Control Systems Group

Dear Group:
        As practicing Controls Engineers, some of us don't understand the
nature of this discussion group. It seems that every now and then someone will
present truly technical information regarding Controls Systems. However, the
bulk of the material presented here has to do with
social/biological/psychological issues. My question is, should this forum
really be named a "Controls Systems Group" ?
                                                Jack Marriott

[Paul George 940916 0900]

Jack Marriott <Jack_Marriott.wbst208@XEROX.COM>
Thu, 15 Sep 1994 07:13:57 PDT

My question is, should this forum
really be named a "Controls Systems Group" ?

Yes. They got here first. Actually it deals with control systems as a mechanism
for biological behavior - Perceptual Control Theory. Check out the monthly post
when it comes around.

For engineering control systems check out the sci.engr.control & sci.systems
internet newsgroups

Tom Bourbon [940916.0947]

Dear Group:
       As practicing Controls Engineers, some of us don't understand the
nature of this discussion group.

Welcome, Jack. For what it is worth to you, sometimes many of us in the
group have the same problem. :slight_smile:

It seems that every now and then someone will
present truly technical information regarding Controls Systems. However, the
bulk of the material presented here has to do with
social/biological/psychological issues.

You have found a group -- the group -- that studies and discusses _living_
control systems _as control systems_. We look for examples of control _by
living things_ wherever and whenever it occurs. Many of the places we have
found evidence for control are in the domains you identified (social,
biological, psychological) and in several others (including education, motor
control, counseling, education, economics, skilled performance, human and
animal development, and so on). Living things were the original
controllers; artefactual control systems produced by engineers mimic,
and in some cases expand upon, the control functions of living things.

When we find an instance of control, we try to determine whether the
control-theoretic model from perceptual control theory (PCT) explains that
instance. For some instances, we have used formal PCT modeling and in
simulations have achieved results that are remarkably good in comparison to
the abysmal level of "precision" in most research on social, psychological,
and biological phenomena. Historically, this particular theory and model
for the behavior of living things began when Bill Powers realized that the
basic negative-feedback control system described and used in engineering
control theory could also serve as a general model for living control
systems.

It seems as though the biggest difference between PCT applied to living
things, and CT as it is typically applied to engineered systems (ECT), is
in the idea of that which is controlled. In ECT, most sources we are
familiar with speak of the engineered system as controlling its _output_, as
that output is conceived of (and perceived) by the engineer -- or by the
engineer's client. In contrast, in PCT we try to assume a point of view
from within the individual organism. From in there, all the organism
"knows" about its environment is the state of its own perceptions, which we
model as signals emerging from the system's input functions. Consequently,
we assume that, when we on the _outside_ of an organism observe it
"controlling certain variables in its environment," what is happening "on
the inside" is very different: the organism is controlling the states of
some of its own perceptions or sensory experiences (modeled as perceptual
signals). In fact, the organism might not even perceive the variables
_we_ believe it is controlling. Our experience has been that our ideas
seem wrong-headed to many (most? all?) engineering control theorists, but
in the social and life sciences, the ideas raise profound implications.

Of the people interested in PCT, very few actually do any quantitative
modeling; many more people are examining the theory and model to determine
if PCT might help them qualitatively explain phenomena in their original
fields of study. From time to time, some of the formal modeling, or
discussions about how it might be done, appear on this net. You identified
those instances as the more technical material you have seen, but most
discussions about technical matters occur in the background, in private
posts among modelers, or in phone calls. Far and away the majority of
discussion on the net is about whether PCT has implications for, or can be
applied to, other topics or to other specific instances of control in other
domains. You have identified those discussions, as well.

My question is, should this forum
really be named a "Controls Systems Group" ?

That depends on who you ask. The name is much nicer than some we have been
called by people outside the group. :slight_smile:

I hope my hasty remarks help you develop a better "feel" for what this group
is about.

Regards,
Tom Bourbon
Department of Neurosurgry
University of Texas Medical School-Houston Phone: 713-792-5760
6431 Fannin, Suite 7.138 Fax: 713-794-5084
Houston, TX 77030 USA tbourbon@heart.med.uth.tmc.edu

···

In Message Thu, 15 Sep 1994 07:13:57 PDT, Jack Marriott <Jack_Marriott.wbst208@XEROX.COM> writes:

<[Bill Leach 940916.18:41 EST(EDT)]

Message: 2366 on Thu, 15 Sep 1994 07:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Author : Jack Marriott <Jack_Marriott.wbst208@XEROX.COM>

Dear Group:
As practicing Controls Engineers, some of us don't understand the nature
of this discussion group. It seems that every now and then someone will
present truly technical information regarding Controls Systems.
However, the bulk of the material presented here has to do with social/
biological/psychological issues. My question is, should this forum
really be named a "Controls Systems Group" ?
                                              Jack Marriott

Jack;

I suppose that the answer to your question is a matter of opinion. It is
called "Control Systems Group" and has been for a number of years.

The reason that you see so much psych and biological type information is
that the control system reference is to living control systems. This is
the group that studies closed loop negative feedback control system
behaviour of living beings.

Interestingly enough, it does appear that there is some usefulness in
these studies toward understanding of some control systems principles in
the engineered control systems field as well.

This field is a bit more difficult to work with than engineered control
systems for a large number of reasons. One reason of course is that it
is often not permitted to "tear" the system apart to study it but in
practice it seems that even if that is done, the system presently eludes
precise determination of functional elements in some areas.

-bill

Dear Dr. Cziko:

Tried to reach you directly using your bitnet address
"G-CZIKO@UIUCMVD" but the connection wouldn't go through. So I'm
using the internet address I have for the Control Systems Group.
Hope this message will somehow get forwarded to you.

In any case, hello! My name is Jay Heffron. I'm an educational historian at
the University of Hawaii with an interest in cybernetics and its impact,
historically, on classroom learning and teaching practices. An anonymous
reader for a paper I submitted recently to Ed Theory on this topic has
suggested that I contact you and the Control Systems Group through the
internet. I understand that the Group has made some effort since 1989 to
distance itself from a purely cybernetic interpretation of control, one in
which error detection not design leads to what an older generation of
cyberneticists liked to call "purposive activity." We only designate
those actions purposeful which are controlled, wrote Wiener, "by the
error of the reactions; that is, by the difference between the state of
the behaving object at any time and the final state interpreted as
purpose." If you've moved beyond this formulation to a separate but
related model of causation, I would be very interested in knowing more
about it.

I'm embarrassed to admit that the work of your Group has just recently
come to my attention, and of course I'm anxious to look into your own
work as well as that of Petrie, Powell and others. How would you
recommend I get started? Is there an internet account that would help
introduce me to the Group's philosophy and activities? Our College just
got internet so it's still all very new to me. On top of that, I have
something of a technological black thumb. But if you'll bear with me, I
think I'll get the hang of this new and exciting form of communication.
My E-Mail address is Heffron.UHUHNIX.UHCC.Hawaii.edu.

Thank you for your help.

Cordially,

Jay Heffron
Department of Educational Foundations

PS: If you think it would interest you, I'd be happy to send you a copy
of my paper (a "revise and resubmit")for Ed Theory, entitled "Toward a
Cybernetic Pedagogy: The Cognitive Revolution and the Classroom,
1948 - Present". I'd glady welcome whatever ideas you might
have for its improvement. If there's a way to download it into E-Mail,
great. Otherwise I'll need your mailing address at Illinois. Thanks again.