[From Rick Marken (931207.0930)]
Martin Taylor (931206 17:55) --
You knew I wouldn't resist, didn't you, you old S-R conniver, you!
Distubance-output conniver; yep.
Are you really and truly offering to vanish if you ever get information
from your perception?
My criticisms of information theory will vanish from the net, yes.
But, so far, it looks like the boojum is a snark, you see.
Re: information in the perceptual signal.
I did [demonstrate it], but you refused to accept the direct
demonstration.
Which demonstration was that? The demonstration that o = f(r-p)
when computation of f() is perfect and there is a perfectly linear
feedback function? That's a VERY special case. You refused to
accept my demonstration that o <> f(r-p) in the general case --
something that is also obvious from the results of the quasi-static
analysis which shows that o is a function of r and d but not p.
I am at present preparing what I hope will be a
demonstration that even you will accept.
I'm glad you're doing it; I'm looking forward to seeing it (though
I'm not holding my breath).
But PLEASE, read enough of my stuff to understand that there never is
information IN a signal. The information measure is a measure of
uncertainty reduction, and is ordinarily information available FROM
a signal ABOUT a situation. The concept of information IN a signal
is meaningless.
How do you get information FROM a signal if that information is not
IN the signal? How do I get information FROM you ABOUT the Rasmussen
seminar (time, location) if it is not, in some sense, IN you?
Re: purpose requires changeable reference.
You are going further out on a limb here than you have before.
Nope. Nothing new.
What are you proposing as an alternative to control systems as
purposive?
Nothing. I am proposing that control systems ARE purposive, even
if those systems have a fixed reference.
That vortices in a stream have purpose? or that there
are other purposive systems than negative feedback systems?
I think you are conflating (a currently popular pastime, apparently)
"variable reference" and "negative feedback". Negative feedback
refers to a relationship between a system and its environment.
The relationship is such that inputs to the system leads to outputs
that CANCEL the output producing inputs. The gain in this relationship
refers to the degree to which the output cancels the input; if gain
is low then you have an ordinary, dissipative physical system -- like
a vortex -- whose outputs are driven by its inputs. A vortex is NOT
purposive. When gain is much greater than 1 (Bill likes 5, and
after his extraordinary (931206.1515 MST) post to Oded I will
believe anything he says) the system becomes a control system; it
stabilizes its input (if it is dynamically stable) at a reference
level that depends on the system function that transforms inputs
into outputs. The system function can produce a fixed or variable
reference level; that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a
stable, high gain, negative feedback organizatoin maintains system
input (actually, the perceptual representation thereof) at a reference
level, despite disturbancs to that input; ie. it's behavior is
purposeful.
What do you mean by "purpose"?
Purpose IS control. The reference level of the controlled variable
can be fixed or variable; it doesn't matter. What matters is the
stabilization of perception against disturbance; that's purpose, and
it results (as I explained in "The blind men and the elephant") when
ANY system is in a stable, high gain, negative feedback relationship
with its environment.
Hans Blom (931207) --
I said:
The "error" that resulted was an irrelevant side effect of this
FEEDBACK control process.
Hans replies:
I can get mightily annoyed by the term "irrelevant side effect". If this
is what PCT leads to, I will henceforth consider PCT an evil. I also do
not believe in this term, nor do I accept it as an excuse.
Claiming that something is an "irrelevant side effect" when it's NOT
(ie. using "irrelevant side effect" as an excuse) is certainly annoying
to me too. But this was not the point of my comment. I think one of
the most important contributions of PCT to the life sciences is to
provide a theoretical rational for distinguishing irrelevant
(accidental) from intended effects of action. It also provides an
objective means ("the test") for distinguishing these two types of
effects of action; this is what is demonstrated in my "mind reading"
demo.
While I (like you) get annoyed when someone claims that an intended
result was an accident (irrelevant side effect) I also get annoyed
when someone claims that an accident was intended. I don't like it
when people are held responsible for effects that were not intended
(accidental side effects). Look at Salmon Rushdie; did he intend to
do anything other than write a funny story? Now his life is ruined
becuase people will not accept his "blasphemy" as an accidental side
effect of satire. Many people (apparently about 1 billion of them)
assume that Salman intentionally blasphemed and they want to knock
him off. I think this shows that holding people responsible for
irrelevant side effects is just as (if not more) evil than claiming
that an intentional effect is nan irrelevant side effect. I see
your evil and raise you ten!
First, the
"irrelevant side effect" that you introduce into the world through your
actions may be something major for somebody else
Irrelevant side effects that hurt other people are unfortunate, sure.
But if they were not produced intentionally (if they were not the
result of a control process) what good does it do to "punish" the
person who was partly responsible for the effect? This must be the
legal intuition behind not punishing people for accidentally
produced effects. If the person had no reference for the result
(was not controlling it -- perhaps not even perceiving it) it makes
not sense to suggest to the person that he or she was maintaining
the "wrong" reference.
Second, when you notice
the harm that your "irrelevancy" has done, you yourself might be very
sorry for having done so.
Indeed. I have accidentally stepped on toes and felt bad about it.
The irrelevant side effects you know about are no longer irrelevant,
are they? And you can take steps to avoid them if you like; it's called
"being careful". But you can't do much about truly irrelevant side
effects -- effects you are not even perceiving. There may be something
about the way I walk that drives some people nuts; these people have
said nothing to me, and I cannot perceive these results if they exist.
But this kind of thing happens; other people get offended, hurt, grossed
out, mad, etc by completely irrelevent (unperceived and, possibly,
unperceiveable) side effects of one's own actions. If those observers
understood control theory they might feel a little better.
The law of karma: your deeds come back to you, whether you intended
them or not.
Well, I hope not, but that's another theory.
Best
Rick