Von Foerster s presentations of the NTM changed

Von Foerster׳s presentations of the NTM changed slightly from presentation to presentation, in particular with regards to that which brings about state changes in the machine. According to Von Foerster (1970, p. 139) the transitions of internal states depend on the machine׳s previous state and on its input, according to Von Foerster (1972, p. 6) internal state transitions depend on the machine׳s previous output, and according to Von Foerster (1984, p. 10) internal state transitions depend again on the machine׳s previous state and on its input. Another description of non-triviality offered by von Foerster is the image of a schoolboy who displays non-trivial behaviour by responding to a maths or history problem with an unexpected answer. Similar to the mechanistic portrayal of non-triviality, the anthropomorphic portrayal changes slightly from one presentation to the next. In Sander (1999) and Pruckner (2002) the schoolboy responds to the problem “2 times 2” with the result “green”. In Von Foerster (2003, p. 311) he synthase responds to problem “2 times 3” with the answer “green” or with the answer “Thats how old I am”. In Von Foerster (1972, p. 6) he responds to the question When was Napoleon born? with the answer “Seven years before the Declaration of Independence.” Von Foerster deplores the state of educational systems in which school children who offer such unexpected responses are deemed insufficiently trivialised, and therefore trained more until they produce the desired answers reliably. Von Foerster explains convincingly that neither NTM nor schoolboy permits analytical determination from the perspective of a human observer. He does not, however, address the possible conclusion that NTM and unpredictable human are therefore to be taken as isomorphous. He calls for humans to be perceived as non-trivial (Von Foerster, 1972, p. 6), without addressing the question of whether the NTM would be capable of giving the answers given by the schoolboy.
Variety and automated production Surprising variety (in the cybernetic sense: number of choices available) and reliable predictability are, paradoxically both for better and for worse, essential human needs and human characteristics (Fischer, 2010, p. 611). We experience this paradox in numerous contexts in which we enjoy both stimulating variety in expression as well as economic and organisational benefits of uniformity. In shaping our products and environments, the advantages offered by predictably uniform (hence interchangeable) prefabricated components famously gave rise to assembly-line based production since the early days of industrial production; and it is part and parcel of architectural construction today. Having been introduced to architecture with uniform building elements, prefabrication brought along with it sameness at the scales of component repetition. At small scales of component repetition, such as that of clay bricks (Fischer, 2007), interchangeability may be appreciated for allowing flexibility and subtle texture. At larger scales such as that of floor plans or whole buildings as found in Platenbau developments (Hopf and Meier, 2011), repetitive sameness is criticised for being monotonously boring or even socially detrimental. Aiming at repeatable input–output relationships, early computer applications in our field focussed on predictable input–output relationships, leading to criticisms of applying the computer as a “fancy drawing board” (Dantas, 2010, p. 161) and of valuing it as an equivalent to “an army of clerks” (Alexander, 1965). In architecture and in other industries, there are now tendencies acting against monotonous sameness. Referred to as customisation approaches (Gilmore et al., 1997), these tendencies are increasingly aided by computational (generative, parametric etc.) techniques that allow increasing of variety via circular feedback. The development of typography follows a similar pattern. Moveable type introduced economic benefits along with monotonous sameness to book printing. Using type wheels and the like, typewriters, teletypes and computer printers achieved similar predictable sameness and cost-efficiency also in documents produced in small numbers. Contextual variations such as ligatures have been introduced to mechanical typesetting. Some contemporary computer typefaces go further and achieve “organic”, “random” or “handwritten” appearances by introducing randomness to curve paths or by providing sets of alternative glyphs for the same characters.