[Martin Taylor 2016.06.15.10.39]
[From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)
I requote, to illustrate why it is so weird trying to conduct a
rational discussion with you.
MT (previously): If you can't tell the difference between the road
surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get
across town (feedback function), nothing I write will help you.
RM (now): "... you say that the "road surface" is a feedback
function".
MT (now): Now you say that I call the road surface a feedback
function, and chastise me because it is just a property of the real
world, and its role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling.
Also
MT(in the tutorial): "The atenfel is a link in a chain. That link
allows the influence of the output to propagate one stage around the
loop."
RM (now): "You seem to be saying that there are things out there in
the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels."
If, and I emphasise "if", you had actually read the tutorial you
have twice claimed to have read, you would have seen that an atenfel
is a property whose role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling, AND that in the post on which you now comment, I cited
the road surface as being such a property related to controlling
one’s perception of being on the other side of town, the feedback
function of which includes a (literal) transport lag that might
depend on the road surface property.
It's good to challenge new ideas and concepts. An effective
challenge will either show them to be useless or false, or it will
show their strength. But challenges that are based on reversing what
is actually written do nothing but destroy the reputation of the
challenger.
As Kent said a few days ago [From Kent McClelland (2016.06.06.0935)]
, “* I’m also aware that your style of engaging with new ideas is
to respond immediately and vigorously to any disturbance, so by
all means control your own perceptions about the word!*”
Kent's observation, with which I concur, has been based on long
experience, and is so consistent as almost to amount to an S-R
phenomenon: “New idea presented” → “Rick strong disagreement
before trying to understand what the idea might be”. Even if in
order to disagree, you have to assert that the idea is the opposite
of what was presented. The disagreement seems to be what is
important, not the idea, whatever the idea might be. That is very
sad.
Try actually _reading_ the tutorial, thinking about what it actually
says, and considering whether it contains errors, places where there
are ambiguities that need clarification, self-contradictions,
scientific implausibilities, and so forth. Then post a comment that
relates to it.
I hadn't intended responding to this latest non-comment of yours,
but then I realized that some naive readers might think it had some
relevance to what I had written, and so a reply did seem to be
warranted. I will welcome, and reply to, any challenges to ideas in
the tutorial that are to the point, but probably not to others like
this that are based on the opposite of what was written.
Martin
···
Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55
MT: If you can't tell the difference between theroad surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it
takes to get across town (feedback function), nothing I
write will help you. So I don’t think there’s any point
in making any further comment.
RM: I do know the difference between the surface of a
road and the time it takes to get across town. But your
comment made me realize what my problem was with your
ideas about atenfels (and feedback functions). You seem to
be saying that there are things out there in the world
that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels.
But I don’t think it’s always that clear. For example, you
say that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But
the “road surface” is just a property of the real world.
Its role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling.
RM: I did read it. I didn't see anything
in the write up that suggested that atenfel
was anything other than an unattractive and
unnecessary name for “feedback function”.