🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bruce Buchanan (950228.1200- EST)
 re [Bill Leach 950227.20:58 EST(EDT)]

Bill I think we are still often talking about somewhat different (if
related) matters and assuming differing reference levels and frameworks.

In my posts I have addressed at least three questions which are independent
of PCT and in your commentaries you have tried to apply PCT criteria and
found the results a very mixed bag, which is not surprising. It is perhaps
clear, but I might say it explicitly, that my objective is not simply to
clarify and improve my understanding of PCT (although room for improvement
is undoubtedly present) but to relate PCT to certain other problems. After
all, if we can build upon the premise that "everything is perception", then
the key to many conundrums may well lie in the processes of perception.

(1) In discussing metaphor and literary effects I have not been assuming a
model of science or a search for understanding, but purposes of emotional
and artistic expression. This is quite a different function of language.
The processes involve perception and abstraction but the purposes are not
those of science.

(2) In discussing the nature of Time, and the role of perceptual systems in
enabling human beings to perceive and deal with Time, I am addressing
problems that are not usually part of PCT. This is not the place to explain
why books have been written about the nature and the problems associated
with the experience of time. Suffice it to say that I think that PCT has
implications which may clarify the capacity to perceive time and hence the
meaning of time for human beings (see below). Obviously it may take a more
extended exposition to make this clear, and csg-l may not be the best forum
for this.

(3) In discussing the nature of values I am also addressing heretofor
unsolved problems. I am aware that social scientists perceive a need to
better understand the sources of values as well as the conditions under
which these change, and look for measures which can assist us to understand
behavior. There is a real lack of knowledge about these matters in all the
relevant areas of social science, which in my opinion approach the problems
from such an abstract level that an operational understanding of the
underlying mechanisms is almost precluded. In my opinion PCT and
cybernetics may have insights to contribute about the role of values in
guiding behavior, and I am trying to get at what I think these insights are
in specific operational terms. Here again a more extended presentation is
probably needed in order to assess the ideas.

Now to more specific comments.

Bill writes: (re Popper)
>"thought tests" are not subjected to any experimental validation.
>The 'falsifications" can be every bit as incorrect as the "theory".

The falsification tests described by Popper would be empirical, not
"thought experiments".

(I wrote:)
>>If the intention is to create a literary or dramatic effect the
>>evaluation is one of relative success rather than error.
>
>You "blew this one by me completely".  What is the significance of
>"literary or dramatic effect" in a search for understanding?

A "literary or dramatic effect" has no significance for a scientific search
for understanding. It belongs not to science but to the category of art,
where the criteria of success are different from those of science, which
was the point I was trying to make.

>>There is no logic to a single step.
>
>Being a reluctant student of Boole... there most certainly can be a
>"logic" to a single step (as irrelevent as that might be).

Sorry, my error. What I meant to say was that there is no logic involved in
the concept feedback considered in isolation, without specifics as to the
factors and linkages involved.

>>The phrase was of the "logic of a feedback of information which occurs
>>after to first cycle".
>
>I think that I will probably continue to have trouble with this one.  In
>control system theory, the actual process is considered to be continuous.

I was referring to a conceptual model in terms of which elements are
artificially isolated and analyzed in their relationships e.g. whether the
feedback is negative or positive in its application to the causal
processes.
I understand that this is a conceptual artifice and not an actual process.

>>I was describing the logical relations of effects which include feedback
>>of measures of error from a comparator as one of their causal input
>>factors.
>
>I almost hate to say this but could you diagram this for me?  Feedback is
>considered to be something that comes from one source and goes to
>another.  It is usually not adequate to give even just the source and
>destination but the rest of the loop is needed for even the most basic
>understanding.

An example (since I do not know how to render a diagram with my email
program!): The thermostat measures the difference between the room
temperature and its set point.  Among the causal factors that affect the
room temperature (e.g. outdoor ambient temperature, open doors and windows,
use of lights and oven, number of people, etc.) is also the furnace burner
and its time on and periodicity. The feedback signal goes from the
thermostat comparator to the burner switch, where it is applied with
negative sign, which is simply one of the causal input factors. Because the
feedback links levels, the operation of one component (the furnace) can be
integrated into a functional outcome of the whole system (room
temperature). This is one specific example of the model I had in mind. It
is also an example of the way in which a quantitative feature of a
superordinate system is precisely related to a quantitative aspect of a
component subsystem, i.e. relation of whole to part, which I recognize is
always an ongoing cyclical process if functional integration is to be
realized.

>>Memory is such a familiar concept that we overlook a really amazing
>>feature, unique to life, by which events related as before and after can
>>be examined in relation to each other. It is a commonplace that memories
>>can be compared. The question is, what is the mechanism that makes this
>>possible.. . .
>
>Bruce this reads almost as badly as Albus.  You are, in my opinion,
>describing what is "observed" using vague assertions.  In doing so, I
>believe that you are violating Bill Powers (and his is but an agreement
>with Einstein) that the simplest explaination be pursued until it is
>found not capable.

The explanation will depend upon what one is trying to explain. I am all in
favour of Occam's razor, but I am not trying to describe memory in a vague
way. I am trying to clarify a possible mechanism by which events which
occur in different times can be recorded by the nervous system so that they
can be considered together (in fact by locating those records in different
places in the CNS - e.g. in different memory traces and perhaps regions).
In a sense time is translated into space and then managed in spatial terms,
always, as Bill Powers notes, in the Present.

>>... I am trying to address [another] problem, which is that of the orgins
>>of any values at all, and hence of the general concept of value
>>independent of any specific individual or cultural manifestation.
>
>The "pat" answer is somehow it all comes about as a result of a few
>intrinsic references, experience with the environment including effects
>of reorganization. . . .

O.K. but, speaking more specifically, values in the large or at higher
levels must be related to, or perhaps identical to, controlled variables.
As understood by PCT these are perhaps not a problem. What is a problem to
my mind is whether they may cast useful light on the methods and problems
of value analysis addressed by social scientists, opinion researchers,
politicians, etc.

Well that is enough for now. I may return later. In the meantime I thank
both Bills for the feedback and questions which show up the inadequacies in
my ideas and their presentation and give me food for further thought ;-)

(Now I am off for a week of skiing with my son and grandchildren. A little
change of pace.)

Cheers and best wishes.

Bruce B.