>Reply-To: "Paul A. Stokes" <paul.stokes@ucd.ie>
>From: "Paul A. Stokes" <pstokes11@home.com>
>To: "Francis Heylighen" <fheyligh@vub.ac.be>
>Subject: Fw: [pcp-discuss:] New Paper: Definitions
>Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:39:31 -0800
>X-Priority: 3
>
>Francis,
>
>Once again I seem to be having problems. I sent this to the list yesterday
>and no sign yet. Although this time I did send it through the mail address
>with which I am subscribed to the list.
>
>I would be most grateful if once again you forwarded it . . .
>
>Much obliged once more
>
>Paul
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul A. Stokes" <pstokes11@home.com>
>To: <pcp-discuss@lanl.gov>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:23 PM
>Subject: Re: [pcp-discuss:] New Paper: Definitions
>
>
>> Shann,
>>
>> I think you need to distinguish carefully between:
>>
>> 1. control with feedback i.e. regulation as you say
>> 2. control without immediate feedback. Many of the examples you cite
>> although not requiring immediate feedback, e.g. an order or command, will
>> eventually invite cheking and enquiry if not acted upon. This is a form of
>> lagged feed-back. Your examples have a curtailed time horizon. In fact I
>> would propose that all 'normal' intentional action relies on feedback
>sooner
>> or later.
>> 2. causality (some of the examples you cite seem to imply some notion of
>> unintended causality)
>> 3. calibration i.e. intended action without feedback (this is discussed by
>> both pere et fille Bateson) but is a form of leanring based upon feedback.
>>
>> I hope you find these of use.
>>
>> Paul A. STOKES
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> Visiting Scholar
>> Dept.of Sociology, UCSB
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Shann Turnbull" <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>
>> To: <pcp-discuss@lanl.gov>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 4:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [pcp-discuss:] New Paper: Definitions
>>
>>
>> > Dear Francis
>> >
>> > Thank you and Cliff for your paper which I found most informative. On
>the
>> > first page you define the word "control" as "maintenance of a goal by
>> > active compensation of perturbations".
>> >
>> > This definition means that control is dependent upon a goal being known
>> and
>> > the need for feedback communication. In social organisations a goal may
>> > not be known or agreed upon and feedback can be problematical or non
>> > existent. It is possible to direct, command or order action on personal
>> > whims without an operational goal or without the need to obtain
>immediate
>> > feedback on the outcome. Regulation on the other hand requires feedback
>> to
>> > allow "active compensation of perturbations".
>> >
>> > From my reading of Ashby's introduction to cybernetics your definition
>of
>> > control is how he uses the word "regulate".
>> >
>> > From your text your definition of control would also seem to mean
>> regulate?
>> > Do you identify any difference between these two words?
>> >
>> > Might it be useful, at least in the social sciences, to make a
>distinction
>> > between the two words? That is between when a goal is not known and/or
>> > feedback is not required and when feedback is required?
>> >
>> > Social scientists use the word control in both senses or ambiguously
>which
>> > makes rigorous analysis of social systems ambiguous, difficult or
>> impossible.
>> >
>> > For example, Tannenbaum (1962: 5) defined 'control' as "any process in
>> > which a person or group of persons or organisation of persons
>determines,
>> > i.e. intentionally affects, what another person or group or organisation
>> > will do". This definition provides a word/concept to describe a
>situation
>> > where no standard of performance is required.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, Etzioni, (1965: 650) and Downs, (1967: 144) use the
>> word
>> > 'control' in the sense you use of meeting some standard of performance.
>> >
>> > So to establish a rigorous basis to analysis the control, regulation,
>> > governance, self-regulation and self-governance of firms I have found it
> > > useful to use the Tannenbaum definition of control and your definition
>of
>> > control to mean regulate. I appreciate that that your paper was written
> > > for "hard scientists" but might it not also be useful for natural
>> > scientists to identify words which can distinguish between goal directed
>> > action (regulation) and non goal directed control? Natural selection
>> > depends upon creating variety on a trial and error basis. If such
>> > distinction in concepts/language and words could be agreed upon I
>believe
>> > that this would assist in grounding the social sciences in the natural
>> sciences
>> >
>> > The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines control in both senses.
>> >
>> > The first definitions do not require feedback are as follows:
>> > 1. The fact of controlling, or of checking and directing action;
>> > domination, command, sway.
>> > 2. Restraint, check 1594
>> > 3.A method or means of restraint; a check 1752.
>> > 4 A person who acts as a check; a controller.
>> >
>> > The second definitions that requires feedback is:
>> > 1. To check or verify, and hence to regulate (payments, etc); by
>> comparison
>> > with a duplicate register
>> >
>> > In their definition of "regulate" the Shorter Oxford Dictionary uses the
>> > word control to describe the process of regulation. Sometimes you seem
>to
>> > use the word in the same way in your text. On page 5 your see the need
>to
>> > make a disctinction between "goal-directedness and contol in your
>> > statement: "It thus seems to have taken over the cybernetics banner in
>> its
>> > mathematical modelling of complex systems across disciplinary
>boundaries,
>> > however, while largely ignoring the issues of goal-directedness and
>> > control." Your definition of control makes the words
>"goal-directedness"
>> > redundant as you state on page 12 when you consider both issues and
>state
>> > that "goal-directedness implies regulation".
>> >
>> > I find making a distinction between control and regulate useful in
>> > analysing communications within firms or between firms and outside
>> agencies
>> > to control and regulate firms.
>> >
>> > Can you or anybody else on this list provide references in the
>cybernetic
>> > literature which makes these distinctions, and defines the concepts and
>> > language, that I find useful to analyse the information and control
>> systems
>> > (cybernetic architecture) of social organisations?
>> >
>> > References:
>> > Downs, A. 1967, Inside Bureaucracy, Little Brown & Co., Boston.
>> > Etzioni, A. 1965, 'Organizational control structure', in Handbook of
>> > Organizations, ed. J.G. March, Rand-McNally, Chicago, 650-77.
>> > Tannenbaum, A.S. 1962, Control in organizations, McGraw-Hill, NY.
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> > Shann Turnbull
>> >
>> >
>> > At 03:06 AM 24/2/2001, you wrote:
>> > >As I announced some time ago, I was invited to write a review paper on
>> > >cybernetics for the Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology (3rd
>> > >ed.), (Academic Press). The final version of the paper is now ready,
>and
>> > >available at http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Cybernetics-EPST.pdf
>> > >
>> > >Although it is obviously very difficult to summarize all the main ideas
>> of
>> > >cybernetics in a single paper without remaining very superficial, I
>think
>> > >my co-author Cliff Joslyn and I have managed to do a quite decent job,
>> and
>> > >I would recommend the paper to anybody who wants to get an introduction
>> to
>> > >and overview of the main concepts (e.g. variety, feedback, closure,
>> > >control, constructivism, ...) and principles (e.g. law of requisite
>> > >variety, requisite hierarchy, self-organization, ...) of cybernetics.
>> > >
>> > >Where possible, the ideas have been made explicit using simple formulas
>> > >and diagrams. Since this is meant for a "hard science" encyclopedia, we
>> > >have focused more on the "hard" ideas, and less on the philosophical,
>> > >social and psychological implications, although these are implicit
>> > >throughout the article.
>> > >
>> > >We thank Val Turchin and Ranulph Glanville for reviewing the manuscript
>> > >and suggesting improvements. Although the Encyclopedia requested us to
> > > >write the paper in an "authoritative" manner, as if we were expressing
>> the
>> > >general consensus in the field, it is obvious that such a consensus doe
>s
>> > >not really exist, and therefore the paper should be read as our own
>view
>> > >on cybernetics. Still, I think we have managed to include most of the
>> > >ideas that cyberneticians generally agree upon, although other authors
>> > >might have liked to put the emphasis differently.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >-----------------------------------------
>> > >Cybernetics and Second-Order Cybernetics
>> > >
>> > >Francis Heylighen
>> > >Free University of Brussels
>> > >
>> > >Cliff Joslyn
>> > >Los Alamos National Laboratory
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Contents
>> > >I.Historical Development of Cybernetics
>> > >I.1.Origins
>> > >I.2.Second Order Cybernetics
>> > >I.3.Cybernetics Today
>> > >
>> > >II.Relational Concepts
>> > >II.1.Distinctions and Relations
>> > >II.2.Variety and Constraint
>> > >II.3.Entropy and Information
>> > >II.4.Modelling Dynamics
>> > >
>> > >III.Circular Processes
>> > >III.1.Self-Application
>> > >III.2.Self-Organization
>> > >III.3.Closure
>> > >III.4.Feedback Cycles
>> > >
>> > >IV.Goal-Directedness and Control
>> > >IV.1.Goal-Directedness
>> > >IV.2.Mechanisms of Control
>> > >IV.3.The Law of Requisite Variety
>> > >IV.4.Components of a Control System
>> > >IV.5.Control Hierarchies
>> > >
>> > >V.Cognition
>> > >V.1.Requisite Knowledge
>> > >V.2.The Modelling Relation
>> > >V.3.Learning and Model-Building
>> > >V.4.Constructivist Epistemology
>> > >
>> > >Bibliography
>> > >--
>> > >
>> >
>>_________________________________________________________________________
>> > >Dr. Francis Heylighen <fheyligh@vub.ac.be> -- Center "Leo
>> Apostel"
>> > >Free University of Brussels, Krijgskundestr. 33, 1160 Brussels,
>Belgium
>> > >tel +32-2-6442677; fax +32-2-6440744;
>http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html
>> > >========================================
>> > >Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Francis Heylighen
>> <fheyligh@vub.ac.be>
>> >
>> > Shann Turnbull
>> > P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
>> > Ph: +612 9328 7466 office; +612 9327 8487 home; Fax: +612 9327 1497;
>> > Life long E-mail:
>> > sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu Alternate:sturnbull@optusnet.com.au
>> > http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html
>> > Papers at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=26239
>> > with other papers & book at http://cog.kent.edu/library.html
>> >
>> > ========================================
>> > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Shann Turnbull
>> <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>
>>
>
========================================
Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Francis Heylighen <fheyligh@vub.ac.be>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 02 2001 - 10:24:35 GMT