| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Z74y0me2i0","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ35Ӻ","startOffset":1018,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ35Ӻ","endOffset":2427°Ӻ,"quote":"This is the reason why the needle of a magnetic compass, cited by Taylor (1950a, p.316), is a particularly misleading example. The equilibrium to which it returns after any disturbance is as wholly determined by the external magnetic field as the direction of a vane by the wind or the direction of a cart by the horse that pulls it. Rosenblueth and Wiener (1950), in their reply to Taylor’s critique, categorize the compass needle’s behavior as ‘passive’, but concede that “it appears to be desirable to regard the \nmotions of a magnetic compass that has been deviated from its resting position as purposeful, with the final resting orientation as the goal.” \nThe example shows the usefulness of Pask’s conceptual distinctions. The compass was designed for the purpose of indicating where north is. Consequently that purpose is in the compass, irrespective of how it manages to serve it. In contrast, with living organisms, the question of how they manage to attain goals is crucial, if one wants to maintain that they have goals. \nIn 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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321031186594910690272":^°°,^"jQuery321031186594910690272":^°°,^"jQuery321031186594910690272":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1579290064572°
|
