11

Workshop Workshop on on

Causal/Influence Networks Causal/Influence Networks July 2009July 2009

C.A. HookerC.A. HookerPhD (physics), PhD (phil.) FAHAPhD (physics), PhD (phil.) FAHA

22

Autonomy = I/MR synchronyAutonomy = I/MR synchrony

33

Autonomy is important

• demarcation of living systems• Organisation, global constraint (not

order) is fundamental• grounding for agency• frames the evolution of intelligence and

intentionality,

44

Comparative system order

• Property System Kind• GAS CRYSTAL CELL• Internal bonds None Rigid, passive

Adaptive, active • Directive ordering* Vweak/s Vstrong/s Mod/Vcomplex

• Constraints None Local Global• Organisation None None Very high

• * Directive ordering is spatio-temporally selective energy flow

55

Autonomous Agents [AAs]

AA interrelations are grounded in autonomy, → SDAL:

• Self-directed (= feedback-evaluated behavioural adaptation)

• Anticipative (= feedforward on evaluation)• Learning (= feedback-evaluated adaptation of

self-elf-directedness)AAs are finite, → uncertainty, heuristics,

satisficing

66

SDAL SDAL Example: detective• Synergy between profile development and investigation

method → simultaneously moves itself towards its goal and improves its capacity to move towards its goal.

• Solves open problems: ill defined = problem, method, solution criteria [all deep design problems]

• Captures science research cycles– E.g. ape language research– Adaptive method, e.g. error treatment

• Captures integrated modelling & management method

77

SDAL and scientific niche creationSDAL and scientific niche creation• Key to scientific progress is its capacity for synergistic

new multiplexed niche creation. • Cf. Lasers as distance/time measuring, imaging, energy-

transferring devices, and impact on sci. instruments, methods & models + economic technologies with $ feedback to sci.

• Sci. SDAL: sci. uses its new niches, created from specific problem solutions, to improve its learning capacity.– e.g. observation

→ context dependence, many weak bonds, idiosyncrasy(curbs current network enthusiasm) Contrast military constraints?

88

Evolution of endogenous regulation

• Darwinian model: ‘Transparent phenotype’

Open VSR → regulated VSR

• Autonomous Systems Model: Organised Phenotypes

99

The major organisational evolutionary transitions

LIFE’S CONSTRAINTS [SUFFER!]• FINITUDE + FALLIBILITY• DISSPATIVENESS + DELICACY

LIFE’S SOLUTION [ORGANISE!]• AUTONOMY• ANTICIPATIVENESS• APTNESS• ADAPTIVENESS

LIFE’S BELL’S & WHISTLES [ENJOY!]• SOCIALITY• SELF-DIRECTEDNESS• AGENCY• INTELLIGENCE• CULTURE

1010

Enabling constraints for adaptiveness

• Communal Social• adaptiveness Insects• dominates•

• Multicellular• Body Cultures

• Chimpanzee

• Bonobo

•Human

• Social• Birds•

• Slime Moulds• Individual• adaptiveness A-social• Dominate Organisms• 0 1 2

• Ratio of usable individual parametric plasticity between isolate and communal

states.

1111

Culture: technologyCulture: technology Technologies are amplifiersTechnology as culture = technology as a-cultural:• Objects, methods/tools, possibilities, language

common across diverse agents • Each group and agent exploits idiosyncratic

possibilities context-dependentlyExample – computers in markets

• Import (tech) ≈ possibilities, agent range, accessTech as kth order culture = tech as < kth order a-cultural• music, fashion as cultural technologies• language as head-altering tool = technology

1212

Culture as dynamicalCulture as dynamical• Technologies as dynamical entrainments in a rugged

entrainment landscape• Institutions as self-organised emergents: Hayek to

Lansing to ShiModelling• genetic Darwinism: bioevolution :: memes: cultural

dynamics [Dawkins: Jablonka/Lamb :: Blackmore: ?]• Rubber sheets & oscillators: shaped/shaping• Agency, idiosyncrasy & coherence limits (e.g. control

functions, Woese on gene sharing)Military culture: Centralised →? Technologies?

1313

Some proto-cultural dynamical distinctions I

SHMO: simple harmonic oscillator.

DCC: dynamically collective constraint.

Model 1: a set of independent SHMOs. • System state = aggregate of individual states. • No DCCs. All collective phenomena are patterns

determined only by initial (or boundary) conditions.

• Social example: the distribution of objects in refuse.

1414

Some proto-cultural dynamical distinctions II

• Model 2: model 1 + small, local pair-wise interactions between SHMOs.

• System state = perturbation of model 1 state by addition of local pair-wise corrections.

• Weak local DCCs responsible for collective wave-like perturbation propagation.

• For increased interaction strength &/or less local interaction, stronger &/or more global DCCs emerge generating further collective phenomena, e.g. entrainment, chaotic behaviour.

• Social example: pair-wise reflex interaction behaviour.

1515

Some proto-cultural dynamical distinctions III

• Model 3: model 2 + interactions modified by SHMO integrative memory.

• System state = joint product of SHMO states and interaction states. Memory is some function of past interactions and constrains current interaction form and strength.

• Emergence of global DCCs constraining SHMO behaviour in relation to collective properties.

• Social example: pre-recording socially referenced behaviours.

1616

Some proto-cultural dynamical distinctions IV

• Model 4: model 3 + integrative memory referenced to a shared global field.

• System state = joint product of SHMO states, interaction states, and field state. Field interacts locally with all SHMOs (realised, e.g., by a rubber sheet to which they are attached or an electromagnetic field which their movements collectively generate).

• Emergence of strong global DCCs constraining SHMO behaviour in relation to collective properties based on inherent field dynamics.

• Social example: socially recorded referenced behaviours.