Cybernetics a Proposal for the Field, Part 1

8/12/2019 Cybernetics a Proposal for the Field, Part 1

1/25

Cybernetics: A proposal for the field, part 1

Introduction

This paper is to be delivered in three parts; the first one purports to give a reprise of the

field of cybernetics both in their history and content detailing what first and second order

cybernetics are and at the same time proposing areas into which they can be expanded. In the

second part, the ideas of the cybernetics of social systems in general (both human and animal)

and of human cognition and psychic systems are developed as a third and fourth order

respectively. Finally, on the third article, the cybernetics of the Universe will be expounded in a

fifth order, which takes into account the idea of the observer and which states that consciousness

is the fundamental reality and that the Universe is a transcendental system that can engage in self

observation and mutual observation, when it observes other systems.

Returning to the objectives of this first part, an initial definition and an etymology of

cybernetics will be given; then, a brief history of it will be put before the reader, including the

development of the field in the United States, England and Russia. The first order, that of

machines will be explained and its main features detailed: They are goal oriented systems, which

is set forth by an observer, that is, they are teleological and they are systems that create things

other than themselves (allopoietic).

The second order consists of living systems, which are observing systems and are

teleonomical, that is, they set their goals by means of their interaction with their environment and

they are autopoietic, for they produce their own components. To conclude, some precisions will

be made regarding the methodology of first and second order cybernetics.

1. Initial definition of Cybernetics


2/25

Cybernetics is derived from kybernetes, the Greek word for steersman and has been

understood as an interdisciplinary approach to organization, irrespective of a system's

material realization (Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Sytems). Many have understood this

idea in different ways: as "a science concerned with the study of systems of any nature which are

capable of receiving, storing, and processing information so as to use it for control" by

Kolmogorov; as "the art of steersmanship"; "deals with all forms of behavior in so far as they are

regular, or determinate, or reproducible"; by Ashby, as

"a branch of mathematics dealing with problems of control, recursiveness, and information" by

Gregory Bateson as "the science of effective organization" by Beer, among many other notables

(American Society for Cybernetics).

My personal definition is that it is the study of organization in all possible systems by

means of communication processes. It is useful to make some precisions: First, by studying

organization, the subject matter of cybernetics is not so much what systems consist of, but what

is their behavior. Second, the object of study of cybernetics is not to be exhausted as it can range

from simple to complex systems and can comprise those that have yet to be invented or

discovered, hence, the idea of all possible systems. Third, as communication is the thread that

will help gather an understanding of all systems, concepts like variety, control, information and

goal-directedness are universal to all studied systems.

2. A brief history of Cybernetics

First order cybernetics originated when the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation sponsored a

series of interdisciplinary meetings which lasted from 1944 to 1953 and reunited noted post war

scholars like Norbert Weiner, John von Neumann, Warren McCulloch, Claude Shannon, Heinz

von Foerster, W. Ross Ashby, Arturo Rosenblueth, Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead.


3/25

Weiner was one of the primary participants of the conferences, as his work on servomechanisms

and artillery target mechanism during World War II sparked his interest in feedback and purpose;

in 1948 he published his book Cybernetics, in which he summarized the basic principles of the

discipline and gave one of the most known definitions (Heylighen and Joslyn).

As time passed and the objective approach of cybernetics consolidated in computer

science, a focus on autonomy, self-organization, cognition and the role of the observer in

modeling a system consolidated in the 1970s. This became known as second order cybernetics

(Heylighen and Joslyn). The distinction between first and second order cybernetics was made by

Heinz von Foerster in Cybernetics of Cybernetics stating that the cybernetics of observed

systems we may consider to be first-order cybernetics; while second-order cybernetics is the

cybernetics of observing systems(Von Foerster, 1979).

First order cybernetics studied systems from a passive and objective perspective, while

the second order recognizes that observer and observed cannot be separated and the observations

will depend on their interactions; this latter approach has become part of the foundations of

cybernetics (Heylighen and Joslyn). An important concept for second order cybernetics is what

theoretical biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela conceived as autopoiesis or

self-construction, the defining feature of living systems, which is a series of processes by

means of which a system maintains itself by creating its own components, constantly recreating

itself.(Maturana and Varela, 2012) This concept has had a lot of transcendence within general

systems theory, second order cybernetics and the social sciences, where attempts have been

made to apply it to social systems.1

1This position is widely accepted: In the prologue to Autopoiesis, The Organization of the Living in Maturana and

Varelas Autopoiesis and Cognition, Stafford Beer embraces the idea of social systems as being autopoietic. Also,

Niklas Luhmanns theory of social systems applies autopoiesis to society.


4/25

Cybernetics also developed in the United Kingdom with Grey Walter and W. Ross

Ashby, whom can be accounted as first order cyberneticians and then transitioned to second

order cybernetics by means of the scholarship of Gordon Pask and Stafford Beer (Pickering,

2010).

British cybernetics was less centered on computing and more interested in the study of

the human brain, Ashby and Walter were psychiatrists, the former built a homeostat, a device

capable of adapting itself to the environment; while the latter built his famous Turtle, a robot

built with sensors, which exhibited adaptive behavior. Pask centered more on theories of learning

and teaching, and his ideas have been rediscovered in other disciplines, Beer applied cybernetics

to management and created the Viable System Model, a schema for organizations that is

modeled after the human nervous system (Pickering, 2010).

Cybernetics also developed in the Soviet Union, albeit in a different way. From 1947 to

1954, the year after Stalin died, cybernetics was subject to constant attacks, and with other

disciplines it was called a bourgeois pseudoscience. A decade after this period, it was b roadly

accepted by scientists, philosophers and bureaucrats, seen as the science best fit to build the

future Communist society(Peters, 2012). By mid-1960s it was a flourishing discipline in the

Soviet Union, while it had fallen out of fashion by that time in the United States and England;

from this time to the early 1970s, this discipline was normalized into the ideological discourse,

noted practitioners were Alexey Andreevich Lyapunov (1911-1973), Victor Glushkov (1923-

1982) and Alexander Yakovlevich Lerner (1913-2004).

Gerovitch analyzed the rise and development of Russian cybernetics in three periods: a)

categorical rejection of cybernetics under Joseph Stalin (194853); b) embrace of cybernetics as

a reformist-oriented science under Nikita Khrushchev (195564); c) Retooling and diffusion of


5/25

cybernetics into the service of the status quo and state power under Leonid Brezhnev (196480)

(Gerovicht, 2002).

3. First order cybernetics

a. Scope: Machines as observed systems

Umpleby compiles a list of definitions of first order cybernetics, to which Wieners is

added; this item is useful to determine the scope of first order cybernetics (Umpleby, 2001)

(Wiener, 1965):

Table 1.

Varela and Maturana distinguish allopoietic from autopoietic machines (living systems); the

former is defined as machines that have as a product of their function something different from

themselves. Because they are not the product of their own function, but instead are used for a

purpose, allopoietic machines (hereafter machines) are controlled systems. The notion of

machines as controlled systems connects with Wiener, who centers on their control and

communication; now, to control something is to determine its purpose, therefore, Pasks notion is

also addressed. Maturana and Varela coincide with this direction when they say: Man made

machines are all made with some purpose This aim usually appears expressed in the product

of the operation of the machine, but not necessarily so(Maturana and Varela, 2012).

Because the purpose of the machines is set by their creators and users, it can be said that

first order cybernetics is teleological. It is precisely because of this fact that machines are

observed and not observing systems, thus arriving at von Foersters definition. It can be

concluded then that first order cybernetics is the study of organization (observation, and


6/25

teleology by means of communication) in machines that produce things other than themselves

and that interact with an observer that studies them or determines their purpose.

b.

Goal-orientedness: Teleology

Control can be understood as the operation of a system comprised of a controller and a

controlled. These subsystems interact in the following way: 1) The controller may change the

state of the controlled system in any way, including its destruction, 2) the action that the

controlled system has in relation of controller is the formation of a perception in the latter about

the former. This relationship can be expressed in the following schema (Principia Cybernetica

Web):

Picture 1

The formation of a perception that a controlling system makes of a controlled one is

composed of: an agent, the controller, a representation of the controlled system and the flow of

information between them. This can be represented in the following manner (Principia

Cybernetica Web):

Picture 2

The flow of information limits the possible actions of the agent; the control relationship

operates on a feedback loop which starts with action (controller to controlled) and is followed by

perception (controlled to controller) and is asymmetrical: the controlled can only influence the

representation of it made by the controller, but the former can effectively control the latter. The


7/25

control relation, although asymmetrical, it operates as a feedback loop (Principia Cybernetica

Web).

The operation of a system presupposes a goal, which can be understood as a projected

reality which determines a process and yet it is something that may or may not come to be; goal-

directedness is the avoidance or elimination of deviations from an unchanging state, which can

be taken as a stable equilibrium upon which the system must return after disruptions are

overcome.

4. Second order cybernetics

a. Scope: Observing systems

Repeating the method used to ascertain the scope of first order cybernetics, Umplebys

list of definitions will be anew used to construct a notion the second order (Umpleby, 2001):

Table 2

Maturana and Varela define autonomy as the: Self-asserting capacity of living systems

to maintain their identity through the active compensation of deformation. This idea leads to the

concept of autopoiesis which is the feature of all living systems; and which can be understood as

a machine that produces its own components and occupies a space in which it carries out its

processes; these types of machine are teleonomical, for they have an apparent purpose or project

of organization. If living systems are purposeless in the sense that they are not observed as in the

first order, then what is the reason of being of Pasks definition? This is solved by Maturana in

his treatment of cognition (Maturana and Varela, 2012):


8/25

A cognitive system is a system whose organization defines a domain of

interactions in which it can act with relevance to the maintenance of itself, and the

process of cognition is the actual (inductive) acting or behaving in the domain.

Living systems are cognitive systems, and living as a process is a process of

cognition. This statement is valid for all organisms, with and without a nervous

system.

Because the study of living systems includes cognitive processes, then Pasksdefinition

of a modeler applies because a system that observes can determine the purpose of a first order

system that can only be observed; this domain is not entirely exclusive to human beings seeing

that there are animals capable of using tools. As it was said in the part pertaining to the history of

cybernetics, second order cyberneticians acknowledge that no systems can be studied objectively

and that the observer plays a crucial role; this means that a definition of second order cybernetics

must have within itself the idea of an observer.

In asking what the properties of the observer are, Von Foerster realizes that any

observation made entails another act of observation of said observation and it leads to a problem

akin to the Liars paradox. To address these deficiencies, he uses Pasks ideas of orders of

analysis and comes to the conclusion that an observer enters the studied system by stipulating its

purpose, and by stipulating his own purpose on the observed system. This brings forth Humberto

Maturanas famous theorem: Anything said is said by an observer.

Second order cybernetics is then the study of observing systems on two levels: First, in

the organization in autopoietic machines, which are able to build their own components, and

possess cognizance which allows them to observe and control other machines; second, in


9/25

understanding the derivation of knowledge as a process in which an autopoietic system observes

a system by interacting with it setting both its purpose and that of the observed. Second order

cybernetics is a cybernetics of cybernetics.

b. Goal orientedness: Teleonomy

First order cybernetic systems are teleological: their goals are established by an observer;

on the other hand, autopoietic systems have as their goal their survival, that is, the maintenance

of its essential organization. This latter goal, plus other secondary goals that reinforce it are

comprised by the adaptation to the organism to its environment by means of structural coupling.

This is to be understood as teleonomy.

It was stated that goal-directedness was to be understood as the suppression of deviations

from a goal state. In the case of autopoietic systems, this state is survival and the act of

constantly achieving this state is teleonomy. This is done by means of cognition as perceptually

guided action that creates a repertoire of actions to be implemented in response to certain stimuli

chosen by the system based on a history of structural couplings with the environment.

Survival is a state of stable equilibrium, to which a system is to be returned after any

deviation, and the repertoire of actions and the guidance of action based on the posing and

answering of actions imply a diminution of variety.

To summarize goal-directedness in first and second order systems: Allopoietic systems

are teleological because they have an observer state their purpose, while autopoietic systems, are

teleonomical, because their goal is determined by their interaction with their environment; both

teleonomy and teleology share the feature of equifinality, that is, differing initial states


10/25

eventually return to the same final state, which implies a diminution of variety. Their difference

resides in the fact that the former returns to its equilibrium point without intervention, while the

latter cant(Principia Cybernetica Web).

5. Differences between the scope of first and second order cybernetics

Although both deal with machines, there are a set of differences between first and second

order cybernetics. This can be summarized in the following schema:

Table 3

First order machines are heteropoietic because they produce something different from

themselves, by means of human design; this is a feature of inert systems, which are not able to

build their own components, and which purposes are determined by an observer, therefore they

are observed systems. At the same time, the way in which these systems were studied before the

introduction of second cybernetics was attempting to isolate the observer from the description of

his observations. Second order machines produce only themselves, therefore they are living and

their purpose is determined by the feedback with their environment. They can be cognizant and

capable of self-description, which means that they observe and can, to a degree, use first order

machines.

6. Information

The concept of information was first posited with Claude Shannon, whose work gave

way to information theory; in it, functional communication is based on a pre-established code

with a limited number of possible outcomes of signs; therefore information implies a choice that

reduces uncertainty (Brier, 2008).


11/25

Entropy is a measure of this uncertainty and is taken as the measure of the amount of

information conveyed; the more is known about the message to be produced by the source, the

less entropy and the less the information. To Norbert Wiener entropy is viewed as disorder and

information is viewed as negative entropy, which can then be defined as organization (Brier,

2008).

Brier criticizes that both information theory and cybernetics because their objectivity rests on

metaphysics and produce a functionalism that does not take into account free will, emotions and

first person experience; another concept of information to be taken into account is that pertaining

to Gregory Bateson, which can be stated as the difference that makes a difference(Brier,

2008). Ashby coincides with the importance of difference in cybernetics, although he does not

equate it to information, he says: The most fundamental concept in cybernetics is that of

difference, either that two things are recognizably different or that one thing has changed with

time(Ashby, 1965).

a. Differentiation (Order+Balance+Harmony)

In order to better understand information in the Batesonian sense, it must be said that

human cognition is creative in nature, therefore, a differentiation is not an existing quality of

reality, but a way in which the latter is understood by humans; that is, people make sense of

reality by distinguishing one thing from the other, thus we differentiate.

However, this action has an internal logic and coherence, that is, information is congruent

with itself and is subject to the existence of a pattern, a proportion and a viable combination of

both; these measures will be called Order, Balance and Harmony.


12/25

The Oxford Dictionary defines order as the arrangement or disposition of people of

things in relation to each other according to a particular, sequence, pattern or method and

pattern as regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in the way in which something

happens or is done(Oxford Dictionary). Oliver defines it as an arrangement of a set of entities

that is produced by the correlation, according to a rule, of one arrangement of these entities with

another arrangement independent of the first (Oliver, 1951). Both definitions have the

following elements: a) ordered entities (people or things), b) a rule or pattern under which the

objects are arranged, c) a relationship between the ordered objects.

The idea of order does not exist outside of human beings as, scientific and other social

criteria notwithstanding, what to one person constitutes as order might appear to another as

disorderly; that is, it is a construction of the human mind (Oliver, 1951). In this tenor of things, it

might be said then that the dichotomy between of order and disorder is inexact because it is not

total2, therefore, one might instead talk about different types of order.

Because it is subjective in nature, created by the cognitive organization of the observer,

several factors like interaction of the environment and life experience act as an influence on its

establishment; however, in social systems, there can be consensus regarding acceptable types of

order: examples of this can be found from scientific laws describing phenomena to social norms

of behavior; notions of order then, are of dialectic nature.

Garcia Maynez interprets Oliver: Order is the submission of a set of objects to a rule or

a system of rules which application creates among said objects, the relationships that allow the

goals of the orderer. This definition presupposes: A set of objects, an ordering pattern, the

submission of the former to the latter, the relations that derive from such submission to the

2It does not comprise precise criteria to the totality of human beings.


13/25

ordered objects and the goal pursued by the orderer; another presupposition that can be added is

the relationship that the ordered have with the orderer and the pattern (Garcia Maynez, 1974).

He also distinguishes between the creation and the effective accomplishment of an order

when it is to be applied by an observer to a system, and says that there are 3 stages: conceiving

the order, electing the means to achieve the goal, the effective accomplishment of the projected

order(Garcia Maynez, 1974).

Balance can be understood as a condition in which different elements are equal o r in the

correct proportions; proportion is also defined as: a part, share, or number considered in

comparative relation to a whole(Oxford Dictionary). This idea is used more in the arts than in

the sciences, but like the notion of order, it is relative to the human observer and extends to his

behavior. In design, balance is a principle that seeks the reconciliation of opposing forces in a

composition that results in visual stability.

Proportion then refers to the relative size and scale of the various elements in a design,

seeing the relationship between objects, or of parts of a whole; proportion is discussed in terms

of context or a standard (Jirousek).

Picture 33

In an analogue way to the notion of order, balance can presuppose: a set of things or

people to be balanced, the proportion for achieving balance, the submission of the object to the

proportion, the relations that derive from such submission to the balanced objects, the relation

between the balanced and the balancing agent, the relation between the balanced and the

proportion and the goal pursued by the balancing agent. And the conception and the

3Image found here:http://blogs.office.com/b/office-show/archive/2010/06/09/design-principles-and-animation-in-

powerpoint.aspx
http://blogs.office.com/b/office-show/archive/2010/06/09/design-principles-and-animation-in-powerpoint.aspxhttp://blogs.office.com/b/office-show/archive/2010/06/09/design-principles-and-animation-in-powerpoint.aspxhttp://blogs.office.com/b/office-show/archive/2010/06/09/design-principles-and-animation-in-powerpoint.aspxhttp://blogs.office.com/b/office-show/archive/2010/06/09/design-principles-and-animation-in-powerpoint.aspxhttp://blogs.office.com/b/office-show/archive/2010/06/09/design-principles-and-animation-in-powerpoint.aspxhttp://blogs.office.com/b/office-show/archive/2010/06/09/design-principles-and-animation-in-powerpoint.aspx


14/25

implementation of balance comprises conceiving the balance, electing the means of achieving

the goal and the accomplishment of the goal.

The mediation between patterns and proportion brings forth a third idea which will be

called Harmony; which can be defined as the conjunction between order and balance in a

compatible relation, that is, its the combination between a pattern and a proportion that do not

exclude each other and are able to function together. As a starting point it is important to note

that Order and Balance cannot function without each other and thus, to stand by themselves,

once has to presuppose a minimal pattern or proportion in each, which means that by themselves,

they are already a harmonious combination.

In the same vein, to conciliate Order and Balance, Harmony presupposes in itself a viable

combination of Order and Balance, which can be considered an application of the Good

Regulator Theorem for to solve the problem of the conjunction of a pattern and proportion,

Harmony must have within itself a viable conjunction of both.

This means that Harmony is self-referential (specifically, recursive) in two ways: First, to

stand by themselves, Order and Balance must be harmonious combinations and this have internal

patterns and proportions; second, viable Harmony applies the before mentioned theorem. This

also means that Information is has an internal congruence and logic that is product of a viewpoint

as Order, Balance and Harmony lie within the observer that conceives them.

Harmony presupposes by analogy the same elements that Order and Balance do, and also

follow the same rule for the observer in conceiving and applying it to an object or subject.

Harmony can be explained with the following examples:


15/25

A standard chess configuration has a pattern that consists of 16 pieces per player aligned

in 2 scores of 8 pieces and it has a proportion seeing that each player has the same amount of

pieces arranged in a way that gives none of the opponents a starting advantage over the other;

moreover, the group of pieces between each player is arranged in a way that they have an

internal pattern and proportion, as each piece has a specific relation with one another. Now,

suppose that the following arrangement is in place:

Picture 4

In this case there is order but not balance between black and white (assuming the players

have a similar level of skill), that is, there is a pattern but there is no proportion; although each

group of pieces has an internal order and balance, they are not compatible. In this case there can

be order without balance, but there cannot be balance without order, therefore, their relationship

is asymmetrical.

To show that there can be multiple ways to order and balance and to combine both, the

Chess960 variant can be used as an example. Created by Bobby Fischer, it has the same pieces

and boards that the standard chess game but it has new rules that allow the retaining of castling

options and can result in 960 possible positions. The intention of this variant is to eliminate the

advantage created by the memorization of opening moves, forcing players to rely on their talent

and creativity. Here are two possible board positions given by the Chess960 variant:

Picture 5

Both of these boards have order and balance internal and external, indeed they have a

pattern that orders the pieces of each of the players and a proportion that gives them equal

chances of winning.


16/25

b. Meaning assignation (the incorporation of Biosemiotics)

Semiotics concerns itself with the study of signs in the broadest of senses, which are not

to be analyzed as an isolated phenomena, but study them in relation to how meaning is

constructed and reality and represented. It has a dual origin: as there are a linguistic and

philosophic tradition that have formulated different approaches to the study of signs; however,

the one that will be used for this study is the philosophical view of C.S. Peirce.

Peirce conceives signs as an irreducible triad; to him, a sign is something which stands

to somebody for something in some respect or capacity (Feibelman, 1970), that is, it is a

reference frame by means of which a cognitive system can give a value or a meaning to

something, having differentiated it from other things.

To Peirce, semiotics is the equivalent of logic, the latter which he defines as the science

of the general necessary laws of signs only another name of semiotic, the quasi-necessary, or

formal doctrine of signs(Feibelman, 1970). This means that Semiotics or Logic is the study of

the rules of the appropriate meaning assignation to a differentiated object in order to use it as a

reference, which is subsumed into a repertoire of signs that make up the knowledge and

experience of the cognizing subject; knowledge, experiences and languages are then sign based

and are subject of construction and reconstruction.

To Peirce, the signs have the following elements: Representamen, the form which the

sign takes; interpertant, the sense made of the sign; object, something beyond the sign to which it

refers. Signs can be visualized in the following way (Chandler, 2007):

Picture 6


17/25

To exist, a sign must fulfill the following conditions: It must correlate with or represent

an object (representative condition); it must represent or correlate with that object in some

respect or capacity (presentative condition); the sign must determine an interpretant

(interpretative condition); the relation between sign, object and interpretant must be triadic

(triadic condition) (Liska, 1996).

The interrelation between the elements of the sign is called semiosis by Peirce; signs have

no final object, because an object can be another sign, and so on, or as he states in his principle

a sign is something by knowing which we know something more, and also, signs are context

dependent, they cannot exist in isolation (Eco, 1986). This has as a consequence a circular

causation process that leads to an infinite process of interpretation, which can be stated in two

ways: 1) The object of a sign can be another sign, and 2) the interpretant is nothing but a

representation, which as such has an interpertant (Brier, 2008) (Chandler, 2007).

As reality is experienced by the subject, it is then transformed by him into signs using

semiosis; this entails an interaction between external and internal factors: signs can be things

from the outside, but also an observer can define himself by means of signs. Therefore, the

usefulness of signs lies in their power to determine the possibilities of how the observers

interpret signs in their future activity (Brier, 2008).

Semiotics can be subsumed within cybernetics, for the latter discipline approaches all the

branches and orientations of the former. Cybernetics is especially able to handle semiotics

because of its inclination to circular causation processes, which implies a network of signs that

may go on to the infinite. Also, semiotics gives to cybernetics a complement to the idea of

information by giving substance to it by means of the idea of sign and the process of semiosis.


18/25

Cybernetics and semiotics have a strong complementary relation: to be able to assign

meaning to an object in reference to others, it is necessary to distinguish it from everything else,

which manifests itself as a flow of things, that is, meaning assignation presupposes

differentiation. Furthermore, there is a mutual causal relationship between the elements of

differentiation and the elements of semiosis: On one hand, the sign and its elements are

harmonious elements, that is, because they are differentiated one from the other, they have to be

viable combination of Order and Balance; on the other, the elements of differentiation are signs

and the product of meaning assignment, and specific patterns, proportions and conjunctions of

both can be used as signs.

7. Cognitive machines as an expansion of second order cybernetics

Now that the idea of information has been expanded, it is also useful to introduce into

second order cybernetics to the idea of cognitive machines: neural mechanisms that constitute

the cognitive system of more complex living systems. This notion is useful because it is the

foundation for a third order (human and animal sociability, the realm of mutually observing

systems) and fourth order cybernetics (the study of humans as reflexive self-observing systems),

which will be explained in the next article.

The importance of cognitive machines resides in the fact that they act as a link between

second and third and fourth cybernetics: concrete sign processing, mirror neurons and in the case

of humans, abstract sign processing (language) are of utmost importance in mutual observation,

while in self-observation, logical and experiential cognition, cognitive coherence and the

perception of self that is found in the cortical midline structure are relevant.


19/25

Cognitive machines can be defined as mechanisms that have a basis in a brain and that

store, retrieve, process and create information in order to carry out a specific function. They can

be equated with neural mechanisms that possess specific functions and that have been found in

both humans and other animals, all together they form a cognitive system. Two questions are to

be asked in understanding cognitive machines: First, what are the elements that constitute such

mechanisms? Second, what are the defining features of a cognitive system?

To answer the first question, cognition as information processing consists of

differentiating (Batesons difference that makes a difference) and assigning meaning of

something, which if repeated enough creates a repertoire of data that functions as a reference

frame; a cognitive machine in the first place has to be able to create new information, second,

this information has to be able to be stored in order to function as reference for future

information processing, third, that information has to be able to be retrieved and modified, as

new perceptions are created and challenge existing information.

Cognitive machines are formed by the physical mechanisms that allow information

processes (assorted neurons), the information that is processed (database), sign processing and

memory that allow information processing (primary programming) and the particular routines

that they do (specialized programming); the first one can be called physical component, while

the other three can be called informational component.

Perceptual mechanisms such as the senses, as well as spatiotemporal perception, sign

processing both as a concrete response (like body language) as well of abstract representation

(language) are examples of cognitive machines. Memory, which serves as a reference point for

general information processing, is also a cognitive machine, and has its form of sign processing

(which also exists as a cognitive machine). This might seem contradictory, as all cognitive


20/25

machines need memory for storage and retrieval and sign processing to create, transform and

transmit information; why are these independent cognitive machines and not only a general

feature of them?

This is because memory and sign processing as cognitive machines have a particular

nature regarding others: All these machines have in themselves a temporary memory that stores

information which is then channeled to the main memory; at the same time, all of them have a

form of sign processing (Joseph), which is then unified by the main one and used in tandem with

memory to make the whole multiplicity of systems work, which are all then unified under

consciousness and awareness. Because all these mechanisms imply within themselves memory

and sign processing memory; the latter as cognitive machines are self-referential.

In his essayQuantum Physics and the Multiplicity of Mind:Split-Brains, Fragmented

Minds, Dissociation,Quantum Consciousness Joseph states that the mind is a multiplicity of

systems that interact with reality in different ways and which are subordinated under one or two

of such systems, which are consciousness and awareness (Joseph).

Of this multiplicity, the cognitive machines that are to be preeminently studied by second

order cybernetics are: sign processing, spatiotemporal perception, memory which functions as

reference frame and consciousness which is the coordinator of all cognitive machines, among

others. Human cognition builds upon these existing structures and studies Intuition, Intelligence

and cognitive coherence, which are the subjects of fourth order cybernetics; while sign

processing, be it concrete or abstract, serves as a bridge between cognitive systems and is the

cognitive machine studied by third order cybernetics.

8. First and second order methodological aspects


21/25

One last aspect to study is that the division between first and second order cybernetics

only obeys history and content, but also methodology. First cybernetics worked from a detached

objective perspective in which the subject matter can be manipulated at will; while second

cybernetics recognizes that the observed system is an agent that interacts with the observer, thus

having a subjective interactive perspective. (Geyer and Van der Zouwen, 2001).

The fact that the observer affects the object of study by means of its observations has

several important consequences: For one, when studying a system, the observer has to account

himself as part of the observed system. Furthermore, there has to be a recognition that

knowledge is constructed and is subject to the culture, preferences and biases of who creates it

and modifies it.

Self-reference is then an important part of cybernetic methodology. This occurs on many

levels: Because information is a differentiation, it has Order, Balance and Harmony, all of which

act in self-referential manners cognitive systems, especially those of human beings are self-

referential because not only they operate on distinctions, but they make one between themselves

and the environment, that is, to have a dimension of self. Furthermore, language as a system of

signs, and also as a set of information is capable of statements and ideas that refer to itself.

An observer then, in analyzing an object has to take into account the fact that he is doing

so in order to include himself in such study, in order to understand the object of study that is

disturbed by his observation. The cognitive processes and mechanisms that he uses are self-

referential in varying ways, which influences the way in which knowledge is constructed the

latter being only a narrative that comes from a subjective viewpoint and which has a context and

its own congruence on that basis; knowledge cannot be considered to be objective.


22/25

Knowledge is information created by a subject that provides a frame that can be used to

interpret the subjects perception of what surrounds him; such information can be accepted and

modified by others in a dialectical system. Information on a first level-regardless of being shared

or nor- lies within the observer.

Conclusions

1. Cybernetics is a discipline that concerns itself with the organization of things and not so

much with their composition.

2. Historically, it has been divided into first and second order; this division operating

because of the subject-matter (machines-living systems), methodology (detached

observer-subjective) and goal directedness (teleology-teleonomy).

3. Information can be understood as the result of a differentiation and the assignation of a

meaning.

4. Because of the relativity of the observer, the information that he generates has its own

rules and congruence.

5. Information as a differentiation possesses an inherent pattern, proportion and workable

implementation of the latter two.

6. Cognitive machines are an expansion of second cybernetics as they account for neural

systems of complex living systems and explain their cognitive processes.

7. Subjective perspective and self reference is vital within cybernetical methodology.

Sources

Bibliographic

1. Ashby W.R. (1965) Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman Hall Ltd.


23/25

2. Brier S. (2008), Cybersemiotics, why information is not enough, University of Toronto

Press, 2008.

3. Chandler D. (2007), Semiotics, The Basics, 2nd ed., Routhledge.

4. Eco U. (1986) Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, 2, (Indiana University Press).

5. Feibleman J.K. (1970), An Introduction to the Philosophy of C.S. Peirce, MIT Press.

6. Garca Mynez E. (1974), Filosofa del Derecho [Legal Philosophy], Porra, Mexico.

7. Gerovicth S. (2002) From Newspeak to Cyberspeak. A History of Soviet Cybernetics,

MIT Press.

8.

Geyer F., van der Zouwen J. (2001), Introduction to the Main Themes in

Sociocybernetics, in Geyer F. and van der Zouwen J. (Eds.) Sociocybernetics:

Complexity, Autopoiesis and Observations of Social Systems, Greenwood Press.

9. Joseph R. Quantum Physics and the Multiplicity of Mind: Split-Brains, Fragmented

Minds, Dissociation, Quantum Consciousness in Penrose R., Hameroff S. and Kak S.

(Eds.) Consciousness and the Universe. Quantum Physics, Evolution, Brain & Mind,

Cosmology Science Publishers.

10.Liska J.J. (1996), A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce,

Indiana University Press.

11.Maturana H.R. , Varela F., (2012) Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the

Living, D. Reidel Publishing Company.

12.Oliver W.D. (1951), Theory of Order, The Antioch Press.

13.Pickering A. (2010) The Cybernetic Brain. Sketches of Another Future, University of

Chicago Press.


24/25

14.Wiener N. (1965) Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the

Machine, 2nd ed., MIT Press.

Electronic

1. American Society for Cybernetics, Definitions of cybernetics.

http://www.gwu.edu/~asc/cyber_definition.html

2. Heylighen F. and Joslyn C., Cybernetics, wwwc3.lanl.gov/pub/users/joslyn/enccs2.pdf

3. von Foerster H. (1979), Cybernetics of Cybernetics,

http://jlombardi.net/pdf/cyber_cyber.pdf

4.

Jirousek C. Art Design and Visual Thinking. An Interactive Textbook,

http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/principl/principl.htm

5. Oxford Dictionary Balance Definition

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/balance?region=us&rskey=NT2ZE8&result=1

6. Oxford Dictionary Order Definition

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/order?region=us&rskey=roqJp6&result=1

7.

Oxford Dictionary Pattern Definition

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pattern?region=us&q=pattern

8. Peters B. (2012) Normalizing Soviet Cybernetics, Information & Culture: A Journal of

History, Volume 47, Number 2, http://nevzlin.huji.ac.il/userfiles/files/47.2.peters.pdf

9. Principia Cybernetica Web, Control Definition,

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CONTROL.html

10.Principia Cybernetica Web, Goal Directedness Definition,

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GOAL.html
http://jlombardi.net/pdf/cyber_cyber.pdfhttp://jlombardi.net/pdf/cyber_cyber.pdfhttp://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/principl/principl.htmhttp://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/principl/principl.htmhttp://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/balance?region=us&rskey=NT2ZE8&result=1http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/balance?region=us&rskey=NT2ZE8&result=1http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/order?region=us&rskey=roqJp6&result=1http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/order?region=us&rskey=roqJp6&result=1http://nevzlin.huji.ac.il/userfiles/files/47.2.peters.pdfhttp://nevzlin.huji.ac.il/userfiles/files/47.2.peters.pdfhttp://nevzlin.huji.ac.il/userfiles/files/47.2.peters.pdfhttp://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/order?region=us&rskey=roqJp6&result=1http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/balance?region=us&rskey=NT2ZE8&result=1http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/principl/principl.htmhttp://jlombardi.net/pdf/cyber_cyber.pdf


25/25

11.Umpleby S.A. (2001), What comes after second order cybernetics?

http://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/recent_papers/2001_what_comes_after_second_order_cy

bernetics.htm

12.Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems Cybernetics Definition,

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/CYBERNETICS.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/recent_papers/2001_what_comes_after_second_order_cybernetics.htmhttp://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/recent_papers/2001_what_comes_after_second_order_cybernetics.htmhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/CYBERNETICS.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/CYBERNETICS.htmlhttp://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/CYBERNETICS.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/recent_papers/2001_what_comes_after_second_order_cybernetics.htmhttp://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/recent_papers/2001_what_comes_after_second_order_cybernetics.htm

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	heliogeorgos-caro
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Cybernetics a Proposal for the Field, Part 1

Documents