[From: Oded Maler (931206)]
* (Martin Taylor 931203 16:45)
* Wouldn't you think that a major reason that much control analysis
* considers the output in "Boss Reality" is that the perceptual function
* is considered perfect? In lots of control system diagrams, there is
* only a simple line leading from the "output" back to the comparator,
* with no perceptual function at all. In others, there is a perceptual
* function, but it is treated as deterministic, its output (the perceptual
* signal) being completely determined by the state of Boss Reality. So
* it is very easy for the engineer to think about, and to talk about,
* controlling the output. Once one realizes that the perceptual function
* has limitations (of resolution or bandwidth, for example), it ceases
* to be possible to talk seriously about controlling in Boss Reality
* (though it remains convenient to do so when talking casually).
I don't think this is the whole story - in modern control theory
(so they tell me) there's a lot of room for fancy perceptual functions,
that can give you various distorted and noisy images of boss reality.
Partial, indirect and unreliable information is dealt with by control
engineers and mathematicians. I think the problem is elsewhere.
(Bill Powers (931203.1500 MST))
In that answer, I think you conflated two differences between
engineering and living control systems. Of course I know that a living
control systems is living inside its perceptual world and is
controlling it without explicit knoweledge of theory. This is, in fact
also the case of the artificial control system, although it has been
designed by an engineer with explicit intensions and knowledge.
The real difference is in the objective speakability of the controlled
variables, which is what allows them (in the case of artifacts) to be
regarded as CEVs in Boss reality. As you say:
(Bill Powers (931206.0200 MST)):
* But as you survey ALL the things that people control, you begin to
* notice some anomalies: people control things that don't exist in the
* environment in a way that an engineer can get hold of them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(and not in a way a scientist can speak about them, or test them?)
* I'm controlling something that doesn't exist outside me.
...
* This is a concept that can't be communicated unless the listener
* has independently discovered it, or takes time to search out
* possible meanings for the words and is thus led to discover it.
* It's all perception, the whole shebang, even the parts that seem
* objective.
Personal question: isn't that dangerous to discover that it's all
perception - I mean for communication, for integrity of the self.
And after all, we use words to communicate.
* PCT is not about controlling a plant in the external world. It is
* about how we eat, walk, drive cars, find our way to a restaurant,
* kiss our loved ones, argue with our colleagues, scratch an itch,
* build our confidence, comb our hair, earn money. It's about
* everything we do, every waking moment. That's the level where PCT
* must first be understood, before there's any point in trying to
* make a simplified idealized engineering or mathematical model of
* control. It's a world view of behavior that can be checked
* directly against experience, by anyone, without even drawing a
* block diagram. When you grasp that world view, you then have
* something to explain.
There must be either a theory (with math above you and me) about the
perceptual "existence" of "forms" and "object" (high level perception)
or a general negative result about the unspeakability of such matters.
--Oded