Search results

To discuss some of the work of Heinz von Foerster with regard to multidimensional visualization.

An introduction to multidimensional visualization, followed with the connections derived from the Biological Computer Laboratory.

Visualization provides insight through images. Considers the steps involved in interacting and learning so that this will lead the individual into their own “concept formation”.

Studies aspects of Heinz von Foerster's work that are of importance for understanding multidimensional visualization.

The paper serves as an introduction to the special issue on Heinz von Foerster. Major episodes of his life are sketched and related to his scientific convictions regarding transdisciplinary research and radical constructivist. In the second part the contributions to the issue are summarized. Finally, the relevance of Foerster's work is discussed.

The arguments are based on the scientific literature.

Foerster argued against reductionist science and in favor of transdisciplinary research in order to trigger further scientific developments.

By using transdiciplinary and choosing the constructivist perspective, science will increase its productivity. This should be reflected in science policy.

By pointing at the variety of his scientific output and his influence on many colleagues and students, the paper is in support of Foerster's non‐reductionist worldview.

From the radical constructivist point of view the mainstream conception of memory as an encoding‐storage‐retrieval device is considered questionable. The paper aims at an alternative perspective on memory and its interaction with cognition.

The argumentation is based on various experimental data such as cognitive problem‐solving, change blindness, and childhood amnesia. Theoretical insights of the radical constructivist epistemology developed by Heinz von Foerster and others contribute as well.

Describing memory as storage‐retrieval device separated from cognition is rejected. Rather, memory is the expression of a static snapshot of otherwise dynamical cognitive processes. As an embodied network of constructive components, the evolutionary evolved cognition‐memory compound is not geared toward reproducing “true” facts. Rather, its goal is to produce structure that maintains coherence with the rest of the network.

Memory research should not judge recognition in terms of “correct” or “false” but rather reassess its performance in terms of the super‐ordinate cognitive faculty.

The results imply that the role of memory should be reconsidered both in memory research as well as in practical areas such as psychotherapy and law.

The new characterization of memory rejects the narrow computational theory of mind. It provides a better account for memory distortion phenomena such as false recognition, intrusion, and confabulation.