Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • The Nature of The Laws of Nature - Humberto Maturana

    Hochgeladen von

    himkeraditya
    179 Ansichten10 Seiten
    The Nature of the Laws of Nature- Humberto Maturana. Cognitive Science

    Originaltitel

    The Nature of the Laws of Nature- Humberto Maturana

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    The Nature of the Laws of Nature- Humberto Maturana. Cognitive Science

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    179 Ansichten10 Seiten

    The Nature of The Laws of Nature - Humberto Maturana

    Hochgeladen von

    himkeraditya
    The Nature of the Laws of Nature- Humberto Maturana. Cognitive Science

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 10
    Systems Research and Behaviot! Science ‘Spt Res. 17, 459-468 (2000) Research Paper The Nature of the Laws of Nature Humberto Maturana* F. Ciencias, Dpto. Biologia, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile We buman beings live in the explanations of our existence as living beings. These expla- nations of our existence include what we call the laws of nature’. Though we name them Jaws, we cannot claim that they have an existence independent of us. We human beings donot exist in nature, nature arises with us, and we durselves arise with it. In this dynamic co-arsing, we explain ourselves and our circumstances while operating as observers. The Jaws of nature are abstractions of the regularities of our operation as living systems that wwe distinguish as we explain our experiences with the coherences of our experiences. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords explanations; observer; knowing; natufe; structural determinism; language/ languaging TRODUCTION want to indulge in. what is for me a basic ques- tion — namely, what is the nature of the laws of nature? To do this Lhave to present tothe reader the fondaments for both the question and for the answer that I shall propose. | shall begin by talking about us observers, structural deter rinism, language, and the operation of the ner ‘vous system, After doing that I shall answer the {question about the laws of nature in a few para graphs, the content of which will Be supported by the earlier ‘reflections, ‘abstracted from my ‘work over several decades. My final reflections about the nature of natural laws will, in ten, recursively support these earlier reflections. This paper is not intended as a complete treatment of the ideas, rather only as sufficient to understand them. Where appropriate, Ishall cite publications * Comeperdoen io Munsee Mito Cie Dp Blonn, ‘Univer of Che Cail Sanna Ce to which the reader may refer for more detailed treatmneht of the concepts. A SEARCH FOR UNDERSTANDING In our attempt to understand the world we live! ‘we generate explanations that would bring rest to our questioning, But each mament of satis- faction of our explanatory curiosity in our West em culture is only a moment of rest, because that ‘which we accept as an explanation becomes the starting point for new questions. Indeed, that which we accept as valid as we accept an expla ration becomes a starting point for our further doings, and as these expand in the flow of our living new questions arise in us and we begin ‘again the explaining cycle. This happens again dirs ne Uoapout hs ag he paw te word wen iin gion! a ares Te shor as ps ‘rotenone word aes escanimne pet ecg ‘Roepine proc of orig Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ld ectved 2 March 2000 “Accepted? fe 2000 RESEARCH PAPER and agsin uniéss, of Course, we remain content and do not ask further questions. mn the explanatory search for understanding there have been three main attitudes, namely, the search for truth, the search for operational coherences, and the search for mythical causes that stand beyonei our domain of ordinary exper ences. The search for truth is basically concerned with logical consistency in the manner of ques- tioning, and the conservation of some a prior] notions, whose valicity is treated as sel-evident, in the manner of answering. This attitude, when concemed with reflexive questions about human life, gives rise to philosophy, and when con= cerned with the control of the doings of others Bives rise to ideologies as systems of compelling, truths. A search for operational coherences isnot the some as the search for truth. The search for ‘operational coherences is concerned with oper= ational coherences in various domains in an atti tude that excludes other concerns, yet stands on some implicit or explicit basic priori notions that can in principle be reflected upon. This attitude, sives rise to what we now call natural sciences ‘The search for mythical causes stands on some postic non-ordinary experience as an accepted Starting point connecting us with what we see a5 ‘9 more meaningful reality than our daily living ‘There is yet another attitude which intends to explain our experience of understanding by ‘explaining how we operate as observers through asking reflexive questions about how we do what \weedo. In this approsch I ansiver these questions by conserving the operational coherences of the observer asa living system. This approach gives se toa mixing of philosophy and science: I shall ‘operate in this approach, and Trefer the reader to come of my publications for a back yond what I shall provide here (Maturana, 1986a, 1990). These different manners of explain. ing, alone or mixed with each other in different egress, give rise to many different worlds ot ‘manners of human living in which we may, oF may not, rest at peace. But if we do not rest at Peace we ask again more questions in the hope that we will reach some final understanding, either in some domain or in all domains. What happens, of course, will depend on how basic the ‘questions that we ask are. But what seems abasic Coprig @ 2000 Jt Wey & Sons LX ‘Syst. Fes. question: to someone, may not be so basic to another, and the matter remains open anyhow. THE OBSERVER When speak ncbseve’ connote he ope ation ofabservig at kes pace nthe lcs of Singular ving sytem, not ting sytem tht incatoorteed ar capable of observing, Ts he chserver nt physica entity and observing isnot a phys process. Observing ane hence the observer ar restional biologie proces tha take place inthe relization ofthe ng of the kindof ving beings that ve human beige aretha, Iving Bengt which ext in lee unging. Observing cen ony ie plac in a Engin being Cbnerving aba relatonlproens Else theoagh the aperaon of phy oe ln procese in ferent dosnt rom these fre cannot be reed to ther Because shot Amolealr proces Furthermore ste observer fd cbeering are élationalproscsm, net et te, cbering cannot be sald Tobe embe n the moleculr ents, or organise that reine then “There are people that would ot acept what | ave jst, ether becuse hey think st wht Living beings o, or some fener of what ving systems. do Gach se consciousness) ae 04 expression ofthe properties ose antarnentl physi! or pital ind of ent, and not the Foul of «pata manner of operation a he living sytema a molecar sytem Tin di teeny, and I claim tht bilogeal phenome in general, ag the coserver tne ober ini paeulan ae ert indie (ha shat Eensesunce of tr estnce and operation ‘molecular sutopoitic syste Matron, 197 1975, 197 1980 Matra and Varela, 1968) STRUCTURAL DETERMINISM ‘The lite of alving system appears tous observers 4s coherent with its circumstances of living, even when we see what we did not expect, Not only that: when we find some incoherence inthe living, of 8 living system; what we do is to search for . Syst Ree. 17, 468-4682000) 40 ‘umborte Maturana Syst. Res. Hoare ieee sana rae Thing ys which wed make those ope ‘howd cserenear coherent Tell ten to ing oy Beate we coiinously encoun teri people Joe isa) ur daly ting wad iey east monty In opera Sinefnion that arecommenaute wife own iibinyelaton to thom where we sec te eoher toes of esnenein genre nndof coroners tence npartulr Wellin techerencas file process, and ivng aye in general appent (apo tanetinly ling the Coherenrs oe processes Indeed. thecoherenets of proceses Jooceurspomancouslyr ard is haugh acing the spontcheos Ife prone in ving sens tha e imply mine ht al rocese inthe wort we ive osu pontaneauy. We modern amanbeings donot gueion the pentane thesun sa, pans growing gravity Spee lng Moree hugh clservngving sys rome telling, andthe ong ees with whic they neat tt wee healt Inerconnetednsn ofthe whole word ha hy ihe'ny and asure ta ltt abo apes tour ta we Ope ts human Benge Song what we do. And what do we do hue Telnet A angueing binge we atnguash cs nd eats os we abet hug ou & iia world ee Wee acl aoe eo oe penerte nots, ete ad ears Ei oa ‘eewive process Wich each saactin oF Sinncton appear ws the ground forte nest, wrthout reqeting ha to Sen ground be on, Tice “The dberver and obering ste not physi enites bl amare of operation i a funny egaiana hat we human bigs re Fre Soe and Sacving ave lon eis Tht extn relation pace, nln pe trelecla) ane. A ceerers we dsngush What we inguch eeaisncione oslo In ou eperticn at legunging gains Ae observers we distinguish ourselves as human Penge operating cherrngt_eberer wont ohare eerie ote onal is Weralk about that we human begs ourselves Aedolngteoberving doesnot mae Be obser Ingo pita proces or ety. ‘Copyigh! ©2000 Jab Way & Sona, La Tho Nature of the Laws of Nature RESEARCH PAPER So, in general terms, all the sttuations, elements, processes, or relations that we dis Linguish in our living as languaging beings, and that we use in the description of what we dis- Uinguish, or in explaining what we may wish to explain, arise as distinctions or as abstractions of distinctions that we make of the operational coherences of our living as human beings in the course of observing and expl¥ining our living as observers. Given this, what we see as we dis tinguish living systems, is that they operate according to how they are made in the dynamic coherences of their components. As we make these distinctions, we call the way living systems are made their structure. Furthermore, what we see when we distinguish living systems and their ‘domains of existence (their medium) is that both living system and medium operate according to the coherences of their structure. I call this man- ner of operating according to the coherences of structure structural determinism (Maturana, 1970, 1975). Structural determinism does not arise as ‘ana prier/notion, or as an ontological assumption; It arisgs as an abstraction that we as observers make of the operational coherences of out living, and can beexpressed as follows: astructuredeter- mined system is a system’such that all that hap- pens in it or with it arises as @ consequence of its structurat dynamics, and in which nothing external to it can specify what happens in it, but only triggersa change in its structure, determined by its structure ‘We human beings as living systems are struc- ture determined systems, and as such deal only with structure determined systems, and nothing external to us can specify what happens in us or ‘with us. Structural determinism is neither an a priori ontological notion, nor a deduction from ‘other more basic notions: rather it is an abstrac- tion that the abserver makes in his or her oper- ation as a languaging living system of his or her experiential (operational) coherences in the flow of his or her living. donot have space here to expand these reflec- tions, but I think that I have said enough to be able to claim that whenever we make an expla- nation, we use Gur tacit acceptance of the spon- taneous dynamic structural coherence, which we impligily or explicitly distinguish as taking place to. 17 480-488 2000) “48t fol ii RESEARCH PAPER In living systers, 25a basi element in ovr expla nations. Furthermore, it Is necessary to keep in ‘ind that the explanation of how we da what we do, including the explanation of how we make explanations, happens through out doings as len- _guaging living systems that operate in observing. ‘And itis also necessary to keep in mind that a5 we make these explanations, we must do so in the understanding that we ourselvesare structure etermined systems and nothing extemal to us can tel us how it. in these circumstances know: ing does not, and cannot, refer oan independent reality EXPLAINING. What we do when we explain, is to propose a dynamic struetural process oF generative mech- anism, that if t were to operate, would give rise to the experience to be explained. IF this is accepted by the observer as doing what it claims sto do, it becomes henceforth the explanation of the experience being explained. When i the pro- ‘ess of explaining the generative mechanism pro- pponed is accepted as doing what it claims to do, All the operational coherences of the living ofthe ‘observer entailed in it become experiential {rounds for the further flow of living of the ‘observer. That is we observers a living systems that exist in languaging explain our experiences swith the coherences of our experiences ‘We human beings as languaging living systems ‘explain abstractions ofthe operational coherences of ur living, with other abstractions ofthe oper- ational coherences of our living. And as we do thgt we can see that animals that do not live in language as we do, do not explain their exper ‘ences, but live inthe low of their living following the path of the operational coherences of thelr living, ‘Since the generative mechanisiy. proposed in the process of explaining must be aécepted by the ‘observer according to how it satisfies his or her listening (eeing), there are many different kinds of explanations according tothe different listen- ing of different observers Science isnot anexcep- tion, and is defined as a domain of explanations by the use of what I call the citron of validation Cone 2000 doh Wey & Sons, Li Syst. Fes. of scientific explonntons (Maturana, 1978, 1988, 1988b). Im these circumstances. science, as 3 domain of explanations, is the domain of living of those human beings who use the eriterion of validation of scientific explanations to explain their living, not a reference to an independent reality LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGI G ‘That which we connote as we speak of language is sally seen in terms of what we do while Tanguaging ang, therefore, we speak of usally asf it were an instrament that we vse to com rmunieat. Thus, itsems acceptable o say of ler- guage that isa. symbolic system of ormmunication. Bul language cannes be expls- tne in terms of notions such as communication or symboltation because these notions reer to ‘opertions that ental language. Communication igacommentary about the low of the interactions between systems: if we see that in the flow af the interactions between feo persons there are ‘oordinaions of behavior, we say that there is ‘communication between them. On the contrat iF we see that they do nol coordinate the ‘behaviors we say thal there isne comurieation Symbolization is also secondary to Innguage because i fakes ples in the explicit acceptance {hat one particular operation of distinction will participate in the flow of the coordinations of Sehaviors new of some other operation in such 2 flo. Tes because me husran beings Find our Selves operating in language as our natural ma ret of being that we ie Fagg a I this were 2 ranspaventingirument by means of which we Coordinate our Behaviors inthe distinction and Inandling of objete-~ as if these existed inde pendentiy fom what we do with them — and we do not see what we are doing a8 we language Becnuse we live without seeing what we do as we language, we do no! see that what constitutes fu langaging sou living in a recursive flow in coordination: of coordinaions of doings, and thal objects arise as tokens of coocdinations of doings thet obscure the doings they coordinate ln this recusiye flow. ‘A recursion takes place whenever circular ot St a 47, 459-408 (2000) Humberto Maturana Syst, Fes, cyclical process fs coupled to linear one, that is, when a circular or cyclical process is applied 10 the consequences (linear relational displacement) ‘of its previous application, When there is recur- sion, @ new operational domain appears. For ‘example, walking appears when the circular or cyclical movement of limbs, legs, cilia, ete becomes coupled with the linen displacement of the surface that those limbs, legs, cilia, etc. touch. Walking, constitutes » new relational domain with respect to the mere cyclical oscillation of the appendages of an organism, ‘Objects arise in language in the frst recursion that constitutes languaging as operations in coor- inations of behaviors that in the flow of our recursive coordinations of behavior stand as ‘operational tokens that hide the behaviors that they coordinate (Maturana, 1978, 19R8a). A mini= mal operation in languaging in which we may see what occurs takes place when one attempts to procure a taxi through gestures. If a woman meets the gaze ofa taxi driver at the other side of the street and makes a circular hand gesture t0 which the taxi responds by turning around, ancl then a second taxi comes faster and she takes it the first taxi driver may complain saying: ‘Why did she do that when she had alresdy asked me lo drive her!” ‘The complaint indicates that what had hap- pened was an operation of coordination of coor- ation of behaviors in which the taxi as a ying, operation had arisen. The meeting of 1 gazes constituted an interaction in which the client and the taxi driver entered in an initial coordination of behavior, while the gesture of the client as seen by the taxi driver coordinated the Initial coordination in a flow that an observer ‘would call an act of hiring the taxi. That the com: plaint ofthe taxi driver as the client took another taxi is seen as legitimate reveals that what took place was an operation that we, as languaging beings, recognize as languaging. We human beings, as languaging beinge, living immersed in languaging, do not easily see that in this episode two things have happened: one is the flow in coordinations of coordinations of behavior that are not innate but are corisersual (thus learned); the second is that the taxi as a carrying device arises in the coordination of coordination of CCooyitt @ 2000 John Wey & Sone, Ls. ‘The Nature of the Laws of Nature RESEARCH PAPER behavior and is not an independent entity by ite. ‘As an object arises in our distinctions it arises in the domain in which its distinguished as a coordination of doings that coordinates doings Although an object exists i the domain of coor- dlinations of doings in which it arises, we live ts existence as fit were independent of our doings. Thus a taxi exists as 2 material object in the domain of coordinations of doing we call the dlornain of material object. To say that something fists in language means that this something arises in the domain of coordinations of doings that language is, and that exists asa flow of coor dinatiots of doings What makes the example just presented a recursive interactions the coupling ofthecyclical ynamies constituted by the recurrent ines actions (though the meeting of the eyes and through. the gesture), with the linear dynamics constituted by the displacement of fhe relation that occurs in each interaction. The result is the arising ofthe tax as an object (operational token) that hides the coordination of carrying. In each recursion in the flow of coordinations of coor ‘inations of consensual behaviors (doings), dil ferent Rinds of objects arise in the constitution of a network of different domains of eoordinations of different kinds of doings, or what | call dif ferent domains of interobjectvity. A domain of interobjectvity isnot a domain of objects that exist independently of the operation of the bservers in their recursive coordinations of doings. It is a domain that arises and is core stituted in those recursive coordinations of ‘doings that constitute objects inthe flow of coor-

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen