Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: [PORT-L] Nadin on Anticipation
On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 12:33 PM, Jack Park wrote: (01)
> It seems to me that the significance of this talk on anticipation goes
> back to important aspects of holistic thinking
>> From: Mary Keeler <mkeeler@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
>> To: PORT-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
>> "Anticipation: Why is it a subject of research? Anticipation occurs in
>> all
>> spheres of life. It complements the physics of reaction with the
>> pro-active quality of the living. [...] Before the archer draws his
>> bow, his mind has already hit the target.
>> Motivation mechanisms in learning, the arts, and all types of research
>> are
>> dominated by the underlying principle that a future state--the
>> result--controls present action, aimed at success. The entire subject
>> of
>> prevention entails anticipatory mechanisms." (02)
This is certainly provocative, and seems *necessary* to consider as part
of Augment systems. Let me go further with some related Beads: (03)
- "Call-by-future": I first came across this in some MIT AI Lab papers
("The Incremental Garbage Collection of Processes", et al) by Carl
Hewitt on Open Systems and parallel asynchronous agents (wait to
evaluate arguments as long as possible and only when you really need
them)
- "call-by-future" is an argument evaluation/existentialization pattern
supported by some programming languages, related to lazy evaluation
(complementing call-by-value, call-by-reference, etc);
- a creative misunderstanding/evolution of Hewitt's paper led to my
seeing call-by-future in the context of the binding problem (ie,
call-by-future is the binding intentionality within which previously
disparate perceptions are made to make "sense") (likewise, the
"hypothesis" provides the framework within which questions are raised,
experiments defined, and results evaluated);
- our own behavior provides existence proof that this works (how do I
know what I'm going to say before I've said it?);
- this is the ultimate cashing in of the promissory note that
call-by-future in a sense is (I promise I'll provide you a value when
needed), and that it *could* be symbiotically sedimented into software
(*we* provide the call-by-future for our software). (04)
Other related beads:
- Husserl's question: wherein lies the unity of the intentionality of
time consciousness (neither the noetic (subject-side) nor the noematic
(object-side) alone is sufficient; the two are co-relative);
- provocative notion of quantum state vector collapse providing the
existential binding in which variables find values (in a sense
"previous" to the calling-by-future collapse);
- "dialogue" (dialogos - David Bohm's open organization process) as a
process of staying in the open-ended question (what is the human process
of generating call-by-future, especially when groups (let along
societies and peoples) are involved)? (05)
OHS bead:
- educating call-by-future (how do we decide what to decide; in
particular, what augments and what doesn't augment), and locating it at
the heart of human-driven OHS/Augment systems (as both personal and
group *practice*), could provide exponential augmentation... Without
that.... quis custodiet custodies (who will guard the guardians)? (06)
Summary:
- a personal practice of resting in call-by-future/dialogos/"state of
mind" is necessary for leaders (and any human);
- humans can provide call-by-future for OHS/Augment software (this is
the UI / design challenge: how to make my agency (interrleated agents)
fluidly responsive to my intentions). (07)
This is the heart of my interest in OHS and Augment. (08)
Cheers,
Mark
________________________________________________________
"Computers are useless: they can only give answers". - Pablo Picasso (09)