Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explain some phenomena observed in the acquisition of motor skills: the loss of conscious access to knowledge of the structure of a skill and the awareness that an error has been made prior to the receipt of knowledge of results. Although there are rich descriptive accounts of skill acquisition in the literature, there are no satisfactory explanatory models of the cognitive processes involved. The paper provides such a model.

In the 1970s, the first author implemented a computer program model of the cognitive processes involved in learning and skill acquisition, based on a series of empirical investigations. Recently, with assistance from the second author, the model has been reviewed, updated and re-implemented. The paper sets this work in the broader context of a theory of learning and teaching, conversation theory.

The model provides a constructivist account of skill acquisition and associated phenomena. The model provides theoretical foundations for conversation theory.

The model adds to the understanding of motor skill acquisition and to the understanding of processes of learning and teaching in general.

The model and its interpretation are an original contribution to the skills acquisition literature.

The paper aims to review the website of the UK Cybernetics Society, with appreciation of its function in disseminating news, including its mention of the death of the Soviet/Israeli scientist Alexander Lerner and to review some internet sources of information on health matters.

The approach is to review developments on the internet, especially those of general cybernetic interest. Recent discoveries of cave art in Britain are described.

The UK Cybernetics Society website is a valuable source of current news. The death of Lerner is a notable event to which it drew attention. Information on health matters includes an account of a new organisation to monitor performance of health services, and sources of health advice.

The information sources, including those offered by the monitoring organisation, are of immediate value. Cave art is significant as an early form of communication.

It is hoped this is a valuable periodic review.

Selected reports and surveys of current research and developments in systems and cybernetics are given. They include: Science in the UK, Management Cybernetics, Neural Nets, Computer‐designed Drugs, and Medical Cybernetics.

Reports and surveys are given of selected current research and developments in systems and cybernetics. They include: New Applications for Missile Launcher, Second Order Cybernetics, Management Cybernetics, VDU Workstation Safety, Medical Cybernetics, New Image Processing System, Prospects for Conscious Machines.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and clarify possible distinctions between the terms “cyberneticist” and “cybernetician” with the intention of helping the growth of the cybernetics discipline in new directions.

After the American Society for Cybernetics ALU 2013 conference in Bolton, a small group of conference participants continued the conversations they had begun during the event, focusing on the comparison of the terms “cyberneticist” vs “cybernetician”. The group felt the need for clearer distinctions drawn (or designed) between the terms, in order to sustain the discipline of cybernetics and to support its growth. The aim of providing these distinctions is that theory should feed into practice and practice should feed into theory, forming a cybernetic loop, so that the discipline of cybernetics is sustained while growing. The conference participants had conversations between themselves, and came up with multiple perspectives on the distinction between “cyberneticist” vs “cybernetician”. The distinctions drawn mirror the distinctions between Science and Design: the science of cybernetics contrasted with the design of cybernetics.

The findings of this paper consist of recommendations to understand and act differently in the field of the discipline of cybernetics. In particular, a clear distinction is suggested between the terms “cyberneticist” and “cybernetician”. It is also suggested that in order for cybernetics to grow and be sustained, there should be a constant flow of developments in theory of cybernetics into the practice of cybernetics and vice-versa.

The authors believe that some people (called “cyberneticists”) should work on the science side of cybernetics, making strong contributions to the understanding and development of cybernetics theory. Others, (called “cyberneticians”) should work on the design side of cybernetics, to contribute through their actions and through the development of cybernetics practice. The result of this will be a self-organization that evolves naturally between theory and practice of cybernetics, leading to better learning of cybernetics, and in the process, sustaining it through continued growth. In this direction, the paper proposes several radical suggestions that may not be to the liking of traditionalists, but may be better received by the scientists and designers of cybernetics who can make a difference to the growth of the discipline of cybernetics.