# Disturbances, white noise **URL:** \ **Category:** CSG1997\ **Created:** [May 2, 1997, 4:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/disturbances-white-noise/3566 "1997-05-02T16:06:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken1)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 1997, 4:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/disturbances-white-noise/3566/1 "1997-05-02T16:06:32Z")

[From Rick Marken (970502.0800)] Bill Powers (970430.1706 MST) -- > It's pretty clear what you missed in Rick's statement. The > observer does indeed \_observe\_ the effect of the disturbances > on the SUPPOSED controlled variable... > Is that problem taken care of, too, now? Martin Taylor (970501 10:20) -- > Yes, if Rick agrees that this is indeed what he meant. Agreed. > In that case, I apologize to all and sundry, and Rick, for > wasting net bandwidth. No need to apologize. I think the "Disturbances" thread has been VERY valuable -- certainly not a waste of bandwidth. Thanks to you, Bill Powers [(970429.1309 MST), (970430.1155 MST) and (970430.1706 MST)] has given us a detailed tutorial on how to do PCT research. I found it very useful. Hans Blom (970502) -- > My theory says that \_everything\_ I know exists only in my > imagination (internal model)...My theory also says that \_you\_ > are talking your own private theology, based on a different > internal model. So be it. There's no escape. Actually, your theology says that there IS an escape! Your theology (model-based control) says that a theology (model) can be improved by comparing the predictions of that theology to the actual perceptual results of actions based on that theology. This is called "doing science". If you actually behaved according to this aspect of your theology (if you \_tested\_ the predictions of your theology against experimental evidence) you would see that the fit of your theology to the actual behavior of living systems (except, of course, to the behavior called "doing science") is very poor. You would then reject your theology of behavior in favor of a simpler and more correct one -- PCT. But, then, your theology would no longer be a theology; just a testable model of behavior. But it's pretty clear that, for you, model-based control IS a theology (rather than a scientific theory) and this seems to be a matter of principle with you. So you will not submit your theology (which, paradoxically, describes control systems as "science doing systems") to scientific test. That is why your discussion of your theology (model based control) is so incredibly uninteresting to me. Since you are not willing to subject your ideas to empirical test, what you say is largely a bunch of white noise. Best Rick