[From Rick Marken (950811.1330)]
Bruce Abbott (950810.1040 EST) --
In the following table, the "expected" intake (in grams) is the amount
expected under the assumption that intake amount is NOT controlled.
FOOD INTAKE/DAY (GRAMS)
-----Rat 1 ----- -----Rat 2 ----- -----Rat 3 -----
Ratio Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual
FF 22.9 22.9 24.9 24.9 21.9 21.9
1 19.2 20.0 25.5 23.2 17.3 17.7
5 17.1 22.0 23.2 20.9 14.7 22.9
...
The data support the view that food intake is controlled.
Yes. A nice use of The Test. And the gain of the control process seems to be
going down with the ratio, as expected.
What we need now is a control-system model to check against these findings.
I would still rather see some data where control is precise over a range of
disturbance values. We are still dealing with a rather complex situation
here, mainly because the only systematic "disturbance" is a change in the
feedback function (ratio). The "Actual" data seem a tad noisy, suggesting
that some of the decline in the apparent gain of the control process may
actually be something else, such as reorganization.
But a model of the rats in the Collier experiment shouldn't be too difficult;
I'll try to work on one this weekend.
Me:
people can't help but think responsibly if they are control systems
Joel Judd (950811.1130 CST) --
While there may be a nice THEORETICAL consistency to this answer, there's
not a very helpful SOCIAL one.
Gee, I think it's VERY helpful socially. I am sure that there would be an
immediate and tangible imporvement in our society if the members (especially
the most skillful controllers) would stop worrying about whether other people
were acting responsibly and start worrying about whether other people are
able to control.
That is, I'm guessing you mean that a control system blissfully controlling
its perceptions and reducing error is being "responsible"
Partly. I also mean that a control system is being responsible when it knows
that the side effects of its own controlling can interfere with the
controlling that is being done by others.
For human beings to live and work in close proximity, there have to be
certain ground rules.
I'm willing to believe that that's true. But I've seen other kinds of
organisms besides people, living and working in large groups with little
apparent strife, and they seem to be able to do it without having laid down
any ground rules.
Yes, someone has to approve or disapprove of them, whether that be a parent,
teacher, or counselor.
Or anyone else. All people approve or disapprove of rules because they are
control systems.
And yes, sometimes they must be enforced, when one's goals do not include
"consideration of others."
Why "must" the rules be enforced? I think it's because the person who "must"
enforce them has a reference for enforcing them -- the "enforcer" is just
a control system like everyone else. Enforcement of rules is a control
process -- one that involves other people as the objects of control.
People who talk about the importance of being "responsible" are simply trying
to justify their own desire to control other people. It seems to me that the
people who worry the most about other people being "responsible" are the ones
who have good reason to believe that other people will NOT be "responsible"
(by their definition of "responsible").
Parents, for example, worry about kids being "responsible" because they
experienced the "irresponsibility" of kids day in and day out. Young kids
don't know how to control the variables that parents can control. A young kid
is likely to be "irrerponsible" and run into the street to get a ball, for
example, becuase the kid can't perceive (and, hence, control for) aspects of
the situation (potential arrival of cars) that the parents can perceive. If
the parents continues to expect "responsibility" from a kid who CAN control
the same variables that the parents want controlled, then there is likely to
be conflict.
Many wealthy people, who benefit from the labor of others, are also very keen
on having other people be "responsible". These people have reson to worry
about other people doing things (like not working for nearly nothing or
committing crimes against them) that might interfere with their continued
enjoyment of their wealth. I think that's why you hear so much from
conservatives about the importance of people being "responsible" -- learning
good "values". A responsible person, according to such a conservative, is one
who works hard for nothing more than the promise of future wealth and does
nothingthat will interfere with the conservative's ability to enjoy his
wealth. The notion that another person's "irresponsibility" might be the
result of the conservative's own irresponsibility (pigging out on wealth that
could be shared) is, itself, considered an "irresponsible" suggestion.
Irresponsibility is in the eye of the beholder.
PCT doesn't say that there is anything wrong with what the parent or
conservative want. PCT just explains what is actually happening; to the
extent that the parent and conservative enforce their desire to see people
behave "responsibly", they are simply trying to control other people. If the
people they are controlling are cabable of controlling what the parent and
conservative want controlled, there will be conflict.
If you don't like conflict (or the consquences thereof) then PCT can help; it
can help by showing the parent and the conservative what they are doing
(controlling) why it is creating conflict and how to avoid such conflict
while satisfying one's own goals (to some extent; the parent and conservative
might have to adjust some of their own goals).
PCT does not imply that if you leave everyone alone everything will be
peachy. People DO do things that interfere with each people; people have to
LEARN how to control in a way that avoids these kinds of conflicts (collision
avoidance in hyperspace) in order to control skillfully in a group of other
controllers. This kind of learning is called "socialization" and it happens
quite naturally (I think) as a by-product of teaching kids how to control
their own perceptions.
I, personally, want a society where everyone gets along and gets their own
needs satisfied without interfering with the ability of others to satisfy
theirs. I KNOW that the way to get to that goal is NOT to "teach responsible
thinking" -- when you do this you are just controlling other people and
creating conflict. The way to get there is to teach responsible controlling,
which is the same as controlling, period.
Bruce Nevin (950811 12:24 EDT) --
But what matters for evolution is not death, which all critters come to
eventually, so far as we know, but the failure to replicate.
I agree. I guess I just think of "error" as a perception that isn't in its
intended state and I couldn't imagine that "non-replicating" could
constitute an error for any organism except one capable of perceiving itself
as having "replicated" -- a very complex perception.
To determine that the variables are controlled, the cell would have to
produce an output that affects the variable and see if the affect on the
variable is countered by an unseen agency,
Yes!
If study of control systems of higher order than multicellular critters
(like humans, rats, and cockroaches) is supernatural PC, then study of
cells as control systems must be subnatural PC, right?
Not quite. I think cells are control systems, controlling variables that we
can perceive (indirectly). Just natural PCT.
What are the boundaries of nature, Rick? Your choice of terms implies that
you know.
My choice of the term "supernatural" was probably unfortunate. I don't think
of nature as a border with a supernatural world. Instead of "supernatural" I
probably should have said "unknowable".
There is nothing supernatural going on if there are variables that we can
perceive that are being controlled by control systems that we can't; it's
just another aspect of PCT (as is the controlling done by cells). Nor is
there anything supernatural going on if there are variables that we cannot
perceive being controlled by control systems that we can (or cannot)
perceive; but in this case, the existance of such control systems is
unknowable since we can't know that anything is being controlled
Best
Rick