier­archy can have only limited ap­plica­tion in such a system. | {{tab}}An im­port­ant phe­nomenon in self-<wbr>organ­ising systems is inter­action between the in­forma­tion flowing in the system and the struc­ture of the system. In a complex system this leads to ''Redund­ancy of Poten­tial Com­mand''{{dash}}it is ''impos­sible to pick out the crit­ical de­cision-<wbr>making element,'' since this will change from one time to another, and depend on the in­forma­tion in the system. It will be evident that this implies that the idea of a hier­archy can have only limited ap­plica­tion in such a system. | ||
− | {{p|272}}{{tab}}I will now attempt to give a brief sketch of a partly arti­ficial self-<wbr>organ­ising system, in­volv­ing the inter­action be­tween human beings and a machine. This pro­vides ex­amples of the con­cepts intro­duced, and also, I feel, sug­gests import­ant general con­clu­sions about the char­acter­ist­ics of self-<wbr>organ­ising groups{{dash}}char­acter­ist­ics which may sound familiar to liber­tari­ans. The machine in ques­tion is a group teach­ing machine de­veloped by Gordon Pask.<ref>{{w|Gordon Pask|Gordon_Pask}}: {{qq| | + | {{p|272}}{{tab}}I will now attempt to give a brief sketch of a partly arti­ficial self-<wbr>organ­ising system, in­volv­ing the inter­action be­tween human beings and a machine. This pro­vides ex­amples of the con­cepts intro­duced, and also, I feel, sug­gests import­ant general con­clu­sions about the char­acter­ist­ics of self-<wbr>organ­ising groups{{dash}}char­acter­ist­ics which may sound familiar to liber­tari­ans. The machine in ques­tion is a group teach­ing machine de­veloped by Gordon Pask.<ref>{{w|Gordon Pask|Gordon_Pask}}: {{qq|Inter­ac­tion between a Group of Sub­jects and an Adapt­ive Auto­maton to produce a Self-<wbr>Organ­ising System for De­cision-Making}} in the sym­posium '''Self-<wbr>Organ­ising Systems, 1962''', ed. {{popup|Jovits|Marshall C. Yovits (born 1923), American computer scientist}}, {{popup|Jacobi|George T. Jacobi, Armour Research Foundation}} and {{popup|Goldstein|Gordon David Goldstein (1917-1989), American computer scientist}} (Spartan Books).</ref> |
− | Prior to this Pask had de­veloped indi­vidual teach­ing ma­chines which were import­ant ad­vances in the growth | + | {{tab}}Prior to this Pask had de­veloped indi­vidual teach­ing ma­chines which were import­ant ad­vances in the growth of applied cyber­netics.<ref>See {{w|Stafford Beer|Stafford_Beer}}: '''Cyber­netics and Manage­ment''' (English Uni­ver­sities Press, 1959) pp. 123-127, and {{w|Gordon Pask|Gordon_Pask}}: '''An Ap­proach to Cyber­netics''' (Hutchin­son 1961).</ref> However, on con­sider­ing the problem of group teach­ing (for skills where some calcul­able measure of the pupil{{s|r}} per­form­ance, the rate of change of which will serve as a suit­able in­dica­tion of learn­ing, exists), he did not simply combine indi­vidual ma­chines. |
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}The import­ant insight he had was that a group of human beings in a learn­ing situ­ation, is itself an evolu­tion­ary system, which sug­gested the idea of the machine as a cata­lyst, ''modi­fy­ing the com­mun­ica­tion chan­nels in the group,'' and thus pro­ducing dif­fer­ent group struc­tures. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}In the de­velop­ment of the indi­vidual teach­ing ma­chines, the possi­bil­ity of the pupil domin­ating the ma­chine had already arisen. This Pask now ex­tended by intro­ducing the idea of a quality {{q|money}} allo­cated to each member of the group, and used by each of them to {{q|buy}} for himself control over the commun­ica­tion struc­ture of the group and over the partial spe­cifica­tion of the solu­tion pro­vided by the machine. Now, in the indi­vidual machine, the degree to which the pupil was helped was coupled to change of his degree of success. If he was becom­ing more success­ful then the help given was de­creased. In the group machine, the allo­cation of {{q|money}} is coupled to ''two'' condi­tions{{dash}}in­creas­ing success ''and'' in­creas­ing variety in the group struc­ture. This second condi­tion is the key to the novelty of the system. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}The system, then, has chan­ging domin­ance and ex­hibits redund­ancy of poten­tial com­mand. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}In practice, each pupil sits in a little cubicle pro­vided with buttons and indic­ators for com­mun­ica­tion, and a com­putor<!-- 'computor' in original --> is used for control, calcul­ating the various meas­ures, etc. The oper­ator is pro­vided with some way of seeing what is going on, and can de­liber­ately make things dif­ficult for the group, by intro­ducing false in­forma­tion into the chan­nels, etc., seeing how the group copes with it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}The prob­lems which Pask, at the time, had used in these group ex­peri­ments had been form­ulated as con­vey­ing in­forma­tion about the posi­tion of a point in some space, with noise in the com­mun­ica­tion chan­nels. The group had been asked to imagine that they are air traffic con­trol­lers, given co-<wbr>ordin­ates spe­cify­ing the posi­tion of an air­craft at a certain time, for ex­ample. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}He sug­gests, however, that prob­lems of agree­ing on a choice of policy on a basis of agreed facts is not, in prin­ciple, very dif­fer­ent from the case in which {{q|the facts}} are in dispute, and there is no ques­tion of adopt­ing any future policy{{dash}}except of course the policy to adopt in order to ascer­tain the true facts and com­mun­icate them; this being the problem which the group solves for itself. It is in this sense that {{p|273}}the group may be re­garded as a de­cision maker. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}It will be noted that the state of the system when in equi­lib­rium ''is'' the solu­tion to the problem. Also that this solu­tion changes with time. This is also the case in the first example from purely human organ­isa­tion which oc­curred to me{{dash}}a jazz band (an example also sug­gested by Pask). | ||
Revision as of 17:59, 31 March 2017
Anarchism and the
cybernetics of self-organising
systems
Firstly, what do we mean by a self-
This definition is, however, in osme ways restrictive. The best such a system can do is to reach some sort of optimum state and stay there. Also, if we regard the system as a control system attempting to maintain stability in a fluctuating environment, the types of disturbance with which it can deal are limited by the fixed maximum variety of the system. This point will be dealt with later. The essential thing is that unpredictable disturbances are liable to prove too much for the system.
Such considerations suggest that it would be more fruitful to incorporate in the definition the idea that the maximum possible variety might also differ at different times. Thus Pask restricts the term to situations where the history of ‘the system’ can best be represented as a series S₀ S₁ … Sₙ each term a system with fixed maximum variety, and each self-organising in the first sense. With this definition we are For an example of self-
In many discussions of control situations the concept of ‘Hierarchy’ appears very quickly. This may tend to make the anarchist recoil, but should not do so, since the usage is a technical one and does not coincide with the use of the term in anarchist criticisms of political organisation.
Firstly, the cybernetician makes a very important distinction between two types of hierarchy, the anatomical and the functional, to use the terminology adopted by Pask. The former is the type exemplified in part by hierarchical social organisation in the normal sense (e.g. ‘tree of command’ structure in industry), that is: there are two (if two levels) actual distinguishable concrete entities involved. The latter refers to the case where there may be only one entity, but there are two or more levels of information structure operating in the system—
Secondly, even in the case of ‘anatomical hierarchy’, the term only means that parts of the system can be distinguished dealing with different levels of decision making and learning, e.g. some parts may deal directly with the environment, while other parts relate to activity of these first parts, or some parts learn about individual occurrences, while others learn about sequences of individual occurrences, and others again about classes of sequences.
Even in the anatomical sense, then, the term need have none of the connotations of coercive sanctions in a ruler-
An important phenomenon in self-
Prior to this Pask had developed individual teaching machines which were important advances in the growth of applied cybernetics.[3] However, on considering the problem of group teaching (for skills where some calculable measure of the pupils’ performance, the rate of change of which will serve as a suitable indication of learning, exists), he did not simply combine individual machines.
The important insight he had was that a group of human beings in a learning situation, is itself an evolutionary system, which suggested the idea of the machine as a catalyst, modifying the communication channels in the group, and thus producing different group structures.
In the development of the individual teaching machines, the possibility of the pupil dominating the machine had already arisen. This Pask now extended by introducing the idea of a quality ‘money’ allocated to each member of the group, and used by each of them to ‘buy’ for himself control over the communication structure of the group and over the partial specification of the solution provided by the machine. Now, in the individual machine, the degree to which the pupil was helped was coupled to change of his degree of success. If he was becoming more successful then the help given was decreased. In the group machine, the allocation of ‘money’ is coupled to two conditions—
The system, then, has changing dominance and exhibits redundancy of potential command.
In practice, each pupil sits in a little cubicle provided with buttons and indicators for communication, and a computor is used for control, calculating the various measures, etc. The operator is provided with some way of seeing what is going on, and can deliberately make things difficult for the group, by introducing false information into the channels, etc., seeing how the group copes with it.
The problems which Pask, at the time, had used in these group experiments had been formulated as conveying information about the position of a point in some space, with noise in the communication channels. The group had been asked to imagine that they are air traffic controllers, given co-
It will be noted that the state of the system when in equilibrium is the solution to the problem. Also that this solution changes with time. This is also the case in the first example from purely human organisation which occurred to me—
- ↑ See Seymour Melman: Decision-Making and Productivity (Blackwell, 1958).
- ↑ Gordon Pask: “Interaction between a Group of Subjects and an Adaptive Automaton to produce a Self-
Organising System for Decision-Making” in the symposium Self- Organising Systems, 1962, ed. Jovits, Jacobi and Goldstein (Spartan Books). - ↑ See Stafford Beer: Cybernetics and Management (English Universities Press, 1959) pp. 123-127, and Gordon Pask: An Approach to Cybernetics (Hutchinson 1961).