This, then, is our strongest motivation for asking "Why?" It is a striving to restore a disturbed balance, to reduce the unfamiliar to the familiar, the "unnatural" to the "natural." (1, p. 103)

The sort of answers to questions about the world that seem satisfactory (relieve the tension accompanying the questions) determine one's metaphysics. The metaphysics in turn determines the sort of questions one will ask about the world. (1, p. 98)

Does the abitlity to control a situation, then, constitute the existence of choice?. . . Ethical questions apply only where choice exists. In fact, ethics is the problem of making good choices. Therefore one of the principle tasks of ethics is to determine what is and what is not a matter of choice. (2, pp. 87, 91)

This brings us to the interesting question posed in modern systems theory: to what extent can the hard system-theoretic approach be extended to other than physical systems? The main difficulty is that once we pass to systems other than the simple ones or the artificial ones studied in the physical sciences and engineering, we are not sure what variables best describe the state of such a system. . . . Nevertheless, certain portions of the non-physical world are being investigated from the mathematical system-theoretic point of view. (E, p. 19)

Consider the logical analysis involved in the discovery of the probabilistic foundations of entropy. We have mentioned the fact that the similarity between negative entropy and information was noted as a result of the logical analysis of the concept of information. On the other hand, speculation on the nature of life processes has led Schroedinger and others to postulate an intimate connection between negative entropy and life. All this leads to a philosophical question which appears almost in metaphysical garb: "Life, knowledge, and order (negative entropy) -- what do they have in common?" (2, p. 222)

Are we willing to concede "thought" to such machines? This is not a rhetorical question. We are not implying that it should be answered in the affirmatives. But we are reminding ourselves that unless we wish to take recourse to a purely introspective conception of thought (which enables us to deny thought to the machine, no matter what objective evidence of thought is marshalled), it behooves us also to answer the question, "if not, why not?" (A, p, 97)

Home Cybeneticians Anatol Rapoport Guiding Questions

Symbolic Generalizations | Beliefs, Models, and Analogies | Values | Exemplars | Techniques | Guiding Questions