Trevor Tomesh on Computer/Human Interaction, Jung, &c.‪!‬ Import This

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
I'm finishing up my PhD here at the University of Regina.
Whoo Boy, that's a big question.
Um, let's just say it's a
systems theory, I guess would be the
one word or two words. Yeah, so systems theory.
On systems theory is applied to interactive hardware, specifically stuff to do with, like Arduino and DIY hobbyist electronics.
How's that being evaluated? Well, it's a sort of theoretical field. So essentially, I'm taking some really really old math from the 1940s.
And trying to bring it up to speed with other contemporary ideas, especially pertaining to the maker movement was actually
Yeah, no worries. Um, well, back in the 1940s, there was this movement to take all of the different disciplines and unite them under one banner, and they were calling that general systems theory. And so the idea is that you can take
the grand unified, yeah, the grand unified theory.
A kind of in a way yeah, that well, the grand unified theory in physics, I actually have a bachelor's degree in physics. The grand unified theory of physics was trying to unite quantum mechanics in general relativity. Now, General systems theory was actually founded by a biologist by the name of Ludwig von Berg handling fee and
His idea was that
you could potentially describe biological, physical, chemical electronic systems all using the same type of language. And so back in the 90s Yeah, well, so back in the 1940s and 1950s they started fiddling around that this idea
it's exactly that.
Yeah, it's uh, it's uh
huh, yeah, well in its kind of, so you have in computer science, which my PhD work is, that's the what will be my PhD here in a few months. But in computer science, you have kind of like two disparate sorts of fields, looking at how people and non computer systems interact with computers and those two are cybernetics and human computer interaction.
And human computer interaction that looks at interactions with machines as almost human conversations. But cybernetics takes the other approach and it says, Okay, well let's look at humans as if they work computers and systems theory kind of bridges. Systems Theory kind of bridges the gap between the two by saying no, let's look at everything like it's a system.
I am trying to
you yeah, essentially take that third stance that if we look at everything as if it's a system,
meet in the middle, somewhere between machine and man, then we can potentially
break through with all sorts of, well, essentially new philosophies and new ways of looking and designing things.
Mm
hmm.
Yeah, that's no that's, that's exactly it.
Exactly. And I've never been one to, like just take a very specific problem and say, I'm going to learn more about this very specific problem and then come up with a superficial answer. I've always been someone who has to drill down to the very core of what makes a discipline tick and then work from there, which is a huge pain in the ass for me, but
I'm not quite sure exactly what do you mean by that?
No, that's okay. That's okay.
No worries. I know I think I think I understand what you're saying. The way that we look at things. Yeah, I think well, that's the most important thing or not the most important thing but that isn't an important thing is
That first you get your definition straight. And one of the problems with systems theory is you have sort of two different areas of systems. There you have the early systems theorists which their work was in trying to define systems using mathematical models like using set theory, and then the later system, and then the later systems theorists are more like experimentalists, and the experimentalists, they take a look at inputs and outputs, and then reverse engineer the system, kind of the black box method of engineering. And so my work fits in sort of in between them, trying to bridge the gap. And that involves being very careful about definitions, because there's a misunderstanding between what we meant by systems and what we know mean