These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 19 April 2011 17:23, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu> wrote: > Mike, > > So now you made me think (Oy) and remember Huw's original idea about > talking about activity as experience. But I think his later posts suggests > he sees activity as part of a feedback mechanism. But the definition of > activity from Tolman's article suggests it is more about anticipation > (perhaps a cousin of Peter's anticipation) or goal orientation - primarily > forward looking, how to get happen what we want to happen. I always liked > the idea of planning as sort of a way to encapsulate what actually happen in > (at least the first part) of the activity. Anyway, that's how I see it all > tying together. Is feedback an important part of activity, or is what the > author in the Tolman article saying is that what makes human special is that > they can transcend feedback through their own goal planning activities > (often to our own detriment I would guess). > > The more general term regulation is probably more appropriate than feedback. Prediction is usually a case of feedforward, I believe, though they both apply. With respect to supervision, requisite variety (particularly in the way Beer used it) is powerful and applies directly to models, understanding etc. I expect this may be rather low level, but if someone asks me where my rigour is, this is where I point them. Hope that helps, Huw > Michael > > ________________________________ > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole > Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 12:09 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts) > > > > Michael-- Help me get back to the question that initiated this part of this > rope/thread. Adding more names to the list is not working for me at all. > > If I am alone in this confusion, I apologize for taking up space. I am > guessing I am not alone. > > mike > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu > >wrote: > > > Phillip, > > > > You are right about Bateson of course. But Von Neuman, Demming, Ashby, > and > > most of the others who were involved in cybernetics in the second half of > he > > 20th century did not. Bateson was influenced in cybernetics but my > > understanding was after the Macy's conferences (sorry to call it Sears, > > department store dyslexia) he only said he was influenced by cybernetics. > > > > Michael > > > > ________________________________ > > > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > > > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca