<[Bill Leach 950608.20:14 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]
[From Bruce Abbott (950608.1750 EST)]
If it please the court...
Rick's comment that "... not having control is always AT LEAST as ..."
is not necessarily true even though likely true in the vast majority of
situations.
His initial sentence in the reference paragraph is the correct statement
of the situation (though more need and will be stated about error later).
In the next exchange:
No real control system can keep ...
The phrase "regardless of disturbance" is ambiguous ...
Objection, your Honor. ...
The initial "No real control system can keep the controlled perception
_exactly_ at reference at all times regardless of disturbance." IS true
in the absolute sense... and in that sense is completely irrelevant to
the discussion at hand. BTW, in the absolute sense "No real CS" includes
all engineered as well as biological systems.
Thus, counselor Ricks following assertion is completely correct from any
practical view including detailed analytical.
Moreover, the objection suggests a serious misunderstanding of basic
closed loop negative feedback control system operation on the part of
Counsel. To wit: The statement that "In the basic ... there is no
output to counter ... when the error is zero." is again clearly true but
wholely irrelevant.
The error signal value will be at a non-zero value pretty much 100% of
the time when control exists. However, the important consideration (both
from a discussion/analysis point of view and, it appears from ample
evidence, the control systems view) is that the amount of error will be
very small as long as control exists and rise to near full possible value
when "good control" is not obtained.
That is in the basic control loop, error signal value immediately jumps
to maximum output as soon as the controller is unable to make perception
match reference to within the deadband of the controller.
A common misconception about basic closed loop negative feedback control
is that if the error signal possible output range is zero to 10 volts
(for example) that one would see the error voltage "swinging" between
these two extremes in normal operation with disturbances applied. The
reality of the situation is that one would probably have to have a high
sensitivity voltmeter with a full scale range of maybe 10 mV to see any
change in error voltage at all.
motive
The "friend of the court" agrees with Counsel here. The term "motive" is
a badly used and abused term from conventional psychology but that fact
does not mean that the term can not be used with a PCT understanding of
what it would have to mean.
OTOH, Counsel's description of motive in his objection is a "nice
sounding PCT like description" but probably not at all accurate.
The "friend of the court" suggests that first a "MOTIVE" is a perception.
Secondly a "MOTIVE" is specifically a conscious perception. Thirdly
these is associated with this "MOTIVE" the perception that it is a
"reason" why certain goals are desired.
It is further suggested that "MOTIVE" includes conscious perception by
others concerning why the subject might or might not be controlling a
particular EV.
Since it is likely that in most situations and for most people, the
subject is quite possibly incorrect in an understanding of its' own
motives, the search for motive is an exercise in futility.
To make my point; The researcher applies a series of TESTs to determine
and verify to the extent possible the potential CEVs of the subject. The
researcher then "muddies up" an already doubtful situation into an
impossible situation by postulating a "MOTIVE".
Further applications of the TEST could show consistancy with the posited
motive but can not "prove" this motive true.
The researcher then askes the subject what the MOTIVE is and compares the
two. They most likely do not match (either subtantially or in detail,
matters not). The researcher is in error since the MOTIVE is the
subject's perception (whether is correct or not).
It's impossible to hide
When you know what to look for ...
Objection ...
Have to agree with Counsel (especially with the added comment concerning
HPCT).
-bill