Simon Sez

[From Bruce Abbott (960917.0830 EST)]

Bill Powers (960914.1644 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (960914.1325)

Where is any reference to my
paragraphs, following the quote from Simon, in which I carefully and
explicitly showed the application of Simon's analysis to the evaluation of
control-system models?

The general discourse of Simon can be applied to control theory if you
happen to know control theory already and are looking for examples that fit
Simon's generalities. However, the same generalities cover every other
theory of behavior, too, including absurd ones.

We're talking about a general principle of analysis here, which applies to
any system that meets Simon's definition of an artifact. So _of course_ it
does. Evidently you've missed the whole point.

There is nothing in Simon's
words that leads to control theory; he's just being general enough so that
no matter what is discovered, he can claim to have anticipated it.

Now at least I understand what you're defending against. You've completely
misconstrued the argument. The insights I have been talking about
concerning artifacts do not anticipate control theory, nor could Simon claim
to have anticipated control theory by referring to the paragraphs I have
been quoting. What I presented was a line of thought that leads to some
interesting notions about the properties of all artifacts, including control
systems, and suggests under what conditions their inner properties can be
inferred. I applied this insight to the evaluation of control systems whose
inner structure is unknown.

Now, for the second time, where is any reference to my paragraphs, following
the quote from Simon, in which I carefully and explicitly showed the
application of Simon's analysis to the evaluation of control-system models?
Methinks you are evading the issue. To keep things simple, let's focus on
the elementary control unit for the time being.

Regards,

Bruce