Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!rutgers!att!mtuxo!lzfme!jwi
From: jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility.
Summary: Control leads to subversion and anarchy
Keywords: Observer, Feedback Loop, Values, Goals, Caring
Message-ID: <1309@lzfme.att.com>
Date: 4 May 89 15:38:31 GMT
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <52019@linus.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 60

In article <52019@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:
> ... The classical defense against
> coercion is to conceal the output from the controller.  The
> controller is left with the illusion of control, but the system
> being controlled splits into a controlled portion which is visible
> to the controller, and an uncontrolled portion which is concealed
> from the controller.
> 
> A better strategy is to empower a system to become self-regulating.
> To do this, one abandons the notion of control in favor of the notion
> of reliable observer.  The observer doesn't direct the system, it
> merely reports actual behavior relative to a goal.  While this idea
> is fairly modern in terms of feedback control theory, it actually
> goes back some 5000 years to the ancient notion of Witness.  In order
> for the feedback control loop to operate properly, the Observer must
> bear accurate witness.  This is what coaches do in Athletics and
> Drama.  Failure to bear accurate witness is a common cause of failure
> in feedback loops.
> 
> To summarize, in order to empower ourselves to achieve high levels
> of autonomous self-control, we have to pay close attention to each
> other.  Another word for that is Caring.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Another word for that is not *caring.*  The word is *manipulation.* 
It depends entirely on whether the *victim* of this *observation*
perceives the attempted behavior modification as in the victim's own
interest or not, and on the victim's personal reaction to
manipulation attempts.

The problem with your approach is that it assumes a rational
victim. There are those who will react negatively to any attempt to
manipulate them without their prior permission (or even with it) and
who will not just simply hide from the _observer_ or _witness_, but
execute revenge against being controlled (even if the control is in
their own interest, and even if the revenge is against their own
interest).

You cannot assume that agreement about the desirability of achieving
a goal will be sufficient for acceptance of a witness. The actual
presence of the witness may invoke negative reactions that will
subvert the achievement. In short, there are some people who cannot
be controlled. There are some people who will react violently
to attempts to control them regardless of your reasons for doing
so. There are some people who will cooperate with you unless you
attempt to control them.

Remember that feedback control theory is statistically based as far
as humans are concern. Statistics include all possibility. Reality
can get you killed.

Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi 

I believe in absolute freedom of the press.
I believe that freedom of the press is the only protection we have
	from the abuses of power of the church, 
	from the abuses of power of the state,
	from the abuses of power of the corporate body, and 
	from the abuses of power of the press itself.
Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.