Back to the Grand Inquisitor

<Bill Cunningham 940526.0800>

Rick Marken (940525.2330)

Rick,

First, very sorry for inelegant logoff last night. I was composing on line,
a bad habit, when frantic notice of household disaster removed any uncertainty
over my immediate priorities :slight_smile:

Last things first, I'm glad you see "eschew obfuscation" as oxymoronic. That
is precisely why I put it into my e-mail closing. I is my one fingered salute
to bureaucracy.

I didn't get a chance to comment on your earlier response. I find it
astonishing that you don't or cannot control for reduced uncertainty. I find
my self quite conscious of doing so and find it hard to imagine that others
do not -- especially a scientist. That was what motivated the quote from G&S.
In the song, the Grand Inquisitor describes a totallyconvoluted situation
regarding hidden identity of one of two apparant siblings; but
concludes there is no doubt that he can't tell one from the other.

Your hypothesis that I was controlling for IT having relevance to PCT was
false, as stated. It correctly identified my interest, but not purpose --
which was to enter into layered protocol, at the conclusion of which my
perception of your understanding of IT would have changed. I had hoped to
use your enquiry to lead to a point; but since you don't control for
reduced uncertainty, that thread is a dead end (to mix metaphors).

It may also cut the thread I was starting when I asked on what basis would
you change your control (for reduced uncertainty) to other matters. If not
for control for uncertainty, on what basis do you change variables for which
you do control?

The basis of my question is not at all devious, but it does involve IT--at
least to me. Almost all of the discussion on the net involves perceptions
that ARE under control. We don't really worry about the perceptions that
are not currently controlled, but might be. The degrees of freedom argument
shows that the ratio of sensors to effectors does not permit simultaneous
control of all possible percepts. So on what basis are some controlled and
others not? What would provide the basis for change?

Today is a bad day to start a discussion, but that raises an issue that has
vexed me for some time -- with as little obfuscation as possible.

And now, referring again to G&S, I must go do my thing for the very
model of a modern major general.

Regards,

Bill C.

PROFS: mon1(cunningb) Internet: cunningb@monroe-emh1.army.mil
Phone (804) 727-3472/DSN 680-3472. FAX ext 3694/2562
               *Eschew Obfuscation*