Hi folks, here are the talks by Rick & myself. I think we did well to keep Bill’s legacy invigorated! Martin Taylor did a fascinating talk too!
Thanks Warren. Actually the first minute or so of my talk is just blanked out for some reason. So if anybody wants to go listen to it and they find that itâs just a black screen be patient it starts rather abruptly in about a minute. Best Rick
···
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Thanks for the recording of your talks. Enjoyed them. Seems like it sparked some interest in the audience.
David Goldstein, Ph.D.
···
On Jun 25, 2019, at 12:44 PM, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Thanks Warren. Actually the first minute or so of my talk is just blanked out for some reason. So if anybody wants to go listen to it and they find that it’s just a black screen be patient it starts rather abruptly in about a minute. Best Rick
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:42 PM Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Hi folks, here are the talks by Rick & myself. I think we did well to keep Bill’s legacy invigorated! Martin Taylor did a fascinating talk too!
–
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
Your talks are a nice job of helping to spread the word about PCT. Well done!
···
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 8:42 PM Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Hi folks, here are the talks by Rick & myself. I think we did well to keep Bill’s legacy invigorated! Martin Taylor did a fascinating talk too!
Thanks David & Richard!
···
On 25 Jun 2019, at 16:34, Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com wrote:
Your talks are a nice job of helping to spread the word about PCT. Well done!
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 8:42 PM Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Hi folks, here are the talks by Rick & myself. I think we did well to keep Bill’s legacy invigorated! Martin Taylor did a fascinating talk too!
[Dag Forssell 2019.06.26 11:40]
Warren and Rick,
Delightful. Well done. Definitely a link for the next edition of the Book of Readings.
Was Martin’s talk recorded too? I’d love to review it.
Best, Dag
···
At 05:42 PM 6/24/2019, wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List wrote:
Hi folks, here are the talks by Rick & myself. I think we did well to keep Bill’s legacy invigorated! Martin Taylor did a fascinating talk too!
[Dag Forssell 2019.06.26 11:40]
Warren and Rick,
Delightful. Well done. Definitely a link for the next edition of the Book
of Readings.
Was Martin’s talk recorded too? I’d love to review it.
Best, Dag
···
At 05:42 PM 6/24/2019, wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List wrote:
Hi folks, here are the talks by
Rick & myself. I think we did well to keep Billâs legacy
invigorated! Martin Taylor did a fascinating talk too!
Warren, Rick
···
From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:42 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: American Society of Cybernetics talks
Hi folks, here are the talks by Rick & myself. I think we did well to keep Bill’s legacy invigorated! Martin Taylor did a fascinating talk too!
HB : Where is Martin Taylors’ “fascinating talk” ?
HB : I hope you understand that I’ve been always critical to any “PCT” product that isn’t that. So by my oppinion you both didn’t keep Bills’ legacy invigorated but you kept RCT invigorated. Although I must say that you did it beter than Rick. I would suggets you Warren that you get another mentor for explanations about PCT. Rick is the worst choice you could make. You are drawning with him.
First Rick.
HB : What you presented at ASC Conference was the bigest shame for PCT ever happened.
You described PCT as theory about “Control of behavior”, about “Control variable” in external environment and about “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or “Controlled input”. It’s not “input function” that is controlled but “perceptual signal”. Input is controlled only in the sense that perceptual signal is controlled in comparator, and that’s why “perceptual signal” is “controlled variable”. You are bluffer of the worst kind Rick Marken.
You like playing with words. But that’s all you know.
HB : I don’t know why you did it, but I’m sure you knew that it was perfectly wrong. It’s just about your BIG EGO, isn’t it. I have quite some troubles explaining to ASC executive board that your writings are great nonsence without any scientific ground, and I’m really wondering how much ASC is scientific organization, if they invite non scientific presenters. I’ve send them correct version of PCT. They have right to know what PCT really represent.
HB : First of all PCT is not just theory about “purposefull behavior”, but about how organisms function. “Behavior” (output) is just one of effectors used by nervous system so behavior is consequence of what is happening in organism.
Bill P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) : Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms
The only place in PCT where “behavior” is mentioned is “Output quantity” (diagram LCS). Where did you see that Bill mentioned that perceptual signal behave ??? You’ll not find that terminology also in physiology. “Controlled variable” – the perceptual signal does not “behave” in comparator. It’s obviously that you are psychologist.
But I’m wondering why you Rick didn’t present Bill’s theory with his terminology and with Bills diagram (LCS III) and why you Rick didn’t present Bills’ definitions of control but YOUR OWN.
HB : So what was presented was pure RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) with “behavior is control” which is outside the system and “controlling input”. But Rick claimed that he was presenting PCT. As usual.
That’s what I’m talking about all the time what’s the problem on CSGnet. Members of CSGnet are presenting own theories under PCT umbrella. What Rick is presenting is pure behavioristic theory with “Behavior is control”, there is some “controlled variable” in external environment and there is some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV or “Controlled input” which is “controlled” through “Behavior is Control of perception”.
What a mess !!! There is no such things in PCT. Let us go step by step :
- Behavior (output or muscle tension) is not controlled. It’s PCT mantra. However Rick tryed to avoid saying that behavior is control, he clearly exposed “controlled variable” in external environment in one case of everyday life and tried to generalize RCT on the basis of one life example, showing obvious “fact” that hand with cup of tea was controlled when it was moved. It’s not. There is no “controlled variable” in external environment of control system at least in PCT. Show us Rick where is “controlled variables” outside Living control system when you LCS are sleeping,… That’s what people do several hours a day. How they survive if they don’t control “controlled variable” in external environment ?
How LCS can survive without controlling “controlled variable” in environment for several hours ???
The main problem is that Rick presented again “one case one theory” results which are of course wrong. I many times pointed out that scientific approach demand at least “many cases - general theory” approach so that we can say it’s valid. But you both have PhD’s and you should know how scientific work should be done.
HB : So the problem Powers ladies have is that Rick presented RCT - GENERAL THEORY about purposefull behavior which is not that and on that ground people will have to analyze any behavior and it will not work because Rick’s nonsense RCT is just “one case one theory” which can not explain myriad everyday beahaviors.
Rick please explain to us how walking works with your general theory, how observing, sunbathing, sitting and thinking has some “controlled variable” in external environment. Where do you see any “controlled variable” in PCT diagrams outside the system which is generally showing how LCS behave 24 hours a day ???
So it’s obvious that your nonsense RCT theory can’t explain most of activities people are doing though everyday life. What kind of general theory is that ?
HB : I hope you’ll understand that I have to repeat many statements from Bill’s legacy that point to PCT which is GENERAL THEORY about how organisms function and how consequently to organisms functioning they produce behavior. Do you understand that sequence : first organisms functioning (Control of perception) and then behavior as consequence of that functioning
It’s not “controlled behavior” and consequence (controlled perception). Behavior is not “Control of perception”.
Do you understand the Titile of the book from perspective of what Bill was writing in his whole work.
- Behavior is consequence of “Control of Perception” (organisms functioning) and that’s what is meant by Title of the book “Behavior : The control of perception” and can be proved with any Bill’s diagram. Behavior (output) always follow “Control of perception” in comparator (organisms functioning).
No Bills diagram show other way arround, that "set of effects to external environment could produce any controlled effects to “controlled input”.
Bills’ diagram also represent that “output is not controlled” and consequenlty there is no “controlled variable” in environment. And human everyday activities can confirm that Bills diagram is right (walking, observing etc.).
HB : It’s not that behavior is controlling perception because behavior (output) is not controlled. Although people can have that illussion, including you.
Diagram (LCS III) clearly shows that “Output function” is used only for producing effects to environment. Nothing else. There is no “controlled effects” to outer environment and to “controlled input”. Behavior is not controlling anything. Speccially not perception.
So it’s not “Perception : The control of behavior” as Rick Marken showed on Conference in Vancouver 2019.
Why behavior is not control in PCT ?
Bill P (B:CP):
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
We see that Bill didn’t mention control here ? And Barb wrote that her father was very precise at using words. So if he wrote definition of output without any control then he meant so.
- All your pictures on Conference in Vancouver include “controlled variable” in outer environment. There is no “controlled variable” in control loop outside the organisms generally speaking. Where is “controlled variable” outside when people are walking, when people observe, when people are sun-bathing etc. Even there is no “controlled variable” in outer environment when you are performing “forehand shot”.
There are also some other mysteries in Riks’ talk :
- Everything in control loop is happening at the same time. Show us with your “mathematical” analysis how all events in control loop happens at the same time ? Are you trying to say that Control happens with causual chain of events in control loop at the same time ??? No time lags ??? So events in “input function” and appearance of percpetual signal happens at the same time as changes in organism. And changes in organims produce output at the same time. So processes in organism are even faster then a light (300.000 km/s) becasue changes circle arround the loop with increadibe speed so that all processes in control loop happen at the same time.
How can we see that from definition of control, where time lag is obvious. Achievement of preselected state in controlling system is achieved through actions on the environment. Internal state of organism produce actions (time delay) and actions produce effects to environment (time delay) and effects in environment affect perceptions and organisms internal state (time delay).
Bill P (LCS III):
Input delay. In a real system there are time delays caused by the fact that signals take time to travel and computations take time to carry out. This kind of delay is called a transport lag.
HB : Processes in nervous system take time to happen. Speed in different nerv fibers depend whether they are “sensory fibre types”, “motor fiber types” etc. and are different in speed from 0.2 to 120 m/s. If events in your organism Rick happen at the same time you must be incredibly fast. I understand now how you (the only person on the World) can be “protected from disturbances”. You perceive somebody shooting at you and in the same moment output produce actions and you are already out of bullit line. Bullit didn’t left the gun and you already moved. Fascinating. It’s obviously Rick that you didn’t read any physilogical book and that’s the source of your nonsense is your imagination.
HB : Bill nowhere wrote that achievement of preselected state and actions through environment happen at the same time. Where do you see that ? Where in PCT literature can you find that control events happen at the same time. Your nonsense talkings are damaging PCT as probably people could beleive that nonsense you are saying Bill Powers did the same. But the problem is that he didn’t, You are representing Bill Powers that is not that.
Bill P : CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : It’s obvious chain of “cause-effect” events.
- You are talking about perceiving position of the cup (the controlled variable). How can we perceive “controlled variable” ??? Or how can we perceive “control” coming from outside if generally speaking in PCT nothing is controlled outside organism but just in organism? See definition of control. Whatever people are perceiving on the first level of control is not “control”.
Bill P (B:CP) :
…it si even more apparent that the first order perceptual signal reflects only what happens at the sensory endings : the source of the stimulation is completely indefined and unsensed. If any information exists about the source of the stimulus, it exists only distributed over millions of first order perceptual signals and is explicit in none of them.
- Another by my oppinion wrong explanation was developed with two diagrams which are showing “cannonical principle”. Control happens inside and outside. So behavior as control is happening outside as “Control of controlled variable” (what observer sees) and inside as “perceptual control”. Or I missed something ?
It’s a total mess… Could you Rick explain how your theory (and model above) works WITH EVERYDAY BEHAVIORS when people are sleeping or walking or performing “forehand shot” etc???
- And there is more. Show us with everyday examples how behavior is “pushing controlled variable” toward references and (therefore) also perception. There is no such thing in PCT. Where did you see that ?
There is no “pushing”. Where did you find this term in Bills literature. Whatever YOU Rick was talking about on Conference has nothing to do with PCT so YOU WERE NOT PRESENTING PCT but YOUR RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
Bills’ diagram shows that GENERALLY we can’t see “pushing controlled variable” (that’s why probably Rick didn’t show Bills diagram but his own with “controlled variable” in outer environment).
So in Bills PCT there is no such thing as perceiving “controlled variable” or even “pushed controlled variable” to references. It’s perfect misunderstanding of PCT. Controlled variables are inside organism as definition of control shows and they are not “pushed” toward references.
In PCT (generally speaking) we can’t see that person is perceiving any “controlled variable” as something generally happening when people behave. At least everyday behaviors like observing, walking, sitting and thinking, sun-bathing, sleeping etc. don’t show any control in environment, as all actions (behavior) are used for “achieving and maintaining” preselected state as Bill showed in his definition of control.
I used Warren’s version of Bills’ diagram which should be presented also by Rick who probably didn’t present Bills’ diagram because he presented “one case one theory” example as he always do and Bills diagram does not support such a nonsense. Also Rick confirmed that model hasn’t been tested yet as general model of perceptual hierarchy. There are many more examples and experiments needed to prove generality of PCT theory. Most of members know how scientific work shoud be done so that we can say that PCT is general theory about how organisms function.
But I can prove with experiments and with analyses of behaviors that Rick’s model is wrong and Bill model is right.
I hope you’ll understand that I repeated so many times how PCT loop works that it’s normal that I’ll criticize RCT control loop definitions :
Rick Marken’s explanation of “input function” :
Input function converts position of cup (the controlled variable) to perception
HB : It’s clear that some “controlled variable” which couldn’t be controlled with behavior (output) couldn’t cause some “controlled effects” in perception, so that control is somehow “converted” into organism.
It’s wrong definition of “input funtion”. Subject is not controlling the position of the cup (with what – Telekinesis) because “Output is not controlled”. So the perception of “controlled variable” of cup of tea is obviously done in some other way. It’s also problematic how “input function” can “convert” position of the cup to perception…? It’s not precise “converting”. It’s some function.
W.T. Powers (B:CP, 2005) :
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
HB : We can see that there is no trace of perceiving “controlled variable” or that anything is said about “controlled input” or that control could be present in perceptual signal (see definition above)
Rick Marken’s explanation of “comparator” :
Difference between perception and reference signal that drives output.
Simplifyed version of comparator whichyou Rick Marken produced (imagined) contain wrong interpretation of what is happening in neurons. That’s not how organisms function. You are showing functional realtionship what neuron sure does not perform.
And W.T. Powers (B:CP, 2005) definition of “comparator” :
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
We can see that W.T. Powers used more precise description of processes in neurons which are represented by “comparator”. The diference is “computed”. It’s not that difference drive output, but computation of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
And Rick forgot “error” signal.
W.T. Powers (B:CP, 2005)
ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
Now Warren :
I decided not to criticize you publically (on ASC) because you have perspective in your life carier. Don’t waste it with Rick.
There are two big problems you had in your presentation.
- You used Ricks’ two dimensional explanation of baseball catch. Where did you see that events in baseball game happens in 2-dimensional space with two control units functioning separatelly or independent way ? The only possible explanation of two control units having separated “input” and separated “ouput” is that Rick is talking about left and right eye (different input sources). No close your left eye. What do you see ? And than close right eye. What do you see ?
Do you really think that nervous system operates with independent control units ? How will you prove that human nervous system is working with independent control units in x and y dimenssion ??? Do you really see people perceieving and doing other things in 2-dimenssional space ? Do you understand that Ricks model assume that when one “control unit” independently operate the other unit is “silent” as they can not both use the same output at the same time ? Although in Ricks’ theory everything is possible. It is everything is right what Rick said without any substancial evidence.
- As I understand it, definiton of goal is wrong. Go and see in Bills’ literature how goal is explained.
I’m sorry to say Warren but by my oppinion you two didn’t presented PCT, but RC. It’s y catastrophy of worst kind to keep memory on Bill’s work in such a RCT way.
Boris