Show newer

In we distinguish between three control functions (levels):
1️⃣ the purpose of which is maintaining the system's ,
2️⃣ for finding an optimal path (and way of utilizing the regulators) to fulfill a given , and
3️⃣ (governance) providing direction.

Show thread

According to , is blocking the flow of from the (environmental) to the (internal, protected) . There are two primary forms of blocking the effect of the disturbance on the system:
1️⃣ Passive (by sheltering from), and
2️⃣ Active (on par with)
From:
W. Ross Ashby (1956) - An Introduction to Cybernetics, (Chapman & Hall, London) - available electronically from:
pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASHBBOOK.htm

Systems thinkers use a number of different terms for the three basic concepts in the "system's triad" so that we have a "real system" as opposed to the "conceptual system" which is sometimes also called the "mental model" which is again different from the (real) descriptive or simulation model. In we make the distinction between , and unambiguous following the rules specified in the works of and

Ashby warns us against our first impulse to point at the pendulum and say 'the system is that thing there' because this has a fundamental disadvantage in that "every material object contains no less than an infinity of variables" from which "different observers (with different aims) may reasonably make an infinity of different selections."

Therefore, there must first be given an , and a is then defined as "any set of variables selected by that observer from those available on the real ‘machine‘".

defines a , as "a of that an abstracts in the flow of and of a of distinguished in the observers daily living" that is "spontaneously or artificially " in its within some " of concern" of the observer.

So, in Kihbernetics, the triad looks like this:

Reading this recent (2022) article from Fritjof Capra:
The organization of the living:
Maturana’s key insights
included in the latest Constructivist Foundations volume 18(1): 005–011

constructivist.info/18/1/005

and I am continually bewildered by the fact that no one in the field figured out yet that , although necessary, is not the sufficient condition for .

All are in fact with memory made of , , and structures participating continually in both auto- and allopoietic processes.

In fact, the recursive, processes of learning and growth depend only on (are "structurally coupled" with) the linear work processes dealing with all the things (resources, waste) in the system's environment and producing the externally observable of the living (dynamical) system.

The (Newtonian) or of according to the worldview:

The required to put the change in motion is proportional to its or how large the change is; because the bigger the change the more it creates. The , or how immediate the necessity to change is, will also increase the friction of the .

However, once the change is put in motion, the produced by the mass's will start "pulling" the change by itself and only minimal force will need to be applied to that the change is moving in the right direction and/or with the right speed of change.

Another reason (among many) why I became disenchanted with and had to “invent” .

Warren Sturgis McCulloch, the co-inventor of the first computational model of a that was the precursor for and , uses a racial slur to incorrectly suggest that Cybernetics is somehow the result of the “interbreeding” between the Natural and the Artificial in the preface he wrote for Gordon Pask’s book:

goodreads.com/en/book/show/396

Back in the days (early 2000s) I tried to "sell" to a well-known aerospace company this "three-legged stool" approach of stable continuous organizational , where stands just as one of the many different tools one can choose from in dealing with the different of the organization, along with tools and methods more appropriate to deal with the other two aspects of the organization and .
As one could have expected, those "black belts" on the other side of the table didn't like it 😀.
They went with a strategy where a version of six sigma was used as the "foundation" for all process improvement efforts and everything else was subordinated to it.

Show thread

I've drawn the picture below as a reaction to the current inclination of prominent the(r)orists frowning at "military" style or organizational methods while promoting without and with no need for (everything will change anyway), as a far better, more way of dealing with .

This may be true if the organization is operating and struggling to survive on the left side of this "complexity plane", but if it wants to mature and "get somewhere in life" it better starts aiming for the other side by collecting, documenting and using "lessons learned", planning for and working towards wherever it wants to be in the future.

A momentous recent paper from the most consequential thinker on the matter of the , , and has only 124 views and I must be responsible for at least a dozen.

"Folding is entirely a lawful physical process, leaving neither freedom nor necessity for interpretation. Similarly, the initial converse action-to-symbol conversion of sensory inputs also leaves no freedom for interpretation until after the action-to-symbol conversion"

academia.edu/66621846/Symbol_G

The 1, 2, 3, and 4 of :
1️⃣ one with a purpose
2️⃣ two (linear work and recursive growth)
3️⃣ three (selection, storage, and production)
4️⃣ four (disturbance, difference, control, and output)

Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.