[From Rick Marken (930401.0800)]
I guess my post of last night can count as my April Fools post. I said:
Rick Marken (930331.2100)
You will find when you run the simulations that there is only one case
in which you can recover the disturbance from the perceptual input
That statement was correct. But this statement was not:
So this means that there
IS information in the perception when the reference for that perception
is 0, there is no error contributing to the signal going into the
output function -- ie. no neural noise -- and the output of the system,
o contributes linearly (and with a coeficient of 1) to the perecptual
input variable.
The reason it is not true became evident to this April Fool on this, my
morning. I realized that the control system cannot know anything about
at least two of the above conditions; Martin might argue that the control
system can know the value of it's own reference but it certainly has no
way of knowing how much neural noise is being added to the error
signal ((R-P)-- the input to the output function) at any instant and
it certainly has no way of knowing the nature of the function
that connects o to p. So, even though the output of Martin's Mystery
function is a perfect representation of the disturbance under the
conditions described in my quote above, the system has no way of
knowing whether or not these conditions are currently in effect. So
the system has no way of knowing whether the current output of
Martin's Mystery function (the x variable in Bill P.'s SIMCON simulation
of Martin's test) is, indeed, the recovered disturbance. So, guess
what -- THERE IS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE DISTURBANCE IN CONTROLLED
PERCEPTUAL INPUT SIGNALS.
Best
Rick