[JIM DUNDON 06.30.06.1230edt]
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.06.27.1300 CDT)]
First of all, I would hesitate to say: "I believe that all data in tests for controlled variables contain a demonstration of this principal." Prove? That doesn't sound right. To believe...? There is a better phraseology for that. Not to nit-pick, but there is a need to address these concepts using appropriate scientific terminology. I know I occasionally stray from that maxim, but...
But my main reply has to do with your notion of the "principle of least action" being inseparable from purposeful behavior. Also the thing about efficiency. Seems as if you are focusing too much on efficiency, and less on good control of perception.
Good control of perception does not necessarily involve the concious focus on
effeciency although one could make that the concious perception controlled for.
That is not what I was doing.
My focus was on whether or not good efficiency would be found in what we
call good control. Not on being efficient. In other words we would not expect that Rick Marken
would conduct a test for the controlled variable by saying to the testees
"somewhere in this building is an apparatus you are to use, it is up to you to find it.".
We would expect that he would make it easy for them to find it by giving a reference signal
room number. If he did other than make it easy "least action" we would
question his intent, his stated goal. If every teacher did this we would assume
conspiracy or mass insanity. We expect a stated reference signal to evidence
some proof of its existence. Usually a stated goal has some physical manifestion.
In that manifestation we expect see some movement in that direction. In "movement in
that direction" is contained the unspoken notion of efficiency, even if we use the
word metaphorically as in "what direction is this conversation taking?".
We would likewise expect that each participant who agreed to participate would
walk most directly to the apparatus not run around the hallway first or we would
again question his willingness to participate. We would assume he had established
some other reference signal. I would also expect that while engaged in the test that
movements of cursor would likewise manifest an inclination toward least time least distance
in the performance or it would be concluded that the participant was really participating.
Everyone going to China is buying tickets to China not
Mexico. If the price being paid for airfare is not the lowest it is because there was a reference
signal established for some other priority and accepting that higher price was
deemed the easiest way to accomplish that higher priority reference signal. Or we would
assume the person did not care about the price in which case the reference
signal had nothing to do with price which means that it was deemed easier to
pay whatever price in order not to be occupied with that issue and thereby obtain an
opportunity to experience a different reference signal and/or state of mind.
It still looks to me like efficiency of a kind is an unspoken understood or unconcious
component of good control, that if we focus on good control we will find least effort
or least action or some comparable perhaps not yet named component which affords
the conclusion that good control is "call it what you will" [Maybe 'makes sense' are the words]
But what do I know.
best,
JIM D
···
What I mean about this is that the goal is not efficiency. The goal is not even efficient control. The goal is good enough control by a living control system to be able to survive at least long enough to continue living and to reproduce (asexually, sexually or any means by which life continues).
I think that the bottom line of efficiency is that it probably is described by the normal curve in a healthy living control system. That is, most of the time control is good enough, sometimes it is really good, and other times, the attempt to control fails. A sick living control system may eventually show a skewed curve toward failure to control, until it is flattened somehow some way by the environment where it ceases to control. "So it goes."
Nature usually cannot square the curve. We try to square the curve in our desire to make things neat and clean, efficient and simple. But nature is best described by the normal curve.
My take on it.
--Bryan
> [JIM DUNDON 06.27.06.1053edst]
>
> Does the principal of least action appear in purposeful behavior?
>
> If so, is it a sometimes unintended side effect or an always
unintended side effect or an always inseparable, integral part of the goal?
>
> Can it be separated from a goal?
>
> Do all TCVs prove the principal of least action while proving
perceptual control?
>
> My guess is,
> that, relative to the information contained in the goal, it is an
inseparable part of the goal to achieve it in the shortest possible time and with the least motion. That experience will inform this perception. That this form of conservation is an integral, inseparable form of conservation relative to controlled variable. In changing what matters to us while ignoring what doesn't [Powers] it cannot be said that we have done so without regard to time, space, and energy. We may be inefficient in some things but that is only because efficiency of the kind spoken of was not part of the goal. That is, our behavior was not informed, or having been informed was not regarded, we did not care about it. If we care about it we also care to proceed with what we perceived as the most efficient process. The perception of efficiency, least action, relative to the goal, will be found in all controlled perceptions. It appears to be inseparable.
>
> I believe that all data in tests for controlled variables contain a
demonstration of this principal.
>
> best,
>
> Jim D