Engineers and PCT

From[Bill Williams 14 June 2004 2:20 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.14.1939 MDT)]
Bill Williams (2004.06.14)]

What you dismiss as sophistology is the crux of the principles of negative
feedback control.

Nonsense. What does control theory have to do with individualism? Nothing.

You keep attepting to wrap your PCT sophistology in science, physics, chemistry, neurology, and control theory. But, the two really have only an accidental connection. The connection is that the same man Bill Powers had both patterns of thought in his head and has now gotten them confused. That is all they have to do with each other.

I am surprized that you are inclined to introduce this ideological content into a discussion of programing. Untill recently I was still sufficiently naive to think that you held some things to be sacred. I am quite genuinely surprized that you would allow an ideological motive to distort your thinking so that you would generate false arguments in the context of modeling to discredit me.

After 20 years of acquaintance, am I now to conclude that you have never
understood those principles?

First, Are you sure that you fully understand the meaning of "principles?"

Second, You can believe 12 impossible things before breakfast if you wish.

Third, for all I know maybe you do-- that is believe 12 impossible things before breakfast.

As to my understanding of control theory; You've made snide remarks about my being stuck back with Op-Amps. However, I went to the trouble of learning electronomics so that I could understand cybernetics. How many people associated with CSG could as much as name a part number of an Op-Amp. How many people in the CSG group have been employed and successfully completed a project in which they have designed, built and installed a control system into a large piece of industrial machinery? How many people in CSG have served as a technical advisor to the FAA or simliar agency regarding a faltering aircraft control system?

And, before I met you, yes using Op-Amps, I managed to design a negative feedback control system for a harvester. It wasn't an easy task since the hydrallic line that feed the actuator, was also the line that was used as the presure sensor. When I explained to you how the system worked you said it was an ingenous piece of work. I guess you've forgotten.

Apparently, if you can not win an argument about the PCT sophistology directly you will resort to falsehoods in an to attempt to discredit me another way.

You could ask any control theory engineer, in the CSGnet group, to assess whether I understand control theory or not. Except who would you ask? There isn't a sufficient technical membership in the CSGnet to assemble a panel in this country to make such an assessment. And, I guess that says something doesn't it?

Do I understand control theory? In the sense that I have been paid to perform assessments, repair, to design, construct and install control devices in large
industrial systems and aircraft I think that there is some evidence that I have demonstrated to, some extent, an understanding of control theory.

I wonder how many control theory engineers have enthusiastically endorsed your PCT sophistology? Who, I'd like to know besides yourself believes that control theory principles provides a proof for the slogan that "All I can know is what I perceive?"

You've charged me with dishonesty recently, I will return the favor. I think you should consider modifying your PCT slogan to "All I know is what I want to perceive so that I can honestly tell the lies I want to tell."

The only genuine solution to the problem between us would require the active participation of a sufficient number of people who genuinely understood the techical issues involved. Under the current circustances there is a definite lack of interest by persons sufficiently technically informed to contribute to a resolution regarding the meaning and worth of PCT.

The absence of an adaquate number of participants with such technical qualifications, I would suppose, renders as decisive a judgment on this question regarding the merits of PCT as we are going to get.

Bill Williams

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.15.0922 MDT)]

Bill Williams 14 June 2004 2:20 PM CST --

> What you dismiss as sophistology is the crux of the principles of negative
> feedback control.

Nonsense. What does control theory have to do with individualism? Nothing.

I assume that by asking the question you are inviting more than your own
answer to it.

My answer is "everything." Though I suspect your meaning for
"individualism," with that "ism" on the end, is not mine. Though you
haven't explained what you mean by the word in detail, my impression that
individualism is the name of some position that maintains that no person's
organization is affected by the world that person experiences, which we
agree includes other people. Of course you wouldn't attribute that position
to me, so I wonder what it is about my use of the word "individual" that
you see as a problem (in the present company, anyway).

You keep attepting to wrap your PCT sophistology in science, physics,
chemistry, neurology, and control theory. But, the two really have only an
accidental connection. The connection is that the same man Bill Powers had
both patterns of thought in his head and has now gotten them confused.
That is all they have to do with each other.

That's pretty insulting, isn't it? Was that another example of "mirroring?"
If what you say is right, I am just a confused old man who can't keep his
own thoughts straight. Is that really what you think of me? I'm afraid that
I don't quite get the point of this lesson. Have I shown signs of accusing
you of being a confused old man? If I have, I apologize. I might have said
something similar at one time, but I don't think I'm saying it now. Are
transgressions never forgiven?

I am surprized that you are inclined to introduce this ideological content
into a discussion of programing. Untill recently I was still sufficiently
naive to think that you held some things to be sacred. I am quite
genuinely surprized that you would allow an ideological motive to distort
your thinking so that you would generate false arguments in the context of
modeling to discredit me.

Did you read my explanation of those statements? If you really want to
discuss them, I think it would be better to say what is false in what I
said than to accuse me of having my thinking distorted ideologically. I'm
beginning to lose track of what it is I'm supposed to be learning from
this. Have I been accusing you of ideologically distorted thinking? I'm
sorry, but I really don't recall having done that.

> After 20 years of acquaintance, am I now to conclude that you have never
> understood those principles?

First, Are you sure that you fully understand the meaning of "principles?"

Second, You can believe 12 impossible things before breakfast if you wish.

Third, for all I know maybe you do-- that is believe 12 impossible
things before breakfast.

I'm sorry for the question about your understanding the principles of
negative feedback. I can see that your answer to my question is "no". I
should have just asked for your reasons for not using perceptual input
functions other than copies of the outputs in your programs; I'm sure you
had reasons. If you were to explain, I might well agree with them, though I
might not.

As to my understanding of control theory; You've made snide remarks about
my being stuck back with Op-Amps. However, I went to the trouble of
learning electronomics so that I could understand cybernetics. How many
people associated with CSG could as much as name a part number of an
Op-Amp. How many people in the CSG group have been employed and
successfully completed a project in which they have designed, built and
installed a control system into a large piece of industrial
machinery? How many people in CSG have served as a technical advisor to
the FAA or simliar agency regarding a faltering aircraft control system?

  No, Bill, I'm not taking that bait. I hereby grant you a degree in
control-system engineering, and I will not succumb to the offered
invitation to compare accomplishments. You see, I do learn, if slowly.

You could ask any control theory engineer, in the CSGnet group, to assess
whether I understand control theory or not. Except who would you ask?
There isn't a sufficient technical membership in the CSGnet to assemble a
panel in this country to make such an assessment. And, I guess that says
something doesn't it?

I can see that we have hit a root canal here, but I'm going to drop this
subject. What you know is not the issue. What I think you know is not the
issue. The issue is developing a workable model of human organization. We
can discuss whether this model or that model is sufficient or needs work,
and whether there are any useful principles of modeling that can be agreed
upon. If we can do that, we will have done all that can be expected of two
ordinary human beings, regardless of the wart count.

Best,

Bill P.