Norbert Wiener - Wiener Today (1981)

Analyses the thoughts of Norbert Wiener, 20th century American mathematician, whose work in systems development made possible great strides in the fields of cybernetics, electronics, and computers.

[@CraigTalbert]

This is the greatest thing ever on youtube. I decided this at 23:00, give or take.

[@nonsojohns2822]

This feels like;- learning from mistakes. Really great video.

[@VikrantSingh-se2zb]

Great documentary elaborating the key concepts of greatest thinker on cybernetics.

[@dramatispersona9304]

Thanks for this video. ❤️

[@svharken6907]

Norbert Wiener was such a quirk... the actor here is acting way to "normal'. but Loved this so much. thanks.

[@copypaste3526]

I struck Gold here. Thanks, Biophily2.

[@bhuvaneshwarjoshi3683]

Facinatimg to see DeBono interacting with Weiner and explaining abstract concepts through short novie clips of human interactions. I foresee the days when De Bono or Beers Avatar would be interacting with Chatgpt n to design superior thinking/problem solving systems.

[@cueva_mc]

Love the blade runner vibes

[@markspqr]

Edward DeBono ... Mechanism of Mind is one of the greatest books of the 20th Century

[@adlikafli8607]

Norbert Wiener (1894-1964)

[@Gorboduc]

If you listen to Dr Weiner's other speeches on this channel, he pronounces cybernetics in the usual way, and his own name with a W not a V. Odd they should get that wrong. 🤔

[@danielkaiser5182]

This is incredible.

[@jesusbetancur5029]

Great video, I want to know more about norbert wiener's work

[@calsavestheworld]

I love this.

[@karenbaker5954]

Great video

[@schrodingerscat3912]

why is Norbert Wiener beamed in like he's Zordon, they couldn't just grab a chair and interview him normally?

[@mindmesh7566]

That’s a fake Weiner then?

[@itstoogooditswaytoogood3211]

cos he been dead 20 years before that interview. ostensibly that was a ghost, and they didnt realize it

[@Enigma758]

This was filmed in 1981, he died in 1964.

[@Andrew-rc3vh]

It's because he is an eternal champion (See Moorcock) and therefore not a normal bloke.

[@ciscogirl6914]

hahahahahah

[@1330m]

korea Huh kyung young Real genius The king of cybernetics

[@jewelcitizen2567]

Ah a commentary upon the family as a ‘stable social system’. Clearly an _’abstraction’_ by today’s standards or lack thereof...

[@Welcometotheparadigmshift]

Would you be interested in discussing an embodied anatomy approach to Consilience? I teach about a functional form of biomechanical cybernetics. An Embodied Anatomy Approach to Consilience: Biomechanical Cybernetics.

[@alexcarter8807]

OK from the outset this guy really messed up, not using a circuit I call the "Scope Degoojerizer" you just build the X-Y circuit in the Tektronix handout, "The X-Y-Z's Of Using A Scope" and put a capacitor between channels, put the stereo outputs of your radio on the leads, and you get the coolest neato display.

[@illumencouk]

War of the World's - Think about the Martians firing upon the distant Earth and the computational skill necessary to attempt such an action. It's right up there with the ack-ack gun shooting down the plane. These are telling the same thing.

[@GiorgiAkhalaia]

Does anybody know the musics name in the end?

[@shieldsister5493]

bruno spoerri which album i cannot say ...

[@ElochukwuClarenceAkagu]

Teslas are acting out the next step in control systems feedback and automation

[@trombone7]

Doubt the validity of cybernetics? 19:20 Let's watch this family emotionally dissect insecurities of the son. Then you will be less dumb than before. - bzzt. End transmission -

[@benjaminshiels1824]

Bad analogy at th end. He forgot to mention th driver being sacked n starving to death while th farm owning company rakes in th profits thanks to good ol' cybernetics. Smh

[@BaronVonTacocat]

12:38 this is cybernetics: dispassionately torturing animals by submerging their paws in antifreeze smh

[@mindmesh7566]

Feedback……Feedforth?

[@shoopinc]

Push forward, it's a thing in differential geometry. And there is such a thing as differential geometric control theory.

[@Neavris]

What a weird documentary. Whoever made it didn't understand he/she needed someone to tell him/her when to stop using idiotic social metaphors. The irony isn't lost on anyone that one of the major reason why cybernetics fell into desuetude is because of the amount of quackery that came out of the social sciences trying to use it.

[@bon12121]

We're talking about systems, so generally the analysis applies well, specifically analysis breaks down when subjects cannot be adequately defined, as in social science settings (or perhaps it is compounded complexity). This specific point reminds me of Pirsig's discussion of definable/undefinable concepts.

[@arbmarcus]

please elaborate. Do you believe Cybernetics ceased to be useful, due to its application in the social sciences, or because the lack of scientific realibility in social sciences ,did not manage to integrate Cybernetics and therefore the principles are now smeared?

[@arbmarcus]

@@CarthodonHaving a degree in natural science as well as social sciences, I dont necessarily see the borders that shut between the two. Controlling systems is what its about. A group of people is a system. Experiments on control and governance mechanisms could be done equally well with organizations and people, as with AI and machine learning, if it wasnt for the ethical part of it. I tend to favor mechanical systems myself, but dont let the lack of predictability of human systems, leed to the conclution that governing science around the subject isnt relevant or interesting or just pseudo science. If you do, you will miss out on what I believe to be the bigger picture, that everyone and everything is governed or aiming for something with a purpose, much like mechanical systems.

[@arbmarcus]

@@Carthodon but I do. I believe the world is insane or at least on the wrong path. Straying from good academical practise, deduction, rigorous math and statistics etc. In favor of feeling, dreaming and fantasy, which in their own rights are perfectly viable and important criteria, but they shouldn't govern scientific practise ever. But I don't dismiss all social sciences or humanistic studies because they lack mathematical practises. In fact psychology some places has pretty advanced math requirements. Philosophy would be a good example of a field that still holds interesting value and good theories but having problem areas that are not quantifiable (yet). Deduction,, critical thinking, logic. 3000 year old questions still unanswered. Reasoning an open mind, thinking out of the box, but following logical steps and frameworks. that is all important, and it is missing in a lot of Modern studies which are too heavy on confirmation bias and too politically driven.. Not alot of truth seeking left. But I feel we are straying from cybernetics now. Intelligent systems, self adjusting and learning systems. Human or artificial psychology. Why not just approach mankind as a highly sophisticated mechanical learning system capable of acting and reacting to surroundings, with a large amount of random variables thrown in the programming? An ideal blueprint for artificial intelligence systems? For what it's worth I think ethics (which I consider a philosophical discipline) is more profoundly present in AI.and technology than people have started to even realise.. Self driven cars and evasive maneuver priorities etc. Detection algorithms favouring certain gender and skin colour etc If you remember the Stanford experiment I think it shows well how things can go wrong, without ethics applied to science. For what it's worth I would also like to see more mathematical or strong studies around people. The closest I have come is building virtual environments and VR for testing human behaviour e.g. developing new metrics for measuring collaborative quality of tasks etc. But basically what I get from reading your posts is, if something can't be expressed, measured or build upon a mathematical system, it doesn't have the same inherited quality or standard as if math is involved. You propose a hierarchy like ancient philosophers, having math in top. At least in science. Correct?

[@arbmarcus]

@@CarthodonI agree humans and perhaps apes and maybe all living things are pattern seeker's. Where technical artifacts tend to be target seekers. Organic matter seeks pleasure or avoids pain. And it might be an evolutionary trait needed to survive. From a cybernetic perspective, we can fortunately challenge that pesky pattern seeking desire. And exchange for a more strict skepticism in how we store information in our own "memory banks" and the need to be presented with evidence in our "filters". Just as well as we can turn into radical skepticists where not even specialists or authorities.and well presented data on a matter are trusted (covid19 situation comes to mind here) I have an engineering based background and one in management (of it and tech people) and tend to agree on producing tangible objects or products is better than a pseudo scientific line of thinking that can never be verified etc. It dosenst matter if it's software in a company or a model in an academic setting. Even a governance model or strategy.in a consulting firm, could apply as an object if it passed muster, and could be empirically verified time and time again, using hard science like controlled experiments and statistical data. I don't like people talking alot without producing or building a testable problem case at least. To verify or debunk. People should be more Like myth busters. Buy I still believe, that even though a thought experiment can't be conducted due to eg. Control/experimental variables, sampling technique problems, ethical barriers, it can be interesting. I'm a creative builder like that. Disney would call it Imagineering. A sweet spot between dreaming up and building things. But I know also examples of so called scientists lost in their own circular (lack of) reasoning, especially in management and systems theories, where a lot of bullshit and a questionable model has been written, without any form of tangible data to back it up. Or at least heavily scewed empirical data to back a model up, with no criticism. Management of paradoxes for instance. But Still, take a social element like psychological decision power. Who controls/steers an organisation of agents? (back to cybernetics here on steering). Lots of interesting theories on this, but yet so difficult to quantify, count or measure. who has power in a situation and when it shifts? what variables introduces the shifts? - or even is it outside the realm of the people,or are more elements of power are in place at same time? Human power in social settings to me is like a current, or similar form of electronic energy, we just haven't figured out how to measure or make it tangible yet. I tend to think psychological power one individual has over others might be quantified or to a degree demonstrated with sensors, cameras etc. Mixed methods and data. But ultimately it would likely come down to primitive human mechanisms that were always there, even though we havent had any language for it, other than the body language ever present. As such we enter biology, which after all is also within the realm of natural sciences if I'm not mistaken. I fully believe that the need to quantify, measure or seek the tangible explanation, is certainly the safe approach to a lot of knowledge and to build upon knowledge in most scenarios. But it also runs the risk of becoming blind to a wider area of insight. Behaviorism in psychology would be an example. The era where noone believed anything could/should be said about anything on humans unless quantified observable human behaviours were present in experients. But most people today would find that radically skeptical as most can agree that cognitive processes, thinking, feeling, experiences that are inheritly personal, like a personal experience of a dream, takes place even without anyone's ability to measure it. And as such a radical skepticist would say that this doesn't matter. Or it's unscientific. But, technology catches up and soon is able to read brainwaves and translate them to thoughts. Where do we put that then? And this is where science might be stuck. A large focus on the inner qualities of the observer. No tangible objects produced during reasoning. No laws or hard science principles being used in some areas of academia. Only cherry picking in some cases anecdotes to strengthen a personal hypothesis, as opposed to examine how it can be disproved. As such my conclusion on our debate, would be that you (we) share an issue with the academical approach or (lack of) to cybernetics, and how it's been bend and misused in pseudo scientific "journalism" of today I find cybernetics to be underrated, and almost like a foundational belief system to me that has potential to close several gaps in the future. I haven't researched enough, but I see it as a good foundation for developing new theories within artificial systems to mimic for instance human biology. Here cybernetics might be a yet unfinished approach to understand similarities in both the electronic/silicon based digital realm and the biological/carbon based organical world. That thought intrigues me and makes me want to push on exploring it.

[@michaelcollins7738]

Cheese

[@bon12121]

This is weird.

[@lastman7409]

Welcome to the 80s.

[@toddmaek5436]

A 7:26 the guy is a simp

[@jennetal.984]

That theme music is making me pregnant and I dont even have the ability because im trans

[@Dayglodaydreams]

This skit is so weird. Who has this kind of conversation? Who?! That boy is so nerdy.

[@lastman7409]

the skit was the best part. everything else was a little not good...

[@robertplatt913]

This film is preternaturally awful.