<Bob Clark (940809.1508 EDT)>
[Bill Leach 940807.00:42 EST(EDT)] Subject: Re: RKC-MORE CNTRL,DISTRB
Your using the general definition of "disturbance" is not a problem
-- when the purpose is a "general" one. For application to The Test,
it needs to be limited. I think your suggestion of
"Test-disturbance" has merit.
But more important, I think, is recognition of the need for
"calibration." _Two_ observations are necessary, one with the system
connected and one with it disconnected. In some cases, where
reliable computations are possible, the second observation may be
I remember thinking that is was "necessary" to "lie" a little when
teaching basic electronics. I don't necessarily believe that one
has to do that but I do believe that many will "give up" if you do
not at least use a few "over-simplifications" in the early stages of
the learning experience.
The problem with "over-simplifications" at any stage in the learning
experience is that they can hardly avoid being, at least partly,
incorrect -- hence misleading. Commonly, "over-simplifications" are
in the form of analogies, similes, or metaphors.
"analogy, n. 1. a partial similarity between like features of two
things, on which a comparison may be based."
"simile, n. 1. a figure of speech in which two unlike things are
"metaphor, n. 1. the application of a word or phrase to an object
or concept which it does not literally denote, in order to suggest
comparison with another object or concept."
These definitions demonstrate that they are loaded with possible
misunderstanding. Indeed, they are effective only when both objects
are already known. For definition of new terminology, this type of
definition is guaranteed to produce misunderstanding!
The use of these concepts tends to be revealed by such terms as "a is
like b," "x resembles y," and similar "warnings."
These verbal forms are excellent for literary writing. But for
accurate communication, especially in technical matters, they are
likely to spell disaster.
"How do you define the 'taste of chocolate'?" "It is like this ..,
but a bit more .., with some .. added" -- NO! It can only be
defined by sensory experience.
"How do you define a 'number'?" It the result of the procedure of
"counting," which can be demonstrated.
After quoting from my comments, you state:
Your first sentence tells me that even you perceive your "limit" as
Of course. All words, as words, are "artificial." They are defined
in many ways for many purposes.
The term "function" has both a specific and general meaning and I
was using it in the general sense.
Yes -- but in discussing PCT it is used in the specific sense.
Regarding "triggering" of the reorganizing system:
I would say that the jury is still out on that one but indeed the
"activation " of a control action from the reorganizing system is a
result of a perceptual error.
This is not a "jury" matter. "Reorganization" and "reorganizing
system" are _defined_ in B:CP. If you want to discuss something else,
ok, but don't apply these terms.
Personally, I prefer "n-system," the original label for this concept.
There were misunderstandings with it, but I think they were much less
important than the shifting from the original definitions of
reorganizing system that develops from the general concept of
I don't really think that we are arguing about a disagreement in
belief here. All control system failure should contribute to
How did "belief" get into the act?
Why should "all control system failure contribute to intrinsic
error?" Look at the definition of intrinsic error -- it pertains
exclusively to built-in physiological requirements. When I hit the
wrong key on my key board, is there an intrinsic error? When I find I
took the wrong exit on the Freeway, is there an intrinsic error?
Even if we select our words carefully, there will still be
Regards, Bob Clark