Key word "brier"
Asaro P. (2007) Heinz von Foerster and the bio-computing movements of the 1960s. In: Müller A. & Müller K. H. (eds.) An unfinished revolution? Heinz von Foerster and the Biological Computer Laboratory, BCL, 1959–1976. Edition Echoraum, Vienna: 253–275. https://cepa.info/6625
Heinz von Foerster and the bio-computing movements of the 1960s.
In: Müller A. & Müller K. H. (eds.) An unfinished revolution? Heinz von Foerster and the Biological Computer Laboratory, BCL, 1959–1976. Edition Echoraum, Vienna: 253–275.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/6625
Excerpt: As I read the cybernetic literature, I became intrigued that as an approach to the mind which was often described as a predecessor to AI, cybernetics had a much more sophisticated approach to mind than its purported successor. I was soon led to Prof. Herbert Brün’s seminar in experimental composition, and to the archives of the Biological Computer Laboratory (BCL) in the basement of the University of Illinois library. Since then, I have been trying to come to terms with what it was that was so special about the BCL, what allowed it to produce such interesting ideas and projects which seem alien and exotic in comparison to what mainstream AI and Cognitive Science produced in the same era. And yet, despite its appealing philosophical depth and technological novelty, it seems to have been largely ignored or forgotten by mainstream research in these areas. I believe that these are the same concerns that many of the authors of the recent issue of Cybernetics and Human Knowing (Brier & Glanville, 2003) express in regard to the legacy of von Foerster and the BCL. How could such an interesting place, full of interesting things and ideas have just disappeared and been largely forgotten, even in its own home town?
Brier S. (2008) The paradigm of Peircean biosemiotics. Signs-International Journal of Semiotics 2: 30–81. https://cepa.info/4789
The paradigm of Peircean biosemiotics.
Signs-International Journal of Semiotics 2: 30–81.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/4789
The failure of modern science to create a common scientific framework for nature and consciousness makes it necessary to look for broader foundations in a new philosophy. Although controversial for modern science, the Peircean semiotic, evolutionary, pragmatic and triadic philosophy has been the only modern conceptual framework that can support that transdisciplinary change in our view of knowing that bridges the two cultures and transgresses Cartesian dualism. It therefore seems ideal to build on it for modern biosemiotics and can, in combination with Luhmann’s theory of communication, encompass modern information theory, complexity science and thermodynamics. It allows focus on the connection between the concept of codes and signs in living systems, and makes it possible to re-conceptualize both internal and external processes of the human body, mind and communication in models that fit into one framework.
Key words: autopoiesis
, copenhagen school of biosemiotics.
Cobley P. (2010) Second-order thinking, first-class reasoning. Signs 3: 69–107. https://cepa.info/368
Second-order thinking, first-class reasoning.
Signs 3: 69–107.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/368
11,000-word review article of Brier, S. (2008) Cybersemiotics: Why Information is Not Enough!, Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press. Focuses on a range of issues in the volume, including von Foerster and constructivism.
Davis C. & Verwey S. (2011) Sociocybernetics and autopoiesis –New laws of organisational form? Communicare 30(2): 1–26. https://cepa.info/3616
Davis C. & Verwey S.
Sociocybernetics and autopoiesis –New laws of organisational form?.
Communicare 30(2): 1–26.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/3616
Contemporary debates in social disciplines are making increasing reference to theoretical concepts such as sociocybernetics and autopoiesis (Bailey, 1983, 1997, 2001; Bopry, 2007, Brier, 2005; Geyer, 1994, 1995, 2003; Glanville, 2004; Goldspink, 2001; Hernes & Bakken, 2003; Krippendorff, 1996; Letiche, 2007; Luhmann, 1996; Mingers, 2002b; Morgan, 1998; Scott, 1996, 2001b, 2003; Smith & Higgins, 2003; Umpleby, 2005; Van der Zouwen, 1997; Von Foerster, 2003; Von Glasersfeld, 1996). It becomes apparent from these debates that certain paradigm shifts are imminent not so much as a result of new knowledge, but rather as a result of new metaphors that present alternative perspectives for interdisciplinary corroboration. Thus far, debates on revisiting cybernetic concepts have largely been conducted in other social sciences disciplines such as sociology, politics and semiology, this despite the challenges a cocreational perspective poses for communication in general and for organisational communication specifically. This paper aims to raise the debate amongst communication scholars, especially since communication scholars are conspicuously absent in the social-scientific debates within other disciplines, and we are in danger of failing to challenge our own intellectual assumptions. As such, this paper discusses and explores the appropriateness and applicability of cybernetics and autopoiesis as contemporary theoretical approaches to the study of organisations as communicatively enacted entities. It attempts to identify some of the intellectual challenges posed by extending the boundaries of our conversations beyond our recognised metaphors and concepts. The purpose of this paper is to initiate dialogue among communication scholars that may resonate with the constructivist epistemology, and which constitutes both cybernetics and postmodernism. We argue that cybernetics in its entirety poses a challenge for the study of organisations from a communication perspective. We argue, as Geyer (1995) has done, that it may be an intellectually challenging exercise to reposition the current modern and postmodern organisational metaphors within a single new emerging metaphor: the schismatic metaphor.
García D. M. (2013) Intelligent horses: A cybersemiotic perspective. ProQuest LLC (Dissertation), Ann Arbor MI USA. https://cepa.info/1065
García D. M.
Intelligent horses: A cybersemiotic perspective.
ProQuest LLC (Dissertation), Ann Arbor MI USA.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/1065
Horses represent a billion dollar industry with an alarming incidence of accidents, mostly resulting from the incorrect use of horse-human communication protocols. This study found significant gaps in research with respect to how horses and humans communicate and learn together. To respond to this gap, this dissertation addresses the topics of communication, learning and cognition in horse-human interactions utilizing the cybersemiotic model developed by Danish philosopher of science Søren Brier. The cybersemiotic model is a transdisciplinary research platform that addresses knowledge creation from an objective and subjective vision of reality. At the center of the model is semiosis, the sign system and spheres of signification through which living beings create meaning and make sense of the world. The methodological tools used in the study include Gregory Bateson’s theories of non-verbal communication and learning, based on the second-order cybernetic science view, as well as Humberto Maturana’s theory of autopoiesis and Evan Thompson’s concept of enactive cognition. The role of the inner life and consciousness in horse–human interaction is analyzed through the phenomenological, pragmaticist philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce and his triadic conception of semiosis. The results of the study show the importance of constructing ethologically relevant communication protocols in equestrian activities, which also has implications in the larger question of ethics in the relationships of humans to non-human others and the ecology of the Earth at large. Relevance: Methodological tools used in the study include the biology of cognition, autopoiesis, second order cybernetics, and non-duality as expressed in the triadic semiosis of C.S. Peirce.
Jones J. (2005) The Cybersemiotic Roots Of Computation: A Critique of the Computational Model of Cognition. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 12(3): 7–29.
The Cybersemiotic Roots Of Computation: A Critique of the Computational Model of Cognition.
Cybernetics & Human Knowing 12(3): 7–29.
This paper challenges the prevalent metaphor of human cognition as a von Neumanntype (1945) computational process. This computational model of cognition is flawed because it fails to recognize the crucial role of an embodied observer’s capacity for semiosis in any computational process. The paper argues against the computational model of cognition on epistemological, theoretical, practical, and ethical grounds. It affirms Brier’s (1996) cybersemiotic framework, which states that semiosis is the organism’s selection of environmental perturbations in the attempt to satisfy its own needs. The paper identifies the primary computational steps involved in the Turing (1936) machine and the von Neumann (1945) architecture, as well as those of three common applications of artificial intelligence. It then argues that each of these computational processes requires one or more of the human capacities for abstraction, purposive control of the physical environment, and judgment. It concludes that fully autonomous, self-adapting computers in some imagined utopian (or dystopian) future would diverge from human evolutionary relevance because they are incapable of semiosis.
Scholte T. (2016) “Black Box” Theatre: Second-Order Cybernetics and Naturalism in Rehearsal and Performance. Constructivist Foundations 11(3): 598–610. https://cepa.info/2889
“Black Box” Theatre: Second-Order Cybernetics and Naturalism in Rehearsal and Performance.
Constructivist Foundations 11(3): 598–610.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/2889
Context: The thoroughly second-order cybernetic underpinnings of naturalist theatre have gone almost entirely unremarked in the literature of both theatre studies and cybernetics itself. As a result, rich opportunities for the two fields to draw mutual benefit and break new ground through both theoretical and empirical investigations of these underpinnings have, thus far, gone untapped. Problem: The field of cybernetics continues to remain academically marginalized for, among other things, its alleged lack of experimental rigor. At the same time, the field of theatre studies finds itself at an impasse between post-structuralist semioticians and embodied cognitivists regarding key onto-epistemological issues. A program of research framing and utilizing naturalist theatre as a second-order cybernetic/cybersemiotic laboratory holds much promise in addressing both matters and lending credence to Ross Ashby’s assertion that “the discovery that two fields are related leads to each branch helping in the development of the other.” Method: After establishing the nature of the onto-epistemological deadlock within theatre studies, this article examines the application of cybernetic heuristics within naturalistic theatre, leading to a second-order cybernetic analysis of its processes of production and reception and the outline of an experimental program for exploring these processes further. Results: Foundations for a model of naturalist theatre as a cybersemiotic laboratory grounded in a novel operationalization of Gordon Pask’s conversation theory. Implications: The proposed laboratory could result in the generation of quantitative and qualitative research pertaining to several dimensions of second-order cybernetics; particularly cybersemiotics, which, as a result, may end up better positioned to help dissolve onto-epistemological deadlocks between constructivists and realists of all stripes across the academy and beyond. Constructivist content: I argue that an analysis of naturalistic theatre’s processes of meaning-making filtered through the constructivist ontological agnosticism of second-order cybernetics offers a productive middle way forward for those on both sides of the social constructivist/embodied cognitive realist divide, within and beyond theatre studies. The article draws upon the works of Gregory Bateson, Søren Brier, Ranulph Glanville, Heinz von Foerster, and Niklas Luhmann.
Sriskandarajah N. & Brier S. (2000) Reflective practice in learning and research. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 7(4): 3–4.
Sriskandarajah N. & Brier S.
Reflective practice in learning and research.
Cybernetics & Human Knowing 7(4): 3–4.
The idea of editing a special issue of the journal with contributions from Hawkesbury arose in conversations between Sriskandarajah and Soren Brier at the beginning of this year, following the move by the former to the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL) in Denmark. He had been with the Agriculture and Rural Development academic group at University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury in Australia for fourteen years. We were both new appointees to KVL’s Section for Learning and Interdisciplinary Methods, a small group of faculty dedicated to offering courses in problem-oriented project-based learning and preparing undergraduates for such a pedagogic approach.
Export result page as: