Talk:Cybernetics/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Cybernetics. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Awful Picture

Is the original image in http://wiki.riteme.site/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)

SimCity etc

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)

No.--74.67.177.246 (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

SimCity was based on Jay Forrester's urban dynamics, which was more of a general systems or dynamical systems thing. Wikipedia has him in a category for cyberneticians, but I have never seen him referred to as such in the literature. Terminator 2 really happened (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Which book was first published in France?

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)

Same as James Joyce with Ulysses. :D

"Unbeknownst"? How do we know?

"The word cybernetics ('cybernétique') had, unbeknownst to Wiener..."

Without external verification that he wasn't knowledgable of this earlier usage, chances are equal that he did actually note it and chose to disregard it. The line makes the article more interesting, so I'll just append "ostensibly" to it. If one of the sources states it explicitly somewhere, just change it back. ~Anon

Contribution to cybernetics

This section is moved here from the Cybernetics ToDo template

by Jacques angibeaud 8/21/07 Books speaking of systemics and cybernetics show these words are associated. 1) A system well known by a human is his PERSON, healthy in his body and in his spirit. For living several decades, millions actions must be done by a human. His behaviour must be cybernetic. This word designates the process that each human must do, must carry out again and again, to live again.

A proof is a human conducting his vehicule. Why is he in his vehicule? why at this X point? where does he come from? where he is going to? Several questions can be asked.

At a higher level of abstraction, new questions for a human : what can I do on the earth? why am I here? to do what? Am I useful? ... 2) Previous questions go to an answer. Each human has his feet on the earth.What the consequence of action: lift up ? The earth has a (constant) cinetic moment, equal to inertial moment multiplied by angular rotational speed. 'lift up' human action increases inertial moment of the earth. The consequence is rotational speed decreases. The proof is given by International Bureau of Time, which decreases the second of one millisecond each eleven or twelve months.It is necessary for sun zenith at midday. At another abstraction level, the human lift up has the consequence that the earth volume increases. It means : the density of the earth decreases. Birds in the sky, aircrafts,... have the same consequence. Human activity has made Stone henge, Carnac, pyramids, temples, ...

This phenomenon is general in the universe. A proof is the sun looses fifty millions tons (mass) per second. This energy (E=mc2) scatters elsewhere in the universe. This is called ENTROPY. A notion, associated at cybernetics, is NEGUENTROPY. This word means negative entropy. It designates an anti-entropic processus. This neguentropic notion has been invented by Paul Idatte in 1960.

The proof is given by the life on the earth, photosynthesis transforms in mater, three percents of sun energy received by vegetation.

Conclusion: a system which executes a cybernetic processus, is neguentropic. The name of this specific system is CYBER. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.194.195.84 (talk) 21:14, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

The first artificial automatic regulatory system

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)

Obviously what you describe is a cybernetic system. But the first MAN-MADE one? No. That is human society itself. 87.13.255.122 (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Citations

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)

Ramanujan

Can some one clarify Ramanujuan's contribution?--Nick Green 20:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have problems with the following sentence:

Another modern name that can be added to the list of contributors to the field of Cybernetics is that of Srinivasa Ramanujan, a brilliant Indian mathematician.

I agree that this remark is kind of outplaced so I removed it for the moment. If someone else could explain this, it can be placed back again. - Mdd 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mdd. Maybe some Number Theory expert can make the case for putting it back.--Nick Green 23:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyberneticist or Cybernetician?

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. What do you think we should use? - Mdd 14:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference. --RichardVeryard 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is a Wiktionary article on cyberneticist - Mdd 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cybernetics and Portal:Cybernetics

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)

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)

Thanks, you are right. There are lot of article about cybernetics in Wikipedia allready. There are also al lot of existing WikiProjects and Portals. For example:

WikiProjects: Engineering, History of Science, Measurement, Neuroscience, Method engineering, Science, Systems, Systems Engineering
Portals: Artificial intelligence, Electronics, Engineering, History of science, Robotics, Science, Systems science

Here listed are only the most related WikiProjects and Portals (though they are not all active). At the moment Cybernetics is within the scope of the WikiProject Systems. So the real question, I guess, is, why go through all that trouble? - Mdd 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not?

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)

A new introduction

I created the following new introdution of this article, inspired on the german Wikipedia:

Cybernetics is the intedisciplinairy study of the structure of complex systems, especially the communication processes, control mechanisme and feedback principles. Cybernetics is close related to control theory and systems theory.

I do hope other people will help improve this introduction some more. The main reason for eliminating the older intro is that (almost) no article in Wikipedia starts with four or five different definitions. Every article we just have to make a choice, that makes some sence and gives a relatively simple description. - Mdd (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I was a boy (now I am 60), I read about cybernetics and was fascinated with it. Everywhere I read on the subject, I found this: cybernetics studies the functionality of anything, stripped of any material, aesthetic or whatever other characteristics. Of course, the attributes of whatever the object of study interacts with cannot be ignored and should be contemplated if affected by or affecting the object's functionality, and thus a corresponding transduction into or from functional terms should be taken into account. In the case of a closed system, no transduction is necessary. Summing up, how it works is the only important matter, not how it is made or what composes it. As different disciplines and fields use each its own terminology for the same functionalities, a multidisciplinar task was to see beyond terminology and get to the nude marrow of functionality. Feedback devices in systems of natural or artificial sort were found to exist and to share the same or similar functionality. Control mechanisms such as feedback devices are typical subjects of cybernetics, but not the only ones. Information represents whatever physical attributes affect or are affected by the functionality, internally or externally, for convenience. Other abstract representations would do, but information has two properties that make it useful: communication and meaning. Communication can be studied independently of meaning, and this is what N. Wiener did. But meaning can be equally important, and it is what has, in my life-long work on cybernetically studying nervous systems, let me finally understand how they manage to perform their tasks, even including reasoning and social or inter-species communication through verbal or non-verbal means. JML 88.17.100.199 (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I added the following two sentences to get some more general introduction:

Contemporary cybernetics began as an interdisciplinary study connecting the fields of control systems, electrical network theory, mechanical engineering, logic modeling, evolutionary biology and neuroscience in the 1940s. Other fields of study which have influenced or been influenced by cybernetics include game theory; system theory (a mathematical counterpart to cybernetics); psychology, especially neuropsychology, behavioral psychology,cognitive psychology; philosophy and even architecture.^{[citation needed]}

I think that these particulair sentences give a good general introduction of cybernetics. - Mdd (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree I came upon this article by a link with biology. And after reading the intro, the overview and history... I still don't really get it. Cybernetics is the study of underlining structure for a complex system. What does that mean? You can pretty much list any topic and call it a complex system... which is how the introduction and history reads. And the article will list one example of complex system analysis and say "This is cybernetics" but then show another complex system structure and say "This is not an example of cybernetics". I really don't get what cybernetics includes or doesn't include as part of it's analysis or what is a cybernetic way of thinking of a problem versus a non-cybernetic way of thinking about a problem. I don't think the introduction is clear.--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand it is not just the general introduction, but the article as a whole, you don't understand. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And you don't see that as a problem? I'm not a genius but I'm not an idiot either. I know that if there is something I don't understand that 1)I might need to educate myself, so that I can understand a topic 2)That I am capable of learning and understanding. The purpose of this article is to help facilitate people in educating themselves so that they can understand cybernetics. I have a college education, but I believe articles should be accessible even to high schoolers. Do you believe this article is accessible to the general public? If the introduction is insufficient to acquaint users with the general central idea behind cybernetics, isn't THAT a problem? I want to know what cybernetics is. I want to know what cybernetics means... but I guess I can't learn that on wikipedia. Or can I?--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is (just) given a general introduction. It offers you links to a lot more Wikipedia articles on cybernetics, to five online readings on cybernetics, and to a set of external links to learn more about cybernetics. I am not pretending this article explains it all. I don't think any single article can. If you want to learn more .. the trick in general is, to read about a subject by different authors, and to study how the theory is used in practice. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

k, so I'm still trying to figure this out for myself... and have come to a layman's explanation of what cybernetics is. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong because I'm obviously getting lost in the verbiage.

Cybernetics is the study and attempt to define what makes "TOPIC A, B OR C" tick or behave the way it behaves. Cybernetics attempts to determine what makes "TOPIC B" fundamentally "B" versus "C". So it's the study of the fundamental qualities and foundational structure of a topic.

So a cybernetic study of a robot would attempt to define and explore a robots traits by looking at the electronic and mechanical control systems. But would not attempt to define the robot by it's aesthetic quality or materials. A cybernetic study of an apple would look at it's chemical/biological evolution from bud to fruit, or perhaps it's DNA structure. But would not qualify apples due to environment or breed. Is that correct?--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, that Cybernetics is a specific own approach to reality focussing on communication and control mechanism, beside the traditional specialized scientific approaches. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the language in the article is too advanced. A layman (such as myself) would still be in the dark after reading the introduction. I think it needs to be more accessible to newcomers to the field. Totorotroll (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bateson is not mentioned???

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)

Ohhhh, yes. Good call. I strongly agree. Kevin Baas^talk 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Images of cyberneticists

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)

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)

If Stuart A. Umpleby is so notable, maybe he should be mentioned in the text left to the image? --80.171.131.159 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Date Issues

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) Dan Holdgreiwe

Second Life image

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)

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)

Article is too general

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)

Article claims too much

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)