BothAndBlog Forum

Reading "Mind and Nature: a Necessary Unity", by Gregory Bateson
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/845207

↪unenlightened
My central thesis can now be approached in words: The pattern which connects is a metapattern. It is a pattern of patterns. — Introduction

Do you think Bateson was talking about what we now know as "Information", in a broader philosophical sense than Shannon's narrow engineering useage? Ecology (the logic of Nature) is all about interconnections. Also the "hierarchic structure of thought" seems to be another reference to Logos in human conception.

His writings seem to assume a "Great Chain of Being" ontology, which is denied by most evolutionists, who see no logical connection between one link and another in evolution : e.g. random bush vs linear tree analogies. The interconnections are indeed complex, but without logical links, Evolution would not make sense, and couldn't be "approached in words".

What is Information Pattern? :
An information pattern is a structure of information units like e.g. a vector or matrix of numbers, a stream of video frames, or a distribution of probabilities.
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/i ... tern/14438
Note --- It's a logical structure, not a material substance.

On another note, do you agree with Gnomon that Bateson's' thought "seems to assume a "Great Chain of Being" ontology"? I'm not seeing it, but then Gnomon didn't explain why he thinks that. — Janus

I got that impression from reading Mind and Nature many years ago. He interpreted Evolution as a directional progression, generally from simplicity (elements) to complexity (organisms). Criticism of that ancient notion is primarily concerned with the implication of a natural hierarchy, with humans at the top of the animal kingdom, and white humans at the top of a racial hierarchy. I don't know if Bateson was a racist, but I doubt that race was a primary concern.

Bateson's Process Ontology :
The work of Gregory Bateson offers a metaphysical basis for a “process psychology,” that is, a view of psychological practice and research guided by an ontology of becoming—identifying change, difference, and relationship as the basic elements of a foundational metaphysics. This article explores the relevance of Bateson's recursive epistemology, his re-conception of the Great Chain of Being, a first-principles approach to defining the nature of mind, and understandings of interaction and difference, pattern and symmetry, interpretation and context.
https://philarchive.org/rec/TEMBPO

That makes sense, he is replacing the Great Chain of Being, with a natural and logical hierarchy as God, archangels and angels have no place in his immanentistic, wholistic vison of nature, of "a sacred unity of the biosphere". — Janus

Yes. That's why the article I linked above referred to his theory as a "reconception of the Great Chain of Being". In the link below, The Information Philosopher discusses mainly Bateson's notions of Cybernetics (feedback systems), Semantics (meaningful patterns), and Holism (integrated systems). He also mentions that "He variously identified this system as Mind or God, a sort of panpsychism. The supreme system he thought was a whole, not divisible into parts".

I'm guessing that his Panpsychism is similar to Spinoza's "deus sive natura". Definitely not referring to the Bible God. Yet, he still views Evolution as a progressive, perhaps teleological, process. His "chain of being" metaphor looks forward to developments in Quantum, Cybernetic Systems (computers), and Information theories, instead of backward to ancient notions of a divinely-ordained order in nature.


In his 1972 book, Mind and Nature : A Necessary Unity, Bateson defined his panpsychic and monist view :

Mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components. (his supreme cybernetic system)

The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference. (messaging depends on differences > information)

Mental process requires collateral energy. (Bateson appreciated free energy, with negative entropy)

Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination. (Bateson was a determinist)

In mental process the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (that is, coded versions) of the difference which preceded them. (he describes causal chains)

The description and classification of these processes of transformation discloses a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... s/bateson/

↪Gnomon
I have to take issue with your link quoted above on one issue. I do not believe Bateson was a determinist, and I certainly do not believe that determinism is one of the necessary presuppositions of the thesis he presents here, because if it had been he would have declared it and made an argument for it. He's a far too careful, and self-aware thinker to have missed it. — unenlightened

Thanks for the info. I also questioned that attribution. But There are several types of Determinism : Hard ; Pre- ; Biological ; Logical ; Causal ; etc. And, I am not an expert on Bateson's philosophy. So, I let it slide.

If I'm going to be convinced about Bateson's purported panpsychism or deism, I'd want to see quotes from his own work not from some interpreter of it. It's a long time since I read Mind and Nature so even if I don't remember getting the impression that Bateson was panpsychist that might down to my failure to notice it or remember noticing it.
Spinoza is often framed (and I think misinterpreted) as a panpsychist, but he was undoubtedly a deist. — Janus

Here's a link to an article that touches on your distinction between Panpsychism and Deism. It includes quotes from another of Bateson's books.

Deism does postulate some kind of Universal Mind, while Spinoza's Nature God seems to be primarily the source of Causation in the world. The quotes below appear to be making the same distinction, between Causation & Consciousness, that I do in my Information-based thesis : Causation (e.g Energy) is universal & eternal, while Consciousness (Sentient Mind) is a late emergent phenomenon after billions of years of Evolution & Enforming.

Bateson denies that "atomies" are conscious --- as some interpret Panpsychism --- and implies that it's "complex relationships" --- such as the neural networks of a brain --- that generate subjective Consciousness, not the material components themselves. Although, Bateson might accept the notion that Matter --- as embodied energy --- may contain the Potential for Mind (i.e Immanent).

Hylonoism is a technical term, similar to Aristotle's Hylomorphism, referring to a combination of Matter & Mind. It appears to be used primarily by Panpsychists. Again, it seems to imply that Conscious Mind is primary, but I tend to view Creative Causation (i.e. First Cause) as the principal Source of everything in the world : both Mind and Matter.

Fundamental Matter ; Prime Mind ; First Cause ? It's a nit-picky distinction that would be, literally & figuratively, immaterial to those who think of Matter as the fundamental element of Reality. Yet if so, then emergent Consciousness must be immanent in matter --- but in what form? Could it be . . . I don't know . . . maybe . . . incorporeal Energy . . . or EnFormAction : the power to transform?


Bateson versus Panpsychism :
Still, Bateson does not endorse a full-fledged panpsychism. The only exceptions for him
are the fundamental atomic particles ('atomies').

Quotes from Steps to an Ecology of Mind :
This view is very close in spirit to hylonoism, which sees mind in all interactive
exchanges of energy. I concluded that, therefore, mind must exist in hierarchic form
throughout all levels of being; Bateson reaches the same conclusion:

“we know that within Mind in the widest sense there will be a hierarchy of subsystems, any one of
which we can call an individual mind” (ibid). It is not just ‘universal Mind’, but mind at
all levels of existence – true pluralistic panpsychism". . . .
"It means…that I now localize something which I am calling "Mind"
immanent in the large biological system – the ecosystem. Or, if I draw the
system boundaries at a different level, then mind is immanent in the total
evolution structure". . . .
"The individual mind is immanent but not only in the body. It is immanent
also in pathways and messages outside the body; and there is a larger Mind
of which the individual mind is only a subsystem. This larger Mind…is still
immanent in the total interconnected social system and planetary ecology." . . . .
"I do not agree with Samuel Butler, Whitehead, or Teilhard de Chardin that it
follows from this mental character of the macroscopic world that the single
atomies must have mental character or potentiality. I see the mental as a
function only of complex relationship.
https://people.bath.ac.uk/mnspwr/doc_th ... apter7.pdf

↪Gnomon
In those quotes Bateson speaks of mind at all levels of relational existence, not of consciousness. I know that I am not conscious myself most of the time, if consciousness is defined as something like 'explicit awareness' as distinct from mere (implicit) awareness. That seems like a valid phenomenological distinction to me.

I remember Whitehead defining himself as a "pan-experientialist" rather than a panpsychist, and he also asserts that most experience is not conscious. So, I guess the question is as to whether panpsychism postulates consciousness, as defined above, at all levels. — Janus

I make the same distinction in my Enformationism thesis. Based on my personal understanding of Quantum Physics and Information Theory, I have concluded that Consciousness is emergent, not fundamental. That notion began with physicist John A. Wheeler's postulation that "its" (material things) are derived from "bits" (elements of Information*1). In that essential distinction, Information (the power to enform) is more like Energy than Ideas (E=MC^2).

Also, in physics, Information has been associated with Causal Energy, not with Sentient (experiential) Consciousness. So, I doubt that sub-atomic particles --- which exchange physical Energy --- actually know what is happening to them. Unfortunately, the term "to experience" has ambiguous meanings : A> practical physical interaction, and B> mental metaphysical communication. For an Electron, we call it an exchange of abstract energetic Charge, not of imaginative meaningful Ideas.

Therefore, I infer that Primordial Causation (Plato's First Cause) was not Actual immanent Energy, but Potential relationship*2 Energy . But that's a complex technical topic, not appropriate for a forum post. I imagine that the Actual products of energetic causation range from sub-atomic particles, to human-scale matter, and on up to the most recent developments of Evolution : the emergence of sentient Minds, only a few million years ago. I suppose that primitive Life (e.g. plants & bacteria) is an example of "implicit" awareness, while Animal Life (mammals) is the beginning of "explicit" Consciousness, and human Self-Consciousness is the current apex of Information Evolution. Maybe (speculation), Artificial Intelligence will eventually develop an even higher form of Causal & Conscious Information.

Because I view Consciousness as Emergent, instead of Elemental, I don't agree with the "pan-experiential" form of Pan-Psychism (all mind). Yet, I can agree with a similar notion of Pan-Potential (Platonic Form). If these abbreviated comments are difficult to follow though, I can elaborate in response to specific questions.



*1. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Relationship :
Mathematical Ratios (e.g 1/2) or Einsteinian Relativity (comparison of this to that).
Example --- thermal energy is experienced as a statistical ratio such as Hot to Cold : 50% = neutral ; 70% = warm.
Note --- The Bergsonian "difference" is a ratio between two values --- either numerical or meaningful --- which can be expressed as a percentage or a feeling.

My central thesis can now be approached in words: The pattern which connects is a metapattern. It is a pattern of patterns. It is that metapattern which defines the vast generalization that, indeed, it is patterns which connect.

I warned some pages back that we would encounter emptiness, and indeed it is so. Mind is empty; it is nothing. It exists only in its ideas, and these again are no-things. Only the ideas are immanent, embodied in their examples. And the examples are, again, no-things. The claw, as an example, is not the Ding an sich; it is precisely not the "thing in itself." Rather, it is what mind makes of it, namely an example of something or other. — Introduction — Janus

The "claw" in that quote may refer to a cooked crab's claw, which Bergson used as an object lesson for the difference between living matter and dead matter. He didn't use the term in this case, but I think the "pattern that connects" is what we now call Holism.


Excerpt from Mind and Nature :
"I was prepared for that. I had two paper bags, and the first of these I opened, producing a freshly cooked crab, which I placed on the table. I then challenged the class somewhat as follows: "I want you to produce arguments which will convince me that this object is the remains of a living thing. . . . ."

Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology. ___Oxford Dictionary