[From Rick Marken (960726.0915)]
Me:
"Feedback" that is "given" (whether it is wanted or not) is just a
_disturbance_ from a PCT percspective.
Hans Blom (960725) --
Sorry, but I don't get this.
Why am I not surprised?
Martin Taylor (960725 14:10) --
When someone says "Allow me to give you some feedback," they normally do
so because one effect of your action has been to disturb a controlled
perception of theirs. That effect may have been a pure side-effect of your
own perceptual control, but nevertheless their "giving" you feedback is
part of the environmental feedback path between your action and your
controlled perception.
Me:
Wrong.
Bruce Gregory (960726.1030 EDT)-
I think the issue here is whether one is attempting to control the
onlooker's report of his or her perceptions...If so, "feedback" seems, as
Martin says, to be a part of the feedback path.
See my response to Martin's latest post below. What you say is correct. It's
just that the way Martin said it was unclear. The statement "Allow me to
give you some feedback" is part of one of my feedback loops if I am trying to
control what Martin says (in which case "Allow me to give you some feedback"
would be one state of athe perception I am trying to control). It seemed to
me that Martin was saying that "Allow me to give you some feedback" is in
the feedback path of the loop that produced the actions that resulted in this
statement. It's not.
I would say that in real situations it is VERY rare that people are
controlling for getting other people's opinions about their observed
behavior. So when an irrelevant side effect of my controlling disturbs
someone and they feel compelled to "give me some feedback", then that
"feedback" is likely to be a disturbance to something I am controlling (or
it's irrelevant). I think it's important to understand this fact about
control. People who don't understand it will remain puzzled about why their
unsolicited "helpful" feedback always seems to lead to resentment, anger and
rebellion.
Martin Taylor (960726 10:30) --
Remember that the intention is to deal with an analytic approach that
is analogous to a Laplace Transform analysis.
Ok. So information theory is just a way of analyzing the operations of a
control system. Saying that there is "information about the disturbance in
perception" is just a way of saying that the state of the perceptual variable
is at all times a joint result of the influence of both system output and
independent disturbance variables. We can describe the perceptual signal
using equations that give numbers called "information" just as we can
describe it with equations that give numbers called "amplitude", "frequency"
and "phase". There is no entity called "information" that is carried by a
perceptual signal any more than there are entities called "amplitude",
"frequency" and "phase" carried by a perceptual signal. So information
theory is just an analytic tool (like Laplace transforms), not a model of
_how_ a control system work. Is this correct? If so, I can buy it. But then
it seems that information theory, as analytic tool, has proven to be
manifestly useless in the analysis of control systems. What does information
theory help us see that we couldn't see (more clearly) from other analytic
approaches?
Me:
this "feedback" (conventional sense) of yours is NOT part of the
environmental feedback (PCT sense) loop relating my actions (hand
movements) to the controlled perception (cursor position).
Martin Taylor (960726 11:00) --
No. As far as the controlled perceptual variable is concerned, it's still
a side effect. But what if the person, in "giving you feedback" swings
you forcibly around in your seat, or joggles your hand?
It's still not part of the feedback loop. Dram other analytic
approaches?
Me:
this "feedback" (conventional sense) of yours is NOT part of the
environmental feedback (PCT sense) loop relating my actions (hand
movements) to the controlled perception (cursor position).
Martin Taylor (960726 11:00) --
No. As far as the controlled perceptual variable is concerned, it's still
a side effect. But what if the person, in "giving you feedback" swings
you forcibly around in your seat, or joggles your hand?
It's still not part of the feedback loop. Draw the diagrams and see.
These "disturbances" are not directly added to the CEV, but they still
affect the behaviour of the loop, and are influenced by your prior actions--
the side effects of your control behaviour.
Temporal sequence has nothing to do with it. Draw the diagrams and see where
there are _closed loops_.
how about considering the situation I proposed? I think the implications are
quite interesting.
The case you proposed is one where a side effect of my action is a
disturbance to a variable you are controlling (such as, "what Rick is
saying"). You try to counter that disturbance by saying "Allow me to give you
feedback". That phrase _may be_ the value of a variable I am controlling
(like "what Martin is saying"); but this is a _different_ variable than the
one I am controlling using actions that are a disturbance to your control of
your perception of "what Rick is saying".
The phrase "Allow me to give you feedback" is part of one feedback loop for
sure. It's part of one of YOUR feedback loops; the one that's involved in
trying to control the perception of "what Rick is saying". But from my
perspective, your comment ("Allow me to give you feedback") is either the
state of some variable I am controlling (like "what Rick is saying") or a
disturbance to some variable I am controlling. It is unquestionably NOT in
the control loop in which the action accurred that was a disturbance to a
variable _you_ were controlling, leading to you saying "Allow me to give
you feedback".
Best
Rick