I consider almost all of cybernetics nonsense
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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 0 likes
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.