# getting serious, systems theory
**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/getting-serious-systems-theory/13886
**Category:** CSG1994
**Created:** [February 22, 1994, 10:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/getting-serious-systems-theory/13886 "1994-02-22T22:24:37Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Martin_Taylor)
#### Post date: [February 22, 1994, 10:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/getting-serious-systems-theory/13886/1 "1994-02-22T22:24:37Z")
\
> Rick Marken (940222.1200)
> Control is a PHENOMENON. A control system is a MODEL that exhibits
> this phenomenon. Are you saying that "self-organization" is a model
> of a phenomenon called "self-organization"? If so, could you
> describe the "self-organization" model?
Ah, Rick. Is memory so short? That discussion is not yet two months
in its grave, and you want it resurrected?
Fundamentally, the self-organization model is a control system with no
reference input. It is a negative feedback system that stabilizes some
structural feature of the environment. In physical terms, it depends on
nonlinearities in the response of the environment to some form of far
from equilibrium energy flow.
For any more, go back to the old discussion. As with the information
discussion, it bores me to go over the same old ground. If, after rereading
the old stuff, you have new ideas to discuss, I'll be happy.
> Of course, on distinguishing characteristic of the
> PCT model is the it is a closed negative feedback loop.
Well, it doesn't distinguish PCT from self-organization, then, if my
interpretation of this syntactically weird sentence is as you intended.
> Me:
>
> > It's kind of a mathematically sophisticated version of a dormative
> > principle.
>
> Martin:
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Forgive me for not taking your word for it. Why is this wrong?
A dormitive principle is the substitution of one descriptive word for another.
When there is a mechanism, based on more general underlying principles,
that does not apply.
> Me:
>
> > Self-organizing phenomena are fun to look at but they
> > have nothing in particular to do with purposeful behavior
>
> Martin:
>
> > Right. I tried to get that across over a longer period than I like to
> > remember a couple of months ago.
>
> Ah. So you agree, then, that "self-organization" has no relevance to
> the understanding of living control systems. Do you agree with Martin
> here Cliff?
I can't speak for Cliff, but I agree that self-organization has no
relevance for understanding isolated living control systems in action.
It is relevant to understanding how groups of them interact, such
as in the development of languages, social conventions, organizational
and governmental structures, and the like. It is also relevant to
understanding how living control systems came to exist in the first place.
But indeed, self-organized structures have no purpose, so they have
nothing in particular to do with purposeful behaviour.
> Could you give a description of how a self-organizing system operates?
Like a control system, except for the absence of the reference signal.
The necessary constructs are some manner of diverting energy out of a
power flow into some small number of degrees of freedom, and some mechanism
whereby a small deviation from a particular state of those degrees of
freedom causes a substantial corresponding difference in the power flow to
those same degrees of freedom, which is the actual gain function. As Bill P.
pointed out in the earlier discussion, this loop has to be asymmetric, or
there will be no gain, and as I point out, no self-organization.
We do not have the Jan 1994 issue of the American Psychologist in our library
(or any issue since 1972), but we do have two people reputed to be APA
members, who might have it. If the article's description of self-organization
is as you say, I may have some harsh words of my own about it after I have
seen it.
Martin