Responsibilities of Competence

Heinz Von Foerster BCL #223 (1972)

At our last Annual Symposium I submitted to you a who works in the soft sciences is faced with a formidable theorem to which Stafford Beer referred on another oc- problem: he cannot afford to loose sight of the full com- casion as “Heinz Von Foerster’s Theorem Number One”. plexity of his system, on the other hand it becomes more As some of you may remember, it went as follows: and more urgent that his problems be solved. This is not just to please him. But now it has become quite clear “The more profound the problem that is ig- that his problems concern us all. “Corruption of our so- nored, the greater are the chances for fame ciety”, “psychological disturbances”, “cultural erosion”, and success.” the “breakdown of communication”, and all the other of these “crises” of today are our problems as well as his. Building on a tradition of a single instance, I shall How can we contribute to their solution? again submit a theorem which, in all modesty, I shall call My suggestion is that we apply the competences “Heinz Von Foerster’s Theorem Number Two”. It goes gained in the hard sciences — and not the method of re- as follows: duction — to the solution of the hard problems in the soft sciences. I hasten to add that this suggestion is not “The hard sciences are successful because new at all. In fact, I submit that it is precisely Cybernet- theydeal with the soft problems; the soft sci- ics that interfaces hard competence with the hard prob- ences are struggling because they deal with lems of the soft sciences. Those of us who witnessed the hard problems.” the early development of cybernetics may well remem- Should you care to look closer, you may discover that ber that before Norbert Wiener created that name for our Theorem 2 could serve as a corollary to Theorem 1. This science it was referred to as the study of “Circular-Causal will become obvious when we contemplate for a moment and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Sys- the method of inquiry employed by the hard sciences. If tems”, a description it carried even years after he wrote a system is too complex to be understood it is broken up his famous book. Of course, in his definition of Cyber- into smaller pieces. If they, in turn, are still too complex, netics as the science of “communication and control in they are broken up into even smaller pieces, and so on, the animal and the machine” Norbert Wiener went one until the pieces are so small that at least one piece can step further in the generalization of these concepts, and be understood. The delightful feature of this process, the today “Cybernetics” has ultimately come to stand for the method of reduction, “reductionism”, is that it inevitably science of regulation in the most general sense. leads to success. Since our science embraces indeed this genera! and Unfortunately, the soft sciences are not blessed with all-pervasive potion, why then, unlike most of our sis- such favorable conditions. Consider, for instance, the so- ter sciences, do we not have a patron saint or a deity to ciologist, psychologist, anthropologist, linguist, etc., if bestow favors on us in our search for new insights, and they would reduce the complexity of the system of their who protects our society from evils from without as well interest, i.e., society, psyche, culture, language, etc., by as from within? Astronomers and physicists are looked breaking it up into smaller parts for further inspection after by Urania; Demeter patronizes agriculture; and var- they would soon no longer be able to claim that they are ious Muses help the various arts and sciences. But who dealing with the original system of their choice. This is helps Cybernetics? so, because these scientists are dealing with essentially One night when I was pondering this cosmic ques- nonlinear systems whose salient features are represented tion I suddenly had an apparition. Alas, it was not one by the interactions between whatever one may call their of the charming goddesses who bless the other arts and “parts” — whose properties in isolation add little, if any- sciences. Clearly, that funny little creature sitting on my thing, to the understanding of the workings of these sys- desk must be a demon. After a while he started to talk. I tems when each is taken as a whole. Consequently, if he was right. “I am Maxwell’s Demon”, he said. And then wishes to remain in the field of his choice, the scientist he disappeared.

HEINZ VON FOERSTER 1 Responsibilities of Competence When I regained my composure it was immediately tion, multiplication, etc. I wish to interpret “computa- clear to me that nobody else but this respectable de- tion” in the most general sense as a mechanism, or “al- mon could be our patron, for Maxwell’s Demon is the gorithm”, for ordering. The ideal, or should I say the paradigm for regulation. most general, representation of such mechanism is, of As you remember, Maxwell’s Demon regulates the course, a Turing Machine, and I shall use this machine to flow of molecules between two containers in a most un- illuminate some of the points I wish to make. natural way, namely, so that heat flows from the cold There are two levels on which we can think of “or- container to the hotter, as opposed to the natural course dering”. The one is when we wish to make a description of events where without the demon’s interference heat of a given arrangement of things. The other one when always flows from the hot container to the colder. we wish to rearrange things according to certain descrip- I am sure you also remember how he proceeds: tions. It will be obvious at once that these two operations He guards a small aperture between the two containers constitute indeed the foundations for all that which we which he opens to let a molecule pass whenever a fast call “computation”. one comes from the cool side or a slow one comes from Let A be a particular arrangement. Then this arrange- the hot side. Otherwise he keeps the aperture closed. ment can be computed by a universal Turing machine Obviously, by this maneuver he gets the cool container with a suitable initial tape expression which we shall call becoming cooler, and the hot container getting hotter, a “description” of A: D(A). The length L(A) of this de- thus apparently upsetting the Second Law of Thermo- scription with depend on the alphabet (language) used. dynamics. Of course, we know by now that while he Hence, we may say that a language α1 reveals more or- succeeds in obtaining this perverse flow of heat, the Sec- der in the arrangement A than another language α2, if ond Law remains untouched. This is because of his need and only if the length L1(A) of the suitable initial tape for a flashlight to determine the velocity of the upcom- description for computing A is shorter than L2(A), or mu- ing molecules. Were he at thermal equilibrium with one tatis mutandis. of the containers he couldn’t see a thing: he is part of a This covers the first level of above, and leads us im- black body. Since he can do his antics only as long as the mediately to the second level. battery of his flashlight lasts, we must include into the Among all suitable initial tape descriptions for an ar- system with an active demon not only the energy of the rangement A1 there is a shortest one: L ∗ (A1). If A1 is two containers, but also that of the battery. The entropy re-arranged to give A2, call A2 to be of a higher order gained by the battery’s decay is not completely compen- than A1 if and only if the shortest initial tape description sated by the neg-entropy gained from the increased dis- of L ∗ (A2) is shorter than L ∗ (A1), or mutatis mutandis. parity of the two containers. This covers the second level of above, and leads us to The moral of this story is simply that while our de- a final statement of perfect ordering (computation). mon cannot beat the Second Law, he can, by his reg- Among all arrangements Ai there is one, A∗, for ulatory activity, retard the degradation of the available which the suitable initial tape description is the shortest energy, i.e., the growth of entropy, to an arbitrary slow L ∗ (A∗). rate. I hope that with these examples it has become clear This is indeed a very significant observation because that living organisms (replacing now the Turing ma- it demonstrates the paramount importance of regulatory chine) interacting with their environment (arrangements) mechanisms in living organisms. In this context they can have several options at their disposal: (i) they may de- be seen as manifestations of Maxwell’s Demon, retard- velop “languages” (sensors, neural codes, motor organs, ing continuously the degradation of the flow of energy, etc.) which “fit” their given environment better (reveal that is, retarding the increase of entropy. In other words, more order); (ii) they may change their surroundings un- as regulators living organisms are “entropy retarders”. til it “fits” their constitution; and (iii), they may do both. Moreover, as I will show in a moment, Maxwell’s However, it should be noted that whatever option they Demon is not only an entropy retarder and a paradigm take, it will be done by computation. That these compu- for regulation, but he is also a functional isomorph of a tations are indeed functional isomorphs of our demon’s Universal Turing Machine. Thus, the three concepts of activity is now for me to show. regulation, entropy retardation, and computation consti- The essential function of a Turing machine can be tute an interlaced conceptual network which, for me, is specified by five operations: indeed the essence of Cybernetics. (i) Read the input symbol x. I shall now briefly justify my claim that Maxwell’s Demon is not only the paradigm for regulation but also (ii) Compare x with z, the internal state of the machine. for computation. When I use the term “computation” I am not restrict- (iii) Write the appropriate output symbol y. ing myself to specific operations as, for instance, addi- (iv) Change the internal state z to the new state z′.

HEINZ VON FOERSTER 2 Responsibilities of Competence (v) Repeat the above sequence with a new input state In order to refute this theorem it is tempting to invoke x′. G¨odel’s Proof of the limits of the Entscheidungsprob- lem in systems that attempt to speak of themselves. But Similarly, the essential function of Maxwell’s Demon Lars L¨ofgren and Gotthard G¨unther have shown that self- can be specified by five operations equivalent to those explanation and self-reference are concepts that are un- above: touched by G¨odel’s arguments. In other words, a science of the brain in the above sense is, I claim, indeed a legit- (i) Read the velocity v of the upcoming molecule M. imate science with a legitimate problem. (ii) Compare (mv2/2) with the mean energy < mv2/2 > (temperature T ) of, say, the cooler con- 2. The Two-Brain Problem: Education tainer (internal state T ). It is clear that the majority of our established educational (iii) Open the aperture if (mv2/2) is greater than efforts is directed toward the trivialization of our chil- < mv2/2 >; otherwise keep it closed. dren. I use the term “trivialization” exactly as used in automata theory, where a trivial machine is characterized (iv) Change the internal state T to the new (cooler) state by its fixed input-output relation, while in a non-trivial ′ T . machine (Turing machine) the output is determined by the input and its internal state. Since our educational sys- (v) Repeat the above sequence with a new upcoming ′ tem is gearedto generatepredictablecitizens, its aim is to molecule M . amputate the bothersome internal states which generate unpredictabilityand novelty. This is most clearly demon- Since the translation of the terms occurringin the cor- strated by our method of examination in which only respondingly labeled points is obvious, with the presen- questions are asked for which the answers are known (or tation of these two lists I have completed my proof. defined), and are to be memorized by the student. I shall How can we make use of our insight that Cybernetics call these questions “illegitimate questions”. is the science of regulation, computation, ordering, and Would it not be fascinating to think of an educational entropy retardation? We may, of course, apply our in- system that de-trivializes its students by teaching them sight to the system that is generally understood to be the to ask “legitimate questions”, that is, questions for which cause cel´ ebre` for regulation, computation. ordering, and the answers are unknown? entropy retardation, namely, the human brain. Rather than following the physicists who order their problems according to the number of objects involved 3. The Many-Brain Problem: Society (“The one-body problem”, “The two-body problem”, It is clear that our entire society suffersfrom a severe dys- “The three-body problem”, etc.), I shall order our prob- function. On the level of the individual this is painfully lems according to the number of brains involved by dis- felt by apathy, distrust, violence. disconnectedness, pow- cussing now “The one-brain problem”, “The two-brain erlessness, alienation, and so on. I call this the “partic- problem”, “The many-brain problem”, and “The all- ipatory crisis”, for it excludes the individual from par- brain problem”. ticipating in the social process. The society becomes the “system”, the “establishment” or what have you, a deper- 1. The Single-Brain Problem: The Brain Sciences sonalized Kafkaesque ogre of its own ill will. It is not difficult to see that the essential cause for this It is clear that if the brain sciences do not want to degen- dysfunctionis the absenceof an adequateinput forthe in- erate into a physics or chemistry of living — or having dividual to interact with society. The so-called “commu- once lived — tissue they must develop a theory of the nication channels”, the “mass media” are only one-way: brain: T (B). But, of course, this theory must be written they talk, but nobody can talk back. The feedback loop by a brain: B(T ). This means that this theory must be is missing and, hence, the system is out of control. What constructed so as to write itself T (B(T )). cybernetics could supply is, of course, a universally ac- Such a theory will be distinct in a fundamental sense cessible social input device. from, say, physics which addresses itself to a (not quite) successful description of a “subjectless world” in which even the observer is not supposed to have a place. This 4. The All-Brain Problem: Humanity leads me now to pronounce my Theorem Number Three: It is clear that the single most distressing characteristic of the global system “mankind” is its demonstrated in- “The Laws of Nature are written by man. stability, and a fast approaching singularity. As long as The laws of biology must write themselves.” humanity treats itself as an open system by ignoring the signals of its sensors that report about its own state of

HEINZ VON FOERSTER 3 Responsibilities of Competence affairs, we shall approach this singularity with no breaks tack them, we may set our goal above fame and success whatsoever. (Lately I began to wonder whether the infor- by quietly going about their solution. If we wish to main- mation of its own state can reach all elements in time to tain our scientific credibility, the first step to take is to act should they decide to listen rather than fight.) apply our competence to ourselves by forming a global The goal is clear: we have to close the system to society which is not so much for Cybernetics as it func- reach a stable population, a stable economy, and stable tions cybernetically. This is how I understand Dennis resources. While the problem of constructing a “popula- Gabor’s exhortation in an earlier issue: “Cyberneticians tion servo” and an “economic servo” can be solved with of the world, unite!” Without communication there is no the mental resources on this planet, for the stability of regulation; without regulation there is no goal; and with- our material resources we are forced by the Second Law out a goal the concept of “society” or “system” becomes of Thermodynamics to turn to extra-planetary sources. void. About 2 × 1014 kilowatts solar radiation are at our dis- Competence implies responsibilities. A doctor must posal. Wisely used, this could leave our earthy, highly act at the scene of the accident. We can no longer af- structured, invaluable organic resources, fossilized or liv- ford to be the knowing spectators at a global disaster. We ing, intact for the use and enjoyment of uncounted gen- must share what competence we have through communi- erations to come. cation and cooperation in working together through the If we are after fame and success we may ignore the problems of our time. This is the only way in which we profundity of these problems in computation, ordering, can fulfill our social and individual responsibilities as cy- regulation, and entropy retardation. However, since we berneticians who should practice what they preach. as cyberneticians supposedly have the competence to at-

HEINZ VON FOERSTER 4 Responsibilities of Competence