Re: Value (was Promulgating
[Martin Taylor 2004.11.18.16.00]
[From Rick Marken
want to talk economics? Lets see how ‘interested’ you are in talking
about what I’m interested in. Great, how do you see PCT addressing
the concept of ‘value’?
With the reference signal. Perceptions
that match reference signals appear to be “valued”. People
act (by paying money, for example) to produce valued perceptions (the
ones that match reference signals) and not others (the one’s that
don’t match reference signals).
This isn’t wrong, to me, but doesn’t seem right, either. I look
at it as a way station on the route to a PCT view of
Maybe it’s a question of interpreting the words, but to me
“value” seems to refer to situations in which there is a
comparison, or a conflict.
If I have $1 and I have a desire for both X and Y, each of which
I can get with that $1, I choose X, Y, or neither. The choice I make
determines whether I value X, Y, or $1 more highly. It’s a conflict
because whatever control system would bring its perceptual signal
nearer its reference value by the acquisition of X would deny the one
that would benefit from Y that opportunity, and would increase the
error in whatever control system would have its error increased by the
loss of $1. The conflicted control systems aren’t controlling the
“same” perception, but they are trying to control three
degrees of freedom with only one degree or freedom for the disposition
of the $1.
I can’t see the notion of “value” arising separately
from the conflict situation.
Obviously, what Rick says must be there, but it’s a necessary
condition, not sufficient to describe, let alone define, the notion of
I have a more detailed message on this on the ECACS Forum. The
message is at http://www.ecacs.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=192&post=156#POST156. “Price” is a different kettle of
fish. There’s a separate ECACS thread on determining a price index