[From Rupert Young (2000.09.11.1430 BST)]
LAUNCH OF UK-BASED RESEARCH NETWORK AND WEBSITE
THE NATURE OF FEEDBACK CONTROL SYSTEMS: DAISYWORLD AND BEYOND
I was very interested and amused to get the above email. Interested,
because it was from my old department (COGS), where I did a degree in
Artificial Intelligence. Amused, because there had been no mention of
control systems on the course. Had the establishment finally recognised the
significance of control systems ?
I was about to forward it to CSGNET when I realised I had received it _from_
CSGNET. This heightened my amusement considering the email, below, which I
received from Inman four years ago in answer to my request for PCT info on
alergic (ALife reading group), when I first came across PCT.
As you can see from the email he hasn't really understood what PCT is about,
and as you can see from the web site their understanding of control systems
could do with a bit of PCTfication.
Who's going to set them straight ? Go, Rick, go (as you Americans would
endearingly chant 
).
Regards,
Rupert
Organization: COGS, University of Sussex
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m)
MIME-Version: 1.0
···
From: Inman Harvey <inmanh@cogs.susx.ac.uk>
To: Rupert J Young <eep1ry@ee.surrey.ac.uk>
CC: alergic@cogs.susx.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Perceptual Control Theory
References: <m0v5EsF-000Oh0C@ainur.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Is anybody aware of "Perceptual Control Theory" (PCT)....
...
If so, how widespread and how well recieved is this theory in
Alife, Ai and Cognitive Science ?
My general impression is that PCT is little known in the orthodox
Cognitive Science field. Because of lack of recognition, and difficulty
in getting papers published, the people behind the theory have been
forced to adopt something of the nature of a rebel cult centred around
Bill Powers, the founder. Their publications circulate in a different
parallel universe to mainstream stuff. I once went to a talk by Tom
Bourbon who is a prominent advocate, but otherwise have rarely come
across them.
My caricature of how their views relate to other views is thus:
(A) Trad Cog Sci, GOFAI etc, assume that cognition is all about arrow X
in this diagram (X is 'inside' the agent):
WORLD -----> PERCEPTION ------X------> ACTION ----> WORLD
(B) Sensible people (...like me...) realise that cognition is actually
about BOTH arrows X and Y in this diagram:
<------Y--------
WORLD AGENT
-------X------->
(C) The PCT people realise (A) is stupid, have got half a grasp on
diagram (B), and think the important bit to stress is Y:
AGENT -----> ACTION ------Y-----> via world ---> PERCEPTION
So they talk in terms of Actions determining Perceptions, the opposite
to people (A).
They are right to stress the importance of this half (which is
unrecognised by GOFAI), but if you want the whole picture go for (B).
The Dynamical Systems approach, Enactive, whatever you want to call it.
--
Inman Harvey >> Evolutionary and Adaptive Systems Group <<
>> COGS, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK <<
inmanh@cogs.susx.ac.uk >> http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/inmanh/ <<