Alternate Description

Bruce Abbott (980930.1755 EST)]

Fred Nickols (980930.1540) --
Is there something I don't understand here?

Well, maybe. Your second description would be valid if you are just talking
at arriving at point A from point B without regard to how you get there.
You just set a reference for point B and let the system act so as to
minimize the error.

But more often we are trying to move in a particular way. Let's say that I
am trying to draw a circle freehand. The movement path reflects the
time-varying reference values I am sending to the first-order systems that
contract the relevant muscles so as to produce what I hope will be a
circular motion of the pencil over the paper.

I agree that if my reference condition is a particular motion,
I will control for a perception of movement that is consistent
with that reference condition. However, in that case, what I
would ordinarily call "the outcome" is adherence to the intended
motion, not the circle (or approximation thereof) that constitutes
the end product of that motion. On the other hand, if my reference
condition is a circle drawn (or some approximation thereof), it is
a tremendous "leap in logic" to suggest that there is an intervening
program being executed that results in said circle.

Again, mon ami, am I missing something? (I suspect someone's going
to hit me with the "hierarchy" but I'll wait and see.)

Ciao, CSGers--I'm off for some Vodka Rigatoni...(speculate about
that reference condition...)

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095