Controlling error

[From Audra Wenzlow (92.12.02)]

Rick Marken --

The notion of "controlling perceptions" has always disturbed me
precisely because it does not include the reference signal in its
description.

If, however, we watched a perceptual signal and its reference speci-
fication, the behavior would be far more interesting -- the percpetion
would track rather precisly the any variations in the value of
the reference;

It seems to me that what you are saying is that we control the difference
between the perception and the reference -- which is exactly what I
mean by controlling error. Without a reference setting, controlling a
perception would have no meaning.

For instance, in the rubber band experiment, I don't really care where
the knot is, only how far I perceive it to be from the reference point.
In other words, I am not controlling my perception, but the difference
between my perception and my reference level. The fact that controlling
occurs relative to some reference setting is precisely what seems to be
disregarded when we say that we "control our perceptions."

I understand that how I see this error is also a perception, but the
distinction between "the perception of how far away my perceptions are
(I had to read that over again a few times as well.)

By controlling the difference (or error), we automatically seem to be
controlling our perceptions, because the error is a function of only this
perception and the reference level. If you control the error -- you control
the perception, but not purposively. So in the rubber band example, the
person seems to be controlling for "where" the knot is, but is truly
controlling for how far away the knot is from his/her reference.

I agree that it is necessary to stress the notion of "perception" vs.
objective reality in PCT. However, talking about "controlling perceptions"
seems similar to talking about controlling others -- it is displacing where
the actual purposive control occurs (or only telling part of the
story).

Sorry about the trouble -- only trying to control my errors.

Audra Wenzlow

[ Background info:
I am a graduate student in Educational Policy Studies at the UofI. My
background is in statistics. I am in one of Gary Cziko's classes and am
also sitting in on one taught by Clark McPhail. I have been listening to
the net most of this fall semester.]

ยทยทยท

from my reference signal," and my perceptions themselves should be made.

[From Gabriel to NET 921202:1447CST]
in re
(Audra Wenzlow (92.12.02))

The notion of "controlling perceptions" has always disturbed me
precisely because it does not include the reference signal in its
description.

Yes, it's worried me too at times. I think there are several variants,
for example, when I have a set of "percepts" whatever these may be,
and I want to establish a new one somebody else is trying to explain
to me. I don't actually want to make the new one coincide with one
of mine if it's really new, I want to "compare and contrast" with
what I already know.

I have a lot of technobabble (a WONDERFUL Bill C. phrase) about
this, and can decorate it with interminable mathematics, but the
bottom line I think I need everybody to recognise and integrate
with their own percepts (how about that for recursion) is just
the preceding paragraph.

Not quite error reduction, but distance quantification perhaps. And I
think everybody has different mappings to measure distance, just like
the difference between Mercator and stereographic projection in the
Atlas. Mercator is OK for compass bearings, but it's more wrong about
distances the further north you go.

And so, the further you go from pure mathematics and theoretical
physics or computer science and electrical engineering, the more
likely I am to be wrong.

I don't want to be publicly invidious about any of my other friends
on the net (I hope I have no enemies). Quot Homines, tot Sententiae.
You all know who you are. We all try to understand each other's mappings,
but this can often be done only to within some rather large epsilon.

And working too hard at it can either/both disturb conduct of the serious
business of finding out new things, or lead to interminable discussion
of how many angels can be perceived to dance on the head of a pin.

But on the other hand, ignoring the differences always generates lots
of heat and little light - perhaps just a smoldering resentment (I've
never seen this on the NET, perhaps we REALLY ARE a community of
scholars!!).

Sincerely

                John Gabriel (gabriel@caesar.eid.anl.gov)