[from Bruce Buchanan 950603:1540 EDT]
As an occasional lurker I have noted Bill Powers promotion of discussion
inter alia of terminology related to Control and Negative Feedback...
A number of definitions have been cited. The problem with many of them is
that they are of a technical nature and derivation, not at a level of
general principle which carries well to other fields or has potentially
larger implications...
So here are some thoughts - in the spirit of Bill Leach [950601.14:34 EDT] -
(per the Sorcerer to the Apprentice?)
>I believe someone once said something along the lines of "Be careful of
>what you ask for... you just might get it!"
An article in the June/95 Scientific American (3From Complexity to
Perplexity2) suggests that the current approaches to questions of
complexity, which include systems of dynamic control, are far from
successful. So a discussion of some fundamentals may not be out of place.
I take it that a principle objective of science is the creation of
abstract models valid for classes of systems. For example, physics, at
its highest level, deals with matter as energy, manifested fundamentally
in heat and played out through variously organized structures in the
photosynthetic, oxidative and metabolic processes which support life. One
does not require mathematical precision to understand this much.
In describing these things, we of course discuss conceptual models of
reality, not Boss reality itself. Nevertheless, such processes must
involve organization in space and time - presumably in the world and
certainly in the concepts. And any models or patterns of which we can
speak must also reflect information and some selectivity or choice. So
what are the irreducible fundamentals of our information about things?
The thesis I have in mind (not as original, but for emphasis and
discussion) is that the most basic and primary level is the cybernetic
model of negative feedback. Below this level of organization events do not
exist for us (unknowable because unrepeated), there are no identifiable
elements, no possibility of patterned relationships to be conceived.
Events and elements become identifiable insofar as they participate and
can be accessed repeatedly and via feedback processes, which are essential
to any structure of relationships involving time, hence any perceivable
or knowable data. (I am probably repeating thing Bill Powers has written
somewhere.)
Considerations:
An essential primary process/condition for any existant or existence
itself is some persistence through time. It has been believed, and still
is believed by many, that the external world consisted of objects, e.g.
rocks and people and 3facts2, and certainly we can perceive the world in
this way. More discriminating or selective perception reveals, however,
that underlying and within primary experience are dynamic processes,
including perceptual processes, in constant renewal and interaction, both
in the world and within the organism. Persistence and renewal through
time requires the action of circular causal processes through which the
enduring world and the repeatablity and consistent identification of
perceptions become possible.
In relation to the external world we speak of causal processes, which are
selections we make both among (1) interactive relations among events as
these play out in time (which in engineering may include Feedforward), and
(2) retroactive or circular causal loops which link elements and events to
repeat patterns in time, dampened depending upon Negative Feedback, but
always with some delay (e.g. hysteresis) which is required and provides
the existential condition for possibilities for adaptive change. The
relation with time is crucial. Disturbance must actually occur, then be
organized via negative feedback, for random contingencies to be overcome,
and for life to arise and endure.
Examples of relatively stable cyclic processes in the inorganic world,
which also impact upon other events and life in changing ways, are the
hydrologic cycle, the magnetosphere, jet stream, etc. etc. For negative
feedback also underlies the stability of universal processes.
In relation to man9s thought and the conceptual world e.g. science, it may
be recognized that sensation and perception occur over many levels which
are all, in principle, subject to control by feedback in terms of various
criteria.
Perhaps the most accurate overall view of this process is that which
recognizes thatit is the activity or behavior of the organism which
controls perception (cf. B:CP). (I am just trying to paint the picture as
I see it, in order to clarify ideas, not preach to the converted!)
External stimuli may be perceived, but they do not control, since they are
not as such properties of the system. Subsequent events and memory may
change this, and the picture may be confused if the chronology is not
recognized.
So there are other views ( e.g. S-R) which see behavior as determined
simply by What is perceived. Such views are employed because they appear
to the proponents be useful for special purposes, and may be validated by
repetition within tightly constrained conditions. However, they do not
take into account the actual nature of the fundamental dynamic processes
at work, and do not meet criteria for science that reach for valid
formulations which are the most comprehensive.
Terminology:
Standard definitions of negative feedback appear mostly to be based upon
experience derived from specialized and applied fields of engineering and
control systems. A more comprehensive theoretical view of the principles
of feedback and control may also require more adequate nomenclature and
less restrictive definitions.
Being very tentative, and harking back to an earlier thread in
bit.sci-purposive-behavior, and as an alternative to the term Control
(which tends to suggest control in isolation, by some agency of something
else, I offer for discussion the (made-up) term COMCONACTION, to connote
e.g.:
COM - communication, common/together, selectively guided
CON - control, connect, con/with, consciousness (knowing together)
ACT and ACTION - actual event, selectively directed.
Comconaction is intended to suggest some independent action by some
entity, as well as by groups of entities coordinated and guided by common
purposes, i.e. activity of system-based vector(s). The word is a little
complicated, as is appropriate to what it expresses.
Since a scientific term should be primarily denotative I suggest (again
for purposes of discussion): COMCONACTION is the integration of action in
space and time, through negative feedback, of dynamic processes within
systems at any level of organization or complexity, which enable
relatively stable and persisting output or behavior despite the effects of
unpredicted contingencies.
Other implications:
Since selectivity based upon criteria for error correction is inherent in
the irreducible primary conception and model for anything that can exist,
structures required for evaluation and feedback must be present in any
systems which continue to live and function.
While the values may be unspecified, the structural conditions exist, and
there may also be functional requirements for appropriate specific
values. Indeed, many problems may ensue if the criteria utilized are
inappropriate, e.g. at too low and restricted a level of the organization,
rather than criteria devised to reflect strategies which can benefit the
whole. Indeed the highest value may attach to the processes by which
such strategies may be developed - e.g. those required for a sustainable
civilization on earth.
It is said by some that the highest values attach to the long term
evolution of life and intelligence. However, in general, ideals which are
too abstract to be applied operationally do not provide useful criteria
for the guidance of current decisions, i.e. they may not provide an
ethical basis in practice for existential judgements. The contention that
such unapproachable values provide useful guidance has been historically
fraught with disaster, so that the onus is on the proponents to prove
their case.
I would of course be interested in comments and any discussion. My whole
purpose is to try to suggest alternative appoaches for consideration while
the discussion thread is still alive. However, I will be out of the
country until June 24, and may miss Newsgroup postings, so I would
appreciate email copies of anything for which follow up or response from
me is requested.
In any case, cheers and best wishes.
Bruce B.
Bruce Buchanan
*We are all in this together!*