5 ms·

I personally feel process control is a significantly under-appreciated discipline. I've been at an academic lecture where a process control engineer used the e

by bloaf 7y ago

I personally feel process control is a significantly under-appreciated discipline. I've been at an academic lecture where a process control engineer used the example of air conditioning to explain that when your system is controlled, you have to be extremely careful about correlation and causation. If you're not, you can very easily conclude that because the room is hot whenever the AC is running hard, that the AC running hard makes the room hot. He then showed that biologists were making this mistake with respect to certain biomarkers and cancer. Process control is interesting even in philosophy. For example, there is a process control theorem which proves that the maximally efficient regulator must have an accurate model of the process being regulated. Therefore, anyone who argues that evolution gives us no reason to expect our brains give us an accurate picture of the world must be ignorant of process control. After all, our brains are regulators of our environment for our survival; therefore the maximally efficient way for our brain to regulate our environment is for our brain to have an accurate model of our environment.

yters 7y ago
or apply both insights and modus tollens, and conclude our brains were not produced by evolution
bch 7y ago
> I've been at an academic lecture where a process control engineer used the example of air conditioning to explain that when your system is controlled, you have to be extremely careful about correlation and causation. If you're not, you can very easily conclude that because the room is hot whenever the AC is running hard, that the AC running hard makes the room hot. He then showed that biologists were making this mistake with respect to certain biomarkers and cancer. I’d enjoy hearing more about this. Go on, or point to more info?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Not a process engineer, but I'm guessing that if you're looking at correlation between temperature data vs. AC power, and AC is reacting to changes in temperature (i.e. derivative, D in PID), you'll see AC ramping up power before the temperature meaningfully increases. A naive analysis could then conclude that it's AC that causes high temperature.
  - bloaf 7y ago
    Or more simply than that, if you only ever look at "cold" and "hot" rooms (e.g. analysis of cancerous and non-cancerous patients) you're never going to see the dynamics at all. But more fundamentally, I believe there is a theorem which asserts that it is in general impossible to extract the open loop behavior of a system (i.e. a model of how the system would respond without a controller) solely from closed loop data (i.e. data collected from the system when the controller is on.)
- bloaf 7y ago
  It was several years ago, so I don't remember the details, but I have heard echos of the sentiment in the recent criticism of alzheimers research. I.e. that amyloid plaques may actually be the equivalent of a cellular AC that's been misidentified as the reason the room is hot. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 >“The current approach is based on the idea that amyloid-β is bad,” says Perry. “My idea is the opposite.” He suggests that amyloid-β and tau accumulation is actually a protective response to age-related metabolic pressures in the cell.
mattkrause 7y ago
But the brain clearly doesn't have an accurate model of the (whole) environment. It falls for all kinds of stupid illusions and cognitive biases. Does this mean evolution is bunk? No, clearly not. In fact, it's evolution's fault. Evolution is path-dependent and only maximizes one thing: reproductive fitness. Your eye, for example, has a blindspot in because the rods and cones are behind the fibers that project to the brain. This is an objectively stupid "design" and the eye would be better without it (as octopus eyes are), but...it's there because it was there in your ancestors, and theirs before them and it was good enough for all of them, and even better than whatever their competitors had at some point. Evolution doesn't improve anything but reproductive success.
- bloaf 7y ago
  The point is that the brain is a kind of controller, and evolution does in fact select for the controllers fitness. The theorem asserts that the maximally efficient controller is one which has an accurate model of the environment. That evolution hasn't produced a perfect controller isn't an argument against the point that evolution will select for brains with accurate models. So you're correct: environmental physics which have never been survival-relevant will have no selection pressure. But I think you are very incorrect to say that because our brain ignores the nose part of our eyesight that we have an inaccurate model. A model in process-control-speak means some kind of mathematical description, not the inputs to the controller.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    Evolution will select for brains with more accurate models subject to other constraints and as a result, I doubt it will rarely (if ever) reach a global maximum. More accurate models presumably have costs (e.g., bigger brains are metabolically expensive). The fitness landscape has local maxima, and they may be hard to move away from (as in the eyes I mentioned above). There are lots of caveats like those. We know that a lot of internal models are not particularly accurate. The visual system only acquires a tiny bit of high-resolution data at time (with a hole in it[0]) and interpolates the rest. Loss aversion, the gamblers' fallacy, and the rest suggest we're not great at modelling uncertain outcomes. Even mental models of physics differ from reality in some key ways [1]. It's possible that these are still slowly improving, but I think it's more likely that much better models have an unfavorable cost-benenfit profile. [0] The blind spot is different from the nose. There's a whole in your representation of the world, a few degrees away from the center of gaze. Your brain fills it in in surprising ways. Here's a fun demo that's a big hit with kids too: http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/blindspotdemo.pdf http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/blindspotdem... [1] Josh Tanenbaum's group has some cool studies looking at people's mental models of physics, which you may find interesting: https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18327.short https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18327.short

by bloaf 7y ago

yters 7y ago

or apply both insights and modus tollens, and conclude our brains were not produced by evolution

bch 7y ago

> I've been at an academic lecture where a process control engineer used the example of air conditioning to explain that when your system is controlled, you have to be extremely careful about correlation and causation. If you're not, you can very easily conclude that because the room is hot whenever the AC is running hard, that the AC running hard makes the room hot. He then showed that biologists were making this mistake with respect to certain biomarkers and cancer. I’d enjoy hearing more about this. Go on, or point to more info?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Not a process engineer, but I'm guessing that if you're looking at correlation between temperature data vs. AC power, and AC is reacting to changes in temperature (i.e. derivative, D in PID), you'll see AC ramping up power before the temperature meaningfully increases. A naive analysis could then conclude that it's AC that causes high temperature.
- bloaf 7y ago
  Or more simply than that, if you only ever look at "cold" and "hot" rooms (e.g. analysis of cancerous and non-cancerous patients) you're never going to see the dynamics at all. But more fundamentally, I believe there is a theorem which asserts that it is in general impossible to extract the open loop behavior of a system (i.e. a model of how the system would respond without a controller) solely from closed loop data (i.e. data collected from the system when the controller is on.)
bloaf 7y ago
It was several years ago, so I don't remember the details, but I have heard echos of the sentiment in the recent criticism of alzheimers research. I.e. that amyloid plaques may actually be the equivalent of a cellular AC that's been misidentified as the reason the room is hot. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 >“The current approach is based on the idea that amyloid-β is bad,” says Perry. “My idea is the opposite.” He suggests that amyloid-β and tau accumulation is actually a protective response to age-related metabolic pressures in the cell.

mattkrause 7y ago

But the brain clearly doesn't have an accurate model of the (whole) environment. It falls for all kinds of stupid illusions and cognitive biases. Does this mean evolution is bunk? No, clearly not. In fact, it's evolution's fault. Evolution is path-dependent and only maximizes one thing: reproductive fitness. Your eye, for example, has a blindspot in because the rods and cones are behind the fibers that project to the brain. This is an objectively stupid "design" and the eye would be better without it (as octopus eyes are), but...it's there because it was there in your ancestors, and theirs before them and it was good enough for all of them, and even better than whatever their competitors had at some point. Evolution doesn't improve anything but reproductive success.

bloaf 7y ago
The point is that the brain is a kind of controller, and evolution does in fact select for the controllers fitness. The theorem asserts that the maximally efficient controller is one which has an accurate model of the environment. That evolution hasn't produced a perfect controller isn't an argument against the point that evolution will select for brains with accurate models. So you're correct: environmental physics which have never been survival-relevant will have no selection pressure. But I think you are very incorrect to say that because our brain ignores the nose part of our eyesight that we have an inaccurate model. A model in process-control-speak means some kind of mathematical description, not the inputs to the controller.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  Evolution will select for brains with more accurate models subject to other constraints and as a result, I doubt it will rarely (if ever) reach a global maximum. More accurate models presumably have costs (e.g., bigger brains are metabolically expensive). The fitness landscape has local maxima, and they may be hard to move away from (as in the eyes I mentioned above). There are lots of caveats like those. We know that a lot of internal models are not particularly accurate. The visual system only acquires a tiny bit of high-resolution data at time (with a hole in it[0]) and interpolates the rest. Loss aversion, the gamblers' fallacy, and the rest suggest we're not great at modelling uncertain outcomes. Even mental models of physics differ from reality in some key ways [1]. It's possible that these are still slowly improving, but I think it's more likely that much better models have an unfavorable cost-benenfit profile. [0] The blind spot is different from the nose. There's a whole in your representation of the world, a few degrees away from the center of gaze. Your brain fills it in in surprising ways. Here's a fun demo that's a big hit with kids too: http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/blindspotdemo.pdf http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/blindspotdem... [1] Josh Tanenbaum's group has some cool studies looking at people's mental models of physics, which you may find interesting: https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18327.short https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18327.short