Truth and Trust: Maturana and Von Foerster

[@Rigpasword]

Wow. I am so humbled to be able to watch-listen to these two giants discuss science, philosophy, perception, and reflection. I was fortunate to meet Von Foerster in the late 1980s when he got me started on a research project on systems science education (now outdated, "Education in the Systems Sciences: An Annotated Guide to Education and Research Opportunities in the Sciences of Complexity"). For greater depth on Maturana's views shared here, read his "From Being to Doing" - a fascinating extended interview with him on his views of being a scientist and an observer. I came here because I had not heard that Mr. Maturana had passed. Sadly, I can find few obits of him. RIP dear Humberto, May 6, 2021.

[@siberianTiger639]

Listening to people like this is a cure for my soul.

[@melodiasalvaje]

Rest in Peace Maturana 06-05-2021

[@emersonsebastianmadridlorc7780]

Very interesting!!. I was glad to talk with Maturana a few years ago. Thank you to share this conversation. Best regards from Chile (at jun.2019)

[@rogerharnden]

I understand that this is from1998 and was produced by Pille. It is indeed wonderful - though it is towards the end of Heinz's life, both content and tone are so human and also provocative - even today

[@raresmircea]

Very interesting discussion, also having a very nice feeling to it given by the tone of the two gentlemen.

[@BettinaAscaino]

The subtitles in English are so bad. Don't trust them :)

[@zatoichiable]

They are not arrogant like Richard Dawkins.

[@siberianTiger639]

Dawkins is a comedian.

[@thesuikerlounge]

cybernetical thinking works with the central concept of self-reference and (self-referential) systems. however, self-reference as it appears in organisms and especially in cns cannot be handled by traditional natrual science: 1. feedback-systems in computers are NOT self-referntial in the sense of the cns (human brain-activity). 2. Traditional logics cannot deal with self-reference since it leads to paradoxical situations that simply appear as errors. that's why science went another way.

[@1flyndoc]

So tis requires an development in how we view the informational value of the error term in the equations used to model natural phenomena. It requires an evolution in the methods, not a relinquishing of constructs. And I could not agree more, computers are, so far, entirely allopoyetic systems.

[@megavide0]

19:00 "What interferes with our finding the rules of nature in themselves..?"

[@Oscarman746]

Our ways of perceiving

[@the_grand_blooms]

Why isn't Cybernetics a more common science? It seems like its implications are very important, but I haven't stumbled on a reasonable counterargument that would explain such a small following.

[@naregkarekinian1685]

Read the Viable Systems model.

[@anjankatta1864]

I'm interested in the same question, why isn't it more popular? Why aren't there good counterarguments or rebbutals for its main postulstes?

[@MrOvipare]

Many concepts of cybernetics have been integrated in modern science, so perhaps cybernetics is not as dead as we might think. In terms of actual academic activity, it's probably a systemic thing about faculties of engineering vs science vs mathematics vs philosphy. Cybernetics is kind of at the crossroads of those other "big attractors". Personally I feel there is something inspiring in cybernetics that is fundamental and a bit transcending and even a bit artistic. It feels like our world needs cybernetics.

[@Rigpasword]

Like MrOvipare said here, much of what was cybernetics got absorbed-integrated into multiple disciplines, so much so that they're hardly recognizable anymore. The fundamental idea of circular causality, feedback loops, which is so common as to be unnoticeable, was originally developed by cyberneticians in the 1940/50s. Another factor that contributed to the sidelining of cybernetics as its own science was the rise of computers and computing power which led to nonlinear analysis which led to things like chaos theory, nonlinear dynamics, cellular automata, neural networks, and eventually complexity theory. These sciences grew up in the 1980s along with the proliferation of computing power (read Pagels' "The Dreams of Reason") and cybernetics, along with its twin General Systems Theory, both became eclipsed by these new sciences and cultural changes brought about by the digital revolution. Another volume that tracks this history is Howard Gardner's "The Mind's New Science," although it was published just before the 1980s sciences of complexity appeared.

[@tristanwheeler2300]

Is this meant as an affirmation or discouragement of cybernetics? ​@@naregkarekinian1685

[@kikiperry4924]

I agree with Blake Meekan, Cybernetics needs to be part of our foundation of science, along with statistics for maths.

[@theodorosgalanos9663]

that is wrong in a couple of levels :)

[@kikiperry4924]

Explain Mr Galanos

[@theodorosgalanos9663]

Statistics is not a foundational part of mathematics. The two theories, that form the foundations of mathematics, is set theory and category theory. As for foundation of Science, well I don't claim to know what exactly that is, but I am willing to bet that a specific science cannot be the foundation of science itself. It is a totalizing gesture that would bring catastrophic results. But that's just me.

[@theodorosgalanos9663]

If we talk about cybernetics, in the sense of self-referrential systems, then I can understand it being critical to science as the theory of self reference of science to itself. But that, apart from being a very old intuition (already Hegel talks about self reference on this level) it is also a strategy in my eyes, so a way to establish and re-produce the foundations of science.

[@kikiperry4924]

Goedel's theorem of incompleteness (no system can recognise its limitations) with its corollary of completeness (we can recognise a system via its congruity with itself) leads to the need for feedback from surroundings. The paradigm through which we filter the feedback is under discussion. I think that is why we need other people to dialogue with. Only systems from outside a particular system can constructively critique the system. A dialogue with a fellow human can help the individual assess the appropriateness of a reaction or belief.

[@jajajavipipipi]

they seem to be very good friEnds

[@segismiray.1319]

And they are way more interesting.

[@nicolareddwooddforest4481]

I hope the AGIs are developed soon. When the artificial intelligence is able to reflect on itself then they are persons and fully independent. With extreme intelligence comes high ethics.

[@thesuikerlounge]

sadly.