[Avery Andrews 930129.0952]

It seems to me that the critical thing w.r.t. Schmidt is to figure out what
aspects of it Jordan and Rosenbaum were thinking of as evidence for feedback
being too slow. I leaped to the conclusion that it was the 210-211 stuff,
but we better be careful about getting this right. By the way, I don't
notice what I would call the `event-based blunder' on the list in QAPB.
Does it have a standard name?

Presumably at the bottom of the pit in our inferno would be McCulloch,
who seems to be deeply implicated in the event blunder & subverting
understanding of continuous/analog computing in general.

Houk & Rymer on the other hand strike me as definitely being good guys.
The main problem with their exposition is that, although it is very
clear, their diagrams are not appropriate for psychology (they seem
based on the requirements of chemical engineering): there;s
a box labelled `controlled system' with arrows coming out labelled
`regulated variables', with the effectors, comparators, etc.
outside the `controlled system'.

                                                    > disturbance


   ref error forcing | Controlled | regulated vars.
------> Sum ---------> Amplifier ------- -> | System |------------->
     + ^ function ------------- |
          > - |

Looking at this, it's basically the same as Bill's diagrams, but
inside out: the `Controlled system' is the entire environment,
the forcing function is the effectors, etc.