Cybernetic Model of Intelligence

  

Figure 1: Circular processes of intelligence. 

1. Introduction

The hype around Artificial Intelligence raises the question “What is Artificial Intelligence?” and, consequently, “What is Intelligence?”. We need a coherent definition of the concept of intelligence, because otherwise the public discourse about AI will fail and degrade to an exchange of propaganda and to manipulation. But do we have a coherent definition of intelligence? 
Consider the following example, which is representative for many others: 

Human intelligence is the capability to learn, form concepts, understand, and apply logic and reason ... recognize patterns, plan, innovate, solve problems, make decisions, retain information, and use language to communicate. (adapted from Wikipedia).

Such definitions try to define the concept by means of a list of examples of intelligence, a list of possible uses of intelligence. But the question is not which types of intelligence exist, nor what intelligence can be used for. We need a definition which is valid for all the types and for all the uses: that is, we need a general definition. Such a definition can be obtained if we ask: what does intelligence consist of? And particularly: “what functions does intelligence consist of?”

2. Piaget’s theory of intelligence

An answer to these questions can be found in Jean Piaget’s studies of the development of intelligence. Here are some quotations from and adaptations of Piaget’s theory, that mention the main functions and characteristics of intelligence:

1. EIVIRONMENT. Intelligence develops (and knowledge is generated) through interaction with the environment.
2. ACTION. …all knowledge is tied to action, and knowing an object or an event is to use it by assimilating it to an action scheme… (Piaget, 1967:14-15)
3. SCHEME. A pattern consisting of (von Glasersfeld, 1995:66):
• Recognition of a certain situation;
• a specific activity associated with that situation; and
• the expectation that the activity produces a certain previously experienced result. 
4.  ASSIMILATION. “Intelligence is, in fact, assimilation to the extent that it incorporates into its schemes all the data of experience” (1). Piaget, 1936:12. 
5. ACCOMMODATION. « … mental life is also accommodation to the surrounding environment… intelligence constantly modifies [previous schemes] to adjust them to new data.” (2). Piaget, 1936:13.
6. EQUILIBRIUM. The interaction between the organism and the environment requires a balance between assimilation and accommodation. Adapted from Piaget, 1937:309.
7. KNOWING. "all knowledge is both accommodation to the object and assimilation to the subject" (3). Piaget, 1937:312.
8. CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE. "The very notion of object is far from being innate and requires a construction that is both assimilative and accommodative." (4). Piaget, 1936:13.
9. COORDINATION. It is precisely the role of intelligence to coordinate assimilation and accommodation with each other. Adapted from Piaget, 1937:309.
10. COORDINATIONS OF SCHEMES. Assimilation establishes an ever closer network of coordinations between schemes and between the things to which these schemes apply. Adapted from Piaget, 1937:308.

Further, in his study of the development of intelligence, Piaget gives the following definition of intelligence (Piaget 1936: 12):

« Intelligence is an equilibrium between assimilation and accommodation” (original: «L’intelligence … est un équilibre entre l'assimilation et l'accommodation. »)

One year later, in his study of how intelligence constructs reality, Piaget suggested to view intelligence as follows (Piaget 1937: 311):

"Intelligence ... organises the world by organising itself" 
(original: "L’intelligence . . . organise le monde en s’organisant elle-même."

The idea of an equilibrium in the first definition and the repetition of “organize” in the second suggest a circularity such as we find in cybernetic (feedback) systems. So, based on Piaget’s developmental theory of intelligence and knowledge - as summarised in the previous statements - we developed the following cybernetic model of intelligence. 

3. Cybernetic Model of Intelligence

Intelligence is constituted by 3 main processes (functions) and 2 feedback loops that enable the organism to develop its own experiential world. 

Figure 2: Cybernetic model of intelligence.

Intelligence is not found ready-made; the functions which constitute it progressively develop thanks to the interaction of the organism with the environment. These interactions typically follow a tripartite pattern called a “scheme”. Experience happens through construction, organisation and application of schemes (knowing) thus contributing to the creation of the organism’s experiential world. 

The function of assimilation controls (regulates) this process of knowing by incorporating experience into a scheme (assimilation loop) whereas the function of accommodation controls it by adjusting schemes when they do not fit to experience (accommodation loop). In this way the three processes constituting intelligence (knowing, assimilation, accommodation) are coordinated and equilibrium between the organism and its environment is maintained.

4. Conclusion

What is intelligence? The cybernetic model presented here suggests that the essence of intelligence is a feedback system consisting of 3 main functions - knowing, assimilation and accommodation - connected by 2 feedback loops (assimilation loop, accommodation loop). This system demonstrates that intelligence is not ready-made: it develops by ensuring - thanks to its functional architecture - a balanced interaction of the organism with the environment.

References

Piaget, J. (1936) La naissance de l'intelligence chez l'enfant, Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. 9th edition, 1977. Translated as: The Origins of Intelligence in Children (New York: International University Press, 1952) as well as The Origin of Intelligence in the Child (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953).

Piaget, J. (1937) La Construction du Réel Chez l’Enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. 5th edition, 1973. Translated as: The construction of reality in the child (New York: Basic Books, 1954). Also translated as The Child's Construction of Reality (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1955).

Piaget, J. (1967) Biologie et connaissance (Biology and knowledge), Paris, Gallimard.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer Press.

Notes

(1) L'intelligence est, en effet, assimilation dans la mesure où elle incorpore à ses cadres tout le donné de l'expérience. Piaget, 1936:12.

(2) … la vie mentale [est] aussi accommodation au milieu ambient … l'intelligence modifie sans cesse [les schèmes antérieurs] pour les ajuster aux nouvelles données. Piaget, 1936:13.

(3) toute connaissance est à la fois accommodation à l'objet et assimilation au sujet. Piaget, 1937:312.

(4) la notion même d'objet est loin d'être innée et nécessite une construction à la fois assimilatrice et accommodatrice. Piaget, 1936: 13.

 

What is intelligence?

 

What do you think for example of the following definition?

Human intelligence is the capability to learn, form concepts, understand, and apply logic and reason ... recognize patterns, plan, innovate, solve problems, make decisions, retain information, and use language to communicate (adapted from Wikipedia).

In my view such definitions are misleading: because in this way they only define what intelligence is used for, not of what it consists. A car is used for travelling: does travelling define what a car is? I don't think so.

If we ask "What is a house?", the Oxford dictionary tells us of what a house consists, not only what it is used for.
=> a building [a structure with a roof and walls] for human habitation, especially one that consists of a ground floor and one or more upper storeys. (1)

So, of what does intelligence consists?

Piaget in 1937 suggested to view intelligence as follows:

"Intelligence ... organises the world by organising itself" 
(original: "L’intelligence . . . organise le monde en s’organisant elle-même." (2)).

This suggests that intelligence consists of the ability of :

• shaping experiences into a structured world ("organises the world") 
• by organising its own methods (the subject's action schemes) for shaping experiences ("organising itself").

The first, according to Piaget, is implemented as the function of "accomodation", the second as the function of "assimilation". This is what intelligence consists of: assimilation & accomodation, two complementary funtions which depend the one of the other and interact the one with the other (2).

In his interpretation of Piaget's epistemology, Ernts von Glasersfeld suggested that understanding Piaget’s epistemological beliefs may be very difficult, but was convinced that it would be worth struggling for it because it could lead to "a view of human knowledge and the process of knowing which, it seems to me, is more coherent and more plausible than any other." (3).

Thank you, Ernst, I totally agree!


Notes:

(1) https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
(2)  Piaget, J. (1937) La Construction du Réel Chez l’Enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. 5th edition (1973).
(3) von Glasersfeld, E. (1982) An Interpretation of Piaget’s Constructivism. In: Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 36 (4), 612–635, 1982.

The Operational Constructivism Manifesto 2018

1.   OWN WORLD. Although we share the same environment, each of us lives in his own world (thank you A. Schopenhauer).

2.   COPERNICAN REVOLUTION. In this own world, that every human being constructs for her/himself, the objects conform to her/his knowing (thank you I. Kant).

3.   OPERATIONS. For constructing you need operands, operations and schemata (thank you S. Ceccato): together they form a faculty of mental constructs, not a faculty of representations.

4.   AUTOPOIESIS. This faculty of mental constructs works in an autopoietic way (thank you H. Maturana): the outcomes of constructing extend that same faculty, which constructed them (outcome-function dualism).

5.   SELF-ORGANIZATION. In this way, in the course of doing, a self-organizing, intelligent system comes into being (thank you J. Piaget), a whole of compared and connected mental constructs (thank you I. Kant).

6.   VIABILITY. In this system priority belongs to viable mental constructs, i.e. those which stand the test of doing (thank you E. von Glasersfeld).

7.   INNER WORLD. Hence, this own world, is an inner world, made of mentally constructed objects, events, human beings, relationships, social interactions, etc.: all things that each of us constructs by her/himself.

8.   OUTER WORLD. The outer world (physical world) provides material for the construction of mental constructs and is used as environment for testing their viability.

9.   EXPERIENCE. From the coupled control of the outer and inner world (controlled processes) by means of thinking (control unit) arises experience.

10.    KNOWLEDGE. The own world in which each of us lives, is hence primarily an experiential world (thank you E. von Glasersfeld) and knowledge is the logic of this experience.

11.    RESPONSIBILITY. Consequently, the responsibility for knowledge, belongs to the bearer of experience (thank you H. von Förster).

Marco Bettoni

Basel, 26. Oktober 2018

Operationaler Konstruktivismus: Manifest 2018

1. Bei gleicher Umgebung lebt doch jede/r in der eigenen Welt (danke A. Schopenhauer). 
2. In dieser eigenen Welt, die jeder Mensch für sich konstruiert, richten sich die Gegenstände nach seinem Denken («kopernikanische Wende», danke I. Kant). 
3. Zum Konstruieren braucht es Operanden, Operationen und Schemata (danke S. Ceccato): zusammen bilden sie ein Vermögen der Vorstellungen (mentale Konstrukte), nicht der Darstellungen (Repräsentationen). 
4. Dieses Vermögen der Konstruktion von Vorstellungen funktioniert autopoietisch (danke H. Maturana): die Ergebnisse des Konstruierens erweitern jenes Vermögen, das sie konstruiert hat (Ergebnis-Funktion Dualismus)
5. So entsteht im Laufe des Tuns ein selbstorganisierendes, intelligentes System (danke J. Piaget), ein Ganzes verglichener und verknüpfter Vorstellungen (danke I. Kant).
6. In diesem System haben viable Vorstellungen Priorität, d.h. jene, die sich im Tun bewähren (danke E. von Glasersfeld). 
7. Diese eigene Welt ist somit eine innere Welt bestehend aus vorgestellten Gegenständen, Ereignissen, Mitmenschen, Relationen, sozialen Interaktionen, usw.: alles Dinge, die jede/r für sich konstruiert. 
8. Die äussere Welt (physische Welt) stellt Material für die Konstruktion der Vorstellungen zur Verfügung und wird als Umgebung für ihre Bewährung benutzt. 
9. Aus der gekoppelten Regelung der äusseren und inneren Welt (Regelstrecken) durch das Denken (Regler) entsteht Erfahrung. 
10. Die eigene Welt, in der jeder von uns lebt, ist somit primär eine Erfahrungswelt (danke E. von Glasersfeld) und Wissen ist die Logik dieser Erfahrung. 
11. Demzufolge liegt die Verantwortung für das Wissen beim Erfahrungsträger (danke H. von Förster).
    

Marco Bettoni
Basel, 26. Oktober 2018

Verantwortung für Denken und Wissen

"... Man braucht in der Tat gar nicht sehr tief in das konstruktivistische Denken einzudringen, um sich darüber klar zu werden, dass diese Anschauung unweigerlich dazu führt, den denkenden Menschen und ihn allein für sein Denken, Wissen, und somit auch für sein Tun verantwortlich zu machen. Heute ... ist eine Lehre ungemütlich, die andeutet, dass wir die Welt, in der wir zu leben meinen, uns selbst zu verdanken haben." -
Ernst von Glasersfeld, (1981) Einführung in den radikalen Konstruktivismus. In: P. Watzlawick (ed.) Die erfundene Wirklichkeit. Munich, Germany: Piper, 16–38.

What means "Cybernetics"?

I searched Wikipedia for a definition of the term "Cybernetics" and found a sentence, that in my view is rather wrong and misleading for various reasons (Cybernetics is the interdisciplinary study of the structure of regulatory systems; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics, 11.12.2011).

Then I searched on the website of the American Society for Cybernetics (http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/definitions.htm), but could not find a convincing solution.

Finally, looking in my archive I found a folder with notes of 1988 in which I had tried to define the term "Cybernetics"; I have completed them now, and here is the summary of what came out (an article will follow later):

• We call Cybernetics the science that considers dynamic systems in terms of OPERATIONS and CONTROL and aims at enabling artificial systems to perform like organisms at 3 levels: physical, biological and mental.

 This definition is based on my experience as engineer in the fileds of System Dynamics and Process Control as well as on my cooperation with Silvio Ceccato and Ernst von Glasersfeld. I have tried to integrate in one sentence the definitions given by three cybernetic pioneers: Norbert Wiener, Heinz von Förster and Silvio Ceccato.

David K. Johnson - Sleepysand in the Mind’s Eye

The newest critique to Radical Constructivism (RC), an article by David K. Johnson titled "Footprints in the Sand" in Constructivist Foundations 6 (1),  does in no way contribute to understand the weaknesses of Radical Constructivism, it is merely sleepysand in the mind's eye:

• http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/1 
• http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/1/090.johnson

At the basis of the obfuscation and jungle of misunderstandings contained in David K. Johnson's article lies the fundamental confusion:

• "a THING, in contrast to our thoughts of that THING, surely does exist outside of thought"

This is well exemplified in a statement found in the new book by David K. Johnson & Matthew Silliman (2009:8):

• "But rocks, in contrast to our thoughts of rocks, surely do exist outside of thought, a fact that alone explains Alison’s stumbling on this rock along a road in Vermont without first thinking it into existence." From: Johnson D. K. & Silliman M. R. (2009) Bridges to the world. Sense, Rotterdam, page 8.

From David K. Johnson's article we can learn three lessons:

1. The fundamental emotion of Johnson's critique “is powered by the authority of universally valid knowledge” (Maturana & Poerksen 2004:41-42) and the basis of its explanations is the reference to objects in the external reality.
2. This kind of criticism to RC originates from an unaware confusion between what belongs to RC and what belongs to Realism.
3. A blind spot makes that critics do not understand how to deal with things in themselves and as a consequence easily overlook the intimate relationship between the two sides of the radical constructivist coin: construction & viability.

Ernst von Glasersfeld in Beats Biblionetz

In Beats Biblionetz gibt es

• im Bereich Personen
• den Eintrag Ernst von Glaserfeld mit
• Texte
• Definitionen
• Bemerkungen zu Personen, Bücher, Texte, Fragen, Aussagen
• persönliche Bemerkungen
• Biographie (aktualisiert 1999)
• CoautorInnen
• Zitationsnetz

Interessant wäre zu jedem Autor ein "Aussagen-Netz" mit allen wichtigen Aussagen des Autors zu seinen wichtigsten Begriffen aus allen seinen Werken.

Why responsible? EvG 2002

In 2002 Ernst von Glasersfeld wrote in his obituary for Heinz von Förster:

• Heinz put the new view into a nutshell: «Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer.» Instead of worrying about an inaccessible external reality he focused attention on the world we build in the course of interactions with others in the domain of our experience. 
• Though this experiential world is a social construction, it is also individual because each constructs it according to his or her own experience. And because there is always more than one way of constructing, we are all responsible for the world in which we live.
• In Memoriam H.v.F., http://www.oikos.org/foerster.htm

How do we know? EvG 1996

In 1996 Ernst von Glasersfeld wrote:

• The concept of knowledge is thus actually changing. Traditional philosophy was forever searching for timeless truths that would be independent of the thinking subject. With the spreading of the Kantian insight that what we rationally grasp is always what human reason builds up according to its own rules, interest has been growing in how this building-up proceeds. And this is the area in which we celebrate Heinz von Foerster as a pioneer. 
• There can be no final answers in this area but only models that, for the time being, satisfy our demands. Hence he reminds us that the responsibility for the world we conceptually construct and enact rests with us.
• Farewell to objectivity (Revised and expanded English version of 136) . Systems Research 13(3): 279–286.

Knowledge: making sense of experience - EvG 1990

In 1990 Ernst von Glasersfeld wrote:

• If the view is adopted that “knowledge” is the conceptual means to make sense of experience, rather than a “representation” of something that is supposed to lie beyond it, this shift of perspective brings with it an important corollary: the concepts and relations in terms of which we perceive and conceive the experiential world we live in are necessarily generated by ourselves. In this sense it is we who are responsible for the world we are experiencing.
• As I have reiterated many times, radical constructivism does not suggest that we can construct anything we like, but it does claim that within the constraints that limit our construction there is room for an infinity of alternatives. 
• It therefore does not seem untimely to suggest a theory of knowing that draws attention to the knower’s responsibility for what the knower constructs.
• An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical . In: R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher & N. Noddings (ed.) Monographs of the J. for Research in Mathematics Education, #4. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 19–29.

Man alone is responsible for his thinking - EvG 1984

In 1984 Ernst von Glasersfeld wrote:

• "Indeed, one need not enter very far into constructivist thought to realize that it inevitably leads to the contention that man – and man alone – is responsible for his thinking, his knowledge and, therefore, also for what he does."
• "Today, when behaviorists are still intent on pushing all responsibility into the environment, and sociobiologists are trying to place much of it into genes, a doctrine may well seem uncomfortable if it suggests that we have no one but ourselves to thank for the world in which we appear to be living. (p. 17)
  
• "An introduction to radical constructivism" , in P. Watzlawick (ed.) The invented reality. New York: Norton 1984: 17–40.

End of an experiential world

Ernst von Glasersfeld, an internationally influential cybernetician, originator and developer of Radical Constructivism, died last Friday (Nov. 12th at 7 am EST) at the age of 93 in Amherst (Massachusetts) or, in his own words "entered the eternal skislopes". An obituary will follow on the pages of OIKOS (http://www.oikos.org/psicen.htm) and ASC (http://www.asc-cybernetics.org).

Our acquaintance began in Spring 1985: Ernst called me from Athens (Georgia) on my private phone number in Zürich, Universitätstrasse 17. He had received my "Research Report Nr. 1". From here, during the following 25 years, a beautiful relationship developed, during which he became my best friend and my ideal master.

In a certain sense I also died now with him but at the same time also "entered a new lifeslope".

One year ago, right on the same day, von Glasersfeld had received in the City Hall of Vienna the medal of honour in gold of the city of Vienna and given in the Festsaal the opening talk of the 4th Intern. Heinz von Förster-Congress.

"Constructivism makes life so much nicer and easier because you lose the urge to be right" he said in 2005 at a congress in Vienna; would be nice if we could transfer this to economy, politics, education and everyday life: away from the usual eristic dialectics towards more and more dialogue.

Ende einer Erfahrungswelt

Ernst von Glasersfeld, Begründer des Radikalen Konstruktivismus, ist am vergangenen Freitag (12. November um 13 Uhr MEZ) im Alter von 93 Jahre in Amherst (Massachusetts) gestorben oder, wie er sagte, "in die ewigen Skipisten eingefahren". Nachrufe z.B. in der FAZ  oder der Standard, Wien.

Unsere Bekanntschaft begann im Frühjahr 1985: Ernst rief mich aus Athens (Georgia, USA) an, auf meiner privaten Telefonnummer in Zürich, Universitätsstrasse 17. Er hatte mein "Research Report Nr. 1" erhalten ... In den folgenden 25 Jahren entwickelte sich daraus eine sehr schöne Beziehung, für mich wurde er mein bester Freund und vorbildlicher Meister.

In gewisser Weise bin auch ich jetzt mit ihm gestorben und zugleich in einer neuen Lebenspiste "eingefahren".

Auf den Tag genau vor einem Jahr hatte von Glasersfeld im Rathaus von Wien die Ehrenmedaille der Stadt Wien in Gold erhalten und im grossen Festsaal mit einem Vortrag den 4. Heinz von Förster Kongress eröffnet.

"Der Konstruktivismus macht das Leben so viel schöner und einfacher weil man den Drang Recht zu haben verliert." sagte von Glasersfeld an einem Kongress in 2005 (am 26.9.2010 in diesem Blog erwähnt...); wäre schön, wenn wir das auf Wirtschft, Politik, Wissenschaft, Bildung und Alltag übertragen könnten: weg von der gewohnten Eristik und hin zu mehr Dialog.

Zwei Vorteile des Radikalen Konstruktivismus

"Radikaler Konstruktivismus - Versuch einer Wissenstheorie"

(abgetippt aus der CD zum Buch):

• .... Deswegen habe ich oft gesagt, der Konstruktivismus macht das Leben so viel schöner und einfacher weil man den Drang Recht zu haben verliert, das ist nicht  möglich ...<Recht zu haben> ... (Spur 8 / 8:11)

• ... aber auch hier sehe ich einen Vorteil des konstruktivistischen Denken, weil man dann sehr vorsichtig sein muss, dem anderen eine Schuld zuzuschreiben; man weiss ja, man hat das selber konstrukiert irgendwie, wenn es falsch ist, das ist wahrscheinlich mein eigener Fehler. (Spur 8 / 14:10)

2005, edition echoraum, www.echoraum.at