Third-order Cybernetics Research Articles

Актуальные социогуманитарные проблемы укрепления субъектности России

In the context of the growing conflict with the “collective West”, it is necessary to create adequate mechanisms for governing the country, focused on consolidating the state, soci­ety and business, on strengthening its subjectness to ensure life and development. Philo­sophical foundations are proposed to justify the increase in the role of subjectness and the basic characteristics of subjectness are considered. The analysis of the current state of Russia’s subjectness allows us to conclude that it has a poorly organized subjectness, which has been formed over the past thirty years of the cult of money and admiration for the “collective West”. The centuries-old history of Russia gives grounds for the asser­tion that it has a civilizational code that saves it in situations that threaten the loss of sovereignty. Conventionally, this code can be called the code of “mobilization subject­ness”. The topical socio-humanitarian problems of strengthening the subjectness of Russia are considered, among which an important place is occupied by the problem of improving the mechanisms of public participation at all levels from local to federal. The expediency of forming a new direction in ensuring the security of social systems – “subjectness secu­rity” is substantiated. The basic philosophical and methodological foundations of this work are related to post-non-classical scientific rationality and post-non-classical cybernetics of self-developing poly-subject (reflexive-active) environments – third-order cybernetics. In the context of the problem of subjectness, this approach allows, when assembling sub­jects, to rely on the harmony of hierarchies, networks and environments, creating condi­tions for their convergence, and not opposition. The basis for these processes is a system of ontologies of self-developing poly-subject (reflexive-active) environments, which al­lows overcoming the limitations of the network approach (non-classical scientific rational­ity) and proceeding to the formation of an integral macrosubject.

Different approaches to system science

The goal of the paper is to present a new definition of a holistic approach to the description of complex systems including features such as emergent behavior, exaptation, contingency, self-organization, etc. The presented approach is based on concepts such as singularity (internal behavior of a partial system component without any links), duality (analyses of links between pairs of system components) and a plurality (links between clusters of system components). Energetics is presented as a new science (third-order cybernetics) using the results of the theory of complex systems connected with the algorithms of artificial intelligence so that a better coexistence between humans and machines occurs.

Problems with Abstract Observers and Advantages of a Model-Centric Cybernetics Paradigm

Since 1974, when Heinz von Foerster made the distinction between “the cybernetics of observed systems” as first-order cybernetics (1oC) and “the cybernetics of observing systems” as second-order cybernetics (2oC), cybernetics has been dominated by this observer-centric paradigm that he claimed cannot be extended meaningfully to a third order. Rather than attempting to extend his paradigm, we derive an alternative, model-centric cybernetics paradigm from the first principles of regulation, which naturally extends to three orders, where the third order is ethical regulation. We thus consider a type of regulator that requires a third model and a third observer: if the third model is a model of acceptable (ethical) situations, then a third observer is a necessary element of the system’s “conscience” that prevents any violations of the model of ethical situations. In this paradigm, the cybernetics of systems that are designed to exhibit ethical behaviour can be characterized as third-order cybernetics (3oC). By being able to extend the paradigm to include ethical systems, the model-centric paradigm brings clarity and utility that is not possible using the observer-centric paradigm and its under-specified (abstract) observers. Finally, new definitions for cybernetics are proposed that clearly differentiate between the science of cybernetics and the philosophy of cybernetics.

Что такое интеллект? Назревающий философский вопрос, стоящий за искусственным интеллектом

The Looming Problem Behind Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Natural Science is buried deep in how Occidental or Western Civilization has chosen to define its pe­culiar ideas of Truth (Epistemology) & Ontology (Metaphysics of us / universe). This paper identify how this Scientific Materialism and its physics paradigm has become inadequate and destructive to support living systems. AI is based on the ideas of first-order cybernetics, sufficient in creating “smart thinking appli­ances”. Second- and third-order cybernetics, requiring intelligence beyond a given context or mission driven task, has given corporate and military users overpower­ing asymmetric power over Natural & Collective Systems. Philosophy can regain its position as Queen of the Sciences if Cybernetic thinking and philosophical in­quiry expands concepts and methods advancing “intelligence” beyond command-and-control consciousness and the limits of Natural Science. A Natural Philo­sophy about the organization of whole systems would expand the tool chest of thinking beyond its analytic, reductive methodology. Moving from the domain of “Things” to whole, living Cybernetically formed systems crosses the boundary of complexity. This complexity of interlocking relationships, identity, and ways of processing information, not present in today’s guiding Information Technology theory and practice, calls into question the paradigm of Natural Science and its developmental “womb” for artificial intelligence.

Начала кибернетики второго порядка

The article discusses the emergence of second-order cybernetics based on work in experimental epistemology and the study of the nervous system, as well as the emergence of a new understanding of the cognitive process. Studies have shown that it is necessary to include a scientist-observer in the descrip­tion of a system, since his or her specific characteristics and subjective world­view can influence the result of observation. The authors give examples of neurophysiological experiments that served as the basis for the conclusion that knowledge is a biological phenomenon, that each individual constructs his own “reality”, which is consistent with the world of sensory experience, but is not identical to it. There are two ways of understanding cybernetics of higher orders. The first approach emphasizes that higher orders of cybernetics can be based on the introduction of additional dimensions (for example, second-order cybernetics relies on neurophysiology, third-order cybernetics takes into ac­count data from sociology and political science, fourth-order cybernetics uses data related to the environment and social responsibility). The second ap­proach is based on the opinion that there is no need for cybernetics of higher orders beyond second order cybernetics, since the observer himself can deter­mine any system of interest to him (for example, a group within an organiza­tion, a society or the environment) and create any number of additional de­scriptions (H. von Förster). The authors of the article come to the conclusion that second-order cybernetics offers a higher conceptual level, drawing atten­tion to the scientist (observer). Second order cybernetics leads to second order science. It points to a suitable epistemology for an information society. The in­clusion of the scientist (observer) in observations changes the epistemological foundation of science.

Онтологическая кибернетика как интегратор организационных систем в средах гибридной реальности

Our purpose in this paper is to clarify ontological approaches to the development of cybernetics based on epistemological and methodological propositions grounded in the concepts of scientific classical, non-classical, post-non-classical rationality – as proposed by V.S. Stepin (2005). We need to increase our under­standing of the subject-oriented approach to the analysis of cybernetic interac­tions: “subject – object” in first-order cybernetics, “subject – subject” in second-order cybernetics and “subject – metasubject” in the cybernetics of self-develop­ing reflexive-active environments, third-order cybernetics. The ideas of three or­ders of cybernetics, first, second and third have the potential of integrating a strong ontological approach to the social sciences. For this integration we pro­pose Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM), Espejo’s Viplan Methodology and Lepskiy’s self-developing reflexive-active environments. This ontological cyber­netics corresponds to the development of the philosophical and methodological foundations of cybernetics and systems towards subject-oriented approaches, grounded on Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety. We expect them to contribute to achieving adequate responses to the challenges of the 21st century at all struc­tural levels. They should be focused on adequate performance to achieve desir­able outcomes for sustainability and viability on the grounds of socio-humanitar­ian innovative criteria, using today’s digital technologies, converging with the increasingly powerful ontologies of artificial intelligence. We are offering on­tologies for organizing hybrid reality environments. Our aim through this paper is creating new ontologies adequate to the effective use of digital technologies and artificial intelligence to improve the control and communication mechanisms of social systems.

Богданов, прагматизм и будущее системного мышления и кибернетики

The paper considers general system theory, cybernetics, and other systems ap­proaches and argues that later systems thinking and cybernetics (systems/cyber­netics) can be seen as a part of the same tradition of thought. There is a prima facie case, therefore, the philosophy of Bogdanov and the Pragmatists can bring unity to the systems movement. Further, it can equip systems thinkers to participate more fully in the major intellectual debates of today. The paper shows the reso­nance of Bogdanov’s ideas with the basic philosophical foundations for the forma­tion and development of systems thinking and cybernetics. Wiener, usually seen as representative of first-order cybernetics, reaffirmed the importance of Bogdanov’s concept of the biregulator. In terms of second-order cybernetics, there is a similar­ity between Bogdanov’s thinking and “constructivism”. Bogdanov’s work is also associated with the concepts of autopoiesis and self-organization. Lepskiy’s pro­posed paradigm of third-order cybernetics, with its emphasis on social values in a self-developing environment, is in tune with the writings of Bogdanov and Dewey. Bogdanov, in his Tectology aimed to demonstrate how the most compli­cated organizational questions faced by humankind could be answered. The paper concludes that the self-conscious embrace of that philosophical tradition, together with its own methodologies and models, can help of the cybernetic movement turn the vague aspirations into the reality of a better future on Earth.

To the question of modernity and corresponding representations of subjectivity: “dividual” and social organizations

This article is part of the extensive research of value characteristics of IT community and their potential for innovative development. In view of this, the author examines the problem of determination of the modern cultural situation and, as a result, deduction of the criterion that establishes what “modern” is. Based on the previously acquired conclusions (according to which, such criterion is the consideration of irreducible multiplicity, and the major risk is the loss of autonomy by individuals), the author aims to find the model of subjectivity that would be simultaneously multiple and autonomous. The search for the model that meets such criterion is carried out through referring to the control technologies developed within the framework of third-order cybernetics. The novelty of this article consists in peculiarity of the approach towards solution of the set task: the question in the form and method of determination of modernity has been first raised and  solved within the framework of the Russian academic philosophical community at  the previous stage of research, which determines the relevance at the current stage as well. Comparison of the developments of Russian and foreign authors reveals the parallelism between the development of cybernetics and psychoanalysis; demonstrates the conceptual intersections of the third-order cybernetics and schizoanalysis; establishes the conformity between the subjectivity of the individual and the type of organizations they are engaged in. The article offers the concept of “dividual” as a model suitable for solution of the set task. The conclusions is made that the existing potential of the IT community for modernization is neutralized in the context of transition towards the hierarchical structure of the organization.

Философско-методологические основания постнеклассической кибернетики третьего порядка

The article presents a philosophical and methodological analysis of the evolu­tion of paradigms of cybernetics of the first, second and third-order. We used N. Bohr’s principle of correspondence, established in physical science, the ideas of scientific revolutions by T.S. Kuhn, J. Holton’s ideas about the use in new paradigms of cross-cutting thematic structures as peculiar trajectories of the historical development of science, as well as M. Polanyi’s ideas about the influence of personal knowledge of creators on the content of new scien­tific paradigms. An analysis of three examples proposed by third-order cyber­netics allowed us to conclude that they set particular directions of develop­ment, but cannot claim to be a qualitatively new step in the development of cybernetics, the transition to third-order cybernetics, which would include both private paradigms of first and second-order cybernetics. For the philo­sophical and methodological basis for the formation of new paradigms of cy­bernetics, we propose a construction of three types of scientific rationality (V.S. Stepin), which meets the requirements of the N. Bohr’s principle of cor­respondence and the criteria of T.S. Kuhn. From these positions, the article substantiates the correctness of the formation of post-non-classical cyber­netics of self-developing poly-subjective (reflexive-active) environments in which there are three stages of development of subjective paradigms, basic philosophical approaches, objects of control, control mechanisms, types of observers, activity and subjectness approaches, basic types of reflexion, ethi­cal regulators, ideas about information and knowledge, subjects and pseudo-subjectness of digital transformation and artificial intelligence, disciplinary scientific approaches. The presented logic of development gives arguments that post-non-classical cybernetics has grounds to be cybernetics of the third order.

Five Points Towards an Architecture In-Formation

While there have been significant discussions about the relevance of cybernetics within architectural and urban studies, the focus has mainly been on computing and digital practices. Since its emergence in the post-war period, cybernetics – in both its first and second-order versions – has introduced to architectural discourse systematic design methods and practices, while also tackling issues of reflexivity and complex problems. In this introduction, we examine the relation between cybernetics and architecture by focusing on a problem they both share. To this end, we approach cybernetics as the study of the production, consumption and flow of information, an account that has little to do with digital logics, unless one wants to pursue that special case. Therefore, cyberneticisation can set the foundations for a relational account that examines how signs are communicated and how meaning is produced and experienced within systems. This third-order cybernetics extends beyond the original scope of living organisms and their environments in order to include ecologies of ideas, power, institutions, media and so on. In this sense, cyberneticisation is radically environmental, positing the primacy of relations over fixed terms, binary oppositions and linear logics, making it high time for architectural and urban studies to take into consideration its ground-breaking potentials. By introducing five short points on the relation between architecture and cybernetics, we aim to assist in this endeavour.

Agency, ecosystems and sustainable development. Part 1: the ecosystem

PurposeThis two-part paper is concerned with the creation of a generalised cybernetic agency-based ecosystem. The purpose of the first part is to explore the basis for the creation of an agentic ecology theory to provide a generalised multidisciplinary context-free manifold that can be applied to specific domains and contexts. As an element of this, it will explore the relationship between agency and its agents (at various foci) and the nature of agency ecologies and their evolution. It will also explore the relationship between viability and sustainability. In the second part of the paper, the purpose will be to formulate a general basis for agency ecology, followed by an agency model that recognises the analytical and decision-making attributes of the viability–sustainability relationship by centering on the modelling a socioeconomic ecosystem and a social disciplinary species model.Design/methodology/approachAgency theory will be used to model a generic agency ecology and its environment of subordinate elements – especially those subordinates that can be used as amenities to satisfy the needs to agency development. Part 1 of the paper will take a tour of concepts relevant to the representation of neo-ecosystem structures and their application. Part 2 will centre on delivering a schema capable of embracing agency neo-ecology from which applications may derive.FindingsIt is shown that agency theory as a modelling schema can be used as a methodology through which to provide diagnosis to examine the condition of, or for locating problems within, an agency in its ecosystem environment. This is illustrated within a socioeconomic context.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper is conceptual in nature, and there has been no intention to diagnose any substantive issues within the socioeconomic context.Originality/valueA generalised agency ecology approach is proposed over this two-part paper that is novel through the use of third-order cybernetics.

Five Points Towards an Architecture In-Formation

While there have been significant discussions about the relevance of cybernetics within architectural and urban studies, the focus has mainly been on computing and digital practices. Since its emergence in the post-war period, cybernetics – in both its first and second-order versions – has introduced to architectural discourse systematic design methods and practices, while also tackling issues of reflexivity and complex problems. In this introduction, we examine the relation between cybernetics and architecture by focusing on a problem they both share. To this end, we approach cybernetics as the study of the production, consumption and flow of information, an account that has little to do with digital logics, unless one wants to pursue that special case. Therefore, cyberneticisation can set the foundations for a relational account that examines how signs are communicated and how meaning is produced and experienced within systems. This third-order cybernetics extends beyond the original scope of living organisms and their environments in order to include ecologies of ideas, power, institutions, media and so on. In this sense, cyberneticisation is radically environmental, positing the primacy of relations over fixed terms, binary oppositions and linear logics, making it high time for architectural and urban studies to take into consideration its ground-breaking potentials. By introducing five short points on the relation between architecture and cybernetics, we aim to assist in this endeavour.

Systems Analysis of the Foundations for the Formation of new Paradigms of Control

Abstract At the beginning of the 21st century, an unsystematic variety of paradigms and ontologies of cybernetics is growing, which complicates the improvement of control mechanisms and the implementation of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. We propose systemic foundations that will allow the systematization of the developed and future paradigms and ontologies of cybernetics. The analysis of separate paradigms of cybernetics of the second and third order is carried out. The evolution of paradigms of cybernetics is considered on the basis of modern concepts of scientific rationality, and an adequate form of third-order cybernetics of self-developing poly-subject (reflexive-active) environments is substantiated. The system of principles and trends in the control of social systems is proposed as an additional tool for analyzing new paradigms of cybernetics.

Robotics: From first-order cybernetics to third-order cybernetics

The general principles of cybernetics of various orders were formulated half a century ago. However, these principles were used primarily in philosophy, sociology, biology, economics and similar fields that can be called humanitarian. Engineering specialists practically did not use these principles in their work. In this article, an attempt is made to consider and formulate these principles, in the tasks of controlling robotic systems, in terms of cybernetics of the first, second and third orders. A new principle of classification of robotic systems is proposed, which is based on linking to generations of cyberneticians. It should be noted that the proposed principle can be extended to other areas of engineering and technical fields, for example, cognitive architectures, artificial neural networks, or genetic algorithms.

Тенденции перехода к социально-экономической кибернетике

The article examines modern socio-economic relations from the standpoint of the cybernetic approach. When analyzing the problem, we used works on the general theory of systems founded by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the concept of the philosopher, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vyacheslav Stepin on post-nonclassical rationality, work on synergetics and predicting the behavior of complex systems, the work of a psychologist, Professor Vladimir Lepsky and his colleagues on control systems. and the formation of third-order cybernetics on the basis of selfdeveloping active environments, and the work on Decision-making theory, Political Science, Sociology and Behavioral Economics was also taken into account. It is proposed to consider socioeconomic cybernetics as the development of social cybernetics and third order cybernetics.

Ethical Regulators and Super-Ethical Systems

This paper combines the good regulator theorem with the law of requisite variety and seven other requisites that are necessary and sufficient for a cybernetic regulator to be effective and ethical. The ethical regulator theorem provides a basis for systematically evaluating and improving the adequacy of existing or proposed designs for systems that make decisions that can have ethical consequences; regardless of whether the regulators are humans, machines, cyberanthropic hybrids, organizations, or government institutions. The theorem is used to define an ethical design process that has potentially far-reaching implications for society. A six-level framework is proposed for classifying cybernetic and superintelligent systems, which highlights the existence of a possibility-space bifurcation in our future time-line. The implementation of “super-ethical” systems is identified as an urgent imperative for humanity to avoid the danger that superintelligent machines might lead to a technological dystopia. It is proposed to define third-order cybernetics as the cybernetics of ethical systems. Concrete actions, a grand challenge, and a vision of a super-ethical society are proposed to help steer the future of the human race and our wonderful planet towards a realistically achievable minimum viable cyberanthropic utopia.

An agenda for ontological cybernetics and social responsibility

PurposeThis paper aims to offer an integration of Vladimir Lepskiy’s third-order cybernetics and Raul Espejo’s Viplan methodology. Key ideas are mechanisms for social responsibility and a methodology to improve them through self-developing reflexive-active environments.Design/methodology/approachThe authors propose a methodology based on modern philosophy of science, which sets the foundation of ontological cybernetics, constructed by subjects with different epistemological stances. This methodology includes considerations for social values, worldview principles, multiple viewpoints and subject-oriented information and communication platforms.FindingsCurrent negative trends in socio-economic and environmental developments are associated with weaker social responsibilities of those holding power in society. To increase their social responsibility, the authors argue it is necessary for them to have more effective governance and development mechanisms. The proposed methodology ensures more effective interactions of stakeholders toward creating, regulating and implementing societal problem-solving.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper offers an initial theoretical conceptualization and illustration of social responsibility, which would benefit from further conceptual developments and practical applications.Social implicationsThe methodology helps increasing the level of social responsibility of all participants in control and development processes in social systems. The proposed approach allows ensuring the inclusion of stakeholders in societal problem solving through participatory methods and democratic approaches.Originality/valueThe conceptual and methodological ideas of this paper are based on the authors’ original research. The methodology and model of ontological cybernetics proposed in this paper are based on organizational cybernetics and modern views of philosophy of science. The methodology and model include basic ontological values and principles.

UPGRADE OF CYBERNETICS IN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPING CREATIVITY

The author attempted to consider upgrade of cybernetics in the context of developing creativity in modern scientific discourse. First-order cybernetics studied observed systems, second-order cybernetics dealt with observing systems, and third-order cybernetics studied the subject–polysubject environment – cyberspace. So, changes in the character of labour, the means of production, industrial relations and labour power have been analyzed. The article also considers the problem of “physicists and lyric poets”, which prompted researchers to look for possible ways to resolve the contradictions. It resulted in the establishment of interdisciplinary connections between cybernetics and art at the non-classical stage, while at the post-non-classical stage, an interdisciplinary synthesis led to their mutually beneficial collaboration. The author uses the notion of hyphspace as metaphorical abstraction for defining a virtual reality (a component of the noosphere) that exists inside a computer network (the subject–polysubject environment). Hyphspace at the present stage of cybernetics development is becoming the basis for its subsequent (but not final) upgrade – fourth order cybernetics. Cybernetics in an interdisciplinary synthesis with art is moving from cognizing human–machine systems to the formations with growing human-dimensionality, where there is a persistent increase in the number of users–nomads.

Системные основания для перехода от техногенной цивилизации к социогуманитарной цивилизации

In recent years, awareness of the limitations of technogenic civilization, focused on the unification of local civilizations, the curtailment of the multicivilizational world, has be­come increasingly clear. The essence of these restrictions is that it has entered the stage of instability and crisis conditions. When searching for a model of post-technogenic civiliza­tion, the focus is on the basic civilizational values. In technogenic civilization, basic val­ues are scientific and technological progress and science, while social values and ethical aspects of the regulation of social processes are practically ignored. The paper provides a philosophical and methodological analysis of the crisis of technogenic civilization and proposes systemic foundations for building a post-technogenic civilization. Philosophical foundations are based on the works of V. S. Stepin and N. N. Moiseev. The crisis of eco­nomic determination of development in technogenic civilization and the growth of threats in the evolution of technological order are justified. Socio-humanitarian criteria are pro­posed for evaluating innovations in technogenic civilization and it is shown that humanity is not ready for an adequate response to innovations in technogenic civilization. The con­clusion that subjectlessness development, the diagnosis of the condition of humanity as a technological civilization. As an alternative to technological civilization, a model of so­cio-humanitarian civilization is proposed. The key problem of overcoming the threats of technological civilization and the transition to socio-humanitarian civilization is the prob­lem of the formation of the subjectivity of human development, the solution of which is associated with two priority tasks. Firstly, on the basis of post-nonclassical scientific ra­tionality, the development of modern models for the organization of control and develop­ment of mankind and the mechanisms for introducing these models. Secondly, the forma­tion of a modern culture of international and national security, focused on overcoming the subjectlessness of human development. It is proposed to solve these problems on the ba­sis of post-non-classical cybernetics of self-developing polysubject (reflective-active) en­vironments – third-order cybernetics.

Philosophical-Methodological Basis for the Formation of Third-Order Cybernetics

In the paper, a philosophical and methodological analysis of the evolution of cybernetics in the context of the development of scientific rationality is carried out. The evolution of cybernetics is represented as a movement from the methodology of “observable systems” (N. Wiener) and to the methodology of “observing systems” (von Foerster) and to the methodology of self-developing reflexive-active environments. Special attention is paid to the formation of a new promising direction for post-non-classical cybernetics of self-developing poly-subject (reflexive-active) environments, which, given the correlation with previous stages of cybernetics development (with classical and non-classical scientific rationality), we define as thirdorder cybernetics. The analysis of the basics of the formation of third-order cybernetics was carried out with consideration of interrelated aspects: philosophical, methodological, theoretical, and methodical. We also provide model of self-developing poly-subject (reflexive-active) environments as well as a system of ontologies, defining the mechanisms of functioning of such self-organizing poly-subject environments and active elements that organize the communication space (natural, artificial intelligence, and combined formations). The ontology system also makes it possible to integrate cybernetics of the first, second, and third order. Some sociohumanitarian trends in the development of cybernetics are considered: from an external observer to a distributed observer; from monodisciplinary to transdisciplinary approaches; from activity approach to subject-activity one, and further to subject-oriented approach; from information to active knowledge; from ethics of goals to ethics of strategic subjects. Potential opportunities for using third-order cybernetics are described, in order to improve the quality of solving a number of important scientific and practical problems of controlling social systems. Information is provided on the directions of approbation of a third-order cybernetics concept for improving state administration, based on a system of distributed situational centers, and there is its approbation at international scientific conferences.