Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Inquiry into intentional systems I: Issues in ecological physics

Summary

The role of intention in guiding the behavior of goal-directed systems is a problem that continues to challenge behavioral science. While it is generally agreed that intentional systems must be consistent with the laws of physics, there are many obvious differences between inanimate, physical systems and sentient, intentional systems. This suggests that there must be constraints over and above those of physics that govern goal-directed behavior. In this paper it is suggested that generic properties of self-organizing mechanisms may play a central role in the origin and evolution of intentional constraints. The properties of self-organizing systems are first introduced in the context of simple physical systems and then extended to a complex (biological) system. Whereas behavior of an inanimate physical system is lawfully determined by force fields, behavior of an animate biological system is lawfully specified by information fields. Biological systems are distinguished from simple physical systems in terms of their ubiquitous use of information fields as special (biological and psychological, social, etc.) boundary conditions on classical laws. Unlike classical constraints (boundary conditions), informational constraints can vary with time and state of the system. Because of the nonstationarity of the boundary conditions, the dynamic of the system can follow a complex trajectory that is organized by a set of spatially and temporally distributed equilibrium points or regions. It is suggested that this equilibrium set and the laws that govern its transformation define a minimal requirement for an intentional system. One of the benefits of such an approach is that it suggests a realist account for the origin of semantic predicates, thereby providing a basis for the development of a theory of symbolic dynamics. Therefore, the principles of self-organization provide a comprehensive basis for investigating intentional systems by suggesting how it is that intentions arise, and by providing a lawful basis for intentional behavior that reveals how organisms become and remain lawfully informed in the pursuit of their goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952).Design for a brain. London: Chapman and Hall.

  2. Ashby, W. R. (1956).Introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.

  3. Atkins, P. W. (1984).The second law. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.

  4. Auslander, L., & MacKenzie, R. (1977).Introduction to differentiable manifolds. New York: Dover.

  5. Braithwaite, R. B. (1953).Scientific explanation. Cambridge: The University Press.

  6. Bruinsma, O. H. (1977).An analysis of building behavior of the termite macrotermes subhyalinus.Proceedings of the VIII Congress. Wageningen: IUSSI.

  7. Carello, C., Kugler, P. N., Turvey, M. T., & Shaw, R. E. (1984). Inadequacies of the computer metaphor. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.),Handbook of cognitive neuroscience (pp. 229–248). New York: Plenum Press.

  8. Carreri, G. (1984).Order and disorder in matter. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.

  9. Casti, J. L. (1989).Alternative realities: Mathematical models of nature and man. New York: Wiley.

  10. Davies, P. (1989).The new physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  11. Deneubourge, J. L. (1977). Application de l'ordre par fluctuation à la description de la construction du nid chez les termites.Insectes sociaux, Journal International pour l'étude des arthropodes sociaux, 24, 117.

  12. Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1981). How direct is visual perception?Cognition, 9, 139–196.

  13. Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis.Cognition, 28, 3–71.

  14. Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

  15. Grasse, P. P. (1959). La réconstruction du nid et les coordinations interindividuelles chez Bellicositermes natalensis et cubitermes. La théorie de la stigmergie: essai d'interprétation des termites conctructeurs.Insectes sociaux, Journal International pour l'étude des arthropodes sociaux, 6, 127.

  16. Haken, H. (1988).Information and self-organization: A macroscopic approach to complex systems. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  17. Iberall, A. S., & McCulloch, W. (1969). The organizing principle of complex living systems.Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (June), 290–294.

  18. Kugler, P. N., & Shaw, R. (1990). Symmetry and symmetry-breaking in thermodynamic and epistemic engines: A coupling of first and second laws. In H. Haken (Ed.),Synergetics of cognition. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

  19. Kugler, P. N., & Turvey, M. T. (1987).Information, natural law, and the self-assembly of'rhythmic movements. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

  20. Kugler, P. N., Kelso, J. A. S., & Turvey, M. T. (1982). On the control and coordination of naturally developing systems. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E. Clark (Eds.),The development of movement control and coordination. New York: Wiley.

  21. Lanczos, C. (1970).The variational principles of mechanics. New York: Dover.

  22. Lee, D. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision.Perception, 5, 437–459.

  23. Lee, D. N., & Reddish, P. E. (1981). Plummeting gannets: Aparadigm of ecological optics.Nature, 293 (5830), 293–294.

  24. Lee, D. N., Lishman, J. R., & Thomson, J. A. (1982). Visual regulation of gait in long jumping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 448–459.

  25. Mark, L. S., Shaw, R. E., & Pittenger, J. B. (1988). Natural constraints, scales of analysis, and information for the perception of growing faces. In T. R. Alley (Ed.),Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces (pp. 11–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  26. Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1977).Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems. New York: Wiley.

  27. Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1989).Exploring complexity. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

  28. Powers, W. T. (1973).Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.

  29. Prigogine, I. (1980).From being to becoming. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

  30. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984).Order out of chaos. New York: Bantam Books.

  31. Prigogine, I., Nicolis, G., & Babloyantz, A. (1972). Thermodynamics of evolution.Physics Today, 25, 23–28.

  32. Rosen, R. (1978).Fundamentals of measurement and representation of natural systems. New York: Elsevier.

  33. Rosen, R. (1985).Anticipatory systems: Philosophical, mathematical, and methodological foundations. New York: Pergamon.

  34. Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., & Bigelow, J. (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology.Philosophy of Science, 10, 19–24.

  35. Runeson, S. (1977). On the possibility of “smart” perceptual mechanisms.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 172–179.

  36. Runeson, S., & Frykholm, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person and action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 585–615.

  37. Russell, E. S. (1945).The directiveness of organic activities. Cambridge: The University Press.

  38. Sachs, M. (1973).The field concept in contemporary sciences. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

  39. Schiff, W. (1965). The perception of impending collision.Psychological Monographs, 79, No. 604.

  40. Shaw, R. E. (1987). Behavior with a purpose.Contemporary Psychology, 3, 243–245.

  41. Shaw, R. E., & Alley, T. (1985). How to draw learning curves: Their use and justification. In T. D. Johnston & A. T. Pietrewicz (Eds.),Issues in the ecological study of learning (pp. 275–403). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

  42. Shaw, R. E., & Kinsella-Shaw, J. M. (1988). Ecological mechanics: A physical geometry for intentional constraints.Human Movement Science, 7, 155–200.

  43. Shaw, R. E., & Todd, J. (1980). Abstract machine theory and direct perception.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 400–401.

  44. Shaw, R. E., & Mingolla, E. (1982). Ecologizing world graphs.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 648–650.

  45. Shaw, R. E., Kugler, P. N., & Kinsella-Shaw, J. M. (1990). Reciprocities of intentional systems. In R. Warren & A. Wertheim (Eds.),Control of self-motion. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

  46. Sommerhoff, G. (1950).Analytical biology. London: Oxford University Press.

  47. Soodak, H., & Iberall, A. S. (1987). Thermodynamics and complex systems. In F. E. Yates (Ed.),Self-organizing systems: The emergence of order. New York: Plenum Press.

  48. Taylor, R. (1966).Action and purpose. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  49. Thomson, J. A. (1983). Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 427–443.

  50. Turvey, M. T., Shaw, R. E., Reed, E. S., & Mace, W. M. (1981). Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981).Cognition, 9, 237–304.

  51. Ullman, S. (1980). Against direct perception.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 373–415.

  52. Warren, W. H., & Shaw, R. E. (Eds.) (1985).Persistence and change: The proceedings of the first international conference on event perception. Hillsdale; NJ: Erlbaum.

  53. Weir, M. (1985).Goal-directed behavior. New York: Gordon & Breach.

  54. Woodfield, L. (1976).Teleology. Cambridge: The University Press.

  55. Yates, F. E. (1982). Outline of a physical theory of physiological systems.Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 60, 217–248.

  56. Yates, F. E. (Ed.) (1987).Self-organizing systems: The emergence of order. New York: Plenum Press.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Peter N. Kugler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kugler, P.N., Shaw, R.E., Vincente, K.J. et al. Inquiry into intentional systems I: Issues in ecological physics. Psychol. Res 52, 98–121 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877518

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intentional System
  • Lawful Basis
  • Symbolic Dynamic
  • Classical Constraint
  • Information Field