3 ms·

I wrote my PhD on the philosophy of Norbert Wiener, namely, 'cybernetics'. I think what people haven't realised is that for Wiener - though not necessarily the

by nanna 6y ago

I wrote my PhD on the philosophy of Norbert Wiener, namely, 'cybernetics'. I think what people haven't realised is that for Wiener - though not necessarily the successive generations of Cyberneticians per se - cybernetics names not only a transdisciplinary field of study, not only a primitive form of control engineering, but a philosophical system that contends directly with GW Leibniz's monadology. Wiener considered it to be a kind of monster, a 'golem', since whereas the monadology posits universal beneficence throughout nature and humankind, Wiener's cybernetics is, when applied to human societies, structurally, infinitely, conflictual. Moreover it points towards awesome consolidations of power. Generations of readers of cybernetics have completely missed or disregarded this aspect of his thought, conveniently mistaking a system of regulation in nature for a system of regulation in artificial human societies. For Wiener there is no self-regulation in the body politic, societies are fundamentally anti-homeostatic, and the techniques that his generation had bequeathed to the world would only exacerbate its positive feedback loop. This is why, for me, Wiener is still so compelling, despite the unfathomable equations, the desperate arrogance, the stuffy air of cigars. He was the first to see the world that Snowden brought to the public's attention. And it's all there, systematically in 1948 (and even, sort of, earlier).

AndrewKemendo 6y ago
Would be interested to read that if you have it available online! I was really disappointed when I first learned about Cybernetics, to read that it had fallen out of favor, breaking into a thousand discrete disciplines. "Cognitive Science" seems to be the closest modern inter-disciplinary topic. I suppose it comes down to the reality that the practical applications of a true "cybernetics" discipline would be so narrow that it would be a tiny field.
specialist 6y ago
Please say more. I would LOVE to hear how Wiener might interpret today's world. As a total noob, I'm often delighted by the insights of earlier commentators. The people who lived thru great transformations, so can remember the before times, allowing them to see the now more clearly. Like your lament about Wiener's ignored analysis and insights, rereading McLuhan was very fruitful. His concept of autoamputation seems to have been completely ignored. (Over stimulation leads to shutting down that sensory input.) But it's such a great way of describing the impact of modern rhetoric. Sometimes I wonder if it's like Steve Jobs' visit to Xerox PARC. Jobs admits they (Apple) were so captivated by GUIs they totally missed other breakthrough concepts like object-oriented.
- metroholografix 6y ago
  Read his book, God and Golem. The essence is all there including most of his projections for the future. Besides predicting to a T multiple aspects of the world we're now experiencing, this book is full of insinuations about several conditions yet to arise (or maybe risen but yet to be discovered!). He doesn't explicitly lay them out, but leaves you to identify and connect the dots. This occultation of ideas is somewhat common in early cybernetics works. Needless to say, the vision of Wiener will be seen by many who understand it as supremely negative. An alternative is explored in 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind' by Bateson.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    Thanks for the cite. Here is the pdf simson.net/ref/1963/God_And_Golem_Inc.pdf I suspect (not having yet read the above beyond the preface) the root issue is, as usual, the nature of consciousness. My own views on that subject are fringe per du jour orthodoxy which states that 'mind arises from structure'. Weiner seems to take it for granted that an algorithm "learned" something. Does an algorithm even have a "self" that would "learn"? I personally think we're being careless with word usage. Once you contest the implicit equivalence made between 'form' and 'meaning' which occurs when one asserts that a mechanical/causal device has "learned" something -- all we have observed is form in -> form out -- then the 2 remaining "points in cybernetics" are "[machine] self-reproduction", and, "man-machine coordination". These last two are difficult topics -only- if generously attribute "consciousness" to machines that auto-extend their state transition map. Otherwise, they are interesting but not cosmic questions. And further, one can still entertain a 'Universal Mind' and speculations such as Leibniz's monadology, happily coexiting with a science of cybernetics.
timbuk2 6y ago
Would also be interested in learning more about this. Was this work recent? More generally, is there on-going research within the field of cybernetics?
platz 6y ago
curious what you think of other social systems theory folks like talcott parsons and luhmann
dr_dshiv 6y ago
I'd love to read the dissertation, can you share it? Cybernetics also reintroduced teleology into the sciences, which is philosophically deeply controversial. I also like the fact that he describes this teleology as reducing local entropy [1]. I presented my tenure midterm today on "AI for Wellbeing" which I based on Cybernetics [2]. [1] "while the universe as a whole, if indeed there is a whole universe, tends to run down, there are local enclaves whose direction seems opposed to that of the universe at large and in which there is a limited and temporary tendency for organization to increase. Life finds its home in some of these enclaves. It is with this point of view at its core that the new science of Cybernetics began its development." [2] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_hDjT06C6WyITgtbdPVjhN7RHfqJWMKJL6h7e1zY8vE/edit?usp=drivesdk https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_hDjT06C6WyITgtbdPVj...
- AndrewKemendo 6y ago
  You should also look into our IEEE standard 7010 "Recommended Practice for Assessing the Impact of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems on Human Well-Being" I was one of the authors and it might have some valuable concepts you could use. https://standards.ieee.org/standard/7010-2020.html https://standards.ieee.org/standard/7010-2020.html
  - dr_dshiv 6y ago
    Wow, thank you so much for sharing. This is, ah, quite relevant!

by nanna 6y ago

AndrewKemendo 6y ago

Would be interested to read that if you have it available online! I was really disappointed when I first learned about Cybernetics, to read that it had fallen out of favor, breaking into a thousand discrete disciplines. "Cognitive Science" seems to be the closest modern inter-disciplinary topic. I suppose it comes down to the reality that the practical applications of a true "cybernetics" discipline would be so narrow that it would be a tiny field.

specialist 6y ago

Please say more. I would LOVE to hear how Wiener might interpret today's world. As a total noob, I'm often delighted by the insights of earlier commentators. The people who lived thru great transformations, so can remember the before times, allowing them to see the now more clearly. Like your lament about Wiener's ignored analysis and insights, rereading McLuhan was very fruitful. His concept of autoamputation seems to have been completely ignored. (Over stimulation leads to shutting down that sensory input.) But it's such a great way of describing the impact of modern rhetoric. Sometimes I wonder if it's like Steve Jobs' visit to Xerox PARC. Jobs admits they (Apple) were so captivated by GUIs they totally missed other breakthrough concepts like object-oriented.

metroholografix 6y ago
Read his book, God and Golem. The essence is all there including most of his projections for the future. Besides predicting to a T multiple aspects of the world we're now experiencing, this book is full of insinuations about several conditions yet to arise (or maybe risen but yet to be discovered!). He doesn't explicitly lay them out, but leaves you to identify and connect the dots. This occultation of ideas is somewhat common in early cybernetics works. Needless to say, the vision of Wiener will be seen by many who understand it as supremely negative. An alternative is explored in 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind' by Bateson.
- eternalban 6y ago
  Thanks for the cite. Here is the pdf simson.net/ref/1963/God_And_Golem_Inc.pdf I suspect (not having yet read the above beyond the preface) the root issue is, as usual, the nature of consciousness. My own views on that subject are fringe per du jour orthodoxy which states that 'mind arises from structure'. Weiner seems to take it for granted that an algorithm "learned" something. Does an algorithm even have a "self" that would "learn"? I personally think we're being careless with word usage. Once you contest the implicit equivalence made between 'form' and 'meaning' which occurs when one asserts that a mechanical/causal device has "learned" something -- all we have observed is form in -> form out -- then the 2 remaining "points in cybernetics" are "[machine] self-reproduction", and, "man-machine coordination". These last two are difficult topics -only- if generously attribute "consciousness" to machines that auto-extend their state transition map. Otherwise, they are interesting but not cosmic questions. And further, one can still entertain a 'Universal Mind' and speculations such as Leibniz's monadology, happily coexiting with a science of cybernetics.

timbuk2 6y ago

Would also be interested in learning more about this. Was this work recent? More generally, is there on-going research within the field of cybernetics?

platz 6y ago

curious what you think of other social systems theory folks like talcott parsons and luhmann

dr_dshiv 6y ago

I'd love to read the dissertation, can you share it? Cybernetics also reintroduced teleology into the sciences, which is philosophically deeply controversial. I also like the fact that he describes this teleology as reducing local entropy [1]. I presented my tenure midterm today on "AI for Wellbeing" which I based on Cybernetics [2]. [1] "while the universe as a whole, if indeed there is a whole universe, tends to run down, there are local enclaves whose direction seems opposed to that of the universe at large and in which there is a limited and temporary tendency for organization to increase. Life finds its home in some of these enclaves. It is with this point of view at its core that the new science of Cybernetics began its development." [2] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_hDjT06C6WyITgtbdPVjhN7RHfqJWMKJL6h7e1zY8vE/edit?usp=drivesdk https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_hDjT06C6WyITgtbdPVj...

AndrewKemendo 6y ago
You should also look into our IEEE standard 7010 "Recommended Practice for Assessing the Impact of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems on Human Well-Being" I was one of the authors and it might have some valuable concepts you could use. https://standards.ieee.org/standard/7010-2020.html https://standards.ieee.org/standard/7010-2020.html
- dr_dshiv 6y ago
  Wow, thank you so much for sharing. This is, ah, quite relevant!