Talk:Feedback - Revision history

142.177.6.184 at 05:28, 21 April 2003

2003-04-21T05:28:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:28, 21 April 2003
Line 6:		Line 6:


	::in truth, why not entirely redefining the concept of feedback then ? There will be the feedback used by electronicians, the one used by economists, the one used by biologists, the one used by consumeriumists. So...the last one definition is that positive feedback is doing good things for life, and negative feedback is doing bad things for life. Hum...why not...but how are we supposed to all understand one another if everyone is giving different definitions to words ? If the frame of words we are using is different ? I don't object to words having different definitions between professional fields, but unless all the definitions for each field are given, we won't be able to communicate reliably. God knows how difficult it already is. Sigh		::in truth, why not entirely redefining the concept of feedback then ?

			:::not necessary, as the mention here is now to the impact of feedback and not to the feedback itself.

			::There will be the feedback used by electronicians, the one used by economists, the one used by biologists, the one used by consumeriumists.

			:::the "macro" one used by biologists is changing the one used by economists, and consumeriumists and electronicians should probably think about just the very technical definition.

			::So...the last one definition is that positive feedback is doing good things for life, and negative feedback is doing bad things for life.

			:::No, positive feedback (destabilizing) and negative feedback (stabilizing) both have "good" and "bad" life impacts. Words "positive" and "negative" don't apply to life really, life is too complex to be measured this way.

			::Hum...why not...but how are we supposed to all understand one another if everyone is giving different definitions to words ? If the frame of words we are using is different ? I don't object to words having different definitions between professional fields, but unless all the definitions for each field are given, we won't be able to communicate reliably. God knows how difficult it already is. Sigh

			:::Yes, but, now what is done here is that the general idea of "feedback" still applies but more narrowly, it needs to be framed to be useful to anything or anyone. I don't see any contradiction if the word "feedback" is always used narrowly.

			---

			So maybe the whole thing described in this article is better called "alignment" or "moral control" or something. "Feedback" may just be too general a word.

217.128.109.214 at 04:37, 21 April 2003

2003-04-21T04:37:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:37, 21 April 2003
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:This whole argument already took place around [[m:twelve leverage points\|twelve leverage points]] on Meta-Wikipedia, and the use of terms "positive feedback" and "negative feedback" are often confusing, so now what this article refers to is doing good things versus bad things for life, not "positive" (exponential) and "negative" (stabilizing) processes. Hopefully that is not objectionable.		:This whole argument already took place around [[m:twelve leverage points\|twelve leverage points]] on Meta-Wikipedia, and the use of terms "positive feedback" and "negative feedback" are often confusing, so now what this article refers to is doing good things versus bad things for life, not "positive" (exponential) and "negative" (stabilizing) processes. Hopefully that is not objectionable.


			::in truth, why not entirely redefining the concept of feedback then ? There will be the feedback used by electronicians, the one used by economists, the one used by biologists, the one used by consumeriumists. So...the last one definition is that positive feedback is doing good things for life, and negative feedback is doing bad things for life. Hum...why not...but how are we supposed to all understand one another if everyone is giving different definitions to words ? If the frame of words we are using is different ? I don't object to words having different definitions between professional fields, but unless all the definitions for each field are given, we won't be able to communicate reliably. God knows how difficult it already is. Sigh

142.177.104.244: clarified

2003-04-20T20:21:15Z

clarified

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 20 April 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:

	would you better define what positive and what negative cycles are ?		would you better define what positive and what negative cycles are ?

			:This whole argument already took place around [[m:twelve leverage points\|twelve leverage points]] on Meta-Wikipedia, and the use of terms "positive feedback" and "negative feedback" are often confusing, so now what this article refers to is doing good things versus bad things for life, not "positive" (exponential) and "negative" (stabilizing) processes. Hopefully that is not objectionable.

151.36.179.202 at 04:26, 17 April 2003

2003-04-17T04:26:05Z

New page

''Feedback can be used to enhance positive cycles and stop negative ones.''

would you better define what positive and what negative cycles are ?