Greetings to everyone!
This post is an attempt to integrate some of the ideas that At de Lange
has been sharing with us recently (specifically, entropy and entropy
production, bifurcations and emergence) with the ABC model of behavior
that I have been attempting to explain. I am not sure if my attempts to
draw the parallels that I have been realizing between these lines of
thought will make as much sense to others as they seem to in my own mind,
but I am curious what others may think.
In LO20120, At drew a parallel between antecedents in the ABC model and
entropic force-flux pairs.
>As my understanding of "entropy production: in the abstract
>world of mind grew, I realised that "entropy production" itself
>causes diversity of becoming before it causes diversity of
>being. In other words and using the words of Jon Krispin,
>it orders behavior (B) before consequents (C). The antecedents
>of Jon Krispin are nothing else than the entropy producing
>force-flux (tension flow) pairs. The consequents C themselves
>can and usually do act in the entropy producing force-flux pairs
>of a successive phase, thus giving rise to a string of
>ABC-ABC-ABCs. No, no, I should put it better. Because of
>the Onsager reciprocal relationships (cross inductions) in a
> complex system, a single antecedent A can give rise to a
>multidimensional web of ABC-ABC-ABC-s.
This section of At's post combined with the post that he wrote on
emergence (LO20143) excited me greatly (I believe that At's phrase for
this would be "I got the gooseflesh" ;-) and spurred me to go back to his
primer on entropy to see if I could understand his comment here any
better.
In his primer (Part I, LO19979), he defines entropy as a "measure of
organization" and a picture fixed at a particular "instant of time". He
goes on to say that entropy production is necessary for change and is the
foundation for all productivity. He also mentions Ilya Progogine and his
work on entropy production that demonstrates that entropy production
determines the irreversible self-organization of the physical world. At
has also shared that he believes that entropy production plays the same
role in the irreversible self-organization of the mind.
I have to admit that my personal level of competence with these concepts
is at the "conscious incompetence" level, but I have been struggling
mightily to integrate them into my own thinking. Here, I am trying to
make my admittedly limited tacit knowledge formal (again).
At any rate, skipping ahead in At's primer on entropy to part III C
(LO20049), he explains how the total entropy production for a given flow
of energy is made up of complementary dual, an "entropic force-flux pair".
Rather than try and explain this myself, I'll quote from At's primer:
>Already in the previous century, scientists noticed that when a system is
>divided in half, some of its properties (measurable quantities) also
>divide in half while others stay the same. For example, when we divide an
>electrical dry cell (torch battery) in half, some quantities like the
>mass, volume and charge for the two halves will be half of that for the
>whole, but the density, temperature and voltage will be the same for the
>two halves as for the whole. Those quantities which divide (becomings) are
>called extensive quantities while those which stay the same (beings) are
>called intensive quantities. For almost a century this classification
>between extensive and intensive quantities remained a curiousity. Nobody
>even thought that this classification is vitally important to the
>functioning and organisation of the physical universe. (Mathematically,
>such a relationship is called a Euler function. Its physical basis is the
>very quantum effect itself.)
>But because of Prigogine's ground breaking work, it is clear why.
>Every form of energy is made up by two factors, the one intensive (being)
>and the other one extensive (becoming). These two factors could be
>measured and thus their product be calculated to give the amount for that
>form of energy. For example, electrical energy is made up by the voltage
>factor (intensive) and the charge factor (extensive). Expansion energy is
>made up by the pressure P factor (intensive) and the volume V factor
>(extensive).
>Here then is the key to some great insights: A difference in the
>intensive factor of a form of energy gives rise to an entropic force
>while the change in the corresponding extensive factor gives rise to
>the complementary entropic flux. Thus we have a series of entropy
>production equations, one for each form of energy. ...snip...
So, what we have then is the following:
intensive (being)--->entropic force
extensive (becoming)--->entropic flux
Above, in the first snip from At, he states
>The antecedents (A) of Jon Krispin are nothing else than the entropy
>producing force-flux (tension flow) pairs.
What does this mean then for the behavioral energy that is required for
change? If I understand all of this correctly, actually I think At's
statement isn't quite correct in this context (this is not to say that it
wouldn't be correct for other contexts and energy forms). I think that
the correct arrangement would be as follows:
intensive (being)--->entropic force = antecedents
extensive (becoming)--->entropic flux = consequences
The entropy producing force-flux pair for behavioral energy are the
antecedents and the consequences!!! (I think)
Stated otherwise, antecedents are the entropic force which prompts the
occurrence (being) of the behavioral energy form, and consequences are the
entropic flux which shapes the flow (becoming) of the behavioral energy
form. If we are to understand the entropy ("measure of organization") of
a system of behavioral energy at any given point in time, we must consider
both the antecedents (entropic force) and consequences (entropic flux).
And it is the entropy production that results from the interrelation and
interaction of this complementary dual that is necessary for irreversible
self organization of the behavioral world.
In further thinking about this, and in light of the idea of the halving of
the system criteria that At clarifies for us, this seems to make sense.
Take, for example, the simplest behavioral system that I can think of
where this might be illustrated, a rat in an operant chamber pressing a
bar for food given the following antecedent - when a red light is lit,
food is available when the bar is pressed, when it is not lit, food is not
available, no matter how much the bar is pressed. If we cut the behavioral
system in half, some quantities for the behavior would remain the same as
for the whole, the antecedents (it does not make sense to have half a red
light lit or not lit). On the other hand, you could certainly halve the
extent to which reinforcement was available (egs, give a fraction of the
food for the same number of bar presses, or require more bar pressing for
the same amount of food). The end result would be very different rates of
bar pressing behavior between the 2 systems.
For every behavior, and at every instant of time, there are many
antecedents (entropic forces) and many consequences (entropic fluxes),
making the measurement of entropy at a point in time and the entropy
production for behavioral energy over time, and the exact prediction of
behavior (especially long term), virtually impossible. The interactions
of these forces and fluxes for behavior are non-linear, so, as a butterfly
flapping its wings somewhere in Brazil can create a thunderstorm in New
York, a seemingly insignificant influence may ultimately have a very large
effect on the output of the system. However, if we step back and view the
whole, we can see the patterns of behavior emerge, and, like the weather,
we can often predict behavior with some accuracy in the short term. Also,
in the case of behavior, we can, and do, have a say in the design of both
the antecedents (entropic forces) and the consequences (entropic fluxes),
so we can, and do, have a say in the movement and direction of behavioral
energy.
Can a change in entropic force (antecedents) without a corresponding
change in entropic flux (consequences) support the entropy production
necessary for change? I don't think so. Neither can a change in entropic
flux without a corresponding change in entropic force. Both are
necessary. What does this mean for behavior then? Changing either the
antecedents or the consequences without considering the other will never
lead to irreversible self organization of behavioral energy and emergence
of behavior, only immergence (like putting all the ingredients for a cake
into a pan without mixing them before baking. Yuk!:-). In a system of
behavioral energy, the antecedents prompt (or "cause" in the Kantian
sense, see my post LO20152) the behavior into "being". The occurrence of
every individual behavior is a potential bifurcation point in the system.
The consequences which follow act like attractors in the system that
influence, or shape the becoming of the behaviors. Consequences can
ultimately only attract behavior when a feedback loop is available for the
consequence making it salient to the performer. And the strength of the
consequence to attract the behavior is dependent on a number of
dimensions, primarily whether it is perceived as positive or negative by
the performer, whether it occurs immediately at the time the behavior is
taking place or in the future (remember the decay of delay), and the
certainty/probability that the consequence will result given the
occurrence of the behavior. All of this leads to the entropy production
necessary for the irreversible self organization of behavior and the
emergence of behavior of a higher order to occur.
Finally, to the self organization of behavior. To quote At again, he
wrote the following in LO20143 - What is an emergence?:
>But what about the "self-organisation"? Once the final mixture in the pan
>goes into the oven, we must leave the next bifurcation stage alone. Many
>cakes have turned out into flops by merely lifting the oven's door to take
>a peep, or even a slight accidental knock at the oven. This ought to give
>you some idea what self-organisation is about. Actually, self-organisation
>goes much further. In the baking of the cake, the baker and all the other
>participants were responsible for much of the changes through their own
>"entropy production". They (like the farmers, shop owners, industrialists,
>transporters, electricity engineers, book printers and last, but not the
>least, the baker) were resposible for bring all the ingredients as well as
>the utensils together through various entropy producing events.
>The baker was responsible for mixing the ingredients, pouring the final
>mix in the pan and putting the pan in the heated oven. Up to that stage
>the ingredients of the cake contributed nothing to the self-organisation.
>But in the final baking stage at the edge of chaos the ingredients take
>control of the self-organisation. The only entropy which they did not
>produce, but had to accept from the outside, was the heat produced by the
>oven. This inundation of entropy into the mixture by the oven is necessary
>to trigger the entropy production of the ingredients themselves. The
>ingredients themselves were directly responsible for the bifurcation and
>not the baker, nor the farmers, shop woners, etc.
We can play the role of "the baker" in the entropy production necessary
for change in a system of behavioral energy by designing antecedents and
consequence to prompt and support the behaviors that we want, but, the
final bifurcation point at the edge of chaos that takes control of the
self organization of behavior is out of our hands and in the hands of the
individual.
>From my post, LO20152:
>Finally, the real success and effectiveness of the use of behaviorist
>methods to influence any behavior, whether it is overt action or internal
>behaviors like attitudes, perceptions, or mental models, is determined,
>not by the "influencer", but by the target. This is because they are the
>ones who will make the judgement as to whether or not any attempts to
>reinforce are positive or negative, not the influencer. The influencer
>may be able to discern how it was received by the "target" by observing
>the patterns of the behavior that is shaped by the reinforcers, but they
>cannot decide for the performer if it is positive or negative. The
>performer will decide if they are only going to give enough action to
>avoid a negative outcome (like losing their job), or if they will go
>beyond that, and how they feel about it.
So, At, what do you think? Does this make sense given your much deeper
understanding of entropic force/flux pairs, entropy production,
bifurcations and emergence?
Best regards,
Jon Krispin
--"Jon Krispin" <jkrispin@prestolitewire.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>