Amount of Vinegar in Cup

CSGnet Archive CSG2018
1

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.28.0851 ET)]

Each month, I put a cup of vinegar in the air conditioning system in my house. I have a clear, two cup capacity measuring cup I use for that purpose. I pour vinegar into the measuring cup until the level of vinegar reaches the one-cup marker line.

As I understand it, q.i. refers to the amount of vinegar in the cup – as viewed by an observer. The perceptual signal § refers to my perception of the level of vinegar in the cup.

Do I have that right?

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”

2

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.28.0851 ET)]

…

      As I understand it, q.i. refers to the

amount of vinegar in the cup – as viewed by an observer. The
perceptual signal § refers to my perception of the level of
vinegar in the cup.

3

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.28.1100 ET)}

Well, actually, Martin, I don’t agree that q.i. has anything to do with an external observer. I was just trying to clarify what I thought was being asserted by some others; namely, that q.i. is what an observer sees. Again, an input quantity (q.i.) is input to the control system, not the observer. An observer might well perceive the level of vinegar in the cup but that is the observer’s q.i., not mine.

As I understand Bill’s model, the perceptual signal (p) is an analog of the input quantity (q.i.). The model isn’t a model of an observer looking at a control system, it is a model of a control system. Let’s say that it’s a model of me as a “living control system.” The vinegar in the cup is q.i. My perception of the vinegar in the cup is p. P is what I am controlling via the effects of my actions on my environment (e.g., the perceived level of vinegar in the measuring cup). The only way an observer could know about q.i. is to have conducted the test for the controlled variable and, from that, figured out that what I am controlling for is the level of vinegar in the cup.

Anyway, thanks for responding. I think I’m beginning to share some of Boris’ frustration.

Fred (keep your cottonpickers off my q.i.) Nickols

···

From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:39 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Amount of Vinegar in Cup

[Martin Taylor 2018.05.28.09.34]

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.28.0851 ET)]

…

As I understand it, q.i. refers to the amount of vinegar in the cup – as viewed by an observer. The perceptual signal (p) refers to my perception of the level of vinegar in the cup.

I guess that at this point its must be generally clear that q.i has something to do with an external observer, and, except by coincidence has nothing to do with any external variable controlled when someone controls a perception. This is, of course, a departure from the Powers notation, according to which q.i is an input quantity in a control loop. May I suggest reverting to “CEV” for the external variable that is counterpart to a controlled perception, while in future we leave q.i to discussions of external observers and experimenters?

Martin

4

Martin

image001224.jpg
image001224.jpg625×1038 122 KB

···

From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 3:39 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Amount of Vinegar in Cup

[Martin Taylor 2018.05.28.09.34]

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.28.0851 ET)]

…

As I understand it, q.i. refers to the amount of vinegar in the cup – as viewed by an observer. The perceptuall signal (p) refers to my perception of the level of vinegar in the cup.

I guess that at this point its must be generally clear that q.i has something to do with an external observer, and, except by coincidence has nothing to do with any external variable controlled when someone controls a perception. This is, of course, a departure from the Powers notation, according to which q.i is an input quantity in a control loop. May I suggest reverting to “CEV” for the external variable that is counterpart to a controlled perception, while in future we leave q.i to discussions of external observers and experimenters?

HB : Why returning to “objective” evnironment if we don’t know excatly what it is. Perceptual signal is structured from many more transformed variables in environment than q.i. show. So perceptual signal is structured from q.i. and some other variables that are probably close to q.i. See in B:CP how Bill explained it. But you already explained this once in the same way. Or I missed something ?

Q.I. is input quantity for every LCS differently. From aspect of control it is the amount (added effects d+q.o) that is transformed into perceptual signal.

cid:image001.jpg@01D3F664.EE9A79E0

HB : From endless variables in environment (Ashby) only some of them are affected by q.o. and disturbances. It’s clear what “input quantity” is or which part is “represented” in perception. See explanation in B:CP.

If you take CEV (whether it is “Complex Environmental Variable” or "Controlled Environmental Variabel – both version were used, so I still don’t what exactly CEV is) you probably lose what you are perceiving from endless variabels in environment. Nobody ever perceived all variables in environment and afected them.

CEV represent what ? I’d rather use CEP (Complex Environmental Perception). At least we know what we are talking about. And if you don’t transform CEV into CEP you got nothing.

Boris

Martin

5

Fred

···

From: “Fred Nickols” (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 5:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Amount of Vinegar in Cup

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.28.1100 ET)}

FN : Well, actually, Martin, I don’t agree that q.i. has anything to do with an external observer. I was just trying to clarify what I thought was being asserted by some others; namely, that q.i. is what an observer sees. Again, an input quantity (q.i.) is input to the control system, not the observer.

HB : Q.i. is the input to every LCS even experimenter (E)

FN : An observer might well perceive the level of vinegar in the cup but that is the observer’s q.i., not mine.

HB : Bravo Fred. Every LCS has different “q.i.”.

FN : As I understand Bill’s model, the perceptual signal (p) is an analog of the input quantity (q.i.). The model isn’t a model of an observer looking at a control system, it is a model of a control system. Let’s say that it’s a model of me as a “living control system.� The vinegar in the cup is q.i. My perception of the vinegar in the cup is p. P is what I am controlling via the effects of my actions on my environment (e.g., the perceived level of vinegar in the measuring cup). The only way an observer could know about q.i. is to have conducted the test for the controlled variable and, from that, figured out that what I am controlling for is the level of vinegar in the cup.

HB : This is very good PCT thinking Fred :blush:

Anyway, thanks for responding. I think I’m beginning to share some of Boris’ frustration.

HB : I’m glad to share with such a great person as you are Fred.

Boris

Fred (keep your cottonpickers off my q.i.) Nickols

From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:39 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Amount of Vinegar in Cup

[Martin Taylor 2018.05.28.09.34]

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.28.0851 ET)]

…

As I understand it, q.i. refers to the amount of vinegar in the cup – as viewed by an observer. The perceptuaal signal (p) refers to my perception of the level of vinegar in the cup.

I guess that at this point its must be generally clear that q.i has something to do with an external observer, and, except by coincidence has nothing to do with any external variable controlled when someone controls a perception. This is, of course, a departure from the Powers notation, according to which q.i is an input quantity in a control loop. May I suggest reverting to “CEV” for the external variable that is counterpart to a controlled perception, while in future we leave q.i to discussions of external observers and experimenters?

Martin

6

[From Fred
Nickols (2018.05.28.1100 ET)}

        Well,

actually, Martin, I don’t agree that q.i. has anything to do
with an external observer. I was just trying to clarify
what I thought was being asserted by some others; namely,
that q.i. is what an observer sees. Again, an input
quantity (q.i.) is input to the control system, not the
observer. An observer might well perceive the level of
vinegar in the cup but that is the observer’s q.i., not
mine.

        As I

understand Bill’s model, the perceptual signal (p) is an
analog of the input quantity (q.i.). The model isn’t a
model of an observer looking at a control system, it is a
model of a control system. Let’s say that it’s a model of
me as a “living control system.” The vinegar in the cup is
q.i. My perception of the vinegar in the cup is p. P is
what I am controlling via the effects of my actions on my
environment (e.g., the perceived level of vinegar in the
measuring cup). The only way an observer could know about
q.i. is to have conducted the test for the controlled
variable and, from that, figured out that what I am
controlling for is the level of vinegar in the cup.

···

From: Martin Taylor
(mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List)
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:39 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Amount of Vinegar in Cup

[Martin Taylor 2018.05.28.09.34]

        [From Fred

Nickols (2018.05.28.0851 ET)]

…

        As I understand

it, q.i. refers to the amount of vinegar in the cup – as
viewed by an observer. The perceptual signal (p) refers to
my perception of the level of vinegar in the cup.

      I

guess that at this point its must be generally clear that q.i
has something to do with an external observer, and, except by
coincidence has nothing to do with any external variable
controlled when someone controls a perception. This is, of
course, a departure from the Powers notation, according to
which q.i is an input quantity in a control loop. May I
suggest reverting to “CEV” for the external variable that is
counterpart to a controlled perception, while in future we
leave q.i to discussions of external observers and
experimenters?

      Martin