actions, intended result and accidental side effect

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.10,21:45 EUST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.11.08.0945)]
How would a reporter know whether a particular
behavior, like leaking the name of a CIA agent, is an action (a means
to achieve a higher level goal, like punishing a critic of the
administration), an intended result in itself or an accidental side
effect? In fact, the leaking was probably both an action and an
intended result.

When we talk together we use words. A definition should be something we
agree about.
You introduced the concepts, Rick. Please help me if I misunderstand your
meaning.
This mail has little to do with the "improper actions" thread. It is side
leap to learn to understand Rick.

I understand the concept "behavior" to be a collective term for actions,
intended results and accidental side effects.
Actions are organism-produced effects on a controlled result that bring that
result closer the reference state and protect it from disturbance. Once
again. Actions are organism-produced _effects_ on a controller result. These
actions lead to a perception. When we practice an action, it is important to
say that we don't know anything about the action. We just know about the
perception of that action. It is also important to say that such actions may
have their effects in the environment (also our body). We don't know
anything about those effects, we only know our perceptions of those
effects. And at last, some of the effects find place in our body or glands.
We call it anxiety etc., but we don't know anything about such effects. We
only know the perceptions.

Controlled results are results of actions (no disturbance). I said that
Actions are organism-produced _effects_ on a controlled result. When there
is no disturbance, the controlled results are like the effects of actions
(neither any side effects). The perceptions of Controlled results make an
error like zero together with the reference value.

Uncontrolled results are irrelevant side effects of action, they are any
results of action that the control systems is not itself controlling.

The above is what I understand with the concepts actions, intended results
and accidental side effects.

Now let us involve the journalist and Mr. Libby Jr.
When I read an article in a Newspaper, I perceive the controlled results,
some effects of the motor activity in the journalist's control (I think).
What I perceive is disturbances to my control.
But of course, I can't be quite sure. Maybe it is not the controlled
results. Maybe he perceived the article far from his references, a control
far from error equal zero . Maybe his editor took it and said it was OK.
There are many things we don't know when we read an article in a Newspaper.

Let me present how you used the concepts actions, intended results and
accidental side effects, Rick.

The problem with this is that in a hierarchical system actions are at the
same time controlled results themselves. Consider a tracking task. In this
task the action used to keep the cursor in the reference state is not
"controlled" in the sense that the action (mouse position, say) will be
varied, as necessary, to keep the cursor at the reference.

I have problems with your first sentence. I read it as though you don't know
anything about the actions, you know about your perceptions of the actions,
but you say that the actions at the same time are controlled results. This
must be knowledge, experiences, thoughts you have about HPCT. And that is
OK.
When I try to understand your knowledge, I think you are correct when there
are no disturbances and no side effects (side effects are only perceivable
by observers).
I read your second sentence as if I execute a tracking task myself. And this
will happen if there are no disturbances. The cursor is at the reference.

But go down a level to the system that is controlling mouse position
(relative to the reference being set by the cursor control system) and you
see that this action _is_ most definitely controlled, with variations in
muscle force being the action that controls the perception of mouse
position. If mouse position is disturbed -- when the mouse hits a sticky
point on the desk, say -- the muscle tension will vary as necessary to

bring

the mouse to the intended position.

Here you talk about another system than the system that kept the cursor at
the reference. This is a little theoretical to me. I think they are the same
system. But that is OK. Maybe you make a teaching trick?
The passage is OK.

So here is a clear example of an "action" (mouse movement) that is _both_

an

action (relative to the cursor control system) and a controlled result of
action (perception of mouse position is controlled relative to a varying
reference for mouse position by variation in muscle tension).

I am sorry I have to be some meticulous here. Remember you don't know the
actions. You know the perception of the actions. The controlled result of
action is a perception (perceptions are the only thing you can control). And
when you say that this is a clear example of an action that both is an
action and a controlled result, there can't be any disturbances.

Only when we get to the lowest level of the hierarchy of control -- to the
muscle tensions themselves -- are we getting to uncontrolled actions.

Since

we don't usually see varying muscle tensions, we never really see "pure"
actions when we look at people's behavior. So virtually every action that

we

see is also a controlled result of action. A behavior like throwing a
Molotov cocktail is both an action (relative to the higher order goal of
creating damage) and a controlled result (the throw itself is controlled

and

any disturbance to the throw will be resisted).

Reading this put me to think that actions function at higher levels. If that
is the way we shall understand HPCT, then I have not done my homework.
I have thought upon actions as organism-produced effects on first level on a
controlled result that bring that result closer the reference state and
protect it from disturbance.

Reading your third sentence: "So virtually every action that
we see is also a controlled result of action".

I think this is too simple. I am the student among us. But .. .
I read your word "see" as "perceive".
Here we must differentiate between ourselves and other people (the
journalist). When I see other people behaving, I see extremities and bodies
move and _affect_ the environments. I see the impressions that their motor
activities make on my perceptions.
When I see my own behavior, I see something different. I seldom see my own
extremities or body move. What I perceive is the effects that my actions
have _on the world I pay attention to and perceive_. And nobody know
anything about this. They can see my actions as I can see their actions, but
they can never see why I am auctioning as I am. They can guess and I can
guess about them. But most often we all guess wrong.

In a hierarchy of control, the terms "action" and "controlled result" are
relative terms. What is an action at one level is a controlled result at

the

next lower level. An observed behavioral variable (such as mouse movement)
is an _action_ to the extent that it is part of the means of achieving a
higher order goal and it is a _controlled result_ to the extent that there
is a goal for the state of that variable and there are lower level

behaviors

(muscle tensions) that bring the variable to the reference and protect it
from disturbance.

Here I have problems following you here. If you help me I will do my
homework and be better prepared next time.
When You say the terms "action" and "controlled result" are relative terms I
understand you think relative to a certain level. It is the first time I
hear about "actions" at the higher levels than the first. At the higher
levels I find Output quantities going to RIFs or lower levels comparators. I
have never heard about actions there. My fault I guess.
I guess I agree with your last sentence. "An observed behavioral variable
(such as mouse movement)
is an _action_ to the extent that it is part of the means of achieving a
higher order goal".
Yes, because "Actions are organism-produced effects on a controlled result
that bring that result closer the reference state and protect it from
disturbance", "and it is a _controlled result_ to the extent that there is a
goal for the state of that variable and there are lower level behaviors
(muscle tensions) that bring the variable to the reference and protect it
from disturbance".

This is why I think it makes no sense to say that journalists should report
only actions. Unless they are reporting on the variations in people's

muscle

tensions, every behavior that journalists describe is simultaneously an
action and a controlled result (unless it is an accidental side effect, in
which case it is neither).

I read this as if you say that it makes no sense to say that journalists
should report only actions because the behavior he is reporting is an action
at the lowest level and a controlled result at levels above.
I have problems to understand that it matters what behavior the journalist
exercises. I never know anything about his actions. The only thing about his
actions I know is my perceptions of his behavior.

Bjorn

2

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.10.1705)]

Bjorn, I certainly can’t talk for Rick but it seems that you are making something that is very simple, very complex.

It is all perception, and that is not just a slogan or cliche.

Our thoughts are perceptions, the actions we see ourselves and others do are perceptions and our feelings are perceptions.

Our entire human experience are a series of perceptions. There is nothing we know other than what we perceive, nothing.

Regards,

Marc

In a message dated 11/10/2005 3:53:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.10,21:45 EUST)]
From Rick Marken (2005.11.08.0945)]

How would a reporter know whether a particular
behavior, like leaking the name of a CIA agent, is an action (a means
to achieve a higher level goal, like punishing a critic of the
administration), an intended result in itself or an accidental side
effect? In fact, the leaking was probably both an action and an
intended result.
When we talk together we use words. A definition should be something we
agree about.
You introduced the concepts, Rick. Please help me if I misunderstand your
meaning.
This mail has little to do with the “improper actions” thread. It is side
leap to learn to understand Rick.

I understand the concept “behavior” to be a collective term for actions,
intended results and accidental side effects.
Actions are organism-produced effects on a controlled result that bring that
result closer the reference state and protect it from disturbance. Once
again. Actions are organism-produced effects on a controller result. These
actions lead to a perception. When we practice an action, it is important to
say that we don’t know anything about the action. We just know about the
perception of that action. It is also important to say that such actions may
have their effects in the environment (also our body). We don’t know
anything about those effects, we only know our perceptions of those
effects. And at last, some of the effects find place in our body or glands.
We call it anxiety etc., but we don’t know anything about such effects. We
only know the perceptions.

Controlled results are results of actions (no disturbance). I said that
Actions are organism-produced effects on a controlled result. When there
is no disturbance, the controlled results are like the effects of actions
(neither any side effects). The perceptions of Controlled results make an
error like zero together with the reference value.

Uncontrolled results are irrelevant side effects of action, they are any
results of action that the control systems is not itself controlling.

The above is what I understand with the concepts actions, intended results
and accidental side effects.

Now let us involve the journalist and Mr. Libby Jr.
When I read an article in a Newspaper, I perceive the controlled results,
some effects of the motor activity in the journalist’s control (I think).
What I perceive is disturbances to my control.
But of course, I can’t be quite sure. Maybe it is not the controlled
results. Maybe he perceived the article far from his references, a control
far from error equal zero . Maybe his editor took it and said it was OK.
There are many things we don’t know when we read an article in a Newspaper.

Let me present how you used the concepts actions, intended results and
accidental side effects, Rick.

The problem with this is that in a hierarchical system actions are at the
same time controlled results themselves. Consider a tracking task. In this
task the action used to keep the cursor in the reference state is not
“controlled” in the sense that the action (mouse position, say) will be
varied, as necessary, to keep the cursor at the reference.

I have problems with your first sentence. I read it as though you don’t know
anything about the actions, you know about your perceptions of the actions,
but you say that the actions at the same time are controlled results. This
must be knowledge, experiences, thoughts you have about HPCT. And that is
OK.
When I try to understand your knowledge, I think you are correct when there
are no disturbances and no side effects (side effects are only perceivable
by observers).
I read your second sentence as if I execute a tracking task myself. And this
will happen if there are no disturbances. The cursor is at the reference.

But go down a level to the system that is controlling mouse position
(relative to the reference being set by the cursor control system) and you
see that this action is most definitely controlled, with variations in
muscle force being the action that controls the perception of mouse
position. If mouse position is disturbed – when the mouse hits a sticky
point on the desk, say – the muscle tension will vary as necessary to
bring
the mouse to the intended position.

Here you talk about another system than the system that kept the cursor at
the reference. This is a little theoretical to me. I think they are the same
system. But that is OK. Maybe you make a teaching trick?
The passage is OK.

So here is a clear example of an “action” (mouse movement) that is both
an
action (relative to the cursor control system) and a controlled result of
action (perception of mouse position is controlled relative to a varying
reference for mouse position by variation in muscle tension).

I am sorry I have to be some meticulous here. Remember you don’t know the
actions. You know the perception of the actions. The controlled result of
action is a perception (perceptions are the only thing you can control). And
when you say that this is a clear example of an action that both is an
action and a controlled result, there can’t be any disturbances.

Only when we get to the lowest level of the hierarchy of control – to the
muscle tensions themselves – are we getting to uncontrolled actions.
Since
we don’t usually see varying muscle tensions, we never really see “pure”
actions when we look at people’s behavior. So virtually every action that
we
see is also a controlled result of action. A behavior like throwing a
Molotov cocktail is both an action (relative to the higher order goal of
creating damage) and a controlled result (the throw itself is controlled
and
any disturbance to the throw will be resisted).

Reading this put me to think that actions function at higher levels. If that
is the way we shall understand HPCT, then I have not done my homework.
I have thought upon actions as organism-produced effects on first level on a
controlled result that bring that result closer the reference state and
protect it from disturbance.

Reading your third sentence: “So virtually every action that
we see is also a controlled result of action”.

I think this is too simple. I am the student among us. But … .
I read your word “see” as “perceive”.
Here we must differentiate between ourselves and other people (the
journalist). When I see other people behaving, I see extremities and bodies
move and affect the environments. I see the impressions that their motor
activities make on my perceptions.
When I see my own behavior, I see something different. I seldom see my own
extremities or body move. What I perceive is the effects that my actions
have on the world I pay attention to and perceive. And nobody know
anything about this. They can see my actions as I can see their actions, but
they can never see why I am auctioning as I am. They can guess and I can
guess about them. But most often we all guess wrong.

In a hierarchy of control, the terms “action” and “controlled result” are
relative terms. What is an action at one level is a controlled result at
the
next lower level. An observed behavioral variable (such as mouse movement)
is an action to the extent that it is part of the means of achieving a
higher order goal and it is a controlled result to the extent that there
is a goal for the state of that variable and there are lower level
behaviors
(muscle tensions) that bring the variable to the reference and protect it
from disturbance.

Here I have problems following you here. If you help me I will do my
homework and be better prepared next time.
When You say the terms “action” and “controlled result” are relative terms I
understand you think relative to a certain level. It is the first time I
hear about “actions” at the higher levels than the first. At the higher
levels I find Output quantities going to RIFs or lower levels comparators. I
have never heard about actions there. My fault I guess.
I guess I agree with your last sentence. “An observed behavioral variable
(such as mouse movement)
is an action to the extent that it is part of the means of achieving a
higher order goal”.
Yes, because “Actions are organism-produced effects on a controlled result
that bring that result closer the reference state and protect it from
disturbance”, “and it is a controlled result to the extent that there is a
goal for the state of that variable and there are lower level behaviors
(muscle tensions) that bring the variable to the reference and protect it
from disturbance”.

This is why I think it makes no sense to say that journalists should report
only actions. Unless they are reporting on the variations in people’s
muscle
tensions, every behavior that journalists describe is simultaneously an
action and a controlled result (unless it is an accidental side effect, in
which case it is neither).

I read this as if you say that it makes no sense to say that journalists
should report only actions because the behavior he is reporting is an action
at the lowest level and a controlled result at levels above.
I have problems to understand that it matters what behavior the journalist
exercises. I never know anything about his actions. The only thing about his
actions I know is my perceptions of his behavior.

Bjorn

3

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.11,09:00 EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.09.1543)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.09)]

I was responding to Bjorn's suggestion that reporters might want to

report

about perceptions instead of behavior. I think he makes a good point.

I don't think this is the point Bjorn was making. I think Bjorn understands
that behavior _is_ a perception. So you can't report perceptions instead of
behavior. That makes no sense. Bjorn's point, I believe, is that

journalists

should report only one aspect of the perceptions that we call "behavior" --
controlled perceptions -- rather than another -- actions.

I wonder what Bjorn has to say?

I think we shall be as much unambiguous as possible. Here is my definition:
Behavior is the process by which we control our own perceptions. On this
basis I'll say that behavior _is_ the process of perception.
Many different concepts intervene in the process of perception, therefore
the concept is used different. But I will not say that behavior _is_ a
perception.

Well Bjorn? We are all waiting with baited breath for your
answer sometime very early EST. :wink:

Maybe you must wait long, Marc. Remember I am the Student. Therefore I ask
questions. And I have many questions.
One matter I (we) perceive is representations for events that take place
outside my body. And you say as I think: "There is nothing we know other
than what we perceive, nothing".
My natural question was therefore:" Should newspapers stop telling us about
peoples actions?" Many people talk as if the articles in the newspapers
represent a common knowledge about actions taking place outside our bodies.
Here I think as you say, this is wrong.
Should newspapers therefore stop telling us about peoples actions?
I don't think they should stop, but they could more explicit say that the
articles are perceptions.

I have discussed this theme earlier with Rick. That time we talked about the
way people speak to each other and express statements about each other or
about other people.
He said as Fred Nickols said:

Indeed, most people I know will happily admit that all we know
of our world we know through our senses, through our perceptions.

And Rick said it would be too bothersome to say "that's my perception" or
"that's the way we in CSG think". Particular it is too bothersome when all
people think as Fred Nickols say.

Here I disagree. I think we in CSG and newspapers and other should start to
describe things outside us as "It looks to me", "I think", "my perception
is" etc. After some time we will learn simple expressions describing our
respect for other peoples actions. This is a way to respect the world out
there because as you say: "There is nothing we know other than what we
perceive, nothing".

Some similar I appreciate the way Bryan starts his mails. He gives me
information about some elements in his references when he in the end of the
mail express some statements. I like that.

Bjorn

4

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.11.0946)]

In a message dated 11/11/2005 3:09:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bsimonsen@C2I.NET writes:

···

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.11,09:00 EUST)]

I think we shall be as much unambiguous as possible. Here is my definition:
Behavior is the process by which we control our own perceptions. On this
basis I’ll say that behavior is the process of perception.

Many different concepts intervene in the process of perception, therefore
the concept is used different. But I will not say that behavior is a
perception.

When we see a behavior we see a perception of that behavior. To perceive is to experience.

Maybe you must wait long, Marc. Remember I am the Student. Therefore I ask
questions. And I have many questions.

Aren’t we all students? And won’t we always be students? Only the creator has all the answers and maybe Rick Marken, :wink: but besides them we are all infinitely ignorant.

Huh? I’m afraid this adds to my confusion.

One matter I (we) perceive is representations for events that take place
outside my body. And you say as I think: “There is nothing we know other
than what we perceive, nothing”.
My natural question was therefore:" Should newspapers stop telling us about
peoples actions?" Many people talk as if the articles in the newspapers
represent a common knowledge about actions taking place outside our bodies.
Here I think as you say, this is wrong.
Should newspapers therefore stop telling us about peoples actions?
I don’t think they should stop, but they could more explicit say that the
articles are perceptions.

The actions themselves are perceptions to the people viewing them. Each one of us viewing a given action may very well have a different interpretation (perception) of what they see the other person doing, or what they believe the intent of the person was by the action they perceived.

Here I disagree. I think we in CSG and newspapers and other should start to
describe things outside us as “It looks to me”, “I think”, “my perception
is” etc. After some time we will learn simple expressions describing our
respect for other peoples actions. This is a way to respect the world out
there because as you say: “There is nothing we know other than what we
perceive, nothing”.

I agree, and I also believe that since we do realize that it’s all perceptions we all might be a bit quicker to doubt that what we ‘perceive’ all the time is not accurate. That is, sometimes we interpret things incorrectly and we only ‘test’ our assumptions privately which makes them self-sealing, and uncorrectable.

Some similar I appreciate the way Bryan starts his mails. He gives me
information about some elements in his references when he in the end of the
mail express some statements. I like that.

I think its very gimmicky. First of all, I’ve never heard Bryan speak, and I don’t know him personally, so when he says ‘tone’ I have no idea what that means relative to anything else. Second, is that a mood for the entire post, and what does it mean? Finally, I have found him contradicting himself with smiley’s and words that just don’t match the ‘tone’ as I interpret it to be.

Being a student doesn’t mean your ideas are not novel or not worthwhile. I would hope that data is what will ultimately sway you to believe one thing or another.

Regards,

I think it is a good attempt at trying to inject some notion of feeling into a post, but I think it would be much more effective if I knew Bryan or heard him speak before.

Marc

5

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.11, 16:05 EUST)]

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.11.0946)]

Marc

I think Bjorn understands that behavior _is_ a perception.

Bjorn

I'll say that behavior _is_ the process of perception.

Marc

Huh? I'm afraid this adds to my confusion.

When we produce aluminum we talk about a production process. We can't say
that the production process is Aluminum.
Behavior is the process by which we control our own perceptions. We can't
say that Behavior is Perception.

I can't explain it different.

Many different concepts intervene in the process of perception, therefore
the concept is used different. But I will not say that behavior _is_ a
perception.

When we see a behavior we see a perception of that behavior. To perceive is

to experience.

How is it possible to explain that a perception is analog an event in the
environment? Your last sentence is quite OK for me.

I agree, and I also believe that since we do realize that it's all

perceptions

we all might be a bit quicker to doubt that what we 'perceive' all the time
is not accurate. That is, sometimes we interpret things incorrectly and we
only 'test' our assumptions privately which makes them self-sealing, and
uncorrectable.

Valuable words for me.

Bjorn

6

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.11.1100)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.10,21:45 EUST)]

I understand the concept "behavior" to be a collective term for actions,
intended results and accidental side effects.

I understand the concept of behavior to be what we see organisms doing. It's
the rats' lever press, the baby's cry, the president's statements, the
beaver's dam, the student's answer to a text question. The idea that
behavior is actions, intended results and accidental side effects is part of
a theoretical explanation of the behavior we observe.

A good way to look at the difference between behavior and explanations of
behavior is in terms of your quote of something said by Bill Powers:

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.11,09:20 EUST)

Bill once said:

"Thus the physicist pounds on the solid table top and says "This is
an illusion, since the tabletop is REALLY mostly empty space and waves
and fields and flying particles." Of course it is not an illusion;
the experience is the reality, while the empty space, the fields
and particles, are imagined entities which, if they actually did
exist, would account for what we experience".

The perception of the tabletop is like the perception of a behavior such as
leaking the name of a CIA agent. Like the physicist, you are saying that
such behaviors are essentially an illusion because they are really just
actions, controlled results or accidental side effects. In doing this, I
believe you make the same mistake that the physicist makes, which is taking
your model for the reality. The reality is the behavior we perceive. The
model tells us that what we are seeing is actions, controlled results or
accidental side effects.

Actions are organism-produced _effects_ on a controller result. These
actions lead to a perception.

Actions don't "lead to" perceptions. We're always perceiving. Actions only
influence the state of perceptual variables.

When we practice an action, it is important to
say that we don't know anything about the action.

I don't see that that's a fundamental part of the model. For example, I have
noticed my mouse movements (the action) making a regular pattern (to
compensate for a sine wave disturbance, say) when I was controlling the
cursor (controlled result). It generally doesn't help control when you focus
consciousness on the actions that are producing the controlled result. But
you can still control when you do know something about the actions that are
the means of control.

Controlled results are results of actions (no disturbance).

Controlled results are always the result of both actions and disturbances.
If the disturbance to a variable is zero then the disturbance effect is zero
but that doesn't mean that there is no disturbance. There is a disturbance
but it's effect (at the moment) is zero.

When there is no disturbance, the controlled results are like the
effects of actions

I would say when the net disturbance effect on a controlled variable is
zero, then any variance in the controlled variable is due completely to
action.

Now let us involve the journalist and Mr. Libby Jr.
When I read an article in a Newspaper, I perceive the controlled results,
some effects of the motor activity in the journalist's control (I think).

I don't think you see controlled results in Libby's behavior any more than
the physicist sees atoms in the table. What you see is stuff happening,
which you might describe verbally as "telling a reporter the identity of a
covert CIA agent whose husband was critical of the administration". This is
what you see. What you _imagine_ is a controlled result, an action (or both)
or an accidental side effect.

Let me present how you used the concepts actions, intended results and
accidental side effects, Rick.

The problem with this is that in a hierarchical system actions are at the
same time controlled results themselves. Consider a tracking task. In this
task the action used to keep the cursor in the reference state is not
"controlled" in the sense that the action (mouse position, say) will be
varied, as necessary, to keep the cursor at the reference.

I have problems with your first sentence.

It is meant only to be a description of how a hierarchical model works. Look
at my spreadsheet hierarchy. The actions (or outputs) from level two become
the specifications for input (controlled results) at level one. In terms of
a real behavioral example, mouse movement is an action that is the means of
producing a particular controlled result: cursor on target. But that action
is itself a controlled result: where the position of the mouse is maintained
in specified states by forces generated by the muscles.

So here is a clear example of an "action" (mouse movement) that is _both_
an action (relative to the cursor control system) and a controlled result of
action (perception of mouse position is controlled relative to a varying
reference for mouse position by variation in muscle tension).

I am sorry I have to be some meticulous here. Remember you don't know the
actions. You know the perception of the actions.

I think you are talking about the controller, who is typically not conscious
of the actions used to achieve a particular consciously controlled result.
But an observer can determine what are actions and what are the results
controlled by the actions using the test.

In a hierarchy of control, the terms "action" and "controlled result" are
relative terms...

Here I have problems following you here. If you help me I will do my
homework and be better prepared next time.
When You say the terms "action" and "controlled result" are relative terms I
understand you think relative to a certain level. It is the first time I
hear about "actions" at the higher levels than the first. At the higher
levels I find Output quantities going to RIFs or lower levels comparators. I
have never heard about actions there. My fault I guess.

I think of actions as outputs seen from the perspective of the observer of
the behavior. In the tracking example, I talk about mouse movements and
muscle forces as actions because that's what I can see when a person
controls. But, of course, from the controller's perspective, these actions
are output specifications from a higher level system for the state of a
perception. In the case of mouse movements, the movements are perceived
changes in mouse position specified by the cursor control system. In the
case of muscle force, the forces are perceived tensions at joints specified
by the mouse position control system.

I guess I agree with your last sentence.

Halleluja!

I read this as if you say that it makes no sense to say that journalists
should report only actions because the behavior he is reporting is an action
at the lowest level and a controlled result at levels above.
I have problems to understand that it matters what behavior the journalist
exercises. I never know anything about his actions. The only thing about his
actions I know is my perceptions of his behavior.

Right. So all I'm saying is that the journalist should describe the behavior
he/she sees, rather than his/her imaginings about whether that behavior is a
controlled result, action, accidental side effect, operant, response or
whatever. Journalists should describe behavior as they would describe a
table, saying what they see (a nice, mahogany table done in the French
provincial style) rather than what they imagine (a collection of carbon
atoms arranged in a lattice).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

7

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005(11.13,20:05 EUST]

From Rick Marken (2005.11.11.1100)

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.11.10,21:45 EUST)]

I understand the concept "behavior" to be a collective term for actions,
intended results and accidental side effects.

I understand the concept of behavior to be what we see organisms doing.

When you say that, I understand "see what organisms are doing" = perception.
I also understand you don't think upon your own organism, because you seldom
see that. You feel it (feedback). Then I understand you think upon what
other organisms are doing. This is a disturbance for you.
If disturbance = 4.9 and Reference = 4.9, conversion factors = 1, then p=
4.9. You are right.
If disturbance = 4.9 and Reference = 8.4, input conversion factor = 1, gain
= 100, then p= 8.365. You are not right.
To me disturbances are often different from what we perceive.
I will try to remember that you define behavior like what you see organisms
are doing.

A good way to look at the difference between behavior and explanations of
behavior is in terms of your quote of something said by Bill Powers:

Bill once said:

"Thus the physicist pounds on the solid table top and says "This is
an illusion, since the tabletop is REALLY mostly empty space and waves
and fields and flying particles." Of course it is not an illusion;
the experience is the reality, while the empty space, the fields
and particles, are imagined entities which, if they actually did
exist, would account for what we experience".

The perception of the tabletop is like the perception of a behavior
such as leaking the name of a CIA agent.

Yes, of course.

Like the physicist, you are saying that
such behaviors are essentially an illusion because they are really just
actions, controlled results or accidental side effects.

I don't know what the physicist really say, it depends if you talk about
Schroedinger or Einstein, but I know many physicists who say that their
perceptions and their thoughts are very good representations for the
reality.
I am uncertain here, but _if_ I must present an argument, I will say that my
perceptions are my representations for reality. My thoughts are expressions
about the analogy.

In doing this, I
believe you make the same mistake that the physicist makes, which is taking
your model for the reality. The reality is the behavior we perceive. The
model tells us that what we are seeing is actions, controlled results or
accidental side effects.

I am uncertain about what writing my (you say your) model .
When you say what you say above, I can't have been clear enough in my
argumentation.
I think my perceptions are my best representations for reality. I don't know
if they are analogue, I don't think so. (I don't perceive all wavelengths
and more).
When I pound the table and perceive it, I perceive the configuration, the
movement crash and some hurt in my finger joints. That's my perceived
representation for the collision between the table and my hand. My thoughts
can maybe explain why it hurts. My knowledge say that when I pound my hand
is air, I almost feel nothing. When I pound my hand in water, I feel
something more. When I pound my hand on the solid table, I feel the
resistance because receptors in my hand are influenced.
I agree that my representations for reality is what I perceive. But such
perceptions are often explained by imaginations or earlier experiences we
remember. These imaginations or remembering are very different in many
people.
In summer big passenger ships arrive where I live. A journalist once asked
people around why such a heavy steel colossus could fleet at sea. I don't
remember if any could explain it. Most of them answered: "Because it fleets"
and other had different explanations.
People perceive the world and many of them account for the perception with
different hypothesis.

I guess also I have a lot of wrong hypothesis and I can name a lot of
scientists who also had wrong hypothesis or explanations.

Actions are organism-produced _effects_ on a controller result. These
actions lead to a perception.

Actions don't "lead to" perceptions. We're always perceiving. Actions only
influence the state of perceptual variables.

Yes, I think as you. I explained myself bad. I would emphasize that Actions
are organism produced effects on a controlled result. Therefore I said that
the disturbance = zero. But of course disturbances influence.

When we practice an action, it is important to
say that we don't know anything about the action.

I don't see that that's a fundamental part of the model.

I think it is. Actions and disturbances (if different from zero) are
gathered as an Input Quantity before it enters the Input Function. In the
Input function the Input Quantity is converted to a Perceptual signal, a
quite different signal. If the conversion factors are different from the
value 1 and disturbances are different from zero, then we don't know much
about the action. Maybe this is not a fundamental part of the model. But I
think it is fundamental when we talk about articles in NY Times (actions)
and my perceptions.

Controlled results are results of actions (no disturbance).

Controlled results are always the result of both actions and disturbances.
If the disturbance to a variable is zero then the disturbance effect is

zero

but that doesn't mean that there is no disturbance. There is a disturbance
but it's effect (at the moment) is zero.

I agree with your last sentence. Ultraviolet light is an example. Your
second sentence is meaningless to me. First you say that disturbance = zero,
then you say, if disturbance = zero, then the effect of the zero disturbance
is zero. At last you say that that doesn't mean there is no disturbance. I
thought that there can't be any disturbance if the disturbance is zero.
Maybe I have translated your words wrong. Of course I agree with your first
sentence. But it happens that the disturbance is zero. It was for that
example I said that Controlled results are results of actions.
I rely on "From Rick Marken (950514.1200)": ""controlled results" are
results of actions that are protected from disturbance"

When there is no disturbance, the controlled results are like the
effects of actions

I would say when the net disturbance effect on a controlled variable is
zero, then any variance in the controlled variable is due completely to
action.

OK for me.

Now let us involve the journalist and Mr. Libby Jr.
When I read an article in a Newspaper, I perceive the controlled results,
some effects of the motor activity in the journalist's control (I think).

I don't think you see controlled results in Libby's behavior any more than
the physicist sees atoms in the table.

I didn't talk about Libby's behavior, I talked about the journalist's
article that I read. This article was an effect of the journalist's actions.
I thought that the journalist was controlling his perception. This led to
his writing (actions). When he stopped writing and said this is OK, I
thought he read his own article and perceived what he wanted to perceive.
p=r. At this moment the journalist didn't write any more. But there was a
feedback from the article. At this moment the feedback came from controlled
results", results of actions that are protected from disturbance.

Right. So all I'm saying is that the journalist should describe the

behavior

he/she sees, rather than his/her imaginings about whether that behavior is

a

controlled result, action, accidental side effect, operant, response or
whatever. Journalists should describe behavior as they would describe a
table, saying what they see (a nice, mahogany table done in the French
provincial style) rather than what they imagine (a collection of carbon
atoms arranged in a lattice).

Yes, absolutely

Bjorn

8

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.13.2150)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005(11.13,20:05 EUST)--

Rick Marken (2005.11.11.1100)

Right. So all I'm saying is that the journalist should describe the behavior he/she sees, rather than his/her imaginings about whether that behavior is a controlled result, action, accidental side effect, operant, response or whatever. Journalists should describe behavior as they would describe a table, saying what they see (a nice, mahogany table done in the French provincial style) rather than what they imagine (a collection of carbon atoms arranged in a lattice).

Yes, absolutely

I hope this means that we agree now. I'm not quite sure what your point was but if you agree with what I said above then I think we're on approximately the same page. At least, we seem to be in the same book;-)

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400