Hi everybody,
really interesting finding… This was the conner stone of my conflict with Bill, after which we never spoke again privately.
The original private conversation between me and Bill about »arrows« to essential variables from genetic source control unit started around February 2009 and it lasted till May, when I put the question of »arrow«. After that there was a time gap for about 2 and a half month when Bill »transfered« discusion to CSGnet (where you can stll probably find it at the mentioned date august, 2009). He claimed that the idea of »arrow« is not mine, but his. He dig out some conversations with Warren, which should prove that he wanted to put that »arrows« for a long time into diagram 14.1.
After some short querell I gave up and »admitt« that idea is his. But soon (I suppose Dag) discovered the contradinctions in putting arrow in such a form into diagram. So Bill asked me (it must be somewhere on CSGnet) if I could explain the consequences of putting »arrows« on the mentioned place in diagram. I answered that could happen only under conditions of cooperation. He never answered. And so the problem stayed as it is. In that time (6 years ago) I admitt I had about 40% solution of the problem. But in compare to others who had nothing it seems to me like an elephant and mouse.
Dag’s observation about problem with arrow and two possible outputs from homeostatic system seems O.K. For me it’s not only a problem, it’s contradiction in the sense as Martin put it :
MT :
(2) If intrinsic variables actually are controlled as shown in the “final” version of Fig 14.1, wouldn’t one expect that control to be connected through the regular perceptual control hierarchy in the same way as “regular” perceptual variables rather than being linked with the “other” control system by a cumbersome reorganization process that results in the intrinsic variable control being affected by the side-effects of perceptual control?
HB : I didn’t only expected the solution Martin mentioned when I proposed an »arrow«, I had physiological evidences.
As far the answer to first problem is related :
MT : (1) homeostasis does not imply either control or the existence of reference levels,
HB : Sorry Martin. I can not agree. Understanding what is homeostasis and how it is kept in organisms is necessary. Some answers to this question gave Ashby. And I’ll probably never understand why Bill didn’t follow Ashby in this respect. Why he chose »reorganization« as a »blank« term ?
Today as I have advanced in physiological support to PCT, my estimation is that I have about 75 % solutions to the problem that is exposed here. But as I always talked. If anybody wants to apply these solutions, he has to upgrade PCT. And if I look back to some of my conversations with Rick and owner of PCT, it seems »mission impossible«.
DF :
But let’s leave that question open until some sort of data comes our way to help us decide.
HB : It seems quite a long »journey«. Decades ? Centuries ?
Best,
Boris
···
From: Dag Forssell (csgarchive@pctresources.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 5:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Powers, 2007: I didn’t apply control theory to homeostasis in B:CP
[From Dag Forssell (20150731 20:30 PDT)]
I scanned this post and noted that Bill gave me an assignment. I overlooked it at the time, but got to it years later. See http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/Reorg_evolution.pdf
Best, Dag
At 02:43 PM 7/31/2015, you wrote:
[From MK (2015.07.31.2340 CET)]
Subject: Re: Intrinsic reference conditions
[From Bill Powers (2007.12.24.0910 MST)]
Martin Taylor 2007.12.23.23.43