Talk:Feedback: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:37, 21 April 2003

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

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

This whole argument already took place around 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

Revision as of 20:21, 20 April 2003 (edit) 142.177.104.244 (talk) (clarified) ← Older edit		Revision as of 04:37, 21 April 2003 (edit) (undo) 217.128.109.214 (talk) No edit summary Newer edit →
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