Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The nature of the blackness of a black box (when an observer does not know what is
going on inside the black box) and its whiteness (when an observer believes that he
knows what is going on inside the black box) is considered and is applied to a description
that is built by an observer of that black box. It is shown that while whiteness may be
believed to have been reached within a system, such a system, nevertheless, remains
black on the outside. This understanding is considered because it sheds light not only
on black boxes and knowledge, but also on certain very basic cybernetic and broad
psychological concepts.
KEY WORDS: conceptual system, individual, behavior, black box, white box, cybernetics, feedback, input,
output, Object, self-reproduction.
013
*
may generate a relation seen between them, The black box is a construct of an ob-
but this is not logically necessarily what is server. It is a product of the difference
“actually” happening, although it is often between the observer’s self and the other-
convenient and attractive to think it is.
This is exactly what the black box model
allows, and even were we (who knows how)
to crack open a black box and see the parts,
these must equally be perceived in terms of FIGURE1
n
v
FIGURE5
chologies put forward by, e.g., Miller, Gal- derstand them, are limited by the distinc-
anter, and Pribram (1960), Piaget (1955), tion between level and meta-level. In terms
von Glaserfeld (1977), Pask (1976), etc., of our (level distinctive) logics-themselves
and, perhaps even more remarkably in lin- artificial systems-this distinction is sac-
guistics by Pedretti (1978, 1980). The con- rosanct. Yet this is, as Pedretti notes, cer-
cept of internal whiteness and external tainly not the way natural language works.
blackness that lies behind the work of these Traditionally, we have handled this by
scholars can easily be contained by the claiming the correctness of our artificial
hlack box model presented here. languages, which is, of course, absurd:
It is. here, worth briefly following up one Without natural language, it is more than
concept developed by Miller, Gallanter, and doubtful that we could create formal (arti-
Pribram (1960): that of the TOTE (test, op- ficial) language at all. Natural language has
erate, test, exit) unit. Anyone familiar with priority, and we must develop artificial lan-
this charming psychological paradigm will guage to cope with it, rather than trying to
immediately recognize its similarity to the restrict natural language to fit the paradigm
paradigm used here (Fig. 9). of the artificial (what arrogance!). It is, as
It is not just this similarity that stands Pedretti discusses, so clear that we tran-
out. Pask’s organizationally closed topic scend levels in the use of natural language
systems (1980) are identical, and Pedretti’s that this ability may be considered the main
(1978) extended conversational semantic characteristic of natural language and must
meaning and language generators do much no longer be disregarded in the cavalier
the same. (In fact, what we shall shortly manner we have done formerly.
say about level transcendence in this model It is not just in language that this tran-
is even more to the point). And my own scendence of the levels level-meta-level
Objects are, it has been argued, also not too takes place. It is a basic human ability and
remote or insignificant. characteristic, part of our psyche, and that
The final psychological point to be made which distinguishes us from the (current
here concerns human transcendence. A generation) machine. Thus, the black box
characteristic, as pointed out by Pedretti model, with its transfer from black to white
(1980), of all artificial systems (her work to black to white, requires not only this
mainly addresses language systems, but change but also as one means for the estab-
also through them, systems in general) is lishment of eigen-behavior and hence, ob-
that they cannot transcend levels. This is, jects, the observer’s ability to “step out-
of course, the meaning of Godel’s (1931) side” or to transcend levels. The model,
theorem. There comes, then, a point a t therefore, demands that this way of behav-
which formal (artificial) systems, as we un- ing happens and is reasonable. It even gives
some elementary account of why and how.
n REFERENCES
Ashby, W. R. Introduction to cybernetics. London:
(Incongruity)
I t Einstein: Philosopher scientist. U.S.A.: Open
Court, 1949.
George, F. Teach yourself cybernetics, London:
E.U.P., 1971.
Glanville, R. A cybernetic development of theories of
epistemology and observation, with reference