Volume 12 · Number 3 · Pages 239–245

< Previous Paper · Next Paper >

Thinking in Eigenbehaviors as a Transdisciplinary Approach

Manfred Füllsack & Alexander Riegler

Download the full text in
PDF (808 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Abstract

Context: By proposing to regard objects as “tokens for eigenbehavior,” von Foerster’s seminal paper opposes the intuitive subject-object dualism of traditional philosophy, which considers objects to be instances of an external world Problem: We argue that this proposal has two implications, one for epistemology and one for the demarcation between the natural sciences and the humanities. Method: Our arguments are based on insights gained in computational models and from reviewing the contributions to this special issue. Results: Epistemologically, von Foerster’s proposal suggests that what is called “reality” could be seen as an ensemble of eigenforms generated by the eigenbehavior that arises in the interaction of multiple dynamics. Regarding science, the contributions to this special issue demonstrate that the concept of eigenbehavior can be applied to a variety of disciplines from the formal and natural sciences to the humanities. Its universal applicability provides a strong argument for transdisciplinarity, and its emphasis on the observer points in the direction of an observer-inclusive science. Implications: Thinking in eigenbehavior may not only have implications for tearing down the barriers between sciences and humanities (although a common methodology based on von Foerster’s transdisciplinary approach is still to crystalize), a better understanding of eigenbehaviors may also have profound effects on our understanding of ourselves. This also opens the way to innovative behavior design/modification technologies.

Key words: Eigenbehavior, eigenform, Heinz von Foerster, computational philosophy, scientific methodology, observer-inclusive science, transdisciplinarity, nondualism

Citation

Füllsack M. & Riegler A. (2017) Thinking in eigenbehaviors as a transdisciplinary approach. Constructivist Foundations 12(3): 239–245. http://constructivist.info/12/3/239

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Müller K. H. & Riegler A. (2016) Mapping the Varieties of Second-Order Cybernetics

Umpleby S. A. (2016) Second-Order Cybernetics as a Fundamental Revolution in Science

Kauffman L. H. (2016) Cybernetics, Reflexivity and Second-Order Science

Werner K. (2017) Coordination Produces Cognitive Niches, not just Experiences: A Semi-Formal Constructivist Ontology Based on von Foerster

Foerster H. von & Müller A. (2008) Computing a Reality. Heinz von Foerster’s Lecture at the A.U.M Conference in 1973. Edited by Albert Müller

References

Bedau M. A. (1997) Weak emergence. Philosophical Perspectives 11: 375–399. << Google Scholar

Bouterse J. & Karstens B. (2015) A diversity of divisions: Tracing the history of the demarcation between the sciences and the humanities. Isis 106(2): 341–352. << Google Scholar

Füllsack M. (2014) The circular conditions of second-order science sporadically illustrated with agent-based experiments at the roots of observation. Constructivist Foundations 10(1): 46–54 Available at http://constructivist.info/10/1/06

Foerster H. von (1970) Thoughts and notes on cognition. In: Garvin P. (ed.) Cognition: A multiple view. Spartan Books, New York: 25–48. Reprinted in: Foerster H. von (2003) Understanding understanding. Springer, New York: 169–189. << Google Scholar

Foerster H. von (1976) Objects: Tokens for (eigen-) behaviors. ASC Cybernetics Forum 8(3–4): 91–96. Reprinted in: Foerster H. von (2003) Understanding understanding. Springer, New York: 261–271 Available at http://cepa.info/1270

Foerster H. von (1985) Apropos epistemologies. Family Process 24(4): 517–520 Available at http://cepa.info/1685

Foerster H. von, Franchi S., Guzeldere G. & Minch E. (1995) Interview with Heinz von Foerster. Stanford Humanities Review 4(2): 288–307 Available at http://cepa.info/1770

Friston K., Kilner J. & Harrison L. (2006) A free energy principle for the brain. Journal of Physiology 100(1–3): 70–87. << Google Scholar

Glasersfeld E. von (1995) Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press, London Available at http://cepa.info/1462

Kauffman L. (2005) EigenForm. Kybernetes 34(1/2): 129–150 Available at http://cepa.info/1271

Kauffman S. A. (1995) At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. Viking, London. << Google Scholar

Lorenz E. (1963) Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 20(2): 130–141 << Google Scholar

Maturana H. R. (1978) Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In: Miller G. & Lenneberg E. (eds.) Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg. Academic Press, New York: 27–63 Available at http://cepa.info/549

Riegler A. (2007) Is Glasersfeld’s constructivism a dangerous intellectual tendency? In: Glanville R. & Riegler A. (eds.) The importance of being Ernst. Echoraum, Vienna: 263–275 Available at http://cepa.info/1776

Wolfram S. (2002) A new kind of science. Wolfram Media, Champaign IL. << Google Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.