Rick, I think that you are typical case of little egoistic LCS who thinks that his little “controlled world” inside (you have to take into account that your “little world inside” it’s not built only from outside perceptions) is the only “real world” that exists on Planet Earth. Well i must say that you are wrong. He,he… I must admitt that your posts givve me so much amusement and
RM: Not really. It’s not clear to me how this post relates to the topic of this thread, which I think is the PCT model of perception.
HB : How can we see that it is PCT model of perception ? From your RCT control loop ???
RM : Feel free to try again if you like but if you do please avoid using the term “collective control” since it elicits in me a strong urge to throw things at the computer screen;-) But if you just can’t resist, please explain what the hell you mean by the term.
HB : Well, well what we have here, ha,ha… Angry man hating what Kent invented. If you want to understandd what is coolective control you’ll have to read Kents’ work. But I can help you a little.
Kent M (2011):
Conditions in the natural environment are constantly in flux, but modern civilizations have found many ways of stabilizing and controlling environmental fluctuations for the sake of human comfort and wellbeing. Focusing on the processes of control that have allowed humans to stabilize their living environments, I argue that humans have used similar processes of control for creating and maintaining social structures, and that social structures and their underlying environmental stabilities must be analyzed in tandem.
…William T. Powers, who has shown how the orrganization of the human brain can be understood as a hierarchy of negative-feedback control systems.
Using the psychological theory developed by Powers, called perceptual control theory, I argue that social interactions emerge from collective control processes, that social groups and organizations are centrally engaged in producing environmental stabilities, and that macro social problems, such as structural inequalities, social conflicts, violence, and environmental degradation, are the byproducts of collective control processes.
HB : Let me put the remarck that this is from CSG meeting 2011. I’m imagining that Bill and you were present at that meeting and that Bill allowed Kents’ article. Anyway I think that Kent is able of producing real PCT literature. I personally think that you should read more literature of real PCT thinkers and writters. What do you think Rick ?
Boris
···
From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 8:01 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: A Vexing Question
[Rick Marken 2018-11-10_10:59:42]
[From Bruce Nevin (2018.11.09.16:55 ET)]
Rick Marken 2018-11-09_10:33:28 –
RM: According to the PCT model, what constitutes real reality are physical variables that are thebasis of our perceptions. When we control things like the taste of lemonade, the vertical optical velocity of a baseball or the “runniness” of scrambled eggs we are controlling perceptual variables that have their basis in physical reality; there are really combinations chemicals “out there” that are the basis of our perception of the “lemonadeness” of the mixture; there is really a moving object out there that is the basis of our perception of vertical optical velocity; and there are really collections of atoms and molecules out there that are the basis of our perception of the “runniness” of the eggs. But the “lemonadeness” perception is not a perception of “lemonadeness” in the real world; the vertical optical velocity perception is not a perception of vertical optical velocity in the real world; and the “runniness” perception is not a perception of runniness in the real world. According to PCT, these perceptions are all *functions of *physical variables in the real world.
BN: Yes, the best we’ve got seems to be reductionism to variables defined in physics and chemistry.
RM: What is it that you think we’re trying to “get” that makes “variables defined in physics and chemistry” the best we’ve “got”?
BN: As far as looking for the ‘really real’, however, that’s just swapping one set of perceptions for another set which we are more comfortable thinking of as ‘really real’.
RM: The PCT model of perception is not "looking for the ‘really real’ ". The PCT model just assumes that there is a real world on the other side of our senses and that this world (the “environment side” of PCT diagrams) is the models of physics and chemistry.
BN: Ah, if only the taste of lemonade (and other things) were so simple. A fun exposure to some other inputs:
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/variety-is-the-spice-of-life/
BN: So, OK, maybe that’s more reason to give less credence to the reality of our quotidian perceptions (that word again) and more to those of physics and chemistry, which are frankly elements of theories without the immediacy of ordinary subjective perception.
BN: Now that’s all perfectly clear, right?
RM: Not really. It’s not clear to me how this post relates to the topic of this thread, which I think is the PCT model of perception. Feel free to try again if you like but if you do please avoid using the term “collective control” since it elicits in me a strong urge to throw things at the computer screen;-) But if you just can’t resist, please explain what the hell you mean by the term.
Best
Rick
/BN
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 1:36 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Rick Marken 2018-11-09_10:33:28]
[Martin Taylor 2018.11.07.10.18]
RM: In PCT, perception (in the form of perceptual input functions) defines the aspect of the “variables out there” that is controlled.
MT: In my opinion, this is correct.
RM: Indeed it is.
RM: So when you control a perceptual variable – such as the position of the dial that sets the thermostat – you are controlling the aspect of the “variables out there” (also known as “reality”) that is defined by the perceptual function that defines that perceptual variable.
MT: Yes, I agree with this, too.
RM: Correct again.
MT: But how does it relate in any kind of ordinary logic to the assertion that there is no corresponding variable “out there” that the organism can influence by its actions, and whose existence enhanced the likelihood of just this perceptual function being produced?
RM: Let’s try the “taste of lemonade” example again. The taste of lemonade is a variable (the taste can vary from being more to being less like lemonade) but there is no variable “out there” that corresponds to the taste of lemonade. The taste of lemonade is a perceptual variable; the physical variables that are the basis of this perception are the chemicals (water, oil, lemon juice) whose sensory effects are combined by a perceptual function to produce a taste.
RM: The PCT model of perception views all perceptual variables this way; all are signals that are analogs of variations in aspects of the organism’s environment (internal and external) that are defined by the perceptual functions that produce them. The main aim of PCT research is to determine what aspects of the environment – what perceptions – are being controlled when organisms are seen to be behaving in various ways.
RM: I think a way to overcome this problem is to say that, according to PCT, we control various aspects of the world around us (which, in PCT, are called perceptions), such as intensities (like loudness), sensations (like tastes), configurations (like shapes), relationships (like proximity), sequences (like melodies), etc. In other words, explain control of perception the way it is conceived of in the PCT model of purposeful behavior!
MT: Which is, IN MY OPINION, that if there is a perception you can control by influencing what appears to be in the environment, that perception is likely to be of something that really in real reality IS in the environment, because reorganization has made it so, and you have survived long enough to have that perception.
RM: According to the PCT model, what constitutes real reality are physical variables that are the basis of our perceptions. When we control things like the taste of lemonade, the vertical optical velocity of a baseball or the “runniness” of scrambled eggs we are controlling perceptual variables that have their basis in physical reality; there are really combinations chemicals “out there” that are the basis of our perception of the “lemonadeness” of the mixture; there is really a moving object out there that is the basis of our perception of vertical optical velocity; and there are really collections of atoms and molecules out there that are the basis of our perception of the “runniness” of the eggs. But the “lemonadeness” perception is not a perception of “lemonadeness” in the real world; the vertical optical velocity perception is not a perception of vertical optical velocity in the real world; and the “runniness” perception is not a perception of runniness in the real world. According to PCT, these perceptions are all functions of physical variables in the real world.
RM: Per the PCT model, there is no “lemonadeness”, vertical optical velocity or runniness in the real world. All that’s out there are physical variables: the v’s in the diagram of the PCT model in Fig. 1, p. 66 of LCS I. I believe we perceive the world as we do – we construct from physical reality perceptions of things like “lemonadeness”, vertical optical velocity and runniness – because perceiving it in this way proved evolutionarily adaptive to do so. I believe that it’s possible to have developed different ways of perceiving the same physical environment that would also have been evolutionarily adaptive. I think Powers’ had a demonstration of this but I can’t find it at the moment. So I don’t think it is reorganization that is responsible for the way we perceive the world; reorganization is an individual level phenomenon. I think evolution led to the way we perceive the reality – and if Powers’ hypothesis is correct, evolution has led to the development of perceptual functions (in humans, anyway) that construct 11 or so different types of hierarchically related perceptual variables: intensity, sensation, configuration… programs, principles, and system concepts. It’s this theory – of the types of perceptual variables that organisms are presumed to be controlling when we see them carrying out various behaviors – that is what we should be testing when we do research on purpose.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
