A Meditation on Process Dualism

Appendix A: Historical Postscript: The two monisms.

Appendix B: What Is a Cybernetic System?

What this essay has been discussing is the mind/body problem. The metaphysicians of previous ages noted that there was an apple, and then there was the idea of an apple. There arose in modern times two camps competing for allegiance. One camp were the materialists. They insisted that the apple was real and the idea of the apple was not real. Thus arose behaviourist psychology. The first disciple to deny the existence of its subject matter. The behaviorists argued that since the mind could not be observed objectively then for all intents and purposes it was not real. Therefore psychology was not to study the mind, but to study behaviour. The expression "it's all in your mind" was another way of saying "It's not real."

The second group of philosophers took the other position. They argued that the only thing that we really knew were ideas. We could be sure that we had ideas. But we could not be sure that the ideas were connected to anything. The fact that we have an idea of an apple did not mean that there was an apple in the material world.

Thus arose two monisms. Each lamenting the terrible sin of dualism.

The essay seeks to resolve the mind/body problem by changing the focus. Instead of looking at mind and body as two states, it looks at both as processes. The processes of the mind have a physical manifestation, and the processes of body have a formal quality. Any event can be seen either as an information process or energy process.

What is a cybernetic system? This is not as simple as it would at first appear. There is no accepted standard description. Each writer presents his own definitions and analysis. It is necessary therefore to look at a number of different descriptions and see if we can derive the basic elements of a cybernetic system.

CYBERNETICS AS TRANSFORMATION

In Norbert Wiener's (1948) book Cybernetics, we find the following diagram of a cybernetic system.

Norbert Wiener was a mathematician who worked on radar guidance systems for anti-aircraft guns. His style of diagraming a cybernetic system is still used among electrical engineers.

Thus B. P. Lathi (1974) in his book Signals, Systems, and Controls presents this schematic.

The process that both diagrams present is a process of transformation. A "transform" is a process where some aspect of a thing remains constant while other aspects of it change according to a system of correlation. Mathematicians call the correlation "mapping." Elements in Set A are said to be mapped "onto" the elements of Set B. The symbol that is used is an arrow. AB indicates that Set A correlates to Set B.

A transform always has four parts. There is 1.) the variable in the first set, 2.) the process, 3.) the process variable, and 4.) the variable in the second set. In the formula x + 2 = y, the "x" is the first variable, addition "+" is the process, "2" is the process variable and "y" is the variable in the second set. In these diagrams the processors are symbolized by the boxes, and the variables by the lines that go into (input) and out of (output) these boxes.

Mapping theory obscures the processors, while the Wiener/Lathi diagrams highlight them. The processors need to be highlighted because the process is determined by them. They are the limits of the system, and a change to the processors is a change to the operating characteristics of the system. This is an important point. It means that you can change the whole system by changing a part. Thus we can begin to talk about the system as a whole.

We can diagram a process as follows:

This symbol allows us to indicate both variables and the processor, and thus separate out the four parts of the transformation process. But whether we uses boxes, arrows or wavy lines the same three part process is being symbolized.

If we look closely at the diagrams presented by Wiener and Lathi we see that in a cybernetic system there are basically three processors and three variables. The processors are 1.) the controller, 2.) the effector (or the plant), and 3.) the feedback take-off. The feedback take-off is not symbolized by a box, but by a small circle. If we look at one of Lathi's exemplary diagrams we see that the feedback take-off is a processor. In this example, the feedback is one percent of the output.

The three variables are called input, output and feedback. The terms "input" and "output" raise basic boundary issues that are endemic to systems analysis. What can be said to be "inside" the system and what can be said to be "outside?"

CYBERNETICS AS INFORMATION PROCESS

Ludwig Von Bertalannffy (1968) diagrams a cybernetic system in a similar way.

It is similar to the diagrams of Wiener and Lathi, but there is a significant difference. The processors are the same with one slight change. The controller and the effector are still there but the feedback take-off is called a "receptor," and the terms for the variables have been changed to stimulus, message, message, and response. He makes a distinction between information (messages) and action (stimulus, response). With this model it is not entirely clear what the control apparatus does to change one message into another, nor the difference between a stimulus and a response since both are inputs for the receptor, but we will take this up later. For the moment what is important is the distinction between information and action.

The distinction means that there are two very interesting transformations going on in the cybernetic process. One is the transformation of activity into information, and the other is the corresponding transformation of information into activity.

MODELING CYBERNETIC SYSTEMS

Now for something completely different. One of the problems that cybernetics has faced from the very beginning is the difficulty of expressing the cybernetic relationships in terms that would show the information transforms.

A diagram that indicates the information element more clearly is the diagram developed by Jay Forrester (1968) in Principles of Systems.

Forrester is remarkable for continuing the M.I.T. interest in systems and seeking to apply cybernetic theory to social phenomena.

In Forrester's diagram the two different levels of operation are clearly delineated. On the first level you have the materials flow, the world of particle movement, of material and efficient causes. This level is indicated by the solid lines. On the second level you have the world of information, of mind, of formal and final causes. This level is indicated by the dotted lines. (Not quite as solid as material flows.)

It is quite different from the diagrams we have been looking at. But we can recognize some of the familiar elements. The small circle on the edge of the box is the feedback take-off. The dotted line leading away from the take-off is the information variable. His diagram obscures the difference between the controller and the effector by combining them into one. But he does make clear what it is that they are doing.

His symbol for the controller/effector is a gate or valve. The effector takes material or energy from a "source." and directs it in specific ways towards a state, symbolized by the box. The symbol for the source is a blob with squiggly lines. This indicates that the source is the boundary of the system. It is the point at which materials enter the system. He uses the same symbol for a "sink," the point at which material or energy leaves the system. It is what Von Bertalanffy would call an "open" system. He thus stresses the importance of a collateral energy system. The other aspect that he adds is the time adjustment. The activity of the effector is a "rate," an activity over time.

Although he does not separate out the controller from this process, he does make clear what it is that the controller does. The controller takes the information about the state of the system and compares it to a goal. The goal is a specific value that is the desired value of the state. The dotted line connecting the goal to the Rate indicates that the "goal" is a form of information.

Although not entirely clear from the diagram the box also serves as a processor. It takes the product of the rate and combines it with the present situation. This is in fact a fourth processor that is an essential element of a cybernetic system.

Forrester was the first to try to see the whole cybernetic process as a series of information transforms. He wanted to develop a computer model of a cybernetic system. A computer program is by definition a series of information transforms. He accomplished this with the world model in Limits to Growth.

The advantage of this method of modeling a cybernetic system is the ease with which it can be translated into computer programs. If we were to code this model into BASIC it would look something like this.

This program would print a series of inventory figures for a period from a specific date "d" to another date "c" at intervals of "a." Note that since it is a computer program there is no receptor or feedback take-off. The inventory is already in the form of data. This is a major limit to the Forrester method that he tries to overcome by the use of "coefficients."

DIAGRAMING A CYBERNETIC SYSTEM

At this point we can identify the four basic processes of a cybernetic system. It will have four basic processors:

1. a feedback take-off or receptor, which translates external states into internal information, a process we may call SENSING;

2. a controller which compares the feedback information to a value or desired goal, a process we may call EVALUATING;

3. an effector or plant or rate which transforms external material or energy into specific actions, a process we may call DECIDING;

4. a situation or environment that transforms the specific actions of the system into specific results or changes, a process we may call ACTING.

Corresponding to the transformers there are four variables (elements of information) which are transformed:

1. The external changes that are sensed we may call CHANGES;

2. The internal information that this produces we may call SENSE;

3. The information after it has been evaluated we may call EVALUATIONS;

4. The action of the system upon the situation, we may call ACTION.

We can then diagram the processes of a cybernetic system in the following way.

In the Forrester example, the process of EVALUATING would be DI - I = E. I is the SENSE or feedback that tells us the level of the present inventory. DI is the VALUE or goal for the inventory. E is the EVALUATION. The process of EVALUATING would be subtracting I from DI.

This method of diagraming also brings out the process variables. These variables are the limits or constraints of the system. I have called them MODELS, VALUES, RESOURCES, and SITUATION.

DIAGRAM OF A CYBERNETIC SYSTEM

For the sake of simplicity we can diagram a cybernetic system like this:

Simplified Cybernetic Diagram

For Example: Let us then diagram a simple control device, the flush toilet, as a series of energy transforms. An energy transform can be described as a measure of energy is transmitted from one site to another while the quantity of energy remains constant..

As a series of energy transforms:

When we put these together it is a consistent, sequential process.

This method of describing a cybernetic system focuses on the information processes, and is designed to highlight the variety of forms that qualify as information. The method is also designed to highlight the key process variables. We have called them Models, Values, Resources, and Situation. It is changes in these variables that constitute a change in the system.

Return to Home page