We must, therefore, make a study of mechanism; but some introduction is advisable, for cybernetics treats the subject from a new, and therefore unusual, ...

This study demonstrates the combinations of multiple causal factors that formulate a startup’s strategy to successfully “exit”, namely “recipes for a successful exit,” in the clean- and hard-tech sector. We identify seven key causal factors (i.e., causal conditions) that impact startup success, including commercial readiness, investor interactions, favorable industry, non-financial support, straightforward development path, experienced team, and visibility to investors. We also investigate the combinations of selective causal conditions that can provide further synergetic impact. We conduct the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative (...) analysis (fsQCA) on seven U.S. clean- and hard-tech startups that exited between 2005 and 2016. The successful companies all demonstrate distinctive characteristics based on three general categories (1) robust ecosystem; (2) heavy-lifting team; or (3) external opportunity. Across these three categories, commercial readiness and strong investor interactions are necessary conditions for all exit cases. But there are important differences that drive success in each category, such as the interaction with non-financial support (in the robust ecosystem case), experienced team (in the heavy-lifting team case), and favorable industry (in the external opportunity case). Our findings are meant to support entrepreneurs in reaching an exit by optimizing the given internal and external circumstances, and policymakers to build a robust ecosystem that can increase the success rate of the clean- and hard-tech development. (shrink)

Given the personal acquaintance between Alan M. Turing and W. Ross Ashby and the partial proximity of their research fields, a comparative view of Turing’s and Ashby’s work on modelling “the action of the brain” (letter from Turing to Ashby, 1946) will help to shed light on the seemingly strict symbolic/embodied dichotomy: While it is clear that Turing was committed to formal, computational and Ashby to material, analogue methods of modelling, there is no straightforward mapping of (...) these approaches onto symbol-based AI and embodiment-centered views respectively. Instead, it will be demonstrated that both approaches, starting from a formal core, were at least partly concerned with biological and embodied phenomena, albeit in revealingly distinct ways. (shrink)

This paper concerns the Black Box. It is not the engineer’s black box that can be opened to reveal its mechanism, but rather one whose operations are inferred through input from (and output to) a companion observer. We are observers ourselves, and we attempt to understand minds through interactions with their host organisms. To this end, Ranulph Glanville followed W. Ross Ashby in elaborating the Black Box. The Black Box and its observer together form a system having different properties (...) than either component alone, making it a greater Black Box to any further-external observer. How far into this greater box can a further-external observer probe? The answer is crucial to understanding Black Boxes, and so an answer is offered here. It employs von Foerster’s machines, abstract entities having mechano-electrical bases, just like putative Black Boxes. Von Foerster follows Turing, Ashby, E. F. Moore, and G. H. Mealy in recognizing archetype machines that he calls trivial (predictable) and non-trivial (non-predictable). It is argued here that non-trivial machines are the only true Black Boxes. But non-trivial machines can be concatenated from trivial machines. Hence, the utter core of any greater Black Box (a non-trivial machine) may involve two (or more) White Boxes (trivial machines). This is how an unpredictable thing emerges from predictable parts. Interactions of White Boxes—of trivial machines—may be the ultimate source of the mind. Keywords: . (shrink)

Systems theory offers a language in which one might formulate a metaphysics (or more specifically an ontology) of problems. This proposal is based upon a conception of systems theory shared by vonBertalanffy, Wiener, Boulding, Rapoport, Ashby, Klir, and others,and expressed succinctly by Bunge, who considered game theory, information theory, feedback control theory, and the like to be attempts to construct an "exact and scientific metaphysics." Our prevailing conceptions of "problems" are concretized yet also fragmented, and in fact dissolved, by (...) the standard reductionist model of science, which cannot provide a general framework for analysis. The idea of a "systems theory," however, suggests the possibility of an abstract and coherent account of the origin and essence of problems. Such an account would constitute a secular theodicy. (shrink)

‘Complexics’ denotes the meta-transdisciplinary field specifically concerned with giving us suitable cognitive tools to understand the world’s complexity. Additionally, the use of the adjective ‘complexical’ would avoid the common confusion caused by the adjective ‘complex’, which belongs to everyday usage and already has its own connotations of complication and confusion. Thus, ‘complexical’ thinking and ‘complexical’ perspective would provide clearer terms, be freer of confusion, and refer more precisely to epistemic elements in contrast to the ‘complexity’ typical of many phenomena of (...) reality. In short, the world would be ‘complex’, but our way of looking at the world would be ‘complexical’. As a meta-transdiscipline, ‘complexics’ would carry on the perspective of cybernetics: “Cybernetics deals with all forms of behaviour insofar as they are regular, or determinate, or reproducible. The materiality is irrelevant… The truths of cybernetics are not conditional on their being derived from some other branch of science. Cybernetics has its own foundations” (Ashby, 1956:1). Thus, it has a distinctly transdisciplinary mission to provide concepts, schema and possibilities of thinking and representation able to express the multidimensional and systemic interwovenness and interdependence of the many, highly significant phenomena of reality that have these characteristics. On the level of theory, complexics needs to provide a set of principles, concepts and conceptual landscapes that can be applied transversally to distinct areas of knowledge and phenomena of reality, enabling us to gain a much firmer grasp of the complex aspects of their existence than we currently have. For this reason, our aim needs to be, as Morin says, not “to reduce complexity to simplicity, [but] to translate complexity into theory” (1994:315). (shrink)

Im Beitrag wird die Apple-Watch vor dem Hintergrund ihrer „Ästhetik der Existenz“ als biopolitisches Artefakt und kontrollgesellschaftliches Dispositiv, vor allem aber als kybernetische Black Box aufgefasst und analysiert. Ziel des Aufsatzes ist es, aufzuzeigen, dass sich in dem feedbacklogischen Rückkopplungsapparat nicht nur grundlegende Diskurse des digitalen Zeitalters (Prävention, Gesundheit, bio- und psychopolitische Regulierungsformen etc.) verdichten, sondern dass dieser schon ob seiner inhärenten Logik qua Opazität Transparenz, qua Komplexität Simplizität (d.h. Orientierung) generiert und damit nicht zuletzt ein ganz spezifisches Menschenbild forciert. (...) In methodischer Hinsicht sollen zur Aufschlüsselung der für die digitale Gesellschaft repräsentativen Black Box „Apple-Watch“ wirksame Begriffskonstellationen der Kybernetik – d.h. Feedback, Regulierung, Selbstkontrolle und nicht zuletzt das Prinzip des „schwarzen Kastens“ selbst (Wiener/ Ashby), in dem sich schon die Funktion des Apparats als (Selbst-)Regulierungstool zwischen In- und Outputs reflektiert – in den Blick genommen und mit behavioristischen Konzepten (besonders solche der Gegenwart, d.h. nudging-Konzepte etc.) kontextualisiert werden. Auf dieser Grundlage lässt sich schließlich, so die These, nicht nur ein Subjektivierungsmodell ableiten, sondern auch eine (durchaus realpolitisch wirksame) Regierungskunst („kybernetische Gouvernementalität“) dekodieren. In diesem Zusammenhang ist schließlich die These zu plausibilisieren, dass das zeitgenössische „Sicherheitsregime“ des ‚new dark age‘ (Bridle) respektive der ‚Black-Box-Society‘ (Pasquale) sich nicht auf „die Unterdrückung von Subjektivität [bezieht], sondern vor allem auf ihre ‚(Selbst)-Produktion‘, […] auf die […] Förderung von Selbsttechnologien, die an Regierungsziele gekoppelt werden können.“ (Lemke) Entsprechend fragt der Aufsatz, welche – auch politischen – Auswirkungen die exzessive Verbreitung dieser und ähnlicher „smart devices“ zeitigt: Denn nicht zuletzt lässt sich, mediiert über derartige datengenerierende schwarze Kästen, eine Form der Regierung und des Regierbar-Machens erkennen, die weniger explizit-imperativisch auf Subjekte als vielmehr implizit-suggestiv auf Datenpunkte und -profile einwirkt. (shrink)

This Open Peer Commentary on “A Critical Cybernetics” by Klaus Krippendorff outlines that enacting alternative not-yet existing realities goes beyond discourse and can be considered design practice. A Critical Cybernetics for enacting alternative not-yet existing realities, such as Krippendorff proposed, would benefit from associating itself with the expertise in the technicity of society that has been central to cybernetics since its inception.