[From Bruce Abbott (980309.0910 EST)]
Bruce Nevin (980308.2258) --
Bruce Abbott (980308.2235 EST)
Actually, the process of control destroys information. For example, if your
home HVAC system worked perfectly, the temperature of the air in your home
would offer no clue as to the outside temperature.
Without control, the temperature inside the home would be the same as the
temperature outside. With control, they are different. The difference is
information created by control.
What offers a clue as to the outside temperature is not the air in my home
but a thermometer, or a person complaining about the temperature, and those
could be placed outside as easily as inside. Placing them, then, both
inside and out, with HVAC control we get twice as much information, a
different temperature reading (or judgement) in each place.
Information as a term in information theory refers to what is conveyed by a
particular channel -- here the channel through which I perceive the
temperature of the air (via my skin sensors). My ability to detect
variations in the outside temperature of the air by sensing the inside
temperature of the air is greatly diminished if a good control system is
regulating the inside temperature. A perfect control system would
completely block the flow of that information. Whether you can get that
information from another source (e.g., outside thermometer) is not relevant.
Regards,
Bruce
[From Bill Powers (980309.0920 MST)]
Bruce Abbott (980309.0910 EST)--
Information as a term in information theory refers to what is conveyed by a
particular channel -- here the channel through which I perceive the
temperature of the air (via my skin sensors). My ability to detect
variations in the outside temperature of the air by sensing the inside
temperature of the air is greatly diminished if a good control system is
regulating the inside temperature. A perfect control system would
completely block the flow of that information. Whether you can get that
information from another source (e.g., outside thermometer) is not relevant.
This implies that there is "temperature information" outside the receptors,
which is destroyed by the temperature control system (through its use of
furnace or air conditioner) before it can get to the receptors. But that
concept of information is not tenable; it omits the effect of the receiver
on the amount of information that "flows", and thus gives information an
independent existence in the environment. It says that anybody looking at
the same environment would observe the same information there, which no
information theorist I know about would say.
I think that "temperature information" is being used here in a way that
means nothing more than "temperature variations." Temperature variations
certainly are destroyed by a good temperature control system. That's easy
to prove. But I see no way to prove that destroying temperature variations
(in simpler terms, holding temperature constant) destroys some other
substance called information.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (980309.0830)]
Bruce Abbott (980309.0910 EST) --
My ability to detect variations in the outside temperature of the
air by sensing the inside temperature of the air is greatly
diminished if a good control system is regulating the inside
temperature.
Finally, something upon which we can agree: the perceptual signal
in a control system (such as a measure of inside air temperature)
carries no information about disturbance variations (such as
variations in outside air temperature). Now we're getting somewhere!
The behavior of a control system is _control of_ perception, not
_response to_ disturbance.
Bruce Nevin (980308.1807) --
Sounds like the higher up in the hierarchy you go the more the
perceptual signal is a construct projected onto the environment.
Bruce Abbott (980309.0900 EST) --
In most (all?) cases perception is a construct from the start.
I think perception is a construct in _all_cases. But I think
Bruce Nevin makes an _extremely_ good point here that is worth
repeating; higher level perceptions (like the perception of
"the merits of conventional psychology") seem like constructs
"projected onto the environment" (a nice way of saying it, Bruce!)
while lower level perceptions (like the perception of "red", square",
"tennis racquet", "word", etc) seem like what is _actually out
there_.
I think one of the difficult (but very important) things to remember
about PCT is that it doesn't make this distinction; no perception is
more (or less) "real" than another. Perceptions are perceptual signals
in the brain. The perception of the color of a leaf is no more real
that the perception of the merits of conventional psychology. The
perception of a tree is no more real than the perception of an
attitude of defensiveness.
I think the main difference between perceptions at difference levels
of the hierarchy is that we know how certain perceptions (like the
perception of a color or a word) might be constructed -- we can build
models of perceptual functions that "construct" colors and words --
but we don't have any idea how other perceptions (like the perception
of the merits of conventional psychology) might be constructed. So
we are able to build machines that can produce analogs of certain
lower level perceptual variables; but we cannot yet build machines
that can produce analogs of many higher level perceptual variables.
That's why it's easier to Test for control of lower level perceptions
(becuase we can monitor the state of the possible controlled
perceptions mechanically) than for control of higher level perceptions.
But I still think it's fair to use the machine between our ears --
the brain -- as the devive that monitors the state of possible high
level controlled variables -- at least for the pilot studies;-)
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken