From Tom Bourbon (930618.0958)
[Hans Blom, 930617a]
In you repiles to, Bill Powers (930617.0730 MDT), and Rick Marken
(930617.0730 MDT), you seemed to adopt an engineer's definition of
control, in which the perceptions of the observer, not of the observed
system, are of primary importance. From the perspective of engineers, or
users, of a system, variables for which *they* have references are of
primary importance, even though those variables might be of only incidental
significance to the observed system, or the observed system might be
completely unaware that those variables exist, affecting them completely
incidentally.
My guess that you speak from the position of a designer, engineer, or user
of a system was confirmed when I came to your comments on my post about
synchronization of menstrual cycles.
(Bourbon (930617.1045))
You seem to have ruled out the possibility that synchronization
of the cycles [menstruation] is an uncontrolled side effect ...This whole discussion indicates to me that there is no common
terminology for what control is. ...
No terminology common to whom? PCT modelers seem to agree on a definition.
... To me, a control system is a
mechanism that keeps something within specified (but maybe vary-
ing) limits or almost so, whereas without that mechanism those
limits would not be observed. Therefore, according to my termino-
logy, 'flockness' is controlled, although YOU might consider it an
'uncontrolled' side effect.
Fine. That being the case, could you describe the mechanism the "keeps
flockness within specified (but maybe varying) limits or almost so?" ("Or
almost so?" How close is that?) In the examples presented by Bill, Rick
and me, there were specific mechanisms, each controlling particular
variables and affecting other variables only incidentally. The incidentally
affected variables gave rise to effects that an observer might call
"emergent" phenomena. And an oberver might call some of those effects and
phenomena "social patterns or organizations."
The conclusion of your comments on my post made your perspective crystal
clear:
...My home heating system, in your termi-
nology, 'controls' the temperature at its sensor, while the thing
that I want, a nice room temperature, is only an 'uncontrolled
side effect'. That is not the kind of language that I use, al-
though I can understand it when YOU do. But then, understanding
(here I mean: making sense of what someone says) often requires
this kind of back and forth 'translation', isn't it?
Your home heating system in fact, not "in your (our) terminology," controls
the temperature at its sensor. It is obvious that you do not use the kind
of language "we" do, because you are wiling to conflate the reference
signals of the model or the artificial system with your own
intentions. *You* use the heating system to control your perception of a
nice room temperature; the heating system does not. I *think* I understand
your position pretty well, or am I wrong?
The individuals in GATHER, like the thermostat in your home heating system,
lack awareness of, reference signals for, and perceptions of the emergent
structures and phenomena that are of interest to you. They do not control
those phenomena and structures, although *you* can use them, and their
unintended byproducts, to control *your* perceptions.
Umtil later,
Tom Bourbon