B:CP Course Summary of CH. 5 Control Unit of Organization

CSGnet Archive CSG2013
1

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.11.1230)]

Again, there was not much activity regarding Ch. 5 (but thanks Rupert,
you get top billing in the Summary). But we will assume that there are
still some people out there who are interested in the course and this
is just a trial run so we are building up material for the eventual
:real thing". So here is the summary of Ch. 5. Again, feel free to
comment on it and/or anything else relevant to B;CP if you get a
chance during the week.

Best regards

Rick

Summary Ch 5 Control Unit of Organization.doc (58 KB)

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

Content-Type: application/msword;
  name="Summary Ch 5 Control Unit of Organization.doc"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
  filename="Summary Ch 5 Control Unit of Organization.doc"
X-Attachment-Id: f_hk8n5e971

2

[Martin Taylor 2013.08.13.17.47]

A couple of un-noted typos in Chapter 5 and one, possibly minor, comment.

Typos, both at the top of page 64: line 2, 10/11 should be 1/11; line 4 1/1+A should be A/1+A

Comment p67 start of section "Control System Dynamics": Bill says we are not adapted to deal with surprises such as the sudden appearance of a dangerous predator, or in the contemporary context, a blowout on the highway. I suspect that if our ancestors had not been adapted to deal quickly with potentially lethal surprises, we would not be here.

Martin

3

[From: Richard Pfau (2013.08.14 11:42 EDT)]

Regarding: `[Martin Taylor 2013.08.13.17.47]

MT: Comment p67 start of section “Control System Dynamics”: Bill says we are

not adapted to deal with surprises such as the sudden appearance of a

dangerous predator, or in the contemporary context, a blowout on the

highway. I suspect that if our ancestors had not been adapted to deal

quickly with potentially lethal surprises, we would not be here.

`

RP: I have looked at p. 67 and don't see that Bill says what you say he says. That is, he does not say that "we are not adapted to deal with suprises such as the sudden appearance of a dangerous predator, or in the contemporary context, a blowout on the highway".

``

He does write that "***Our control systems have acquired a speed of error correction just fast enough to prevent natural disturbances from having significant effects on what we perceive and control."*** For our ancestors, controlling for the sudden appearance of dangerous predators would seem to have been within the error control of at least some of them (ex., they might have stood still or hidden, climbed a tree or fled, or fought with the tools that they had, such reactions being consistent with the "fight or flight" response" or "general adaptive syndrome" build into us).

``

Although blowouts on highways did not occur long ago, natural situations requiring similar reaction times and speeds of error correction presumable did, such as perhaps suddenly slipping and starting to fall down a hillside, avoiding a falling rock, and similar sudden situations.

``

And so, although the first sentence of your statement seems to be a misstatement, your second sentence seems correct and is consistent with what Bill wrote.

``

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

4

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.14.0900)]

···

[Martin Taylor 2013.08.13.17.47]

MT: A couple of un-noted typos in Chapter 5 and one, possibly minor, comment.

Typos, both at the top of page 64: line 2, 10/11 should be 1/11; line 4 1/1+A should be A/1+A

RM: Great catch Martin. these are indeed typos; they didn’t exist in the original edition.

MT: Comment p67 start of section “Control System Dynamics”: Bill says we are not adapted to deal with surprises such as the sudden appearance of a dangerous predator, or in the contemporary context, a blowout on the highway. I suspect that if our ancestors had not been adapted to deal quickly with potentially lethal surprises, we would not be here.

RM: What Bill said was “Human control systems are adapted to a narural environment in which disturbances come and go not suddenly but with some typical natural rate of change.” I don’t think he’s talking about “surprises such as the sudden appearance of dangerous predator” but, rather, transient disturbances – disturbances that come or go suddenly-- such as the hammer tap on the patellar tendon. The patellar reflex is a control system that controls the angle of the knee, maintaining that angle in the face of force disturbances that result from walking, running or lifting. These natural disturbances can vary (come and go) pretty quickly but they are not sudden, like the hammer tap; rather they vary smoothly. The sudden appearance of a predator is, indeed, like a transient disturbance and if such a predator appears your are pretty much toast if your within striking distance. I think the ancestors who survived were the one’s who could perceive the higher level aspects of the world (what Gibson called “affordances” because he thought they existed in the environment) that would be known to require controlling for a high level of caution regarding predators.

Blowouts, which are now a problem as rare as predators thanks to tubeless tires, are not really transient (sudden); there is a time course to their effects on the position of your car. But these effects still may be too fast for your control systems, in which case you might, again, be toast.

Best

Rick

Martin

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

5

[From Mike Acree (2013.11.27.19.04 PST)]

[Martin Taylor 2013.08.13.17.47]--

A couple of un-noted typos in Chapter 5 and one, possibly minor, comment.

Typos, both at the top of page 64: line 2, 10/11 should be 1/11; line 4 1/1+A should be A/1+A

I've been far too busy this year to keep up with the collective reading, and am just now getting to this post on Chapter 5. Martin's corrections seem to have been accepted as obvious by everyone except me. They are hardly inconsequential typos; the discussion of these quantities goes on for a couple of paragraphs, and is elaborated in Appendix A. The fraction 10/11 (in the passage, "with a system sensitivity of 10, the magnitude of the perceptual signal is 10/11 of the reference signal") is consistent with Equation 6 in Appendix A.

I should note that I'm using the 1973 edition, and don't have access to the 2005, which you are evidently quoting; but I would not expect these figures to have been changed. Bill was also very meticulous in his writing, even in more casual CSGNet posts; it would be extremely surprising if he made such an egregious blunder in his magnum opus, and never noticed it in 40 years. The one source of possible confusion I can identify lies in the expression "reduced by a factor of 1/(1+A)." If a quantity is reduced by 1/11, it is 10/11 of its former value; if it is reduced by a factor of 1/11, it is 1/11 of its former value. If this ambiguity is not the problem, would you please explain why you think the text is in error at this point? Thanks!

Mike

6

[Martin Taylor 2013.11.27.22.32]

Your answer is in:

Martin

··· 

[From Mike Acree (2013.11.27.19.04 PST)]
[Martin Taylor 2013.08.13.17.47]--

A couple of un-noted typos in Chapter 5 and one, possibly minor, comment.



Typos, both at the top of page 64: line 2, 10/11 should be 1/11; line 4 1/1+A should be A/1+A


I've been far too busy this year to keep up with the collective reading, and am just now getting to this post on Chapter 5. Martin's corrections seem to have been accepted as obvious by everyone except me. They are hardly inconsequential typos; the discussion of these quantities goes on for a couple of paragraphs, and is elaborated in Appendix A. The fraction 10/11 (in the passage, "with a system sensitivity of 10, the magnitude of the perceptual signal is 10/11 of the reference signal") is consistent with Equation 6 in Appendix A.
I should note that I'm using the 1973 edition, and don't have access to the 2005, which you are evidently quoting; but I would not expect these figures to have been changed. Bill was also very meticulous in his writing, even in more casual CSGNet posts; it would be extremely surprising if he made such an egregious blunder in his magnum opus, and never noticed it in 40 years. The one source of possible confusion I can identify lies in the expression "reduced by a factor of 1/(1+A)." If a quantity is reduced by 1/11, it is 10/11 of its former value; if it is reduced by a factor of 1/11, it is 1/11 of its former value. If this ambiguity is not the problem, would you please explain why you think the text is in error at this point? Thanks!

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.14.0900)]

    [Martin Taylor

2013.08.13.17.47]

    MT: A couple of un-noted typos in Chapter 5 and one, possibly

minor, comment.

    Typos, both at the top of page 64: line 2, 10/11 should be 1/11;

line 4 1/1+A should be A/1+A

    RM: Great catch Martin. these are indeed typos; they didn't

exist in the original edition.

7

[From Mike Acree (2013.11.27.20.13 PST)]

[Martin Taylor 2013.11.27.22.32]–

···

Your answer is in:

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.14.0900)]

[Martin Taylor 2013.08.13.17.47]

MT: A couple of un-noted typos in Chapter 5 and one, possibly minor, comment.

Typos, both at the top of page 64: line 2, 10/11 should be 1/11; line 4 1/1+A should be A/1+A

RM: Great catch Martin. these are indeed typos; they didn’t exist in the original edition.

Martin

Thanks for the quick explanation, Martin. I don’t know how I missed Rick’s post; I don’t have it in my archive.