🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bruce Gregory (990421.1610 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990421.1240)

> Me:
>
> > 2) the presentation of control theory was way too elementary
>
> Ye:
>
> > Definitely true from an engineer's perspective. All of PCT deals
> > with a section of the first chapter of any text on control.
>
> Really? The first chapter of any text on control deals with the
> nature of control, controlled perceptual variables, the behavioral
> illusion, testing for controlled variables, etc?

No. But the diagram describing an ECU appears in the first chapter along
with a discussion of how a control system works. Engineers don't worry
about the nature of control, controlled perceptual variables, the
behavioral illusion or testing for controlled variables. They are not
trying to understand living control systems; they are trying to build
non-living control systems.

> If all PCT
> deals with is what is dealt with in any text on control then
> why are you so excited about PCT?

I _am_ interested in all of the above. I am not trying to build a
control system of my own.

> Why do you want to imagine that you are one of "us"?

You'll never let me live that down, will you? It was a momentary
weakness. I've regained my composure.

> Clearly there is at least one fundamental flaw in his understanding
> of control theory: he thinks control systems control objective
> states of affairs, not perceptions. This flaw in his understanding

A flaw from your point of view not from his. The overwhelming majority
of folks think that the thermostat controls the objective state of the
temperature. Only a few dyed-in-the-wool PCTers think "I'll adjust the
reference level of the thermostat and thereby alter its and my
perception of the temperature of the room." After all, if your
perceptions are not "abnormal" the temperature you perceive _is_ the
objective temperature of the room. Sometimes our perceptions are
distorted, of course--we can have a fever or chills. But in this case we
want the "objective" temperature of the room to be higher or lower.


> made it impossible for him to understand the two main points of
> my paper: 1) controlled variables are perceptual variables and
> 2) in order to understand the observed behavior of a control
> system it is necessary to test to determine what perceptual
> variable(s) it is controlling. So he, a control theorist, rejected
> my paper out of ignorance of control theory.

As a youngster I was amazed to discover that my uncle believed that
adjusting the sight on his hunting rifle actually "caused" the bullet to
increase its range (rather than altering its trajectory). Nevertheless,
he was a quite successful hunter, even though he didn't "really
understand" what he was doing. I was never able to convince him that it
made no sense that the gun sight altered the speed of the bullet. Just
as well. He got along fine with the beliefs that he had. I understood
how the sight effected the trajectory, but you'd be a fool to pick me as
a hunting partner over my uncle.


Bruce Gregory