 I want to give a discussion about the past, personal future of cybernetics and system research. I just want to have this image of the background of the scientists. Where are we coming from? Where are we going? Just to have a reflection of what have been the achievements of cybernetics and system research as a current state and what are the future challenges and opportunities and how can we reach a future decided state. For this occasion, it is my pleasure to distinguish a final point here. I would like to make a brief initial statement about the use of either the past, present or future of cybernetics as a system research and also to locate its more broader, scientific, philosophical background about time. Afterwards, the floor will be open for questions and comments from all of you. The idea is to produce a document summarizing all the ideas that will be discussed here. Just a final note, I would like to ask everybody not to focus so much on debatable of the achievements but the achievements and challenges of cybernetics as a whole field. So, with that, I would like to leave the world to Elena. Would you like to be first? Good morning. My name is Peter Erdi. I would like to be here with my distinguished colleagues. So, history, past, present, future of system theory and cybernetics. So, I believe we should give some credits for the pioneers. So, I would like to leave you very briefly some elementary concepts of system theory and cybernetics. So, of course, this conference is organized by the Bertolofi Center, Bertolofi Viennese, who has a Hungarian name. Here are a couple of Hungarians. We are not Russian for Kolkostagori. So, a couple of questions. So, analytic and syntactic methods of Bertolofi emphasize. This is very important. So, to emphasize the necessity of organization principles. Of course, he emphasized the difference between closed systems and open systems and pushed this direction which became later the term of open system, the term of open systems of thermodynamic system, physical structure, synergies. So, he opened that broad pathway. He emphasized the concept of similarity and isomorphism. He realized and recognized the necessity of integrating approaches, but he still badly need. And there is a question, how to do it in the education? Actually, there are other students. So, even in this room, there are only a very few students, how we are able to attract students? But still, do we really need the new generation needs the concept of system theory, cybernetics, or that we are just something as a disarmament for the past? In terms of cybernetics, one important concept of McCalloch was experimental epistemology. He was sitting in the Department of Electrical Engineering at MIT, Bertol, for me, he is experimental epistemology. So, to find the overlap between the physical and, I think, the metaphysical systems. And of course, there was the logical measures and how we can consider the brain and computers, the logical measures, the early cybernetics. So, then, as everybody knows, there were ten conferences, the mid, supposed to be, I mean, the Josh Macy Foundation. And that is just a mere coincidence, but the first meeting was almost on the same day when Churchill gave his famous Vultor speech. The concept of Iron Curt, which influenced our life very strongly, was mentioned the first time. And the very last conference was in the March of 1953. The same husband Stalin died. And so, you also have cybernetics, of course, was based on the concept of information theory, which was, that time, a syntactical information theory. And no, I'm not after to shun them to use the concept of entropy to measure information. And they have different types of concepts of entropy that maybe Stefan will mention today. I don't know, maybe not, but he has a lot of knowledge about it. And something that cybernetics emphasized, and not maybe, might have been, that was the neurosis and the botteries of mental life. And slowly, slowly, we are in a situation where we recognize that neurological and psychiatric disorders, many of them are dynamical diseases. That is an emerging new field called computational psychiatry, which has a double meaning. First, how to use computational methods in understanding psychiatric disorders and diseases. And the second is the psychiatric disease as an impairment in the computational systems of them. I see this more than enough. Thank you. I think that systems research and cybernetics research have some line or inner logic of development. So, it is interesting always to follow their sort of say, adventures of ideas in systems research and in cybernetics. In my opinion, in my summarizing, my experience in thinking and in result in studying of systems and complex systems, I would say that the systems perspective which is in the middle from cybernetics and I view some rules of cybernetics even in physiology, in medicine, in their views of physicians. For example, in 19th century, the cybernetics and then systems research and then complexity, theory of complexity and theory of complex adaptive systems. So, for me, as I see all this line of development, past, present and future, I think that the challenging points for the future and still problems which we have in systems research may be connected with the emergencies or phase transition, the most difficult transition from non-living matter to living matter. First, then from living matter to human being and then from living being to human mind and human spirit. So, for me, as I view this line, so, cybernetics was mostly dealing with the process of homeostasis, with the processes of how to maintain the equilibrium. Now we want also to view not only homeostasis, but also the first development, first development. Why? Because the world is very unstable, unstable, full of crisis and to understand the inner mechanism of this first development, phase transition of bifurcation, of cascading of bifurcation is airport. And concerning these emergencies in the big history of nature and mankind, I would like to make focus on such two points. Why? One, it is, for me, it's a surprise, I was wondering why the world, for example, cognitive science. And epistemology does not deal with the higher level of human mind, with the human spirit, with the concept of spirit, is lacking in the modern field of research, in the modern books, in the huge literature about it. And why? It's very interesting, why if we, Bistrich Schachter, will not think about the higher level of human spirit, another spiritual, or local, or local people from church will do it. It is another, it's out of view, it's out of view. And another point, and I will finish when it was, it's two main bridges, I think it's very interesting, between life sciences and cognitive sciences. Life sciences and cognitive sciences have to develop a very wide systems and evolutionary perspective. And from this standpoint, trying to combine ethics, human ethics, freedom, and also ethical issues, responsibility, aesthetics, the feeling of beauty, and the processes of cognitive processes, the searching of truth. So, this is a philosophical task, and we can do it now, using our developed notions of systems thinking. I consider it as a big challenge for the future. Hello. Thank you for the invitation. Thank you. My name is Stephen Turner. I have three jobs. One is that I'm having a complex systems research institute at the Medical University. I am a part-time researcher at the ASA, which is an outside of Vietnam Faculty of Scientific Institute. I am sorry that I cannot really say something about the progress of psychometrics and systems research. I'm not really part of the community, but I feel that I can say a little bit about the progress of complex systems science in the past years. So, what is the difference between these two fields? I really don't know much, but that's a little bit the feeling that the themes are very similar that are discussed. But, into psychometrics, when all the social scientists enter into complex systems, the physics is right. This could be maybe a little bit, it might be, how our community is different. About complex systems science or the science of complex adaptive systems, this is more than 25 years old. A few top physicists and economists decided to tackle problems which were not approachable by any scientific method before. Basically, these types of problems were problems of dynamical systems with ever changing boundary conditions. So, if you think of traditional science, science is something where you fix your boundary conditions, you cut something out of the universe, and then you can describe it with a set of differential equations, for example. So, most of the boundary conditions, you can never solve differential equations, you can therefore not make predictions, you cannot test it experimentally, you will lose science. As we were taught how to do science by new physics, we have to do it easily. In complex systems, you have the problem that there is a dynamical system, and this system, you cannot cut out from the universe and study by itself, but it has boundary conditions and it influences and changes these boundary conditions as part of the dynamical process. If you think of this, what this means mathematically, this is a set of differential equations, where the boundary conditions are part of the complex system and this is a mathematical monster, you cannot treat it. And this is the type of problems that, about 25 years ago, this set of people, some of them, for example, started talking about. The game changer, why is it now possible to address these problems, is of course the use of the computer, the use of HEE-based models and completely new type of statistics. The progress that has come out of this field is, I think, pretty remarkable. We are in these years now in the position that we are constantly advising decision makers in the United States, in the OECD, in the Fed, in the United States, in the European Central Bank, the European Union, as you may have seen last year, has spent about 50 million euros in calls that are related to complex systems science. Another project around the corner, whether you maybe will set up the billion euros for the next couple of years, completely dedicated to quantitative science and complex systems. When you are sure about the European flagship projects, which will be decided on very shortly, Futurizing Dream is the name of these complex systems that's waiting to be approved. Complex systems scientists are thinking about how to reform our financial markets, they are designing search engines for the internet, they design your traffic systems, think of the billions which are spending systems, biology, which is a little rather big, rather, even of complex systems science. And these are some of the results. The triumphs of complex systems science in my personal view is network theory, and network theory in combination with statistical mechanics, and the set of applications that come out of it. Namely, departments could make real progress in understanding evolutionary dynamics. And also the combination of network theory and statistical mechanics leads to a deeper understanding of what non-equilibrium economics is, and we are at the edge of representing whole societies in so-called multiplexes. I don't know if you know what the multiplex is, this is a set of networks which connect the same set of people. That's basically what the society is, it's a collection of social networks between the same people, where these networks mutually influence the other networks. A highly complicated mathematical problem we are at the frontier of understanding societies as such that they make a lot of complex networks. The reason for those successes, I think, is so that you can see a single effect that the science of complex adaptive systems is predictive and quantitative science. So the representatives of these science, they have undertaken the boring, boring job of using data that's now being collected at tremendous rates, and to use this data to test and reject their models. This is, I think, the reason for those successes, that so many models that have been produced in complex system sciences get rejected, that's the big progress. Because the few ones that survive testing, they have the potential of predictive use. I think that complex system science is changing society, it's co-evolving with the revolutionary changes that are all around us. Complex system science is somehow a catalyst for societal change. So if you think of the Internet, if you think of, for example, that your sense of knows more about you than your mother does, these things have to learn about you. It is not a neural network that is learning these things about you and your neighborhood and surroundings. It's a combination of things. It's a combination of network theory, understanding of social networks. It's a new type of statistics that has to be combined with this and technology and search engines, page rank things that it's designed. So in this co-evolvation, we're speaking up with our contributions to revolutionary changes in society and creating also demands for data. And let me stop with an outlook. We cannot ask if this is really cool what is happening. So one thing that's happening is that we're collecting data about societies more and more and I'm sure you all know about what happened on April 1st this year, two years ago when we did look. It's not a joke. All the information about your location, about your emails, about what you click on the Internet, what you read, what you exchange with friends on your telephone talks are recorded. They're not used for anything up to now, but it's just a matter of time that this data will be publicly available because it gets stolen or because the commission will ask our scientists to make sense out of this data. And this of course has implications on our concept of civil rights and I think this would need more debate, a large-scale debate if we really want this. Of course we want the progress of complex system science to understand more about our species, but at the same time we should, in my opinion, not go in the direction of reduction of civil rights. For various reasons, I'm coming from Budapest, Hungary. And first I would like to give some comments on actually reflections for the question of why do I think that systems of approach is important. I think there are at least three reasons, obviously there are many more, and the discussion may uncover some many more. But first of all there are data now available, as Stefan already mentioned about his recall from the Society of Data, but also in biology and in many systems, which are system level data, and therefore he was the chance, at least, to work with them and to try to understand them as a whole. Now the second, as we also mentioned already, just I would like to put this together, as it has been put together in my mind, that the 31st century will be most probably a century of crisis situations, which are coming up one after the other, because the surrounding, the environment of Western civilization has been changed a lot, meaning that they reach the limits of growth, in the sense of earth or capacities of the earth. They have an overpopulation, which we haven't had to this extent previously, and so on and so on. So this situation has changed, and therefore the behavior has to be changed, but obviously the behavior is not changing smoothly. Most of the time the behavior has to be changed through a crisis situation series, which needs to be predictions. And this needs to be a systems of approach. Last but not least, I would like to pose it in a way that we are recovering from an extremes of reductionism in science. As in yesterday at Symposium, Paul Peter Ehring posed it very nicely for me, that we are recovering the biology from the tyranny, as we told of molecular biology. Since I was a molecular biologist five years ago, I am now in the position of a dictator who was overthrown, or a representative of a dictator who was overthrown, and I'm very happy to be overthrown, because I understood that once you have this extreme reductionist approach, like having one protein isolated, as in my case it was, having another protein isolated, and then seeing how these two single proteins are interacting to each other, this is nonsense, because in the real set there are hundreds and thousands of other proteins which are interacting with both, and influencing this single interaction. So your data, which you recovered after a lot of suffering, are nonsense, in fact. So I'm not saying these data are useless, because these are the data we are using at the moment, but by themselves we're using the word this single thing, and not understanding that the word is more complex. That is an extreme which we should more avoid. However, there might be another extreme, and I would like to warn ourselves, not to go to the extremes of system balancing, and forget about the data themselves, and forget about the details themselves. So I think a firing kind of balance is useful, and I would like just to close my little remark by three kind of methodological comments, which probably relate to this. The first of them, that I would like to warn ourselves, that we should be humble, in the sense that to understand that a complex system does have limits. I just would like to give you the story of a protein, which is in our brain, or which is in the brain of a person. This protein enjoys the company of other proteins, and enjoys the dynamics of other proteins. Other proteins, the neighboring proteins, are kicking this protein because of these dynamics. There are information exchanges going on in the neural cell in the brain. Now let's suppose, or let's think about, that this person, who is the older, is a young boy or a young girl, or she or he is just before the very first date of her or his life. She or he is very excited, obviously. Therefore the neural cells are very excited, and therefore the proteins are kicking the neighboring proteins physically at an extreme level. Now that poor protein in the middle of this turmoil doesn't have a clue. Why is this turmoil going on around me? I mean, why the others are kicking so wildly at this very time? That protein has no idea of the dead's brain. It has no idea that the brain has an owner. And the owner is just before the first date of his or her life. And that's the major reason why this whole turmoil is on. So I think if we just believe or think about the moment that we are the proteins in the brain, which has a owner, which has a company, or a lover, about the first date situation, then we start to understand how humble we should be when we try to understand these systems at the higher level. So this was the first remark. We have to be very cautious. One reason why we have to be very cautious is because it has a very big difference that we try to find solutions to problems or we try to find problems to solutions. And at systems that are sitting, often we have nice models, and Stefan already told that it is a major thing that some of these models are disproved because they are not very useful models. But sometimes we are sticking to our models very much and we try to find the second of the world which is finally, luckily, can be described by that model. I would like to warn ourselves to the dangers of this type of thinking because it is not dangerous by itself, but if it goes to the extremes and they figure out the world as such, having some data which are probably something that is existing to justify a model that is dangerous. Now, very last remark, that's actually a kind of person, I think, why do I have to be at this conference? That we have to be open minded. I think in this conference there are people who are very much open minded and that's a major advantage of this meeting. I just want to give you an example of the importance of being open minded. Last summer there was the network sign at this conference in Budapest that is a major conference for network people at the moment and I was happy to chair a session where there was a lecture about actually a phase transition type of event in networks. It is called the Archival Test Processive Summit. It is familiar with this in the network. That was a woman who was making an account on this phase transition type of thing and at the end of the lecture she was a physicist. At the end of the lecture she was interrupted by a mathematician from the audience that all what you have said about this phase transition is stupid, is nonsense because if you extrapolate this network to the infant so there are this infinite number of nodes in this network then this phase transition becomes not to be a phase transition so in the strict definition sense it is nonsense because it is not a phase transition. Then the woman answered that but come on I mean it is nowhere happening that there is such a big network which has infinite number of nodes and if we have proved if the network is having an infinite number minus one nodes then this is a phase transition so in all real cases it is a phase transition but obviously in the clear case of mathematics it is not. But then the woman continued that I just would like to recall a paper from Nature which was written by biologists when they were telling them about critical transitions and I would like to scold them because critical transitions are really not phase transitions not from even this point of view those are messy and this phase transition is a real one not from a mathematical point of view but at least from a viscous point of view this way of thinking about phase transition as an example tells us how open-minded we should be because in this particular case biologists, physicists and mathematicians have a completely different concept of this kind of subtle transitions what you mean by critical transition phase transition if you are less or more strict and I think also all of them are right and we should be aware of it of the chain of proteins of the areas you know how to handle them and I would like to do a little bit in terms of both retrospective and the current assessment of the prospect just briefly since this is a very rich presentation in the red building and I am looking forward to having some conversations around them hopefully I can also throw in a few things that might be a little bit more controversial this approach of systems and cybernetics as a general approach to be able to understand complex the complexity of the world in which you live to be able to have a way to reduce the input that we receive all the time sensorically and process it in terms it can make sense that we can have actionable frames of engagement within our realities not reducing the means to structure very much in the classical forms of science but now we are using them more to questions of processes and dynamics we often trace this back to von Berthau view and that is a very good place to begin and to look at these approaches here in the western world but it goes actually back much much further of course we can think of this in non-western frames in terms of engagements with holistic holistic engagements with reality holistic engagements with our cosmology and even back in our western frames the tales of Miletus and then since then to Nikolaus the Causa the North Whitehead there have been plenty of precursors including Alexander Boglov who very much in a similar time of von Berthau came forward with these approaches that transcend the silo of views of nature and of phenomenon in this I think is the particular contribution of systems and cybernetics to be able to allow our system to see across disciplines to see across perspectives this quest for isomorphisms and now we are looking not just at isomorphisms across disciplines but we are looking at it in the contemporary frame in terms of experiences as well so this push that has come and traced at least in the western foundation back the tales of Miletus and forward then in 1954 with von Berthau and Kenneth Balding and Anatole Rappaport and also George Miller and Graff Gerard and Paul Weiss and these are many of the seminal thinkers in the area and have looked towards framing for the unity of science so we can move beyond these arguments between the mathematicians and the biologists and the chemists and the physicists and that's just within the sciences but also to then transcend and address some of the questions and concerns that for example C.T. Snow will forward in the famous lectures about the two cultures between the sciences and the humanities and I think this is where we are now coming to much more we are still very much working with the systems and cybernetics sciences and the challenge that I feel we are facing now is to think in terms of sciences that embrace also the human sciences social sciences, psychological sciences looking at emerges phenomenon that bring in to play multiple intelligences and here we have moved in the direction of thinking in terms also of emotional intelligences there have been frames of ecological intelligences there have been frames of trying to expand and create dimensions of appreciation of thinking of cognition that explore spiritual intelligences now these are all areas of cognition and areas of perception that have been explored quite recently but I would suggest that they are still psychological and that what the systems and cybernetics approaches can offer is a systemic intelligence a holistic intelligence the risk here also is to take it to explore not to take it to extremes because we can move from a form of reduction to the parts move away from that to what Ben-Gur Moran has pointed out as a recent holism that takes us to a reduction to the whole where we appreciate things only at the level of holistic phenomenon and do not appreciate the fine aspects of their sub-systems in other words, looking at the analytical and being able to dissect the system is also important at the same time understanding when it's appropriate not to dissect when it's appropriate to understand it at the level of the whole but not always and only strain ourselves to an understanding at the level of the whole again that would be a reduction to the whole so seeing and I think one of the real challenges of our time now is to move and embrace these approaches that involve aesthetics ethics as was mentioned earlier and to engage in a type of integral systems approach that brings into play more than western appreciations more than the classical scientific appreciations that brings into play forms of intelligence forms of appreciation that are part of our heritage as a species and engaging now in forms of meta-log dialogues with self dialogues with each other dialogue with nature expanding our ways of creating meaning together how can we do this and this is one of the challenges that systems and cybernetics approaches have to offer and to explore the ways in which we can appreciate self-ass instruments in this process and not just develop technologies upon which we rely to explore the world around us but finding ways of fine tuning our own perceptual ability this I think is one of the challenges that we have in moving into a frame of meaning that one might think of as integral systemic or holistic meaning and I would like to then just conclude with some challenges perhaps we heard a little bit about the ways in which systems and cybernetic sciences tend to be predictive and quantitative and I would invite us to explore ways in which we can move towards more of a forecasting nature rather than predictive nature and beyond that to the design frameworks in terms of social systems design in terms of evolutionary systems design that involve back casting approaches that involve idealizing the future state so we talk about very strongly idealizing the design so that John Moorfield and Bella Banffy and several others when we approach them there is to be able to vision and vision use our ability to dream the powerful ability to dream to imagine desirable states protobias not utopias but realizable futures to dream and live ourselves how do we bring ourselves to those states here then we come back to processes of creating the prototype systems that will bring us forward into those states but involve a back casting approach and rather than seeking to predict futures I will look for ways that we can curate the emergence of protobias curating the emergence of systems involves a much more humble approach it involves listening, observing seeing what is emerging involves being at the liminal state of consciousness as well rather than purely at the rational frame and being able then to truly embrace the power of what began the kind of tales of the lettuce as an appreciation of complexity that was not divided into either epistemological or ontological fragments and this is still a big debate in the new system of communities is the systems approach ontological or epistemological but prior to that division it was seen to be new theological gnosis, I mean from the notion of gnosis appreciating the ways in which we construct our realities and a formulation of conceptual patterns that relate directly to and have a direct relation with our life experiences how can we bring back this framing, this new theological framing rather than falling into the further divisive patterns at the end of epistemology and ontology so finally then I would like to just point to some very interesting directions that are emerging along these lines the quest for creating these protobias has to be embodied in organizations that can walk this path organizations that live according to a whole arctic process of engagements and that begin to engage in an emergent processes that aren't predictive exclusively predictive engagement because once you can predict the system that is to emerge is no other emergent for to be truly emergent there is this element of all of sacredness and of awareness of that which is emerging for us to be engaged in these dynamics in a process that births new realities we have to take on a triple role and I think the sciences of complexity can help with this this triple role involves us being both midwives to protobias that can emerge at the same time as we midwife in this sense of curating emergence of the possible we must also be the mothers we must also give birth we must also be the ones who produce two new organizational forms two new relational awareness these new dynamics in social systems so we have to be midwives and we also have to make that which is being born we ourselves have to be the new systems the new social systems and there is one very interesting organization that is just coming to be that approaches this in ways that seek the greatness of the educational frames the Giordano Bruno Global Schiff University just coming up and offers a way of exploring this past, present, and this eliciting this emergence process through an educational framework that brings people into a story dwelling engagement not telling us stories which are the typical educational findings not even simulating stories where we get to work with models and experiences in relations with the algorithms but actually bringing us into narrative engagements with our own living world and exploring how we can further those narratives into these portfolios into a true global eco civilization I think this is the major challenge for systems and cybernetics in this section Thank you very much for all the panelist we have now half an hour for our discussion I would just like to ask people to take more than three minutes to cover the discussion after three minutes so we'll take the microphone from you then we would like to start the question or comment for our panelist Victoria for Halep's asgo several times you have mentioned Rotoques but I don't understand what is the first week with Rotoques Thomas Moral of Rotoque what do you understand for Rotoques the question is that almost all the people has agreed to improve to live better, to have better quality in life but the problem usually is how to get this new better quality in life and I think the problem usually is that we don't meet a limit to make change known for ethical values because with actual occidental values safe and free materialism and capitalism it's very difficult to get a better quality in life forever that's it thank you well yes exactly the idea of giving a better quality of life for everyone this is quite a utopic dream the framework around Rotoque suggests that there are there are realizable now configurations for social systems in interaction with the biophysical world that would allow for an improved quality of life that would allow us to manifest now many aspects of our dreams but not in the end not in the purely dream frame utopias generally are ideals they can be approximated as a copy of it but they cannot be actually lived into full existence when they have been tried when you've tried the experiment many social experiments to create utopic living conditions but they intended to function on principles and on design approaches that are very ideal that are specifically abandoned by ideals but this combination between bringing in reality and then actionable changes that would allow us to come into relationships that are not just sustainable but that are thrivable and these relationships have to align along four at least four dimensions they have to be coherent at the level of the intrapersonal so the intrapersonal dynamics how one lives one's life how one is able to maintain the integrity of oneself as a biophysical and sociocultural psychological system as an individual that's one level of system viability that has to be respected and maintained and this needs to be then aligned with the intrapersonal dimension at the intrapersonal dimension we have to create non dysfunctional systems that's only at the level of sustainability and this thrivable system and we have so many experiments along lines of alternative currency along lines of ways that bring forward new forms of relationship that can also be brought into alignment with the intrapersonal so now we have two levels intrapersonal and interpersonal then there is trans species the trans species dimension of systemic internal systemic that involves our engagement with the more than any world the more than any world and many of our social systems design many of our systems approaches are constantly concerned with the human world it's very anthropocentric very incurable emergence it's very almost how then we begin to see ourselves as part of a living web of life of course like at Pope Isen and Miller also will look pretty much at this approach and so has the culture of copper and so on in terms of the web of life then we have to bring in the framework that is trans temporal and so now we move from intrapersonal trans species and trans generational or trans temporal and in that frame now we start to see ourselves as part of a narrative that respects trans sisters and of all species but also then brings into our collaboration process the future generations or the voices as well of those who are not yet present but who are stakeholders in whatever decisions we make and there is much that we have to learn from wisdom cultures around the world because they often have these built in they have these types of have the empty share for future generations the 7th generation group so again being able to create these protocols are things that we know how to do but if we function only on the basis of our dreams only on the basis of the ideals then I think we will we will watch short thank you very much for some stimulating ideas some of which I found rewarding and others which I would if conversation allowed I would like to suggest that a key aspect of being systemic is to be able to move to different levels of abstraction so my invitation is to move to another bit of abstraction and to reflect on what we have done when we have done what we did as scientists doing systems and scientific over the last 15 years and to think about that in ethnographic terms I think that could be a revealing inquiry and my second reflection then would be to think about what we need to do if we accept the explanation that humans are changing the climate of the world which brings us into a new period in human history which I would suggest throws up for consideration not only ideas but all of the institutional arrangements we have built in the past amongst which I would include the doing of science and what I found a common trait between all speakers was a desire to conserve a particular notion of doing science and I wonder if there is a reflection to be offered by panel members on the doing of science in the future thank you any way you would like to comment or we can gather several comments and then go back to the panel perhaps thank you very much especially with the idea that sort of a mystery which is still somewhere there which makes us humans I'm not sure you know this because from the time I was struggling for a certain time then practically all the examples you have studied and that can make a walking situation to oppose to myself to myself are there robots around and me and myself as well and then she went to come back to the mystery I think that this very productive tools kind of art artistic representations which we are more visibility around and which we are using in our metaphors, associations and in our languages also I want to point here that I think that the mathematics itself is the same kind of artistic language and don't worry about that because actually this is the most purest, the purest, the most constructive but in any way that's the same kind of artistic language and it depends on our ability to understand what kind of resources we put there and how we will be flexible with that to bring it out and have the answers so to my right I think that we and academics and systems researchers exactly in the position now to find out how this non-formal and formal things and preparation can be done in the best way Thank you I'd like to come back to the topic of ethics and simply a further question I think it's very important this is the application to see if you talk about ethics it's the point of responsibility of applying those theories and this has got to do with education it's if you have to teach our students what I think in many cases we do we just teach them explanations and we don't teach them the simplifications categorizations, classifications go into and watch behind it we don't teach them really limits of the applications that's due to the way we teach in some sense in science and so I'd like to make sure we can come back to two to three sort of positives which I think at the bottom we understand them we understand both the logic and in a much the way things and then we can reflectively correct that's the point okay first positive first of all our concepts naturally it must be fuzzy because we have to simplify things in order to make predictions about the parameter values we mustn't use the parameter values just to steer reality and then to identify the parameter values second point is theories are maps, theories models are incomplete of course I don't need to get into that that should be noted to all of us so which is the thing that I think is most important is that in many cases we just project our theories or our understanding projecting on maybe take them much too literally and therefore action guiding descriptive in this sense and if we look at these three elements we come back to that very different way of teaching and then perhaps we see that you have to discuss more dialogue and more thinking we keep more careful about the implication of whatever we think it is is that the fuel salt let's have one more comment before returning to the panel I feel that there are signs and I would like to comment on the basic questions from this point of view if we consider from this point of view of the past, the present and the future or these disciplines I think we should have to apply the concept of analogy analogy which because I think actually if we consider the concept of systems or concept of side effects this means that in these cases they apply a kind of analogy between the different kind of beings in the world in a certain sense this is a very crucial point in these cases and the question from this point of view is that can we accept or can we see the same similarities in the recent time in the future can we see the same similarities between the events or between the things between the conditions as it was in the 30s or the 40s with this or we can but we should have to find some different analogies now so for example it's very clear that in the 30s the totality the problems of totality was a really important problem of course and it was also it's very clear again in the 40s 50s the government or the control of the things was also a very important problem not only in the measures sciences but everywhere you can see but the question is how can we find the traditional common characteristics of the event now so how do you think about this if I suppose that all of this depends on a kind of culture environment or the culture much more than the simple scientific or simple business context would any of the panelists would like to speak so why do we know to this camp it's too serious to lead it for the social sciences and reverse for the politicians so there is an emerging field computational social science which might be interpreted as a successful of cyber genetics and complex system research and we should take it really seriously so those of us who come so still believe in this two world but those of us who came from this hard science what we are talking about we try to use concepts which have some definition and of course we know that some systems can be predicted some if not so we should know what are the limits of predictability maybe widening the limits of predictability to accept that there are systems which are inherently unpredictable you mentioned ways in which our framing of things in terms of problems take from the sciences also when we bring that into these fuzzy aspects of social systems design we can come into some ethical to think of people as problems to be solved it's not so healthy and we do that all the time to think about life as a problem to be solved but everything that we do many times what we do in our approaches our approaches that we try to think of as scientific we look at in terms of problems in your solutions but when we look at the process in a more organic emergent frame and see what is let's say the way in which what is coming now from aspects of biologically for example how does nature create conditions that are conducive to life the idea again that Jeanine Binius put forward that life creates conditions conducive to life there is a sense ability here there is a ability to appreciate perhaps in surgical vigorous as appreciative systems that we can be what is the system what are the systems with the nature of the systems that are emerging I think then it is part of our engagement as systems the thinkers and practitioners to then say well then how can we influence the system to perhaps create more create dynamics that are more life from future oriented and opportunity increasing will we know can we predict that the ways in which we nudge the system maybe setting up certain attractors maybe minimizing other inputs and influences will we know what kind of outcomes are going to be generated what secondary tertiary implications are well we can start to model that and get some good ideas but I don't think it is a question of us for sure but it is dancing with a process of change and learning how to continually model and re-model rather than to have a fixed model that we seek to apply but this continuous re-designed process rather than giving no problems to be solved but engaging in this dance I think that is very much part of the emerging approach scientific approach and I think the power of analogy and metaphor and not to be confused with homology when we start to see things specifically with the structures are the same identical and from one to the next but we are looking analogically and metaphorically that brings forward the whole art and the aesthetics and the spirit of our creative potential thank you Alex we would just like to summarize several of the comments that have been mentioned already I think that is one of the big challenges of cyber-ethics and systems research complexity less in the fact that we are quite an ambitious field I mean we are trying to solve big problems in science and in society and in technology so I mean what Peter was saying that we have to be humble is also a bit of contradiction because indeed we must be humble but at the level at which we are also being quite ambitious I think another challenge of cyber-ethics for the future it's we could say it's memetic propagation because even when the methods and theories that have been developed in cyber-ethics have propagated into whole sciences everything is a mix of systems I mean it's a methodically nowadays everything is a mix of systems only that let's say they don't refer to it directly from that level and I think similar thing has happened with cyber-ethics many of the approaches that people now call complexity they are called from cyber-ethics only that people are called from cyber-ethics the same is happening with complexity many people in different disciplines are using methods and techniques from complexity but there is a constant way so in terms of memetic propagation of the field I think one of the issues would be perhaps concerned or perhaps not that much because it's just a matter of technology the ideas that have been generated and cyber-ethics and systems research have been spreading and they are producing in most of the positive insights but the field itself with the name it seems to be not propagating as fast as it might we can see a reflection of this in the number of basis tools that are attending this conference compared to several other conferences so we should also consider whether we want to involve more students or whether we just want to give up cyber-ethics and use some of them because it's just a matter of austere technology it is so cool that certainly we are interested in finding out what is system and cyber-ethics but very often we forget that systems and cyber-ethics are something that human beings have been using a lot of time before to establish some ideas about systems also apparently it is covered in cyber-ethics but the main question that I think we should be dealing with system and cyber-ethics is to realize what is the situation of the world today and how, what are the coincidences of that first of all that is why most of them because he mentioned we do not know what we are we do not know where we come from we do not know where we are going and that is the big problem we are facing but some unique problems that we are not realizing that we in this system and cyber-ethics very often how we are interested in this is what to do with the new systems we are doing nothing as sister and son of cyber-ethics what we are doing about the warfare that started many millennia ago and continue and is increasingly that of the great destruction of the planet of the annihilation of human beings what are we doing about the dehumanization of human beings because most people is humanized and it is not recently if they started to dehumanize as soon as some level of our existence started to invent it is later it is later and it is later to continue you can see the factor is and recently it is quite illustrative what are doing the companies with the workers they are more slaves than many other people before but we are doing with animals we are abusing we are exploding all the animals I am personally vegetarian not because of health because I consider that all animals have the right to live with dignity but we are doing about our situation because human beings are in predatory species you can see what we are having the the the current of what are they doing which is mentioned what is doing human beings is taking advantage of everything what are we doing against the industrialized countries who continue trying to exploit all the planet what are they doing with the purpose for the sake of others are they doing something for in order to prevent the contamination of Mr. Obama in order to continue organizing humanitarian work what are we doing about the Russian failure because only are statements but nothing is done in order to force United States of other countries at least to sign the Kyoto agreement what are we doing about the chemical deviation whether in the battle it was established of God that we could take anything from us even more dangerous what are we doing about this the position of the leader who is training the new work order what is this new work order is talking to force all the masses of people to be selected by the selected people and last thing is that I think that system thinking and cybernetics has been idealized and it is corrupted because we are dealing with the real problems that we are facing and the real problems need quick actions movement as it is done by J. Kodal to solve the problems with small communities that's a long list of questions that we might talk about yes I had something summarizing my views on this discussion so what we need we need I would say common language vision of the world some people why do we need such face transition why do we need such critical transition why do we need such system views because I am doing my own science independently of your system thinking independently of your complex thinking and in this regard we cannot impose this system please think systemically in a non-linear way so we can combine another problem how we can combine the human human life our own world of life level sweat phenomenological approach our own experience in science how we can introduce the dreams as Alexander said and this system view and in the future studies for example so this is of course a great problem for us and as I see the problem can be the world can be changed when each of us will change Haley already said that the world will change when one man will change so the future and the world depends of us and it will go only through some slow transition through generation through new education because this new thinking should be already in mentality of the human kind not being forced on the people already in mentality it should be already in the air in the air and so the new education is needed also in new education because systems thinking somebody will say this approach is already reductionist it's already reduction to the systems you are reductionist so we have to combine this maybe reduction also needed somebody reduction reductionism is a good path to the Nobel Prize to reduce something to reduce something to reduce biological organism living creatures to physics to physics today some basic laws of magic why not why not so we need a combination a combination of holistic and reductionist a combination of this phenomenological and theoretical form of position in order to solve this global problem we need a co-evaluation we need an active position of each of us and a way of conversation with nature so I would say unity in the in the way of the Russian cosmism unity of truth good and beauty and I would say active position to elaborate this systems thinking and new evocation and in as Alexander I. liked it in trans-generation way not now, but here and now maybe in trans-generational way the human genes of the human blood each of us our children our grandchildren is there any final comment from the panelists there were three or four reflections of how science should be done just a personal comment on this we don't have much choice science is a brutal evolutionary process that works in a very simple way or has worked in a very simple way in the last 300 years the best ideas win the best ideas are those ideas that change society the surviving science is the new starting point it's the new science very simple if we like to throw away all sorts of beautiful other scientific ideas or other ways I think it's just irrelevant another thing another comment on doing system science by analogy the purpose of metaphors I think this is a very nice way to get the feeling for a system but it will never get blue there is no way around if you want to understand the system you have to understand the system and it's a very trivial comment but I think to understand the system what you have to do always and what you had to do always the last 300 years is to ask very humbly very quietly the system to nature or nowadays society and then you have to listen very carefully what nature implies and if you are sensitive enough you can put your flag on a discovery or something I think even though I like very much the idea of doing a new science or doing it in a different way I think much of what you have said being humble and listening this is already there and this is a very successful program something very short