TRANSFORMS (i . e. , CODED VERSIONS) OF THE DIFFERENCE WHICH PRECEDED THEM
At this point, we must consider how the differences examined in the discussion of criterion 2 and their trains of effect in promoting other differences become material of information, redundancy , pattern , and so
on. First, we have to note that any object, event , or difference in the so called "outside world" can become a source of information provided that it is incorporated into a circuit with an appropriate network of flexible material in which it can produce changes. In this sense, the solar eclipse, the print of the horse's hoof, the shape of the leaf, the eyespot on a peacock's feather-whatever it may b�an be incorporated into mind if it touches off such trains of consequence.
We proceed , then , to the broadest-possible statement of Kor zybski's famous generalization. He asserted that the map is not the terri tory. Looking at the matter in the very wide perspective that we are now usmg , we see the map as some sort of effect summating differences, organizing news of differences in the "territory . " Korzybski's map is a convenient metaphor and has helped a great many people, but boiled down to its ultimate simplicity, his generalization asserts that the effect is not the cause.
This-the fact of difference between effect and cause when both are incorporated into an appropriately flexible system-is the pnmary premise of what we may call transformation or coding.
Some regularity in the relation between effect and cause is, of course , assumed . Without that , no mind could possibly guess at cause from effect. But granted such a regularity, we can go on to classify the various sorts of relationship that can obtain between effect and cause. This classification will later embrace very complex cases when we en counter complex aggregates of information that may be called patterns, aaion sequences, and the like.
Even greater variety of transformation or coding arises from the fact that the respondent to difference is almost universally energized by collateral energy. (Criterion 3 , above. ) There then need be no simple relation between the magnitude of the event or difference which triggers the response and the resulting response.
However , the first dichotomy that I wish to impose on the mul titudinous varieties of transformation is that which would divide the cases in which response is graded according to some variable in the trig ger event , as opposed to those in which the response is a matter of on-off thresholds. The steam engine with a governor provides a typical instance of one type, in which the angle of the arms of the governor is continu ously variable and has a continuously variable effect on the fuel supply.
In contrast, the house thermostat is an on-off mechanism in which tem perature causes a thermometer to throw a switch at a certain level. This is the dichotomy between ana/ogic systems (those that vary continuously and in step with magnitudes in the trigger event) and digital systems (those that have the on-off characteristic).
Notice that the digital systems more closely resemble systems containing number; whereas analogic systems seem to be dependent more on quantity. The difference between these two genera of coding is an example of the generalization (discussed in Chapter 2) that number is different from quantity. There is a discontinuity between each number and the next , as in digital systems there is discontinuity between "re sponse" and "no response. " This is the discontinuity between "yes" and "no.
In the early days of cybernetics, we used to argue about whether the brain is, on the whole, an analogic or a digital mechanism . That argument has since disappeared with the realization that description of the brain has to start from the all-or-nothing characteristic of the neuron. At least in a vast majority of instances , the neuron either fires or does not fire; and if this were the end of the story, the system would be purely digital and binary. But it is possible to make systems out of digi tal neurons that will have the appearance of being analogic systems. This is done by the simple device of multiplying the pathways so that a given cluster of pathways might consist of hundreds of neurons, of which a certain percentage would be firing and a certain other percentage would be quiet , thus giving an apparently graded response. In addition , the in dividual neuron is modified by hormonal and other environmental condi tions around it that may alter its threshold in a truly quantitative man ner.
I recall, however, that in those days , before we had fully realized the degree to which analogical and digital characteristics might be com bined in one system , the discussants who argued to and fro on the ques tion of whether the brain is analogic or digital showed very marked indi vidual and irrational preferences for one or the other view. I tended to prefer hypotheses stressing the digital; whereas those more influenced by physiology and perhaps less by the phenomena of language and overt be havior tended to favor the analogic explanations .
Other classifications of types of coding are important in the