Dienstag, 27. Januar 2015

Pierre Livet.

Livet has reviewed the recursiveness between agents and their revision in intention-in-action. This is a pretty hard problem since agents are not aware of the situation like programs would be. In fact, he starts with two parts which are reason and control/execution. The first is in fact the wish you have; the second skill. Between these two parts congruence has to be established. To have insight into this, there are three perspectives formulated. The first is structure, the second is coherence out of structure and the third is perspective. The last perspective is pretty good to reach as a solist, but into the collective it is regarded as hard. Even if this perspective is very important for the revision of action or maybe better the taking in regard and the feeling with action.

Action has a recursive structure and thereby it is a core that there is congruence between execution and reason. In other words: what you wish to achieve. Reason is reduced to the combination of a goal and motivation. So it can be integrated into a dynamical functioning. A goal alone will not work. The goal is qualified by motivation! Motivation, in fact, works as an input. Where, again, history has a role to play. Sometimes it is import to adapt the function. In past, and future. Although it is possible that in the future uncertain factors may play their role so that backward regression is possible. You get information inwards from every step that you are able to control! These steps get then in comparison with satisfaction conditions.

It is always so that situation has be taken into account with every change. Which goes together with doing certain things not. There is as a matter of fact some kind of splitting of motivation and a multiplication of indices. This is the controlling process! The motivational function within different roles. Whereby satisfaction-functions are responsible for setting limits. Needs are in fact defined in the meaning of limits!

The full structure of action is taken up by intention. Action detects! So, and only so you can know what you are doing. This is although only really possible at motivational intention. The final situation isn't possible to understand, it is unconscious and it is collective. This is called formulation intention. So, there is no real social control; by definition.

The simple steps that have to be done when you are using intention deliberative is focus on goal, adaptation as quick as possible and accurateness. Whereby the rule is valid that prior intention is just an extension of the cognitive architecture. We are doing this all the time. In this way we can survive in the social world. It is a weak spot, which is just a weak spot in clear sight, and understanding each other. It isn't play! Things that are also taken into account are the attraction for someone to have certain goals, the type or level of action and the relevance. Relevance is split up in fluency and necessity. This is one big deal! Also the controlling instance is very important. It is important to know if certain thing are done by purpose or not. Accidents have to be defined and given less relevance. This is about collective learning, and the memory you have by means of intention. In a collective way. So the distinction can be made between intentional movement and agent-based movement. Last one is collective and is based on witnessing.

The first person perspective is about how you experience this all yourself. Motivation is conscious, movement in part and mostly not. Fluency is mostly regarded as a manner to decide that some action is intentional. But fluency is not necessarily needed for something to be agent-based. Hereby the distinction is made between going off from salience (motivation) or automaticity (formulation). This last one is thus the intersubjective mode. Basic motivation goes together with basic needs. But at the collective side there can't be why-questions. Although there are two constraints: orientation and fluidity. Motivation as constraint is difficult. Into the coordination categories and schemas can be used. Dealing with risks has to be part to decide if collective action is really there. Also revision out of summary has to play a role and this by means of a repertoire. Adjustment is by definition automatic, but remains in exact means hidden.

1 Kommentar:

  1. The fact that action is recursive doesn't mean that collective action can be instrumental defined. It certainly cannot, from out of external agreement. The self-organization states this interest epistemological, and is in itself bound. Therefore collective action is always formative, and its means never causal related. Motivation is needed but never stated as truth ever as guidance or reflection. Categories and schemas are never more than samples. Never more than points towards knowing, of a system which is in fact totally within this recursive being, the human mind.