==Semiotics, Cybernetics, and You!==Ready to learn?http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem02.htmlHere are some strictly complementary resources to round out your knowledge once you have an understanding of what semiotics is:http

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1417741138088.jpg (42.28 KB, 500x537, 500:537, keanu-reeves-and-hugo-weav….jpg)

Anonymous 12/05/14 (Fri) 00:58:58 No.459

Semiotics, Cybernetics, and You!

Ready to learn?

http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem02.html

Here are some strictly complementary resources to round out your knowledge once you have an understanding of what semiotics is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

http://vimeo.com/73536828

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

By the time you understand what is in this post, you'll see the world a different way. It might not hit you immediately, but it will happen.

Extra Credit
Read through this and look for the references to magic. It's no coincidence.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1023279/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf

Now consider the strange case of Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, prominent Satanist and developer of military psychological techniques.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican16a.htm

Anonymous 12/05/14 (Fri) 02:38:18 No.460

I come from /pol/ and I'm here to learn.

Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 05:52:52 No.1182

Feel like this OP should be mandatory reading for this board.

Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 06:32:10 No.1183

totes newfag to these parts. I got anthro and polisci on my belt, including semiotics. I need more guidance as to what you guys are doing.

Anonymous 03/25/15 (Wed) 22:07:34 No.1193

>>1183

What we are doing is just a discussion of techniques used by those in power to modify the behaviour of those they control. I guess running parallel to /pol/ and similar boards but here we don't make value judgments and try to stick to a 'scientific' conversation. This subject area covers a large range of fields, it seems you could contribute a lot with your background and the board could use more activity so please post anything you think is applicable.

Sniffles 03/25/15 (Wed) 23:07:51 No.1194

>>1193
That's a pretty good definition of things.
And the quotes on "scientific" are necessary.

Anonymous 03/25/15 (Wed) 23:20:22 No.1195

>>1193
I'm entirely new, but very aggressive in my beliefs of how sophisticated "they" are.

Am I correct that "Cybernetics" is basically the engineering field that studies how to control groups of humans, in a way?

It would make perfect sense to me, since we have a field concerning every single science, except human systems outside of economics, so would Cybernetics be that tool the government studies and used to absolutely dissect and dominate the population?

Actually if true, it makes things much more interesting, at least the oponent is "worth" and intelligent, not just some brute with money and his henchmen. I'd much rather fight an intelligent force of science than stupid feuds.

Also, would people suggest the average group leader with an engineering background to study cybernetics to effectively manage human systems?

Anonymous 03/26/15 (Thu) 00:52:59 No.1197

>>1195
Cybernetics is about systems and networks and structures and interactions- not necessarily human but including humans. It can be used to better understand social change and influence, so in that sense your understanding is correct.
Give this a watch http://vimeo.com/73536828

>Also, would people suggest the average group leader with an engineering background to study cybernetics to effectively manage human systems?
Definitely. As well as neurolinguistic programming (NLP).

Anonymous 03/26/15 (Thu) 01:07:04 No.1198

>>1197
Link's broken

Anonymous 03/26/15 (Thu) 01:22:01 No.1199

>>1198
Here you go, friend
https://vimeo.com/groups/96331/videos/80799352

Anonymous 04/19/15 (Sun) 14:55:24 No.1499

File: 1429455324995.png (3.99 KB, 493x402, 493:402, 1370088135633.png)

Doesn't the "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" argue against cybernetics?

That's the impression I got by watching the 1st and 2nd episodes at least.

Anonymous 04/19/15 (Sun) 17:40:42 No.1501

>>1499

That's kind of up to you to decide. Did you get that impression? Do you feel that the film mistreated the subject?

I don't.

Anonymous 04/19/15 (Sun) 18:02:18 No.1502

>>1501

I don't think it mistreated the subject, but I felt that it was biased against it. I mean, the whole theme of the episode seemed to be "silly humans, thinking you can model accurately massively complex systems with logical machinery". With the ecosystems, it basically showed that once you start simulating something that isn't uber simple, the results become chaotic and unpredictable (and, so I figured, useless).

Anonymous 04/19/15 (Sun) 18:04:53 No.1503

>>1502

I think the problem was oversimplification of the model

Anonymous 04/19/15 (Sun) 19:40:14 No.1505

>>1502

>silly humans, thinking you can model accurately massively complex systems with logical machinery

Sounds about right to me.

>>1503

Don't forget that what we don't know isn't known. That is to say, the extent to which there are gaps in the knowledge is not ascertainable.

Models and simulations have their role and usefulness. But they are limited by their creator's knowledge, and there is no all-knowing force to populate a simulation with every possible variable. Therefore these purported universe simulators could never truly be. Any ideas which are based on the existence and omnipotence of a so-called all-powerful simulation would be based on faulty logic.

The people who want these systems seek to be all-knowing but there is no such thing.

Anonymous 04/20/15 (Mon) 03:00:02 No.1510

>>1505

All models are wrong but some are useful etc etc.

Anonymous 04/20/15 (Mon) 03:19:53 No.1511

>>1510

That is agreeable but basing entire economies and policies on them is untenable. This is actually something that some people want to do.

Anonymous 04/22/15 (Wed) 10:02:43 No.1546

Extremely interesting, however I didn't fully read through the first link but I read big chunks. I assume that is probably why it feels like I'm missing something. Going through the deception one(haven't done it fully)

Ive seen a few references to magic but I guess my eye for noticing it isn't so good yet. I feel as if there are a lot of messages hidden in the pictures and that's probably what they're trying to show

Anonymous 04/22/15 (Wed) 13:20:56 No.1550

http://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/#top

I'm still reading the introduction to semiotics but I'm leaving this link for when I'm back.

Anonymous 04/24/15 (Fri) 10:49:11 No.1568

Somewhat off topic but not really. I didn't realize how much the symbols mattered to people when watching a show until I watched a documentary with a friend. I usually pay attention to the words and see the symbols but the words are what I pay most attention to unless it's a video of something happening. The documentary had very few symbols and was mainly talking. The information was great but because he had no picture telling him what to think it's as if he didn't hear any of it. He didn't even know what they were talking about after it was over.