From: “Fred Nickols” (email@example.com via csgnet Mailing List) firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: Amount of Vinegar in Cup
[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.28.1100 ET)}
FN : Well, actually, Martin, I donâ€™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 observerâ€™s q.i., not mine.
HB : Bravo Fred. Every LCS has different “q.i.”.
FN : As I understand Billâ€™s model, the perceptual signal § is an analog of the input quantity (q.i.). The model isnâ€™t a model of an observer looking at a control system, it is a model of a control system. Letâ€™s say that itâ€™s a model of me as a â€œliving control system.â€? 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
Anyway, thanks for responding. I think Iâ€™m beginning to share some of Borisâ€™ frustration.
HB : I’m glad to share with such a great person as you are Fred.
Fred (keep your cottonpickers off my q.i.) Nickols
From: Martin Taylor (email@example.com via csgnet Mailing List) firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:39 AM
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 § 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?