[Hans Blom, 950927b]
i.kurtzer (9950926.2100) writes in reply to William T. Powers
............... It is better to define control as a process of
_varying_ outputs in order to create and maintain _intended
perceptions._ Because the environment always contains
unanticipated disturbances, there is no way to predict exactly
what action a person will produce while controlling some
perception.
this definition refers to the PCT model of _how_ something might be
controlled, not the "theory-free" phenomena of control--stability of
a particular variable during exposure to forces that should drive it
from that state. sorry to be a stickler.
I don't get this. Can you explain what you mean? The "how" of ANY
control scheme is, I think, to vary outputs, i.e. to DO things. Is
there another way to achieve stability except by DOing? Or is it the
"intended perceptions" part that you find unclear? I don't. Somewhere
in the control system there must be an objective of "what" to do
using the "how". "Intended perceptions" is as good a term as any, I
suppose.
Because the environment always contains
unanticipated disturbances, there is no way to predict exactly
what action a person will produce while controlling some
perception.
This, I agree with, too. Control can be much improved by schemes that
incorporate anticipation, as I have demonstrated, but it will never
be possible to predict _everything_ that _will_ happen, simply
because the future state of the world is not accessible to our
perceptory apparatus.
Please explain your position in more detail.
Greetings,
Hans
ยทยทยท
(POWERS_W@FORTLEWIS.EDU) who wrote: