[Avery Andrews 931411.1100]
(Rick Marken (930410.1600))
>... but I think it's
>now clear to at least some people on the net who were able to understand
>what was going on that control systems control inputs; their outputs are
>not guided by these inputs.
Well, I hadn't noticed that anyone didn't know this to begin with,
tho I would want to say that the outputs are
guided by the inputs and reference levels together. If things happened
in the way I suggest, there wouldn't be a huge posting flux when an
important issue came up, since there would be more reading and thinking
that writing, for a while at least.
As for uses of PCT, I agree with what Rick says in this message, but I
don't understand what makes it a response to most of what has been going on
recently, except possibly for Ken Hacker's postings. People have not
been arguing that PCT would make useful contributions to conventional
versions of IT, IV/DV studies, linguistics, etc. What is often
suggested is that these might contain some bits and pieces of info that
might be useful to PCT, sort of like the relation between cars and
junkyards: you can't expect to find the car you want and just drive it
out of the junkyard, but, with knowledge, you have a good chance of
finding some useful parts.
Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au