Search results

From the radical constructivist point of view the mainstream conception of memory as an encoding‐storage‐retrieval device is considered questionable. The paper aims at an alternative perspective on memory and its interaction with cognition.

The argumentation is based on various experimental data such as cognitive problem‐solving, change blindness, and childhood amnesia. Theoretical insights of the radical constructivist epistemology developed by Heinz von Foerster and others contribute as well.

Describing memory as storage‐retrieval device separated from cognition is rejected. Rather, memory is the expression of a static snapshot of otherwise dynamical cognitive processes. As an embodied network of constructive components, the evolutionary evolved cognition‐memory compound is not geared toward reproducing “true” facts. Rather, its goal is to produce structure that maintains coherence with the rest of the network.

Memory research should not judge recognition in terms of “correct” or “false” but rather reassess its performance in terms of the super‐ordinate cognitive faculty.

The results imply that the role of memory should be reconsidered both in memory research as well as in practical areas such as psychotherapy and law.

The new characterization of memory rejects the narrow computational theory of mind. It provides a better account for memory distortion phenomena such as false recognition, intrusion, and confabulation.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest a more central role for reflexive artistic practices in a clarified research agenda for second-order cybernetics (SOC). This is offered as a way to assist the field in the further development of its theoretical/methodological “core” and, subsequently, enhance its impact on the world.

The argument begins by reviewing Karl Müller’s account of the failure of SOC to emerge as a mainstream endeavor. Then, Müller’s account is recontextualized within recent developments in SOC that are traced through the Design Cybernetics movement inspired by Ranulph Glanville. This alternate narrative frames a supposedly moribund period as a phase of continuing refinement of the field’s focus upon its “proper object of study,” namely, the observer’s mentation of/about their mentation. The implications of this renewed focus are then positioned within Larry Richard’s vision of the cybernetician, not as “scientist” per se but rather as a “craftsperson in and with time” capable of productively varying the dynamics of their daily interactions. Having centered widespread capacity building for this “craft” as a proposed research agenda for a new phase of SOC, the paper concludes by pointing to the unique and necessary role to be played by the arts in this endeavor. Personal reflections upon the author’s own artistic and theoretical activities are included throughout.

The development and application of artistic methods for the enhancement of individual capacity for second-order observation is consistent with the purpose of SOC, namely, “to explain the observer to himself.” Therefore, it is in the field’s interest to more fulsomely embrace non-scientific, arts-based forms of research.

In a truly reflexive/recursive fashion, the very idea that first-person, arts-based narratives are seen, from a mainstream scientific point of view, as an insufficiently rigorous form of research is, itself, a research limitation. This highlights, perhaps ironically, the need for cybernetics to continue to pursue its own independent definitions and standards of research beyond the boundaries of mainstream science rather than limiting its own modes of inquiry in the name of “scientific legitimacy.”

A general uptake of the view presented here would expand the horizon of what might be considered legitimate, rigorous and valuable research in the field.

The view presented here implies that many valuable contributions that SOC can make to society take place beyond the constraints of academic publication and within the realm of personal growth and social development.

The very clearly defined and “refocused” vision of SOC in this paper can be of substantial utility in developing a more robust, distinctive and concrete research agenda across this field.

The paper serves as an introduction to the special issue on Heinz von Foerster. Major episodes of his life are sketched and related to his scientific convictions regarding transdisciplinary research and radical constructivist. In the second part the contributions to the issue are summarized. Finally, the relevance of Foerster's work is discussed.

The arguments are based on the scientific literature.

Foerster argued against reductionist science and in favor of transdisciplinary research in order to trigger further scientific developments.

By using transdiciplinary and choosing the constructivist perspective, science will increase its productivity. This should be reflected in science policy.

By pointing at the variety of his scientific output and his influence on many colleagues and students, the paper is in support of Foerster's non‐reductionist worldview.

The purpose of this editorial is to reach out to an audience that Kybernetes has not previously tried to reach – designers – in an effort to build a bridge connecting cybernetics and design.

Provides a brief review of the papers within the issue.

The collection of papers may provoke wonder, enquiry, and a wish not only to respect each field, but also to open up, to find out more and, perhaps, to enter into a symbiotic bridge building operation that might bring valuable theoretical illumination and realm of practice to both fields.

This editorial introduces an exploration that begins to develop any relationships that might exist between the two fields of design and cybernetics.

Presents an “in memoriam” tribute to Heinz von Foerster.

Outlines his work.

Introduces his inspiring contributions in the applied sciences and to the more general researches on the theoretical and practical implications of the cybernetic epistemology.

Gives insights to the importance of the work of von Foerster.

Specific asset recognition rules often bar expenses for research and development (R&D) from recognition on corporate balance sheets. This tangible‐intangible accounting asymmetry has led to the development of intellectual capital reports (ICRs) for intangibles in general and for R&D in particular. Thus, two dichotomous reporting formats coexist in corporate disclosure. The purpose of this article is to bring together more closely the information on project intangibles from R&D provided by voluntary and mandatory reporting systems.

The authors used an experimental case study approach in a joint research project with a non‐university research and technology organisation (RTO). The methods deployed in the project included semi‐structured interviews, Delphi techniques and normative reasoning.

The results show that it is possible to use financial reporting's systematic approach and typical layout to ally the presumed strengths of financial reporting (i.e. the existence of standardised ways of interpretation and an educated readership) and indicator‐based ICRs (i.e. the capability of capturing the generic features of innovation activity).

Given the predominance of financial reporting's educated readership, it is useful to produce voluntary disclosures in such a form that the information can easily be embedded in the overall picture painted by financial numbers.

Inductive‐analytical ICRs are typically not intertwined with financial accounting. The article elaborates on linkages between financial accounting and inductive‐analytical reporting models and proposes a classification scheme for project intangibles from R&D based on information reliability.