Changes

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

First of all, inquiry is conceived to be a form of conduct.  This invokes the technical term ''conduct'', referring to the species of prototypically human action that is both dynamic and deliberate, or conceived to fall under a form of purposeful control, usually conscious but possibly not.  For the sake of clarity, it helps to seek a more formal definition of conduct, one that expresses the concept in terms of abstract features rather than trying to suggest it by means of typical examples.

First of all, inquiry is conceived to be a form of conduct.  This invokes the technical term ''conduct'', referring to the species of prototypically human action that is both dynamic and deliberate, or conceived to fall under a form of purposeful control, usually conscious but possibly not.  For the sake of clarity, it helps to seek a more formal definition of conduct, one that expresses the concept in terms of abstract features rather than trying to suggest it by means of typical examples.

Conduct is action with respect to an object.  The distinction between action and conduct, reduced to the level of the most abstract formal relations that are involved, can be described in the following manner.

Conduct is action with respect to an object.  The distinction between action and conduct, reduced to the level of the most abstract formal relations that are involved, can be described in the following manner.  Action is a matter of going from A to B, whereas conduct is matter of going from A to B in relation to C.  In describing particular cases and types of conduct, the phrase “in relation to” can be filled out in more detail as “on account of”, “in the cause of”, “in order to bring about”, “for the sake of”, “in the interests of”, or in many other ways.  Thus, action by itself has a dyadic character, involving transitions through pairs of states, while conduct has a triadic character, involving the kinds of transactions between states that relate throughout to an object.

With regard to this distinction, notice that ''action'' is used inclusively, to name the genus of which ''conduct'' names a species, and thus depicts whatever has the aspect of action, even if it is actually more complex. This creates the difficulty that the reputed “genus” is less than fully generative, generic, genetic, or even genuine — and so it is necessary to remain on guard against this source of misunderstanding.

 

With regard to this distinction, notice that "action" is used inclusively, to name the genus of which "conduct" names a species, and thus depicts whatever has the aspect of action, even if it is actually more complex.

 

This creates the difficulty that the reputed "genus" is less than fully "generative", "generic", "genetic", or even "genuine" -- and so it is necessary to remain on guard against this source of misunderstanding.

 

 

 

 

The elaboration of an object in terms of this rich vocabulary — as a cause, end, field, force, goal, intention, law, parameter, principle, purpose, system, or value — adds colorful detail and concrete sensation to the account, and it helps to establish connections with the arrays of terminology that are widely used to discuss these issues.  From a formal and relational point of view, however, all of these concepts are simply different ways of describing, at possibly different levels of generality, the object of a form of conduct.  With that in mind, I find it useful to return to the simpler form of description as often as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With regard to this distinction, notice that "action" is used inclusively, to name the genus of which "conduct" names a species, and thus depicts whatever has the aspect of action, even if it is actually more complex.  This creates the difficulty that the reputed "genus" is less than fully "generative", "generic", "genetic", or even "genuine" - and so it is necessary to remain on guard against this source of misunderstanding.

What does this definition of conduct say about the temporal ordering of the object with respect to the states?  The states are conceived to be ordered in time, but so far nothing has been said to pin down where in relation to these states the object must be conceived to fall in time.  Nor does the definition make any particular specification necessary.  This makes the question of relative time a secular parameter of the definition, allowing the consideration of the following options:

What does this definition of conduct say about the temporal ordering of the object with respect to the states?  The states are conceived to be ordered in time, but so far nothing has been said to pin down where in relation to these states the object must be conceived to fall in time.  Nor does the definition make any particular specification necessary.  This makes the question of relative time a secular parameter of the definition, allowing the consideration of the following options:

This account of conduct brings to the fore a number of issues, some of them new and some of them familiar, but each of them allowing itself to be approached from a fresh direction by treating it as an implication of a critical thesis just laid down.  I next examine these issues in accord with the tenets from which they stem.

This account of conduct brings to the fore a number of issues, some of them new and some of them familiar, but each of them allowing itself to be approached from a fresh direction by treating it as an implication of a critical thesis just laid down.  I next examine these issues in accord with the tenets from which they stem.

1. Inquiry is a form of conduct.

'''1. Inquiry is a form of conduct.'''

This makes inquiry into inquiry a special case of inquiry into conduct.  Certainly, it must be possible to reason about conduct in general, especially if forms of conduct need to be learned, examined, modified, and improved.

This makes inquiry into inquiry a special case of inquiry into conduct.  Certainly, it must be possible to reason about conduct in general, especially if forms of conduct need to be learned, examined, modified, and improved.

Placing the subject of inquiry within the subject of conduct and making the inquiry into inquiry a subordinate part of the inquiry into conduct does not automatically further the investigation, especially if it turns out that the general subject of conduct is more difficult to understand than the specialized subject of inquiry.  But in those realms of inquiry where it is feasible to proceed hypothetically and recursively, stretching the appropriate sort of hypothesis over a wider subject area can act to prime the pump of mathematical induction all the more generously, and actually increase the power of the recursion.  Of course, the use of a recursive strategy comes at the expense of having to establish a more extended result at the base.

Placing the subject of inquiry within the subject of conduct and making the inquiry into inquiry a subordinate part of the inquiry into conduct does not automatically further the investigation, especially if it turns out that the general subject of conduct is more difficult to understand than the specialized subject of inquiry.  But in those realms of inquiry where it is feasible to proceed hypothetically and recursively, stretching the appropriate sort of hypothesis over a wider subject area can act to prime the pump of mathematical induction all the more generously, and actually increase the power of the recursion.  Of course, the use of a recursive strategy comes at the expense of having to establish a more extended result at the base.

2. The existence of an object that rules a form of conduct and the information that an agent of the conduct has about the object are two different matters.

'''2. The existence of an object that rules a form of conduct and the information that an agent of the conduct has about the object are two different matters.'''

This means that the exact specification of the object can require an order of information that the agent does not have available, at least, not for use in reflective action, or even an amount of information that the agent lacks the capacity to store.  No matter how true it is that the actual course of the agent's conduct exactly reflects the influence of the object, and thus, in a sense, represents the object exactly, the question is whether the agent possesses the equivalent of this information in any kind of accessible, exploitable, reflective, surveyable, or usable form of representation, in effect, any mode of information that the agent can use to foresee, to modify, or to temper its own temporal course.

This means that the exact specification of the object can require an order of information that the agent does not have available, at least, not for use in reflective action, or even an amount of information that the agent lacks the capacity to store.  No matter how true it is that the actual course of the agent's conduct exactly reflects the influence of the object, and thus, in a sense, represents the object exactly, the question is whether the agent possesses the equivalent of this information in any kind of accessible, exploitable, reflective, surveyable, or usable form of representation, in effect, any mode of information that the agent can use to foresee, to modify, or to temper its own temporal course.

This issue may seem familiar as a repetition of the "meta" question.  Once again, there is a distinction between (a) the properties of an action, agent, conduct, or system, as expressible by the agent that is engaged in the conduct, or as representable within the system that is undergoing the action, and (b) the properties of the same entities, as evident from an "external viewpoint", or as statable by the equivalent of an "outside observer".

This issue may seem familiar as a repetition of the “meta” question.  Once again, there is a distinction between (a) the properties of an action, agent, conduct, or system, as expressible by the agent that is engaged in the conduct, or as representable within the system that is undergoing the action, and (b) the properties of the same entities, as evident from an “external viewpoint”, or as statable by the equivalent of an “outside observer”.

3. Reflection is a part of inquiry.  Reflection is a form of conduct.

'''3. Reflection is a part of inquiry.  Reflection is a form of conduct.'''

The task of reflection on conduct is to pass from a purely interior view of one's own conduct to an outlook that is, effectively, an exterior view.  What is sought is a wider perspective, one that is able to incorporate the sort of information that might be available to an outside observer, that ought to be evident from an external vantage point, or that one reasonably imagines might be obvious from an independent viewpoint.  I am tempted to refer to such a view as a "quasi-objective perspective", but only so long as it possible to keep in mind that there is no such thing as a "completely outside perspective", at least, not one that a finite and mortal agent can hope to achieve, nor one that a reasonably socialized member of a community can wish to take up as a permanent station in life.

The task of reflection on conduct is to pass from a purely interior view of one's own conduct to an outlook that is, effectively, an exterior view.  What is sought is a wider perspective, one that is able to incorporate the sort of information that might be available to an outside observer, that ought to be evident from an external vantage point, or that one reasonably imagines might be obvious from an independent viewpoint.  I am tempted to refer to such a view as a “quasi-objective perspective”, but only so long as it possible to keep in mind that there is no such thing as a “completely outside perspective”, at least, not one that a finite and mortal agent can hope to achieve, nor one that a reasonably socialized member of a community can wish to take up as a permanent station in life.

With these qualifications, reflection is a form of conduct that can serve inquiry into conduct.  Inquiry and its component reflection, applied to a form of conduct, are intended to provide information that can be used to develop the conduct in question.  The "reflective development" that occurs depends on the nature of the case.  It can be the continuation, the correction, or the complete cessation of the conduct in question.

With these qualifications, reflection is a form of conduct that can serve inquiry into conduct.  Inquiry and its component reflection, applied to a form of conduct, are intended to provide information that can be used to develop the conduct in question.  The “reflective development” that occurs depends on the nature of the case.  It can be the continuation, the correction, or the complete cessation of the conduct in question.

If it is to have the properties that it is commonly thought to have, then reflection must be capable of running in parallel, and not interfering too severely, with the conduct on which it reflects.  If this turns out to be an illusion of reflection that is not really possible in actuality, then reflection must be capable, at the very least, of reviewing the memory record of the conduct in question, in ways that appear concurrent with a replay of its action.  But these are the abilities that reflection is "pre-reflectively" thought to have, that is, before the reflection on reflection can get under way.  If reflection is truly a form of conduct, then it becomes conceivable as a project to reflect on reflection itself, and this reflection can even lead to the conclusion that reflection does not have all of the powers that it is commonly portrayed to have.

If it is to have the properties that it is commonly thought to have, then reflection must be capable of running in parallel, and not interfering too severely, with the conduct on which it reflects.  If this turns out to be an illusion of reflection that is not really possible in actuality, then reflection must be capable, at the very least, of reviewing the memory record of the conduct in question, in ways that appear concurrent with a replay of its action.  But these are the abilities that reflection is “pre-reflectively” thought to have, that is, before the reflection on reflection can get under way.  If reflection is truly a form of conduct, then it becomes conceivable as a project to reflect on reflection itself, and this reflection can even lead to the conclusion that reflection does not have all of the powers that it is commonly portrayed to have.

=====3.1.1.2. Types of Conduct=====

=====3.1.1.2. Types of Conduct=====

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

</div>

</div>

----

----

[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]

[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]