Perception, conflict, enforcing consent

[From Rick Marken (940829.1110)]

Martin Taylor (940829 10:40) --


Have you seen any of this "passive statistical analysis" taking place


Of course you can see it, at least some of it, physiologically if not
psychologically. The data flow is reduced by a factor of 100 between the
retinal receptors and the optic nerve

But there is not necessarily anything "statistical" about this reduction.
Statistical analysis implies that some statistical measures of the input data
are being computed -- means, variances, etc. Have you seen any evidence of
this kind of analysis?

Bill Leach (940827.11:38 EST) says:

1. In general, it is "good" for an individual control system to be able
   to control without conflict due to actions of another individual
   control system.

Paul George (940829 11:00) --

I don't know about 'good', but it is certainly easier to control perceptions
when they are not being disturbed by another entity.

If the source of the disturbance is an agent controlling the same variable
you are controlling, then there is conflict. If the agent's loop gain is
about the same as yours, then neither of you will be in control of the
variable. This, I think, is what Bill Leach was talking about; when you are
in conflict with an agent who is as strong or stronger than you are, then you
are _not_ actually in control of the variable that the agent is also trying
to control. The disturbance resulting from the action of another control
system should have a special status because, unlike other disturbances, the
size of such a disturbance increases along with your efforts to counter it.

Feedback can be a bitch.

Other feedback control systems can be a bitch, all right, especially when
they are controlling variables that are the same or similar to the one's you
are controlling.

Multi-organism hierarchical or division of labor structures can be
'voluntary' in the sense that individuals in some sense 'accept' the control
structure (sometimes known as 'respect for authority').

They are always voluntary in this sense; a group of indivdual organisms
can mimic a control hierarchy only if the individuals consent to set their
references in a way that makes it appear that they are responding to the
commands of other individuals in the group.

I understand your fear, but if the guns are in an armory they can be seized
by an invader or the police.

I wasn't proposing a preferred solution; I was just mentioning a possibility
that popped into my mind as a way to let the gun worshippers have their
phallic phun while the rest of us have some reasonable degree of security.

Also recognize that the main purpose of the 'right to bear arms' is the
ability to shoot back at the police or army if they get too uppity.

I have to believe that people really think this way but I find it absolutely

It is fairly important to not be too badly outgunned by the power structure,
else the deterrent against despotism is not there.

Again, I have to wonder what kind of scenarios are running through people's
heads. Do you imagine that the Western European countries with strict gun
controls (and an essentially disarmed population) are on the verge of
despotism? How has Great Britain been able to hold out against despotism
for all these years; maybe the would-be despots are afraid of getting pelted
with scones and clotted cream.

I have no doubt that people inside and outside a country sometimes try to
"take it over". But this can't happen (as far as I know) unless the would-be
taker-overers have pretty broad support within the country being taken over.
Hitler had lots of fans, as did Lenin, Stalin, Samoza and Mao. What good is
an armed population if a large portion of that population is sympathetic to
the "bad guys"?

The 'consent of the governed' is only important if they can do something to
enforce it.

Maybe if we, the governed, have to worry that much about enforcing consent,
there isn't as much consent as we imagined.