[Martin Taylor 2007.12.06.15.27]
I would be very happy if this interchange could stop sounding like Question Period in the House of Commons (I hope this makes sense to USAmericans):
Hon Member for Chicoutimi: "Would the Minister please confirm that the Statistics Canada estimate of 5214 out-of-work steelworkers in Baie Comeau is not inflated?"
Rt. Hon Minister: "The Hon. Member should be aware that the Government's tax refund program has resulted in no fewer than three families in his constituency no longer needing child-care services. The Hon. Member's question omits reference to this remarkable achievement, which, since he comes from Chicoutimi, should be of great significance to him."
Hon. Member for Chicoutimi: "While I appreciate the Minister's concern for the families of Chicoutimi, I would like to know whether the government's estimates of the number of out-of-work steelworkers in Baie Comeau agrees with the estimate provided yesterday by Statistics Canada."
Rt. Hon Minister: "It is not only in Chicoutimi that the number of families seeking day-care has gone down as a result of the Government's well-considered program of tax refunds. It is true in at least two other areas of Canada."
(great applause from the Government Benches).
···
----------------------
I'm not going to respond specifically to
[From Bill Powers (2007.12.06.0754 MST)]
As it seems irrelevant to the issue under discussion except for one statement that seems to suggest that the message being commented on, as well as earlier messages in this thread, was simply skimmed, not read:
By putting the critical degrees of freedom into the environment (that is, our physical model of the environment), you're objectifying something that is basically a subjective problem.
That is, at least on the surface, a response to a misconception of what I wrote, which is encouraging, since I see little in the rest of the message that is even that close to the topic.
The misconception is that I am "putting the critical degrees of freedom into the environment", a misconception enhanced by the addition of "(that is, our physical model of the environment)"-- (The latter is, of course, required in taking the Analyst's Viewpoint). The first part is a misreading of "the environmental feedback paths of the set of potentially conflicting control systems" as being the same as "the physical environment of the organism".
I suspect the misconception comes from one possible reading of
The fandamental point where we seem to have a persistent disagreement seems to be about the existence of the hard limit, imposed by the degrees of freedom in the common environment of the potentially conflicted control systems. No kind of reorganization can get around that hard limit.
If you read that paragraph by itself, outside the context of all the preceding and following discussion in this and other messages, AND without noticing the words "of the potentially conflicted copntrol systems", then I can see how the misconception might arise. But it does take an act of will to sustain it through reading the rest of my writings in this thread, in which the "critical degrees of freedom" have been, in different examples, in the perceptual input, in the output effectors including lower-level control systems, and in the physical environment.
I'll comment on one more element:
It's the same as if there is only one stick and two people each need a stick to poke at something. There's only one instantaneous degree of freedom for stick ownership, and it takes a finite time to change ownership. If two control systems try to use the same environmental degree of freedom at the same time, they can't both succeed.
The environment has even more degrees of freedom than perceptions do. You could break the stick in half, creating two sticks. Or it could occur to you that there can't possibly be just one stick in the whole town, so you go find another one.
The comment is entirely irrelevant to the point, which I restate: "If two control systems try to use the same environmental degree of freedom at the same time, they can't both succeed." Once the stick is broken, that condition no longer holds.
Could we perhaps return to a discussion of the situations in which conflict can occur, and from them, the technical measures available to mitigate or avoid it? After that, it may perhaps be easier to fit together in a pattern the different kinds of mechanisms that implement those technical measures.
When we can agree on the situations, the technical measures possible should be apparent; after that, it is reasonable to deal with the mechanisms by which conflict escalates and the mechanisms and interventions that might serve to resolve or mitigate particular conflict types. It's surely unlikely that the same kinds of measures will be appropriate when the conflict is of a "2 into 1 won't go" MOL type as compared to a "200 into 100 won't go" social conflict.
To sum up, Martin, I contend that it is not the environment that limits our degrees of freedom, or even in most cases our output capabilities, but our selection of goals which result in trying to accomplish impossible ends.
You say nothing here with which I have disagreed, or would disagree, provided that you add "often" after "it is" on the first line. The last part "our selection ..." is always true. It can be true for many reasons, one of which is that the "impossible dream" requires setting some degree of freedom to a value that is also being influenced by one or more other control systems.
I would, in any case, appreciate some serious comment on one or more of my messages on degrees of freedom, tolerance, and conflict. In particular, I think the example of the cow distribution needs to be clearly understood. If that example really makes sense to you, we do have a basis on which to continue work (and avoid political-type responses). I really had thought the concept of degrees-of-freedom to be well understood by most readers of CSGnet, and am rather surprised to discover that it is not.
Martin