Are you ignoring Norbert Wiener? Ashby? Shannon? Beer? Minsky? Kurzweil? 2nd-order cybernetics? Before Minsky was cryo-preserved he referred to "the #cybernetic worldview" being correct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdu16JAzgw8 …
-
-
Replying to @Brainbuilder_
I consider almost all of cybernetics nonsense
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Incidentally, you can be right about this, and it still says nothing about the core works of cybernetics. Because messy feedback loops control most human disciplines(those that fight over conflicting goals), it's still useful to consider those "cybernetic" domains.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Brainbuilder_
Sure (my professional bg is systems and control theory... so this is not a throwaway opinion... also I wouldn't put Shannon in that set).
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Is there anywhere where you expand on your take on cybernetics? -- I'd be interested to hear more.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer
Took some drive-by swipes at it in this talk and I've done some passive aggressive muttering about it in various places, but never felt like doing a proper polemic. That sort of thing doesn't energize me enough to do https://www.slideshare.net/vgururao/systems-thinkinga-foxyapproach …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Thanks! {My take is that some real insights came out of early cybernetics, but mostly when it wasn't differentiated from optimal control or the calculus of variations, & it got coopted into a sort of soft marketing-piece for the humanities -- will review your talk with interest.}
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PereGrimmer
It's not really grokkable without the talk track. And yes, that's kinda what happened. Gleick has a good critical take on Wiener in the opening chapters of 'The Information' which I largely agree with. See also Fred Turner 'Network Celebrity' https://fredturner.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Turner-Larson-Network-Celebrity-PC-2015.pdf …
4 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr @PereGrimmer
I'm basically part of the garbage "scene" that emerged around "Cybernetics" because people realized Darwinian evolution (alone) wasn't really how politics works. So, they keep digging and they find Kelly, Wiener and Kurzweil, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Brainbuilder_ @PereGrimmer
I have some sympathy for the motives that draw people to cybernetics. They're honest, even if too hedehoggy for my tastes (which is a matter of epistemic style rather than epistemic merit). My problem with the field is simply that it doesn't actually work as a field.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Unless of course the purpose is creating a scene for the sake of creating a scene, in which case it works brilliantly.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.