<[Bill Leach 940811.19:30 EST(EDT)]
<Bob Clark (940811.1425 EDT)>
Bob, I am afraid that I am in a "mode" where I can not give our
discussion the sort of careful thought that it truly deserves.
I suppose that I am a sort of person that is often willing to say
something, and either "beat it to death" trying to "answer" all of the
misunderstanding that I perceived that others might experience OR throw
something out and figure that others will ask or challenge what is said.
I would prefer to write something, put it aside, wait and revise later.
If revised, wait and review again (repeat as necessary). Unfortunately
(for everyone I suppose), I don't do that. In fast paced electronic
communications, it seems that if one even attempts such a thing, by the
time you finally do post, no one remembers the topic. If that were not
bad enough, I just don't seem to have the time for such activity. Thus,
I will willingly admit, that often my postings are not as well thought
out as they should be. Many times, I have felt much the fool when I read
a response to my posting or even someone else's parallel posting.
For me, it is either "jump in" and take some well deserved knocks or not
participate at all. As long as I still feel that I am not unwelcome, I
risk the results of my oftimes rather shallow thinking and hope that the
remaining "netters" will continue to challenge my thinking (where
appropriate) or force me to be more precise.
Bill's rather humorous postings about a month ago, emphasized the
problem. We (I think) all know that we can and are both in error at
times and just plain misunderstood at times. We can either try to define
every term that could possibly be misunderstood (and therefore just about
never complete any single posting) or we can try set forth a germ of an
idea an let others dialog to determine how well "we came across".
I am sure that there is a "mid-point" somewhere and I think that most try
to point out where something is commonly misunderstood but two things
interfere with this process. The first is (I think) that the PCT regulars
already recognize that even rather precise definitions for a newcomer are
not enough and it is probably better to allow a dialog to develop where a
more specific understanding of where the newcomer fails to understand
terminology exists before really working on detailed definitions.
I am pretty well convinced that is how I was "handled". Rather than
"wasting" too much time trying to define both terms that I might have
understood very well (along with those that I did not understand of
course), I was engaged in dialog to determine what I might already
understand.
An additional problem is that the need for precision in various terms is
often a function of the specific issue being discussed. I some
discussions a very loose use of a particular term is not a problem where
in others such use results in serious misunderstanding.
energy, force, etc.
And I'll add my favorite abused term; velocity.
necessarily ensure understanding of the significance of the idea
that living systems are control systems.
Of course not -- there are other requirements as well. But without a
careful, rigorous approach, what are the chances for any success?
None, but again, in a forum such as this, and indeed at times even in the
educational environment, excess emphasis on precision at too early a time
can drive away people that otherwise stay for the "long haul". Trying to
MAKE people adhere to exacting use of terms prior to their own
perception of the need for such precision will most often be counter-
productive (sound like a control system conflict maybe?).
Over-simplification frequently allows a person to begin to grasp a
"global" understanding and indeed once the "big picture" is somewhat
comprehended then the "detail" information that in the early stages
of learning seemed so overwhelming often makes sense to the point of
even being "obvious."
I have a rather vague general notion of what these phrases mean, but
I really don't know what to do with them. Indeed, what _do_ these
commonly used phrases mean?
I'll make a "stab" at this; If you try to teach someone how an
electronic vacuum tube amplifier works, you don't get immediately into
quantum physics, thermionic noise and the like. It is first most useful
to teach the concept of amplification and the "thumb rule" formulas for
computing operating points for real amplifiers operating in say the HF
and audio ranges. Though such a student might already "know" that all
practical conductors in any "real" circuit have inductance, mutual
inductance and capacitance, for practical work they can be ignored and
would only serve to overwhelm the student. Your goal here is really to
get the student to understand basic concept of electronic amplification.
Once some measure of expertise has been demonstrated there, you
successively introduce additional concepts. These additional concepts
then are usually now of "great interest" to the student since the student
is "prepared" to understand how they affect the newly learned subject.
I tend to think that PCT is a much the same. To most important single
concept in PCT is just the idea that living thing ARE negative feedback
control systems. Whether particular control loops are "on the same
level" or whether a particular control loop is linear, square-law,
multiplexed, enhancement or inhibitory functioning perceptual signal is
decidedly secondary to this fundamental concept.
In my discussion (and disagreement) with Martin, from one of my early
postings, Bill gave me more credit than I deserved. He pointed out that
the biological control loops that underlie the concepts that we were
discussing actually have a control structure similar to the one that I
was using in my example. That was fine, and indeed, after he made his
posting, I remembered reading basically what he said but that actually
was not my point with Martin. I had chosen an inhibiting perceptual
signal quite by chance. My point was that in a "one-way" control loop it
has to be possible to set a reference value to result in no control
action. My use of the term "zero reference" was a poor choice (though
the ensuing discussion was probably worthwile).
The whole discussion was not, and is not important to understanding what
PCT is and what it means. I think that such discussions become important
once on accepts the idea of closed loop control and begins to try to
understand what one has perceived in the "new light" of control system
operation. There is a vast difference in these two efforts (in my
opinion).
... important word, in its proper place. "justification?" No, I was
_defining_, not " _justifying_.
OK, then "defending" but I don't see a difference. I am quite aware that
you are try to define the term disturbance. However, I objected, an you
appears to me to be trying to defend your particular definition against
my objections. I am not implying that this is bad and indeed, I think it
is commendable. Instead of taking an arrogant approach, you are at least
willing to discuss the reasoning behind what you are trying to
accomplish.
OK, I will repent though I still do not think that there should
have been a missunderstanding in the context in which I used the
word.
Nor did I "misunderstand" you. Rather, I was concerned with
consistent usage throughout discussions of PCT. Inconsistent use of
language can lead to misunderstandings that can be very hard to resolve.
In the first place, all words are context sensitive to some extent. I
may well be a "loose cannon" (and if so will likely remain so) but I am
far to used to being able to talk about the "function" of a system (or
even a major part of a system) without having people confuse such use of
the term with the more specific sense of a transform operation.
"Reorganization" is not a "party line." It is a matter of
_definition_. You don't have to "like" the definition -- or ...
I suppose I'll have to wait until I get my copy of B:CP back and maybe
review some of the earlier discussions of reorganization but:
First and foremost, as I understand the thinking on reorganization, the
general idea of a random (or at least partially random) reorganization
system is considered to be absolutely essential to PCT, that is, without
a system that functions in a general manner at least similar to what has
been postulated concerning reorganization, PCT is impossible AS an
overall description of how living beings operate.
Some testing has validated the idea that such a random system could
function and would produce some of the behaviour actually observed.
The term "intrinsic" is not precisely defined though a general nature has
been described.
Whether the reorganizing system is actually producing output continously
is unknown. Possible "modes" considered (that I have read so far) are,
Continous perceptual error producing continous reorganization at a
(normally) low rate or there might be a "threshold" for any reoganization
output to occur.
I believe in B:CP (though I certainly could be in error but if not there
then at least here on CSG-L); I have read that there exist (within the
PCT community) the idea that there is a "general error" level that may be
perceived by the reorganizing system. If this is true then I was not
"out of line" with the statement that ANY control system error could
result in output from the reoganizing system. I used the word
"triggered" because such a term encompasses the possibility that there is
a threshold (indeed, there IS a threshold just do to the fact that we are
talking about a real system but that is not the sort of threshold of
which I was thinking nor do I assume that anyone else is either).
The problem is that no matter what we discuss there is always a "finer"
level of detail that we are ignoring. It HAS to be this way or nothing
in the way of ideas would ever be exchanged and discussed. Thus, it is
just plain necessary to "takes ya chances" and try to clear up any
misunderstanding later when (and if) it surfaces (directly or
indirectly).
-bill