Observer and recognition

“A system is not something given in nature, but something defined by intelligence” (DC 1966: 242). Coherence, pattern and purpose “are, all three, acts of mental recognition rather than characteristics of physical things” (DC 1966: 243). 1980: “A system is not something presented to the observer, it is something recognized by him” (TBYT 2009, “Preface to Autopoiesis”: 68).

What Beer says

“To speak of a system is to speak of the coherence of a number of entities called parts of that system” (DC 1966: 241). A collection “is not dignified by the unitary notion of a system until some unifying purpose is devised for it” (DC 1966: 242). Recognition “is precisely the formulation of a conceptual model of system” (DC 1966: 246). Existence cannot be proved; only that the treatment is “helpful” (DC 1966: 243). Relatively isolated system: separable except for chosen inputs and outputs (DC 1966: 273). Definition “depends on who is the observer” (DC 1966: 274); for control, closure is “artificial” (DC 1966: 288). Variety depends “on who defines it” (DC 1966: 247). Ashby: “only variety can destroy variety” (DC 1966: 279). A viable system absorbs variety “like a sponge” (DC 1966: 284, 293). The black box is a variety resource (DC 1966: 293–296).

Where it sits in the model

System-in-focus is an observer’s cut (recursion). Measured variety is observer-relative (variety-and-regulation). Recognition is model-making (homomorphism; DC 1966: 246).

Textual notes

1966 “defined by intelligence” (DC 1966: 242) vs 1980 “not something presented to the observer” (TBYT 2009: 68). Variety sponge in DC later names the Three–Four exchange monitored by system-five (HOE 1979: 144) (pure-vsm-appendix).

Open points

DC 1966: 357 purpose-projection quote reported, not verified here. DC 1966: 288, 298 italics need print. Draft not canon (overview).

Related

pure-vsm-part-v-method-and-epistemology · decision-and-control · think-before-you-think · stafford-beer