X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 14:47:23 PST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:47:23 PST
From:         marken@AERO.ORG
Subject:      language, origin of control

[From Rick Marken (921104.1400)]

It's over. The 12 year nightmare of greed, division, deceit, and
selfishness is kaput (for the time being). I think we finally have an
11 level system in there -- instead of the usual 10 level (at best) variety
(they walk and talk OK but don't know why). An 11 level system
understands that ALL people are control systems -- not just rich,
protestant, heterosexual, white males. Maybe we can try cooperation
(community) for a change; I hope, I hope.

There. Got that off the ol' chest.

penni sibun (921103.1600) on the relation between her model and pct model

>well, *you* have my thesis and journal paper; you tell me.  really--i'd
>be interested to know.

I hate to say this, but I have a lousy filing system -- so I don't know
where they are. But I do know that whatever you did it struck me as
being interesting enough to merit my inviting you onto csg-l -- and
I'm sure glad you joined.

>i think the major difficulty in mapping bet. yr model and mine is the
>``intended meaning'' part.

I agree -- intentions (reference signals) ARE the ONE BIG difference
between PCT and ALL other models of living systems.

> this is a basic sketch of my model: i cast
>the issue as deciding what to say next.

Doesn't deciding mean comparison of one thing to another? In PCT
there is a continuous comparison of intended to actual perceptual
result.

> another way to characterize this might be 1) where are we in the
>linguistic structure (ws) and 2) where are we in the structure of
>``meaning(s)'' (?) we are talking about.

In order to be able to answer these two questions, doesn't the model
have to be able to perceive the state of ws and "where we are in
the structure of meanings"? That is, 1) and 2) describe perceptual
variables, right?

>  ignoring the rest of the
>context for the nonce, what is said next is determined both by 1) and
>by 2).  this implies that it is *not* the case that the ``meaning'' is
>selected and then the linguistic structure is found to fit it, and the
>next bit of language is produced.

Your second sentence is not a correct description of the PCT model of
meaning generation as I described it in my diagram; the PCT mdoel
says that a linguistic structure (ws) is generated which moves perceived
meaning into a match with reference (selected or intended) meaning.
You say that 1) and 2) [the questions quoted avove] determine what is
said next. To me, it sounds like the perception of 1) where you are in
the linguistic structure (call this p.ws) and 2) where you are in the
structure of meanings (call this p.m) determines what you say next
(call this o). So, your model seems to be o = f(p.ws,p.m) -- definitely
not a control model. But you may have a control model without knowing
it; what you say next may be ws and m rather than o -- so (p,m) =
f(p.ws,p.m) AND (p.ws,p.m) = g(p,m) -- closed loop.

> there may be 4 things you could
>talk about next, but given what language you've produced so far, only
>one of them continues what you've said felicitously.  it's that
>felicity that determines the ``intended meaning'' in this case; the
>``intended meaning'' and the linguistic structure are determined
>*simultaneously*.  how would you represent that in pct?

I think the only way you can determine whether the one in four things
you could have said had a felicitous result is if you have some
specification in the speaker of what constitutes such a result;
in PCT this specification is the refernce signal (r.m1 in my diagram).
If the result of the 1 of four outputs is a (perceived) result that
matches the reference, then that output produces a felicitous result;
felicity, in PCT, is the nearly complete absence of error (difference
between reference and perception). In PCT, the linguistic structure
(output) and intended meaning (a perception of meaning that corresponds
to the reference) do not occur "simultanously" but nearly so; anyway,
these variables are varying simultaneously, with a phase lag.

Hans Blom (921030)

>     Conclusion at this point: control is not an all-or-none pheno-
>     menon; there is a plastic progression from no control at all to
>     almost perfect control.

Nobody ever imagined that control was all-or-none. The gain of a control
system can go all the way from - infinity (perfect control) to 0 (no
control) to + infinity (perfect amplification). If, however, the LOOP
GAIN of a control system (the algebraic product of amplification factors
around the control loop) is >= 0 then the system does not control; there
is NO control AND there is no control system. If the LOOP GAIN is <0 then
you've got a control system (though a piss poor one if the gain of the
system is not large). So there is a QUANTUM difference between systems
that can control AT ALL and systems that just do not control; the difference
is that between a closed loop (with negative loop gain) and an open loop
(with 0 loop gain) or closed loop (with positive loop gain). Only a
closed negative feedback loop has even a chance of exhibiting control.

>     Hypothesis at this point: in all organisms we will encounter in-
>     stances of this progression from no control at all to (almost)
>     perfect control -- from being swept along by the winds of fate to
>     almost perfect control over e.g. the chemical composition of body
>     cells.

This is ambiguous. If you mean there is a progression from no
control to control within a single organism then the hypothesis
is known to be true; when I learn to control a cursor on the computer
screen I go from virtually no control (disturbances are completely
effective) to perfect control (disturbances have no effect). If you
mean there is a progression across organisms then I think it is false;
there is no organism that has (almost) no control -- except of
variables that it cannot perceive. If a system is alive, it controls
(something) and it does it well. The transition from a non-controlling
to a controlling system is quantal -- the system is either closed-loop
with respect to some variable(s) or it ain't. If it is closed loop, then
it controls that variable if the loop gain is << 0. The transition (in
evolution) from non-controlling to controlling systems must have been
sudden -- a least the process of going from an open to a closed loop
structure and then (if necessary) going from a positive to a negative
loop gain.

Best regards

Rick


     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)