Difference between revisions of "Anarchy 31/Anarchism and the cybernetics of self-organising systems"
imported>Ivanhoe (Created page with "{{header | title = ANARCHY 31 (Vol 3 No 9) SEPTEMBER 1963<br>Anarchism and the cybernetics of self-organising systems | author = John D. McEwan | section...") |
imported>Ivanhoe |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
− | <div style="max-width:500px; margin:auto;">{{p| | + | <div style="max-width:500px; margin:auto;">{{p|270}} |
<font size="5">'''Anarchism and the'''<br>'''cybernetics of self-organising'''<br>'''systems'''</font> | <font size="5">'''Anarchism and the'''<br>'''cybernetics of self-organising'''<br>'''systems'''</font> | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{p|s1}}<div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|The intention of this article}} is to suggest that some of the con­cepts used by {{w|cyber­neti­cians|Cybernetics}} study­ing evolv­ing self-<wbr>organ­ising systems may be relev­ant to anarch­ist theory, and that some of the con­clu­sions drawn from this study tend to favour liber­tarian models of social organ­isa­tion. Much of the spe­cific­ally cyber­netic ma­terial is drawn from lectures given by {{w|Gordon Pask|Gordon_Pask}} and {{w|Stafford Beer|Stafford_Beer}} at {{w|Salford College of Advanced Technology|University_of_Salford}}. They are not, of course, respons­ible for any con­clu­sions drawn, except where expli­citly stated. | {{p|s1}}<div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|The intention of this article}} is to suggest that some of the con­cepts used by {{w|cyber­neti­cians|Cybernetics}} study­ing evolv­ing self-<wbr>organ­ising systems may be relev­ant to anarch­ist theory, and that some of the con­clu­sions drawn from this study tend to favour liber­tarian models of social organ­isa­tion. Much of the spe­cific­ally cyber­netic ma­terial is drawn from lectures given by {{w|Gordon Pask|Gordon_Pask}} and {{w|Stafford Beer|Stafford_Beer}} at {{w|Salford College of Advanced Technology|University_of_Salford}}. They are not, of course, respons­ible for any con­clu­sions drawn, except where expli­citly stated. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Firstly, what do we mean by a self-<wbr>organ­ising system? One defini­tion is simply {{q|a system in which to ''order'' in­creases as time passes}}, that is, in which the ratio of the ''variety'' ex­hibited to the max­imum possible variety de­creases; variety being a measure of the com­plex­ity of the system as it appears to an ob­server, the uncer­tainty for the ob­server regard­ing its beha­viour. A system with large variety will have a larger number of pos­sible states than one with smaller variety. Thus such a system may start by ex­hibit­ing very varied beha­viour, ''e.g.''<!-- 'e.g.' not in italics in original --> a large number of dif­fer­ent re­sponses to a given stim­ulus may appear equally likely, but over a period of time the heha­viour becomes less erratic, more pre­dict­able{{dash}}fewer and fewer dis­tinct re­sponses to a given stim­ulus are pos­sible (or, better, have a sig­nific­antly high prob­abil­ity.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}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. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}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 {{q|the system}} can best be repre­sented as a series S₀ S₁ … S''ₙ''<!-- 'n' not subscript in original --> each term a system with fixed max­imum variety, and each self-organising in the first sense. With this defini­tion we are {{p|271}}able to deal with control systems of the type found in living organ­isms. Indeed, with a few limited excep­tions, bio­logical and social organ­isa­tion are, up to now, the only fields in which such control systems can be found. Some of the excep­tions, in the shape of ar­tifi­cially con­structed systems, despite their crude and ele­ment­ary nature in com­par­ison with living organ­isms, do however exhibit re­mark­ably ad­vanced beha­viour, at least in com­par­ison with con­ven­tional con­trol­lers. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}For an example of self-<wbr>organ­ising beha­viour in this sense, we may con­sider a human being learn­ing to solve certain types of problem, as his beha­viour appears to an ob­server. Over an inter­val the beha­viour may appear self-organ­ising in the first sense. When, however, the learner adopts a new concept or method, there will be a dis­con­tinu­ity in the de­velop­ment of the beha­viour, after which it will again be self-<wbr>organ­ising in the first sense, for a time, but now in­corpor­ating new pos­sibil­ities, and so on. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}In many dis­cus­sions of control situa­tions the concept of {{q|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. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}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.'' {{q|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{{dash}}as for example in some types of {{w|neuron networks|Biological_neural_network}}. A compar­able concept is {{w|Melman|Seymour_Melman}}{{s}} {{q|dis­alien­ated de­cision pro­cedure}}.<ref>See {{w|Seymour Melman|Seymour_Melman}}: '''Decision-Making and Productivity''' (Blackwell, 1958).</ref> This idea might, I think, be sug­gest­ive to anarch­ists. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Secondly, even in the case of {{q|ana­tom­ical hier­archy}}, the term only means that parts of the system can be dis­tin­guished dealing with dif­fer­ent<!-- 'diifferent' in original --> 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. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{tab}}Even in the ana­tom­ical sense, then, the term need have none of the con­nota­tions of coer­cive sanc­tions in a ruler-<wbr>ruled rela­tion­ship which are common in other usages. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{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. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ----- | ||
+ | |||
+ | <font size="2"><references /></font> | ||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Anarchism and the cybernetics of self organising systems}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:Anarchism and the cybernetics of self organising systems}} | ||
[[Category:Anarchist philosophy]] | [[Category:Anarchist philosophy]] | ||
[[Category:Articles]] | [[Category:Articles]] |
Revision as of 21:47, 30 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-
- ↑ See Seymour Melman: Decision-Making and Productivity (Blackwell, 1958).