[From Rick Marken (930518.2200)]
Bruce Nevin (Mon 930517 08:46:23)--
How do we know that two individuals
are controlling for conformity to the same norms? Their perceptions
of co-membership, repetition, etc. (as reported or as evinced through
indirect tests). But this is coherent, and may possibly be convincing,
only given a coherent account of how people arrive at their reference
perceptions. This is a fundamental question that Chuck is asking.
If, by "reference perceptions" you mean "reference signal" settings then
HPCT already has an account of how they are arrived at; they are varied
by higher level systems as the means by which they control their
perceptions. If by "reference perceptions" you mean the state of the
perceptual variable that corresponds to the reference signal setting
currently in effect, then PCT already provides an account of that --
negative feedback control of perceptual input. If by "reference settings"
you mean the fixed settings of the intrinsic reference signals, then
these are presumably determined by the genes.
What fundemental question is being asked about which PCT or HPCT does
not already give a coherent account ?
By the way, the CROWD program shows very nicely that what an observer
might see as "people controlling for the same norm" could be the
result of people controlling much simpler perceptions -- and not
necessarily even the same ones. In one version of CROWD a group of people
always ends up forming a circle around a target person. It looks like
the people share the norm of "forming a circle when listening to
a speaker". But this is the observer's perception; the individuals
are just simultaneously controlling their proximity to each other and
to the speaker -- there's not one "forming a circle" norm in the the
whole group. In social behavior, even more, perhaps than in individual
behavior, you have to remember that a compellingly interesting show
can be put on for the observer -- but it is NOT what the actors are
controlling. The actors are controlling their own show -- their
perceptions. Remember Fred and Ginger!
Oded Maler (930517 1000 ET) --
Tom Bourbon explained the two meaning of objective very nicely.
But I still wonder, what is your point, Oded? Just because a
political perception is less concensually objective than, say,
a line position perception, what does this have to do with the
applicability of PCT to politics -- other than the fact that
we can't model political control as precisely as line control?
Do people stop being control systems once they start doing things
that get them into the newspaper?
Do you have an alternate to PCT as a theory of political behavior? If
you do, then it should have no difficulty at all dealing with tracking
tasks, right? Should be child's play compared to all that complicated
political stuff, I'd imagine.
Cliff Joslyn --
It might come as a surprise to some to know that regulation can be achieved
by processes other than negative feedback.
Well, that would be a surprise, indeed!
alternative regulator uses a multiplier instead (fig. 1).
Where does the multiplication take place? When I compute an
output proportional to r*p I get something more like catastrophy
than quasi-homeostatis -- or maybe that's what quasi-homeostasis
is -- catastrophy. Anyway, I can't seem to make it behave like
a person. Maybe the system did something like those pesky adders
on Noah's ark -- multiply by logs.
Best
Rick