ᛕᎥᕼᗷᗴᖇᑎᗴ丅Ꭵᑕᔕ @Kihbernetics@qoto.org

@systemspractitioner
Interesting question. I don't know what he would be thinking if still around today, but I hope he would be using a less "cybernetic" and more "organic" approach in which there is no one fixed hierarchy of "systems" imposed from above, but where "higher" levels are created spontaneously, as needed, by the interaction of the elements on the "lower" level to satisfy some of their emergent needs for more efficient communication and coordination.

@Inquiry @Harishjosev

I only recently found out about him while reading *Behavior and Culture in One Dimension* by DP Waters which largely expands upon HH Pattee's work. I really enjoy Pattee's clear-cut writing style and he is also one of the few people I have a hard time finding any flaw in their line of reasoning. For example, his distinction between Laws vs Rules fits perfectly with my own effort of trying to explain to my engineering friends the difference between developing a Product (Structure) and a System as they would regularly confuse the two. 😀

I don't know about the *disconnect between dyadic and triadic frames of reference* as you put it, but here is a doodle I made a few months ago while reading Pattee and Waters that you may find interesting:

@Inquiry @Harishjosev

Yes, another version of #CSPeirce's triad is #WRAshby's distinction between #Machine (object, observed phenomenon), #System (a finite set of variables and their relationships selected by the #Observer), and the #Model created by the observer to describe or/and #Control the machine.

However, I was speaking about the different phenomena (machines) and their *controllability*.
Mere #Physical (static or dynamic) #Structures driven by known (discoverable, invariant) #NaturalLaws as opposed to emergent #DynamicalSystems that are under the influence of arbitrary, local #Rules as explained by #HHPattee.

@Inquiry @Harishjosev

Physics and other "exact" sciences are "easy" as they deal with #Structures and the invariant, universal and inexorable #NaturalLaws that make them #controllable by inputs from the outside.

#Systems are different. Their main purpose is to enforce their own local set of temporary and arbitrary system #Rules which are not applied from the outside, as Laws are, but are rather the emergent result of the system's organization, history, and operation.

@Harishjosev

The problem with 2nd order #cybernetics, as I see it, is that the process of "observing how an observer is doing the observing" presumes that another (external, 2nd-order) observer has more to say and a better understanding of the original observing process than the (1st-order) observed observer itself that is actually ***doing*** the observation.

It seems to me like the tacit re-introduction of #behaviorism and *control* vs. *controlled*.

@systemspractitioner

Below is my impression of the #VSM. Too much "overhead"😀

I believe Beer himself recognized somewhere that of all the subsystems making the VSM, only System(s) "of the first kind" are truly viable systems (can survive on their own). All the other systems are just "coordinators" relying on the existence of System 1.

Source:
Maturana H. R. & Guiloff G. D. (1980) The quest for the intelligence of intelligence. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 3(2): 135–148. https://cepa.info/555

A compelling approach to #Intelligence back from the 80's that does not rely upon #ProblemSolving or #GoalOrientedBehavior as do most of the contemporary doctrines of #AI and #AGI.

#HRMaturana #Autopoiesis #DynamicalSystems #Communication

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

Korzybski's famous remark that "the #map is not the #territory" because people regularly confuse conceptual models of #reality with reality itself, and its derivatives such as "all models are wrong" originates from regarding the #model as a #blueprint or picture ***describing*** that reality.

The #model is instead a #recipe (instruction) or a #tool for helping us navigate the terrain, what Maturana would call a #GenerativeMechanism with which each one of us is able to create our own image of reality depending on what we "want" from the terrain we are navigating through.

#Problem Dissolution, #RAckoff

"A #PhilosophicalSolution of a problem proceeds by showing that the troublesome questions rest on #MistakenAssumptions."

#BRundle (2004) - "Why there is Something rather than Nothing"

>As business struggles to adapt to a rapidly changing world, managers are bombarded with a bewildering array of schemes for how to be a boss and make an organization tick. It’s tempting to be seduced by *futurist fantasies where every company has the culture of a startup, and where employees in wacky, whimsical office settings, liberated from hierarchies* and bosses that oppress them, are the foundation for breakthrough performance.
>
>***“Get real,”*** warn Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein. These fads ironically lead to micromanaging and, often, to disaster. Companies and societies, they show, need authority and hierarchy to coordinate work, including creative work. And, *counterintuitively, Foss and Klein illustrate how the creative use of authority and hierarchy helps companies to be more agile and flexible*, enabling educated, motivated people and teams to thrive.

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Why_Managers_Matter/e6ddEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

"The Turing test is not a good test for testing the supposed "intelligence" of an artificial system. This is well known in the Artificial Intelligence scientific community (I analyze this issue in my book “Cognitive Design for Artificial Minds”, Routledge, 2021). Trivially, one of the problems of the test concerns the fact that it is entirely "behavioral": that is, it looks only at the final behavior (the output) of a system without analyzing what are the mechanisms that led to that output."

Translated with: "Simple Translate" Extension for Firefox:
https://simple-translate.sienori.com/

#AI, #ChatGPT, #LLM, #LanguageModels

#Life is a necessary condition and comes before #Intelligence which is in turn necessary for the acquisition of #Language:

>Language use is an aspect of human collective behaviour, and it only makes sense in the wider context of the human social activity of which it forms a part (*Wittgenstein, 1953*). A human infant is born into a community of language users with which it shares a world, and it acquires language by interacting with this community and with the world it shares with them.

Trying to "reverse engineer" intelligence from LLMs seems like a futile endeavor. Instead of #AI, it may be more useful to redirect efforts to building #ArtificialLife (#AL)

When we say that
>we are asking the model to remind us of the lyrics of a well-known nursery rhyme, ... what we are really doing is asking it the following question:
>>Given the statistical distribution of words in the public corpus, what words are most likely to follow the sequence “Twinkle twinkle ”?
To which an accurate answer is “little star” 😀

https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03551

@Harishjosev

Not just any kind of body. #Intelligence needs a #living body able to (re)#produce and maintain itself. That's why I believe we won't have #AGI until we figure out "#ArtficialLife" first.

@KeithJChouinard

For me it is the opposite. I see the ask for #understanding as pleading for #support from the bottom. "Do you understand me?" can be translated into "Do you support what I'm saying?"

The term #comprehension, on the other hand, "sounds" more like #control. "Do you comprehend?" may be apprehended as "Do you have a good enough #grasp over all of this" so I can be sure you won't "screw up" something?😀

@bbak @kironbondale@mastodon.world @joeposaurus

Wasn't trying to start an argument. I just don't see anything questionable in using these terms for identifying different organizational cultures.

The term "culture" is used mainly to describe a set of values, beliefs, and behaviors shared among members of an organization, and those are often based on particular (known) frameworks, methodologies, or approaches like Scrum, Kanban, CMMI, ISO ...

Anyways, I think we've beaten this issue to death so I'll join you in wishing all the best in the New Year to all you good people. Have fun🎉

@bbak @kironbondale@mastodon.world @joeposaurus

If we can have names like "Gothic architecture" and "Christian religion" why is using "Kanban culture" as distinct from "Scrum culture" being controversial?
And yes, #memory is very important for #learning, state dependent (dynamical) systems.

@bbak @kironbondale@mastodon.world @joeposaurus

Where did you get the idea that I equate policies and culture?

Stories songs, and other documents are never just a description of the culture that created them. As you correctly identified, when they are accepted by the masses as a #Standard, they can be a powerful means for culture specific motivation and control (constraint).

In the end, it really does not matter if your organization is a #Kanban, a #Scrum, or some other #Culture. Every (people) organization is a #DynamicalSystem with #Memory.