The Challenge Of Anticipation

The general idea that brains anticipate the future, that they engage in prediction, and that one means of doing this is through some sort of inner model that can be run of?ine,hasalonghistory. SomeversionoftheideawascommontoAristotle,aswell as to many medieval scholastics, to Leibniz and Hume, and in more recent times, to Kenneth Craik and Philip Johnson-Laird. One reason that this general idea recurs continually is that this is the kind of picture that introspection paints. When we are engaged in tasks it seems that we form images that are predictions, or anticipations, and that these images are isomorphic to what they represent. But as much as the general idea recurs, opposition to it also recurs. The idea has never been widely accepted, or uncontroversial among psychologists, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists. The main reason has been that science cannot be s- is?ed with metaphors and introspection. In order to gain acceptance, an idea needs to be formulated clearly enough so that it can be used to construct testable hypot- ses whose results will clearly supportor cast doubtupon the hypothesis. Next, those ideasthatare formulablein one oranothersortof symbolismor notationare capable of being modeled, and modeling is a huge part of cognitive neuroscience. If an idea cannot be clearly modeled, then there are limits to how widely it can be tested and accepted by a cognitive neuroscience community.

The general idea that brains anticipate the future, that they engage in prediction, and that one means of doing this is through some sort of inner model that can be run of?ine,hasalonghistory. SomeversionoftheideawascommontoAristotle,aswell as to many medieval scholastics, to Leibniz and Hume, and in more recent times, to Kenneth Craik and Philip Johnson-Laird. One reason that this general idea recurs continually is that this is the kind of picture that introspection paints. When we are engaged in tasks it seems that we form images that are predictions, or anticipations, and that these images are isomorphic to what they represent. But as much as the general idea recurs, opposition to it also recurs. The idea has never been widely accepted, or uncontroversial among psychologists, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists. The main reason has been that science cannot be s- is?ed with metaphors and introspection. In order to gain acceptance, an idea needs to be formulated clearly enough so that it can be used to construct testable hypot- ses whose results will clearly supportor cast doubtupon the hypothesis. Next, those ideasthatare formulablein one oranothersortof symbolismor notationare capable of being modeled, and modeling is a huge part of cognitive neuroscience. If an idea cannot be clearly modeled, then there are limits to how widely it can be tested and accepted by a cognitive neuroscience community.

This volume presents the work of leading scientists from Russia, Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania, Israel and the USA, revealing major insights long unknown to the scientific community. Without any doubt their work will provide a springboard for further research in anticipation. Until recently, Robert Rosen (Anticipatory Systems) and Mihai Nadin (MIND – Anticipation and Chaos) were deemed forerunners in this still new knowledge domain. The distinguished neurobiologist, Steven Rose, pointed to the fact that Soviet neuropsychological theories have not on the whole been well received by Western science. These earlier insights as presented in this volume make an important contribution to the foundation of the science of anticipation. It is shown that the daring hypotheses and rich experimental evidence produced by Bernstein, Beritashvili, Ukhtomsky, Anokhin and Uznadze, among others—extend foundational work to aspects of neuroscience, physiology, motorics, education.

Never before was anticipation more relevant to the life and activity of humankind than it is today. “It is no overstatement to suggest that humanity’s future will be shaped by its capacity to anticipate....” (Research Agenda for the 21st Century, National Science Foundation). The sciences and the humanities can no longer risk explaining away the complexity and interactivity that lie at the foundation of life and living. The perspective of the world that anticipation opens justifies the descriptor “the post-Cartesian Revolution.” If anticipation is a valid research domain, what practical relevance can we await? Indeed, anticipation is more than just the latest catch-word in marketing the apps developed by the digital technology industry. Due to spectacular advances in the study of the living, anticipation can claim a legitimate place in current investigations and applications in the sciences and the humanities. Biology, genetics, medicine, as well as politics and cognitive, behavioral, and social sciences, provide rich evidence of anticipatory processes at work. Readers seeking a foundation for an ticipation will find in these pages recent outcomes pertinent to plant life, political anticipation, cognitive science, architecture, computation. The authors contributing to this volume frame experimental data in language that can be shared among experts from all fields of endeavor. The major characteristic is the inference from the richness of data to principles and practical consequences.

In this book, practicing physicians and experts in anticipation present arguments for a new understanding of medicine. Their contributions make it clear that medicine is the decisive test for anticipation. The reader is presented with a provocative hypothesis: If medicine will align itself with the anticipatory condition of life, it can prompt the most important revolution in our time. To this end, all stakeholders—medical practitioners, patients, scientists, and technology developers—will have to engage in the conversation. The book makes the case for the transition from expensive, and only marginally effective, reactive treatment through “spare parts” (joint replacements, organ transplants) and reliance on pharmaceuticals (antibiotics, opiates) to anticipation-informed healthcare. Readers will understand why the current premise of treating various behavioral conditions (attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, schizophrenia) through drugs has to be re-evaluated from the perspective of anticipation. In the manner practiced today, medicine generates dependence and long-lasting damage to those it is paid to help. As we better understand the nature of the living, the proactive view of healthcare, within which the science and art of healing fuse, becomes a social and political mandate.

This volume presents a selection of the Proceedings of the Workshop on Anticipation, Agency and Complexity held in Trento (Italy) on April 2017. The contributions contained in the book brilliantly revolve around three core concepts: agency, complexity and anticipation, giving precious insights to further define the discipline of anticipation. In a world that moves increasingly fast, constantly on the verge of disruptive events, more and more scholars and practitioners in any field feel in need of new approaches to make sense of the complexity and uncertainty that the future seems to bear. The theory of anticipation tries to describe how possible futures are intrinsically intertwined with the present.

Is hope an attitude of wishful thinking or is it a volitional appropriation of what is to come? What does it mean to believe in a divine promise, anticipating but not experiencing its fulfillment? Theology of Anticipation responds to these questions with a constructive study of C. S. Peirce's philosophy. It explores Peirce's strong but ambiguous links to the tradition of 19th century classical German philosophy and the unique way he resurrected this tradition's theoretical content in the American context. Then introducing Wolfhart Pannenberg's philosophical theology of anticipation in a discussion of Peirce's epistemological application of the theory of abduction, Anette Ejsing reads these two in light of each other, with the goal of proposing a Peircean theology of anticipation. With this proposal, she offers a new model for how both rational inquirers and believing theologians can take for real in the present what belongs permanently to the future. This model describes the human pursuit of cognitive as well as personal fulfillment (of understanding and meaning) as anchored in a promise of fulfillment, which makes it an expression of anticipatory hope. Considering Peirce's religious writings of systematic importance for his philosophy, Theology of Anticipation offers critical comments to two existing interpretations of Peirce's philosophy of religion: Michael L. Raposa's theosemiotic and Robert S. Corrington's Peircean theology of divine potentialities.

This book presents the theory of anticipation, and establishes anticipation of the future as a legitimate topic of research. It examines anticipatory behavior, i.e. a behavior that ‘uses’ the future in its actual decisional process. The book shows that anticipation violates neither the ontological order of time nor causation. It explores the question of how different kinds of systems anticipate, and examines the risks and uses of such anticipatory practices. The book first summarizes the research on anticipation conducted within a range of different disciplines, and describes the connection between the anticipatory point of view and futures studies. Following that, its chapters on Wholes, Time and Emergence, make explicit the ontological framework within which anticipation finds its place. It then goes on to discuss Systems, Complexity, and the Modeling Relation, and provides the scientific background supporting anticipation. It restricts formal technicalities to one chapter, and presents those technicalities twice, in formal and plain words to advance understanding. The final chapter shows that all the threads presented in the previous chapters naturally converge toward what has come to be called “Discipline of Anticipation”