Talk:Cybernetics/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Impressed
2 K1, K2, K3 ??
3 Plato?
4 Cybernetic Theory and Communication: And its Organization Implications
5 Badly Needs a Fuller Biological Dimension
6 K1, K2, K3
7 Categories
8 Balancing New Material Still Needed
9 Not a very helpful article
10 A very helpful article
11 Yes but where is it at?
12 Image Numbers
13 Removed quote

Impressed

After readig the article I am impressed with it's writing. No doubt there are some faults inherent in it's 'stylistic balance' but it shares a characteristic of art in that sometimes adding a little bit more makes the system less comprehensible. A great wish would be to have more information without obscuring Key features... in any article on any subject. Kudos- wblakesx

K1, K2, K3 ??

I wish there were a description of what "K1", "K2", and "K3" are all about. Since it seems to be a map of the study of cybernetics, I would want to understand it.

I understand that "General Cybernetics" is "K1," "K2," and that "Applied Cybernetics" is "K3."

I've searched the web for an hour, trying to figure out whwat this all means, but I haven't found much.

Only that K1 & K2 are general ideal principles, and K3 is how they appear in the world around us. It's the distinction between K1 & K2 that I don't see much about on the Internet.

LionKimbro

Plato?

Is there any reason to have this quote there?

Cybernetic Theory and Communication: And its Organization Implications

Hi.. this is jamal here.

 I tried to found out the Cybetnetic theory (not cybernetics) regarding communication. I found about the references and names of the authors but not fully explanation that how it works with communication?
 And how would be its implication in an organization?

It's all about how to make the system faster, stronger, better and more resillient. In an organization it would deal with everything from "how to get decisions from the right people to the right people to carry out those decisions", to the flow of paperwork and other data through the company, to how best to market and transport the organization's products. Anyone else have other thoughts? This could be a good section to add to the article.--Scorpion451 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Badly Needs a Fuller Biological Dimension

Everything I've ever heard about general cybernetics (though I'm no expert) mentions that Weiner was interested in aspects of how organisms work. In other words, he discovered some principles relevant to biology.

I guess he clued into what some of the parallels in machines might be - and certainly in the years since his initial theories, the implications of cybernetics were applied to machines and digital tech. But the article as it stands now is lopsided. Digi tech and computers etc have obviously become important in our world, but humans and other organisms utilize cybernetic principles and have been doing so for millennia and epochs.

In an article like this, we shouldn't allow enthusiasms for bionics and "cyborgs" (however interesting or valid) to obscure the more fundamental insights that Weiner had. And the broader applications of the principles.

You pull your hand back if you accidently touch a hot frying pan. Cybernetics. Your house cat gets into the sunlight coming through a window for the added warmth? Cybernetics. - J.R.

Well, the article still suffers from the same lack. Think about the title of Weiner's first book on the topic: Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and Machine... the machine part is touched on significantly ("machines" being both mechanical, like steam engines, and electronic), but there ain't much reference to the animal in this article. Which is no less ridiculous than when the criticism was first levelled at this article content. The issue isn't so much whether or not biologists regularly use terms like "feedeback" or "cybernetics", it's that Weiner did.

Yes, I grant that you can follow a link to one of the related topics and find the biological dimension there, but this article is incomplete in its own terms. It does not explain how Weiner looked at things, because it leaves out the animal... plus, it caters to cyber-freaks (electronic geeks, if you prefer) or machine-geeks, not to people with general interests. - Marcia Coral

As a cyber geek of the cybernetics variety, I'll see what I can add to this article. For starters there is an incredible book titled "Out of Control" by Kevin Kelly(executive editor for Wired Magazine at the time he wrote it, don't know if he still is). It deals with cybernetics beyond the limited scope of mere electronics and into the biological, political, and mathematical in a sweeping way, I have a copy and I will see what it can add to this page in the way of information.--Scorpion451 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

K1, K2, K3

The only place I have found this terminology is on wikipedia mirrors and derivatives of DMOZ. I don't find them anywhere in the literature. The literature, at least in English, refers simply to "first order", "second order" and "third order". I suspect the notation is either an ideosyncracy that started with DMOZ or a notation that is used in another language. If there are no objections, I will be changing these to read as they appear in the literature. --Tabor 22:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, even more confusingly, "second order cybernetics" appears under K1 in the template, while at the same time it is treated as a distinct peer to K1, K2, K3 in the body text above. Can anyone explain what is going on with this terminology? --Tabor 22:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that DMOZ uses the K1, K2, K3 notation without explanation, and it also seems to be the source of the ludicrous claim that Game theory is a subfield of cybernetics. Doesn't look like a reliable source here. Unless someone can come up with an explanation, I think you're fully justified in removing the K? whatever-they-are's. --Trovatore 20:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a comment to Template Talk:Cybernetics asking for a cite. patsw 03:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not just remove them in favor of "First order", ect. for now, and add them back if it turns out that there is a precident for the terms? Game theory is not a sub field of cybernetics. Game theory is to cybernetics as psychology is to sociology. One studies the part, the other studies the whole, and they blend in the middle.--Scorpion451 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Balancing New Material Still Needed

The first paragraph of the article connects cybernetics with neurology. More (quite a bit more) along this line — the biological line — is needed (to balance off the technological content).

I suggested this notion in the Articles Improvement Drive nominations, and while the 11 votes in favorf of a re-write weren't sufficient to put the article solidly and officially into Re-write status, it was still a pretty damn good showing for a 'highly intellectual' subject.

The whole neurological-feedback idea that connects cybernetics with biological evolution, and other aspects of biology, is a pretty fundamental and important principle. I'd ask that those with an interest in general cybernetics show some goodwill by way of a proper representation of the subject. Afterall, for many people (including young student-age people) Wikipedia is becoming their first source of encyclopedic information.

I'd do this addition and re-writing myself, except I don't know enough. — J.R.

One problem is that the subject 'Cybernetics' is not popular in the high-tech subculture. You are not going to find many researchers who claim to be working in a field that is not digital. This is ironic, because 'Wiener filters' are a filtering method which was computerized in the 1960s. When Wiener did his work, an offshoot of WWII, he was thinking about fire control systems, which automates artillery cannons. It was all done with paper tables and analog systems. But if you look in the IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (IEEE is an engineering society), you might find something. And if you are looking for a biological slant to this, you are getting into neuroscience, which does not claim to intersect with cybernetics. --Ancheta Wis 09:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The biological slant to the article does not have to deal with neuroscience, necessarily. Ant colonies are a cybernetic "superorganism" that is a great example of this. The field is only connected to computers because they happen to be a useful simulation tool, the majority of the field is above distinctions such as "digital" and "biological"- is a wiki digital? or is it sociological? or is it political? I think it is simply cybernetics.--Scorpion451 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a very helpful article

I read this entire article and I still don't know what cybernetics is. I guess I'll have to use a pay-for encyclopedia. (Bjorn Tipling 09:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

It was an overhyped and ill-defined vogue idea way back when in the '60's or so. Until someone explains it better, assuming that's possible, it's not much more than an old buzzword for anything to do with computers, communications, or control as far as I'm concerned. No reason to insult Wikipedia, though. It's kind of like "cyberspace" in the '90's, in a way. What you're looking for might just not be found anywhere. -- 130.94.162.64 15:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, the cyberspace article is a disaster too. Too much post-modern ramblings and not enough actual information.Vesperal 05:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The term Cybernetics is still in use these days - I studied at the Department of Cybernetics, at the University of Reading, and have a BSc in the subject.

It is a catch-all term, and covers the principles of feedback and control theory, artificial intelligence, and artificial life. Because it is such a general term, pinning the exact definition is difficult - it basically comes down to feedback - whether biological (James Lovelock's Gaia theory), electrical, mechanical, or a mix...

But, I agree, the article is not that helpful Horus Kol 13:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem isn't helpfulness. The description of Cybernetics needs to be more accessable. It's not very easy to understand.

The cybernetics has nothingwhatsoever to do with computers. The misconception developed becuse of a fad of research into intellegence of the artificial variety, using computers, took over the field and crowed out all the important research. It disappoints me whenpeople say that the study of how things self-regulate and self-optimize is the study of artificial intelligence. It grates even more when they say that the field, which is more active and relevant than ever before, is no longer studied.*sigh*--Scorpion451 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A very helpful article

For me this was good information, hope that it could be continued and developed.

Thank God that Bjorn Tipling is not a admin then the article would be deleted and lost in Cyberspace. There is a lot of negativism and deleting in Wiki these days and when some people dont understand different articles them self thay assume that its not useful and correct informaton....

If you want you can read more about Cybernetics at: Cybernetics Paper--Swedenborg 07:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but where is it at?

While the article does explain what cybernetics is, there is absolutely no information which tells us exactly where we currently stand. I have watched various TV programs which discuss things such as the reading of brain signals to determine mouse location on a computer screen, or the ablity for blind people to see in low-resolution black/white pixels of general shapes. Exactly what advances have been made in cybernetics? What are the problems they are currently facing? What projects are currently being done? These kinds of things I believe would be useful on such a page. Enigmatical 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Point! I agree and will try to find answers to some of these questions if I can find out :-) --Swedenborg 17:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Enigmatical. I found my way to this article after reading a number of apparently cybernetics related stories. In particular, an article in this week's Economist talks about research into restoring sight in the blind. Also, I was reading about Kevin Warwick, clearly a cyberneticist. I was hoping to find a summary of modern practical progress here. Warrickball 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Numbers

The numbers in the image ("101100100100010101011101010001110011001110011") translate to "²E]G3" from binary and "×MuÓMtÓ]4Ó]5Ó]5×]5Ó]4Ó]uÓMuÓMu×M5" from base64 which both sum up the logic of cybernetics quite nicely.

That did not cut-and-paste very well. This image could use a caption and a better explanation. -- Beland 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed quote

This is appropriate for Wikiquote, but not Wikipedia. -- Beland 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, in a ship, if a man were at liberty to do what he chose, but were devoid of mind and excellence in navigation (αρετης κυβερνητικης), do you perceive what must happen to him and his fellow sailors? (Plato, Alcibiades, 135A).

JA: The quotation is apt, and there is no hard and fast rule against it in WP. Jon Awbrey 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives