Please feel free to ignore the following. It will drive you nuts!
From the point of view of an observer, we have one model of a
thermostat. But what does the world look like to the thermostat? It
has a perceptual organization that allows temperature to "show up"
for it. The rest of the world does not exist as far as the
thermostat is concerned. The thermostat's actions are "called forth"
by temperature changes. This calling forth only happens, however,
because the thermostat has a "concern" -- a "preference" for the
temperature it wants to perceive.
The above is, I think, close in spirit to what Heidegger talks about
in Division I of _Being and Time_. Why anyone would want to build
bridges between Heidegger and PCT may be less obvious. In my
experience, it provides access to PCT to a potential audience that
can more readily accept the power of the approach than professional
psychologists who have a heavy investment in other ways of looking
at human beings.
From the point of view of an observer, we have one model of a
thermostat. But what does the world look like to the thermostat? It
has a perceptual organization that allows temperature to "show up"
for it. The rest of the world does not exist as far as the
thermostat is concerned. The thermostat's actions are "called forth"
by temperature changes. This calling forth only happens, however,
because the thermostat has a "concern" -- a "preference" for the
temperature it wants to perceive.
The above is, I think, close in spirit to what Heidegger talks about
in Division I of _Being and Time_. Why anyone would want to build
bridges between Heidegger and PCT may be less obvious. In my
experience, it provides access to PCT to a potential audience that
can more readily accept the power of the approach than professional
psychologists who have a heavy investment in other ways of looking
at human beings.
Very nice. Adopting the point of view of the control system.
From the point of view of an observer, we have one model of a
thermostat. But what does the world look like to the thermostat? It
has a perceptual organization that allows temperature to "show up"
for it. The rest of the world does not exist as far as the
thermostat is concerned. The thermostat's actions are "called forth"
by temperature changes. This calling forth only happens, however,
because the thermostat has a "concern" -- a "preference" for the
temperature it wants to perceive.
A familiarity with Heidegger's phenomenology may bring people toward the
point of view of the control system, but might not bring them all the way.
The actions of the thermostat-furnace system don't exist for that system,
nor does their being "called forth." These exist only in the perceptual
universe of an observer.
Another control system sets the reference level. That other control system
and the reference level itself don't exist in the perceptual universe of
the thermostatic system. The reference setting may be called a desired
temperature by us outside observers.
There is a linear-causative relationship between physical properties of the
environment and physical properties of the sensor. (Perhaps the sensor is a
bimetallic spring with a mercury switch.) A difference in the environment
makes a difference in the sensor relative to the reference setting.
"Temperature" "shows up" as one of two values, "too low" and "not too low."
If it's an HVAC system whose effectors can cool as well as heat the
environment, "temperatures now show up with three values, "too low," "OK,"
and "too high." But this difference is visible only to an observer, because
it is a reflection of the increased repertoire of actions (outputs) which
are themselves not perceivable by the thermostatic system.
A familiarity with Heidegger's phenomenology may bring people
toward the
point of view of the control system, but might not bring them all
the way.
I would be astounded if it did!
The actions of the thermostat-furnace system don't exist for that
system,
nor does their being "called forth." These exist only in the
perceptual
universe of an observer.
Yes, that's why it is an allegory.
I think I've got that right.
I think you've got it right, too. But you _may_ have missed my
point. I was simply saying that for many people the importance of
PCT may only emerge when they can relate it to their own experience
as a Living Control System as contrasted with those who observe
living control systems.
>From the point of view of an observer, we have one model of a
>thermostat. But what does the world look like to the thermostat? It
>has a perceptual organization that allows temperature to "show up"
>for it. The rest of the world does not exist as far as the
>thermostat is concerned. The thermostat's actions are "called forth"
>by temperature changes. This calling forth only happens, however,
>because the thermostat has a "concern" -- a "preference" for the
>temperature it wants to perceive.
Bruce, you've brought up the example of a thermostat several times now.
You have explicitly called it an example of a control system, but that
is just not so. A thermostat is described much better by a
lineal-causal model than by a control system model. A thermostat
changes as a function of temperature and setting, period. There is no
preference to be found there. There is no control, because there is no
feedback. There is nothing in the output of a thermostat, alone, which
affects the input to the thermostat.
I therefore recommend that this no longer be used as an example of a
control system.
Bruce, you've brought up the example of a thermostat several times now.
You have explicitly called it an example of a control system, but that
is just not so. A thermostat is described much better by a
lineal-causal model than by a control system model. A thermostat
changes as a function of temperature and setting, period. There is no
preference to be found there. There is no control, because there is no
feedback. There is nothing in the output of a thermostat, alone, which
affects the input to the thermostat.
I therefore recommend that this no longer be used as an example of a
control system.
I'm sorry if I failed to make it clear that the thermostat is
regulating a heat source. Would you prefer that I talk about a
thermostatically controlled heat source? (The setting is the the
thermostat's "preference". The feedback is the heat source's
effect on the temperature recorded by the theromstat.)
Bruce, you've brought up the example of a thermostat several times now.
You have explicitly called it an example of a control system, but that
is just not so. A thermostat is described much better by a
lineal-causal model than by a control system model. A thermostat
changes as a function of temperature and setting, period. There is no
preference to be found there. There is no control, because there is no
feedback. There is nothing in the output of a thermostat, alone, which
affects the input to the thermostat.
Tracy, instead of arguing with you I think I will just recommend that you
reexamine your concept of control, and of how a thermostat actually works.
It doesn't look to me as though you understand either one. You are going to
find that the entire massed might of CSGnet is arrayed against you here.
I'll give you just one hint. There most certainly is feedback in a
thermostatic control system. What are the inputs to and outputs from a
thermostatic temperature control system?
Very nice of you to try to soften the blow for Tracy Harms by making a
simple mistake yourself:
I'm sorry if I failed to make it clear that the thermostat is
regulating a heat source.
Of course you really know that a thermostat controls or regulates the
temperature of the air around its sensor by _varying_ the output of a heat
source.
Very nice of you to try to soften the blow for Tracy Harms by making a
simple mistake yourself:
>I'm sorry if I failed to make it clear that the thermostat is
>regulating a heat source.
Of course you really know that a thermostat controls or regulates the
temperature of the air around its sensor by _varying_ the output of a heat
source.
I hope.
Your hopes are not in vain. I used the word "regulate" in a
very sloppy way. Of course, all the thermostat does is turn the
heat source on and off in order to regulate its own (the
thermostat's) temperature. (Thanks for giving me the benefit of
the doubt (Note to Isaac, this is not a covert FU.)
(Note to Isaac, this is not a covert FU.)