I'm So Confused (About Virtual Control)

[bnhpct]

Great discussion. I’ve been out of the loop with illness and very busy writing a grammar collaboratively with Claude.

Going back to the start of the discussion:

@rsmarken

My understanding of a Giant Virtual Controller is that it is a concept derived from Powers’s discussion of the “virtual reference level” of a controlled quantity (B:CP, 1st edition, p. 255) that will exist when two control systems of approximately equal strength come into conflict (try to control the same variable relative to different reference levels). The Giant Virtual Controller is, as I understand it, an expansion of the concept of a virtual reference level to a conflict between multiple controllers.

@rsmarken

I thought the Giant Virtual Controller is created by conflict.

Consider that these may be false assumptions.

For example, a collectively controlled variable typically can be perceived as such, and as a shared tool in a public space the individual has a stake in its stability and in its availability when needed. (“Put the fremeltorque back on the rack when you’ve finished using it, so someone else can find it. Don’t just drop it and leave it lying around.”)

In my experience of collectively controlled variables, this is the norm, not the exception. All users of a language have a stake in using it to be understood and to understand others. All users of a public transportation system have a stake in the vehicles being reliable and running on time. All drivers have a stake in pavements being smooth and well marked. Error in individual control is corrected by communication with other stakeholders whose work it is to maintain whatever aspects of the CCV are individually perceived as not matching their reference value. (See Kent’s excellent definition of Work in his chapter in the first Handbook.)

The question how collectively controlled variables are created is a question how tools are created. Ted Cloak has some excellent things to say about that. Once a tool is created, even if one individual thinks it is their private possession, inherently anyone can learn to use it and can use it. “Here, let me borrow that flint-knapping kit of yours for a bit to restore this chipped spear point. We have to get some game now or the kids will go hungry again.”

As I learned in undergrad symbolic logic, one false premise and the truth value of the most impeccable logic is indeterminate; could be true, could be false, who knows? And if your impeccable logic leads to absurd conclusions (my fellow student Noam Chomsky is the poster child here), it’s time to re-examine your premises.

It’s necessary to lift your eyes from sacred scripture and think.