(Gavin Ritz 2011.04.06.11.47NZT)
[From Bill Powers
BP: What do you see as the difference between
these two answers?
FN: As succinctly as I can put it, my first answer
put my goal “out there”
and my second answer put my goal “in
That’s how I see it, too.
Is this not the essence
of learning, the objective outside and the control of that objective inside?
That objective inside is
an energetic signature (electrical if one likes).
Goals are also Imperative
Logic (commands) we command our energies inside. Some of us are pretty good at
it, other not so. How we manage to concentrate (control) our internal energies.
The very basic unit of
command is related to work, so it’s simply a task. And a task is a form
of entropy production.
Hence the barium sulphate
Ripening) is a very good analogy.
First just a solution,
then many small crystals grow, and then larger more perfect crystals eat
smaller less perfect crystals. (predator-prey), then a few large crystals are
left. Does this sound familiar?
That’s why the
Gibbs free Energy (de Lange) for non equilibrium
systems is so important.
It has only 4 terms.
(The change in quantities
between the external environment and the internal system: A) (the objectives and/or low order qualities
of the environment: B) (the difference
between the internal energies and the environmental energies: C)
It’s really simple
to see from this function’s descriptions that the environment A and B has a big
role to play, such as a rich resources environment (oil, food, water, sex
(mates)) changes the function’s value dramatically. It is no wonder our
energies concentrate to fight for those resources.
Everything is control and
the control is for all the internal energies and external resources (energies).
Until we all understand
this clearly greed, avarice and rapaciousness will continue. These are really
words for selfish energetic control.
or the mission of any living organism is concentration (control) of its own energies
and accumulation (control) of the external energies. (Resources).
this describe our economic system and evolutionary theories?
we do this? Through Work the smallest unit of external control.
your humanist stuff might help here. It’s not pretty.
We see this Control right
here on this very list. As I’ve said before PCT is really the Control of
Our own Realities and that is our internal energies.
I have presented PCT in
another way on two other major lists and have got very little resistance.
Beyond the “inside” and “outside”
idea, however, there’s another
angle. In PCT, a goal is defined as a reference signal
control-system kind of organization. The reference
signal is a neural
signal of the same kind as a perceptual signal. If we
“neurovoltmeter” we could touch the tip of
the probe to the path
where the reference signal is and get a reading on a
scale, like 10
“neurovolts.” Touching the probe to the
perceptual signal path, we
might read 9 neurovolts; the error signal pathway
would register 1 neurovolt.
So now we’re talking about the nature of a goal
without even knowing
what the goal is. It’s just whatever the neurovoltage
in that pathway
corresponds to. In fact, to interpret the readings, we
would have to
have a reference sheet listing all the places where
signals could be
measured, what each signal represents, and the
determines what magnitude of something is represented
by a certain
number of impulses per second.
This is exactly how electronic analog computing works.
signals are alike. They’re all just some amount of
voltage – real
volts, not neurovolts. All the signals are measured
with the same
voltmeter, or another just like it. You can’t tell
measuring just from the reading on the voltmeter. You
startled to find that the error signal is 50 volts,
only to have
someone say “You’re measuring the wrong signal –
that’s the output signal.”
The implication for neuroscience is clear. There’s no
tracing out all the connections in the brain until you
know what the
signals represent, and you can’t discover that just by
signals. You have to look at the relationship between
variables and neural signals in the brain. You have to
experiments, or at least psychophysical experiments.
This is a very weird situation. Here the observer is,
a brain in one
body, trying to interpret perceptions of neural
signals in another
body in relation to the perceptual signals in the
observer that are
called “external variables.” It sounds like
a closed system, without
any way to find out what anything really means or
really is. One is
reminded of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. "The
incompleteness theorem shows that if such a system is
also capable of
proving certain basic facts about the natural numbers,
particular arithmetic truth the system cannot prove is
consistency of the system itself." We have the
theorem now – or maybe we should call it a relativity
model of the brain cannot be proven to be consistent
with the reality
represented in that model," or "The
organization of the brain can be
represented only relative to the organization of the
brain observing it."
At 01:10 PM 4/3/2011 -0700, Fred Nickols wrote: