CYBERNETICS & HUMAN KNOWING

Foreword: ASC 2009 By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Ranulph Glanville and Phillip Guddemi, Co-Editors Thomas Fischer and Louis Kauffman, Co-Editors for Selecting Papers
Abstract:

Article: The ASC 2009 Conference: A Report By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Arun Chandra
Abstract:

Article: The Anticommunication Imperative A Tribute to Herbert Brün By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Laurence D. Richards
Abstract:In the cybernetic tradition of Heinz von Foerster’s imperatives, this paper proposes “the anticommunication imperative”: If you seek the new, compose asynchronicity. I draw on narrativescredited to Herbert Brün, both written and oral, that have inspired this formulation, of which theimportance of anticommunication in the role the arts play in society is central. I connect Herbert’sidiosyncratic approach to systems and their stages to the idea of anticommunication as essential forthe retardation of their decay. I offer the idea of imperatives as one way of thinking about the design of a desirable society, that is, a network of statements that point to what is not currently the case, but which, if they were the case, would be desirable.

Article: Negative Dialectics and Cybernetics: Changing Systems By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Kate Slaymaker and Melanie Meltzer
Abstract:Within this writing, the authors explore existing associations and establish new connections between philosophy and cybernetics. Special attention is given to the idea of conceptualization and the abstraction inherent within this process. The authors weave a meticulous web between the constructs of thinkers including Theodor Adorno, Benjamin Lee Whorf, Humberto Maturana and Ernst von Glasersfeld and then attempt to traverse these new constructions, paths, or concepts. Through this process Meltzer and Slaymaker endeavor to lay a foundation on which further connections may be established and to clear space in which distinctions between philosophy and cybernetics may be drawn. The authors offer these connections and distinctions as premises in which concepts may be arranged in order to create desirable systems while simultaneously striving to protect subjectivity in conceptualization.Editor’s Note (R. Glanville): This piece is the recipient of the 2009 Heinz von Foerster Award. Theaward is given to the young person (under age 35) who has made the best presentation at the ASC annual conference. The judges, attend the presentations made by all who qualify for the award. It is based on both the presentation itself and quality of content and argument, usually in a written paper that is presented. The judges consist of members of the ASC executive who are present at the conference, chaired by the president. The award commemorates Heinz von Foerster, whose presentations had exactly the qualities we look for in making the award. He was the founder of the ASC and the central ringmaster in identifying second order cybernetics. His support for young scholars was legendary.

Article: Digital Drifting: Minimally Instructive Education for Tool-aided Creativity in Asia By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Christiane M. Herr and Thomas Fischer
Abstract:In this paper we offer a reflection on our design teaching on masters-level programs whichemphasize value creation in industrial/corporate contexts. In a culturally, industrially, educationallyand technologically largely goal-oriented context, the goal of our contribution is to challenge,together with our students, the roles of formal procedures and of goals in designing. To this end we have developed workshops which, within the time frame of usually five days over three weekends, allow students to abandon and renegotiate preconceived terms of engagement and goals in design conversations and to develop appreciation for, and readiness to adopt, unforeseen events with unexpected qualities. Avoiding instruction and judgment, our teaching approach is perceived as unusual and unexpected in its context, as are the qualities of many of our students’ projects.

Article: How Can I Put That? Applying Cybernetics to “Conversational Media” By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Paul Pangaro
Abstract:For those engaged in the discipline of cybernetics, its relationship to business has long beendiscussed and desired. The recent explosion of digital communication channels affords anapplication domain for cybernetics that is itself potentially highly productive yet clearly in need ofguidance. While Web 2.0 experiments abound, failure rather than design has been the primarymechanism for steering the development of marketplace conversations between and among brandsand consumers. This paper proposes to replace natural selection with the application of conversationtheory to marketing as a means of improving outcomes.Using cybernetics concepts of goal-directed systems, requisite variety, co-evolution andconversation, the author characterizes marketing conversations, offers examples of them, andprovides prescriptions for improving them. The goal is to improve the conversational experiencesdelivered by digital technologies in order to better meet the goals of marketers and, especially, thegoals of users/consumers/persons who are on the receiving end—and, more so every day, on thegenerating end—of interaction channels enabled by digital technology.In practice, conversation is a requirement for commerce because any commerce transaction mustbe preceded by agreement, which must be preceded by conversation. Therefore, the quality,efficiency, and effectiveness of conversation should be a focus for every business that offersproducts or services. Furthermore, conversation is a requirement for brands and consumers to create a relationship of trust, which is the foundation of lifetime customer value, which in turn is the single best measure of viability—the survival and thriving—of any brand.

Article: Reflective Organization By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Heike Nolte
Abstract:This article presents an organizational model of a firm’s viability based on the employees’subjective theories. The organizational model is derived from Stafford Beer’s model of a viablesystem (see Beer, 1979, 1981). In order to find empirical evidence for it, it is first necessary tooperationalize Beer’s System 1 through System 5—achieved in this case by reviewing widely citedmanagement theories. The model presented in this article is called “reflective organization” not onlydue to its self-referential structure, but also because its starting point at System 1 is the employees’capacity to develop subjective theories by reflection and thus increase the firm’s capacity for copingwith complexity. The inherent challenge of such a model is to find a balance between autonomy and integration. That this challenge can be met so that a reflective organization can actually survive is shown by the example of a firm in the IT-consulting industry, as demonstrated through a set ofinterviews.

Article: A Cybernetic Critique of Enterprise Risk Management By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Michael Kowalski
Abstract:Enterprise risk management refers to the loose collection of data management and mathematicaltechniques which evolved over the last twenty years to enable financial institutions to determinetheoretical values for their investment portfolios in hypothetical market environments. Afundamental problem with risk management systems and the pricing models embedded in them isthat key factors affecting the value of a portfolio are left out of the models. Of the generallyacknowledged sources of risk, namely, market risk, currency risk, volatility risk, credit risk, liquidityrisk, operational risk, and regulatory risk, only the first three have sufficiently deep andunambiguous data histories to support the simulations which are the basis for most risk analysestoday. Factors which do not lend themselves readily to standard statistical methods are left out of the picture completely. The differences between raw input data, normalized data, hypothetical data, the output of models, interpretive structures defined by the risk manager, and summary results reported to upper management are largely subsumed in the operation of massively complex computational systems. A cybernetic critique of risk management should start with an examination of the unacknowledged role of feedback and proceed to confront the methodological rigidity of most current systems.

Article: Interpretation of Absolute Judgments Using Information Theory: Channel Capacity or Memory Capacity? By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Lance Nizami
Abstract:Shannon’s information theory has been a popular component of first-order cybernetics. It quantifiesinformation transmitted in terms of the number of times a sent symbol is received as itself, or asanother possible symbol. Sent symbols were events and received symbols were outcomes. Garnerand Hake reinterpreted Shannon, describing events and outcomes as categories of a stimulusattribute, so as to quantify the information transmitted in the psychologist’s category (or absolutejudgment) experiment. There, categories are represented by specific stimuli, and the human subject must assign those stimuli, singly and in random order, to the categories that they represent.Hundreds of computations ensued of information transmitted and its alleged asymptote, the sensorychannel capacity. The present paper critically re-examines those estimates. It also reviews estimatesof memory capacity from memory experiments. It concludes that absolute judgment is memorylimited and that channel capacities are actually memory capacities. In particular, there are factors that affect absolute judgment that are not explainable within Shannon’s theory, factors such as feedback, practice, motivation, and stimulus range, as well as the anchor effect, sequentialdependences, the rise in information transmitted with the increase in number of stimulusdimensions, and the phenomena of masking and stimulus duration dependence. It is recommendedthat absolute judgments be abandoned, because there are already many direct estimates of memory capacity.

Column: Virtual Logic—Circularity, Knots and the ASC By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Louis H. Kauffman
Abstract:

ASCPages: In Bed With Constructivism: A Metalogue By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Lucas Pawlik
Abstract:This story was presented as a dialogue at the 2007 Heinz von Foerster Congress organized by Karland Albert Mueller. It was co-presented by the author and Thomas Cook, an American actorfrom Julliard School, whose expertise in classical theatre and literature contributed to the poeticsoundness of the paper. This piece may be performed by one, two, or more actors.

ReviewArticle: The Biosemiotic Roots of Morality By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Phillip Guddemi
Abstract:

ReviewArticle: The Quadrants and the Elephant By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Phillip Guddemi
Abstract:

Article: Newtonian Space in Newell and Simon: Reply to Kinsella’s (2008) Response to Downes (2006) By:

portaladmin@syros.aegean.gr (Aegean Team) — 2010-06-16 15:24:24

Author(s): Paul Downes
Abstract:Downes (2006) argued that Newell and Simon’s computational models rest on a blind spot(Luhmann, 1994) of static, non-interactive Newtonian space underlying their supposedly “primitivefunctions” (Newell, 1990) for cognitive science. Kinsella’s (2008) response explores three mainavenues in defence of cognitive science. Firstly, Kinsella (2008) purports to rely on the earlier workof Simon (1962) to supersede the subsequent work of Simon and Newell, while ignoring theproblematic logical and empirical implications of doing so. Secondly, Kinsella (2008) offers arhetorical strategy that both conflates key differences between conceptions of space in Newtonianand Einsteinian paradigms, and reiterates commonalities between Newton and Einstein, whileoverlooking that these commonalities were already explicitly recognised in Downes (2006). Kinsella(2008) claims to critique Downes (2006) through a third pathway, regarding the constructivepictorial explanation proffered by Simon’s ant metaphor discussed in Downes (2006), yet Kinsella(2008) misunderstands this Simonian type of explanation, analysed in relation to the framework ofEinsteinian space in General Relativity. A further confusion in Kinsella’s (2008) text, which isaddressed, pertains to the need to distinguish the different roles of computational models inpsychological explanations, as opposed to those in economics.