3 ms·

It feels like elements of that split was always there. You have, on the one hand, very practical engineering cybernetics, what's standard control theory now (PI

It feels like elements of that split was always there. You have, on the one hand, very practical engineering cybernetics, what's standard control theory now (PID, optimal linear control, impulse responses and transfer functions, and so on). On the other hand, you have the more general (philosophical, "woolly") part that's filled with comparisons to biology, that deals with society and variety, general patterns, etc. I once gave a friend of mine Medina's "Cybernetic Revolutionaries", and I think he found it hard to get through because of the latter kind of cybernetics, even though he was very familiar with the former kind.

zozbot234 7y ago
> On the other hand, you have the more general (philosophical, "woolly") part that's filled with comparisons to biology But see, that "other" part is also really a generalized/philosophical/speculative etc. take on control theory. "Systems theory" in the cybernetics-related sense is basically a name for 'this control theory stuff is so cool/impressive, let's see if we can generalize it beyond its standard engineering domain and draw any uselful conclusions from it.' Of course this kind of interdisciplinarity would be seen as standard nowadays, you wouldn't need to call attention to it by trying to name a new field.