| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Xbefujhc0d","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ35Ӻ","startOffset":2053,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ35Ӻ","endOffset":3210°Ӻ,"quote":"In this regard, William Powers’ work on negative feedback provided a clarification. The title of his book put it succinctly: Behavior: The control of perception (1973). That is to say, a feedback mechanism acts or behaves only to maintain or re-establish a fit between what it senses and the ‘reference’ constituted by the representation of a goal-state that was set for it. This goal is neither outside the mechanism, nor does it lie in the future. Consequently, the conception of control through negative feedback is perfectly compatible with the analysis of goal-directed behavior I suggested as type (b) in the discussion of final cause. The two new features it adds are the capabilities of sensing the present state of affairs and of comparing it to a representation of the desired state. As far as mechanical or electronic devices are concerned, from the humble thermostat in our refrigerators to the automatic pilot and target-finding projectiles, the goal or reference state is, of course, always set by the user of the device. Hence it is quite legitimate to call the attainment and maintainment of the projected state the purpose in the mechanism.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321031186594910690272":^°°,^"jQuery321031186594910690272":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1579290207363°
|
