Talk:Cybernetics/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cybernetic Theory and Communication: And its Organization Implications 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Badly Needs a Fuller Biological Dimension 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've added a comment to Template Talk:Cybernetics asking for a cite. patsw 03:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  K1, K2, K3 

message: I have removed several categories from :Category:Cybernetics, including :Category:Ergodic theory, :Category:Dynamical systems, and :Category:Game theory. These disciplines are not reasonably considered subfields of cybernetics, even if some of what they do is relevant to, or even explained by, cybernetics.
But I'd like to specify that I have much less objection to adding individual articles from these fields to :Category:Cybernetics, if they happen to treat cybernetic topics in a serious way. For example, if someone were to add a section on cybernetic applications of game theory to the Game theory article, then it would be reasonable to put that article in :Category:Cybernetics. But to put the category in there suggests that everything about game theory is part of cybernetics, and that's just silly. --Trovatore 00:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: 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)
thread_title:  Balancing New Material Still Needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A very helpful article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yes but where is it at? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image Numbers

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

message: Is the original image in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_Cybernetics_and_Systems_Science.jpg available anywhere? Not only does the awful second life renderer... render most of the writing illegible, it even clips some off from the right. Pthag (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful Picture 

message: Is the production of computer games such as Simcity an example of a program which is written to express a cybernetic model of society? LookingGlass (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SimCity etc 

message: The article says that it was France "... where Wiener's book was first published." This can hardly be true.
Believe it or not, it was France where the English speaking Wiener's book was published. It was so revolutionary that only there could he find a publisher.--Scorpion451 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which book was first published in France? 

message: Aren't the flights ("fletchings") of an arrow (or dart) an 'artificial automatic regulatory system' ? When the arrow starts to pitch or yaw, the flights guide it back on course by introducing drag in the opposite direction. A prehistoric invention, flighted arrows are much older than the water clock. Of course, if the archer is considered 'part of the system', then it's not entirely automatic, but I would argue that 'arrow in flight' is a discrete system in itself. (The arrow may have been fired by an automatic catapult).
Brennanyoung (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first artificial automatic regulatory system 

message: There are practically no citations in this article. There definitely need to be citations for all that information. Dreamer.redeemer 06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: What is the preferred term for a practitioner of cybernetics? The category is :Category:Cyberneticists, but the :Template:Cybernetics calls them cyberneticians. --RichardVeryard 14:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is tricky. Pask (described as a genius and the cybernetician's cybernetician by H von Foerster also a cybernetician and architect of the Biological Computer Laboratory) preferred the term cybernetist attributing it to Professor Peter B. Fellgett FRS an honorary fellow of the Cybernetics Society that awards a professional qualification in cybernetics (MCybS and FCybS). He felt it more euphonious than cyberneticist. This must be regarded with some seriousness as those using cybernetician (most) see the comparison of physicist and physician as defining. Pask started out basing his cybernetics in cognition (suggesting cybernetician) but his information flows in "any medium" shifted his self description into cybernetist (in his Interactions of Actors ms- see Gordon Pask Papers) but never cyberneticist. Others should express their view. Cybernist has 130 occurrences on Google today, cyberneticist 21,800 and cybernetician 22,800. Cybernetist scores 10 hits. Maybe a linguist could comment.  --Nick Green 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found the same google rates. This is maybe why I'm not so sure that we need to use one term. Why not use both? - Mdd 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't propose to go through the whole of Wikipedia standardizing on one term rather than the other. But I think the template and the category should use the same term, because using two different terms is untidy and creates unnecessary confusion. (An encyclopedia is not written for people who already know whether two terms are exactly or nearly equivalent.) The comparison with physicist and physician is not really relevant, because these are entirely different professions (nowadays). --RichardVeryard 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. What do you think we should use? - Mdd 14:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no preference. --RichardVeryard 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that there is a Wiktionary article on cyberneticist - Mdd 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyberneticist or Cybernetician? 

message: :This item is copied from User talk:Nick Green 
The idea is to start a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cybernetics and/or a Portal:Cybernetics. Both have a different aim:
* a WikiProject is a kind of cooperation between editors to improve the represention in Wikipedia of a specific field (Cybernetics) and to initiate and coordinate further innovations.
* a Portal is main pages for specific topics or areas; a kind of homepage; a general representation of the field; a introduction of the existing articles, facts, images, persons in the field and new developments.     
Some general information can be found on (or look at some examples)
* Wikipedia:WikiProject info about WikiProjects
* Wikipedia:Portal info about Portals
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science overview of the existing WikiProjects in the field of science
Now WikiProjects can fulfill multiple tasks (it can start with the first).
# Platform to discuss, initiate, coordinate, control, etc.  
# Assessment
# Peer Review
# Collaboration
# Portal(s) 
Now it that some hours till days to initiate it, but it can take for ever to run it. After a while WikiProjects and Portals can become inactive (and even can get deleted). And last but not least it takes some people and good will to initiate and run it.
So far for the general introductions? Any questions? Ideas? - Mdd 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is great deal already on Cybernetics on Wiki click on :Category:Cybernetics and  at the foot of the article (click article tab) and e.g sub :Category:Cyberneticists in that page. Many topics need drawing in as in Bateson's remark about Alfred Wallace "centrifugal governor" drawing in evolution (and any works others may have published on this, of course). Many need better references, more contemporary references and style clean ups plus new articles. BUT if we are to have a cybernetics portal etc we ought to consider an article on Systems from a cybernetic perspective. The emphasis on information flows rather than any old input/output, for example. The recent debate at CYBCOM hints at great riches. So now let's participate. I suggest not too much effort. Contribute only if you really know, use discussion pages for debate. Lists of topics not covered yet, a vision of structure all needed. Your personal page keeps track of your contributions and changes to those pages in your watchlist. Criticism is encouraged within articles and it is needed. Look at Cloud feedback for example. Very important we might be able to help here, or is it just more physical chemistry needed? References are vital and clear short points with examples. Everything is aimed at the general reader but if you get technical make sure there's a simple article to support you. Remember Frank George. At the drop of a hat he would write on the Cybernetics of... or Cybernetics and... Isn't it time for us to emulate that with our modern insights?--Nick Green 00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Cybernetics and Portal:Cybernetics 

message: I can think of some arguments why ...
* Cybernetics is a relatively autonomous paradigm in society and science, interesting both from a historical and a contemporary perspective.
* Quality inprovement and quality control is needed
* Wikipedia becomes more complex and requirers more skills 
* Articles are presentations, WikiProject organization and a Portal representation.
* A starting point for communication, innovation and building relations.
What fascinates me the most is that Wikipedia itselve is becoming the first place for all people, young and old, to get acquinted and to learn about things out of the ordinary. And at the moment there is still a lot to learn about improving this. - Mdd 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not? 

message: One of those who has done much to develop and popularise cybernetics, within in the social sciences, within evolutionary theory and amongst lay people was Gregory Bateson, yet he is not mentioned at all in the article. Even 'social science' is only mentioned in reference to a seperate article. I see this as a fairly major omission.
Brennanyoung (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhh, yes.  Good call.  I strongly agree. Kevin Baastalk 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bateson is not mentioned??? 

message: :This discussion is copied here from the User talk:Paulpangaro page.
Hi, thanks for your edits on the Cybernetics article. However I readded the image you removed, because it is definitely related to the subject. I do agree this relation should be expressed better. If you want to replace it with an other picture, thats fine with me. But for now, I think, it's a good pictures, and there is no rule that only the top of the top should be expressed. If you don't agree you could also respond on the cybernetics talk page. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mdd --- i disagree strongly. by your rule, the page could be littered with individuals whose contribution is minimal, which distorts the impression --- and the communication --- that the page provides. do you know stuart? why did you add his picture and not one of a dozen others mentioned on the page, especially those whose contribution to the field is large and undisputed? isn't that more honest to the intention of wikipedia? -paul
Hi, Paulpangaro. I referted your move here. I don't agree with your assumption: "individuals whose contribution is minimal" and "distorts the impression". Both your assumptions seems to me like POV: personal point of view, which in Wikipedia is not acceptable. It is only your own opinion that Umpleby's contributions are minimal. That is not a fact. And we don't think in terms of "minimal" and act on that. We foremost think in terms of "notable" and "not-notable".   
The rule here is this article should contain images of notable scientist that are related to cybernetics. There is no question about Stuart A. Umpleby is notable and related to cybernetics. 
One more thing. I don't mean the image should stay there for ever. I would even be glad if it is this image would alter with pictures of other temporary scientists in the field. Unfortunately there are not much of those images available on Wikipedia. The only images now available are here on Commons. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of cyberneticists 

message: Phrases such as "the last 30 years" reference a date of writing, but no such date is explicit in the article. Other phrases in the article suggest that the 1980s is the current decade.
72.192.216.225 (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Issues 

message: Can anyone explain to me why there's Second Life screenshot picture on this page (:Image:History_of_Cybernetics_and_Systems_Science.jpg), and why it's considered an acceptable alternative to an actual chart? It seems a bizarre image choice to me. Daduzi talk 19:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure yet, wheter I agree or not, but I have removed the image for now. I would be nice to have an actual chart, but we have had one untill recently User:Bcastel3 (Brian Castellani) uploaded the :File:Complexity-map-overview.png image. As to the :Image:History_of_Cybernetics_and_Systems_Science.jpg I agree the source is questionable. But the image itself is, how I see it, an artist impression of the history of cybernetics. And in a way... all or at least a lot of image's is Wikipedia are artist impressions. We are not allowed to copy original images here, we have to design them ourselves. In time we might be able to construct one ourselves. At least this is my opinion...!? -- Mdd (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Life image

message: No key concepts, like philosophy of design, or principles are mentioned. Someone with comprehensive knowledge of cybernetics needs to distill what makes AI work, even if it is ruthlessly abstract - in English. 74.195.26.164 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is too general

message: Looking at the material here, it seems to be written as if Cybernetics is an all encompassing theory of anything with connections.  Its a series of overclaims.  For example suggesting that complex adaptive systems is a subdivision of cybernetics which it clearly isn't.  P'm going to move that for one into a new section, but overall the article needs improvement.  --Snowded TALK  19:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article claims too much