Man-Computer Symbiosis (1960)

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11797471-the-idea-factor...

Now now, we all know we can’t just cite Wikipedia as a source. I hardly think this is as settled a matter as you and the author of the article say it is, and I’m sure that after reviewing the following evidence, you will agree with me!

In fact, the author of the book on symbiosis (ironically cited by the Wikipedia article as evidence that the broad definition is “widely accepted by biologists,” even though it actually says the opposite!) actually says: while “many symbiosis researchers use this [broader] definition”, “the [broader] definition is not accepted by most general biologists and nonbiologists today, and so fails to communicate effectively,” and “the definition of symbiosis widely accepted among both general biologists and the lexicographers who prepare English dictionaries is an association between different species from which all participating organisms benefit.” (Emphasis author’s.)

As cited by the Wikipedia article:

> The definition of symbiosis was a matter of debate for 130 years.

> [...]

> In the 21st century, the latter has become the definition widely accepted by biologists.[13]

[13] Douglas 2010, pp 5-12:

> This brings me to the most frustrating difficulty in the field of symbiosis - the lack of a single universally accepted definition. Disagreement [...] has led to [...] a lack of consensus. Two alternative definitions of symbiosis, neither fully satisfactory, have dominated the literature for many decades: "symbiosis as any association" and "symbiosis as a persistent mutualism."

> [...]

> 1.3 DEFINITIONS OF SYMBIOSIS

> 1.3.1 Symbiosis As Any Association

> The term symbiosis was coined originally by Anton de Bary in 1879 to mean any association between different species, with the implication that the organisms are in persistent contact but that the relationship need not be advantageous to all the participants. De Bary explicitly included pathogenic and parasitic associations as examples of symbioses. Many symbiosis researchers use this definition and, without doubt, some colleagues steeped in the symbiosis literature will have objected to the opening two sentences of this book.

> One key advantage of the definition of de Bary is that it promotes a broad context for research into symbioses. It acts as a reminder that it is important to investigate both the costs and the benefits to an organism of entering into a symbiosis (see figure 1-1a); and it is reasonable to expect some of the processes underlying relationships that are classified as mutualistic and antagonistic to be similar. For example, just as the persistence of certain antagonistic interactions depends on one organism failing to recognize the antagonist as a foreign organism, so some organisms may be accepted into symbioses because they fail to trigger the defense systems of their partner and not because they are positively recognized as mutualists. Nevertheless, the definition of de Bary has two serious shortcomings. First and very importantly, the definition is not accepted by most general biologists or nonbiologists today, and so fails to communicate effectively. Most people do not describe the current malaria pandemic or the potato blight that caused the Irish famine of the 1840s as examples of symbiosis. Second, there are few principles generally applicable to symbioses, as defined by de Bary, but inapplicable to other biological systems. As a result, the "symbiosis as any association" definition is something of a catch-all category. Although this definition does promote further enquiry and insight into symbioses, any insights obtained are unlikely to be common to all symbioses defined in this way.

>

> 1.3.2 Symbiosis As a Persistent Mutualism

> The definition of symbiosis widely accepted among both general biologists and the lexicographers who prepare English dictionaries is an association between different species from which all participating organisms benefit. I subscribe to this definition even though it is not without difficulties.

“The Symbiotic Habit”, Angela E. Douglas

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Symbiotic_Habit.htm...

If anything, I would think perhaps that we might be able to agree that the Wikipedia article you referenced should be fixed to correctly represent the author’s conclusion, or the offending section excised. :)

A more apt descriptor for him would be cybernetician. He was an acolyte of Norbert Wiener and his man-computer symbiosis can and should be read as his attempt to resolve the conflict in Wiener's writings between humans and machines. Instead of being antagonists, they could mutually benefit from one another as partners in a symbiosis.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/227181.227186

It was interesting to see that Christopher Nolan featured Vannevar Bush prominently in the recent Oppenheimer film. Stripe press published some of his writings recently as well. (I haven't read this one yet)

https://press.stripe.com/pieces-of-the-action