Apology

Folks,

I’m sorry I taunted and played with someone who obviously has some very serious mental issues, and I will not do so in the future.

I really did not understand just how unbalanced and obsessive he is, and how close to the edge he actually is.

I really feel sorry for him.

Marc

Martin,

I owe you an apology.  I should NOT have tried to justify what I had

written. It was sloppy and you pointed that out (without your
making a direct criticism of me). So please accept my apology and
my assurance that I will be much more careful in the future to not
make a posting that is not deserving of this group.

Thank you sir,
Bill
···

On 05/24/2016 03:49 AM,
wrote:

mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net

    I find this thread a bit strange.

The paper by Bill P. that was linked a little while ago put it
clearly. Sensory inputs, observable actions, and so forth are at
a different conceptual level from the emergent property of the
structure, control. All of them are “ancillary aspects of what
the system is doing”. Minimizing the error is another such
“ancillary aspect” at the component level of analysis.

    El Hady might have said "alter subsequent sensory inputs so as

to bring them closer to a desired state", or he might have said
“alter subsequent sensory inputs in order that the brain can sit
and think about what to do next”, but he didn’t say either of
those things. What he did do is edit a book with “Closed Loop”
in the title, and that suggests that the book will deal with the
structural level of emergent phenomena, of which control is one
possibility, though not the only one.

    Martin
    On May 24, 2016, 08:52 +0200, Bill Leach

, wrote:

wrleach@cableone.net

      Rick, I most emphatically agree.  El

Hadys statement is not some much wrong because he could,
though likely not, be talking about control but to describe
the process as “alter subsequent sensory inputs” is, at least
in my mind, ignoring the single most important aspect of
control. “Alter subsequent sensory inputs” is NOT an
objective of a control system, it is but an ancillary (but
important overall) aspect of what the system is doing and that
of course is minimize the error between ‘sensory inputs’
(perceptions of course) and the reference for perception.

      Sensory inputs are important to us because it is to only way

that we have for attempting to determine what perception is or
what perceptions are being controlled. Without that knowledge
then we don’t really have a clue as to what the behavior are
observing means beyond the idea that some sort of control is
probably taking (based upon the assumption that the studied
living thing is actually functioning as a living thing).

      To me, and maybe my understandings are too old still (I'm

working on it) for the current state of PCT, but I see no
other purpose for talking about the actual controlled input(s)
other than with reference to a particular experiment (or
simulation) or using the nature of the specific controlled
perception(s) in an analysis of why control was not achieved
(exceeding the output capabilities of the organism for
example).

      Well I suppose that another purpose would be to explain why

linear theories can not be used to explain behavior of living
things.

      Please correct me if I am either outright wrong or even too

restrictive in what I said.

      Best,

      Bill
        On 05/23/2016 05:51 PM, Richard

Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]

                    Martin Taylor

(2016.05.22.22.45 CET)–

                    MT: (From somewhere

west of Würzburg on the river Main)

                    With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet

connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but
maybe it will go through.

                RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the

meaning of mine didn’t. Here was the main point of
my post regarding the book “Closed-loop
Neuroscience”:

RM: But from a PCT
perspective, it’s not the loopiness that
matters; it’s whether or not controlling is
going on.

MT: Here is your reply:

                    MT: I would assume,

in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of
such a book, would know (as would his
contributors) that positive feedback loops
either runaway explosively or freeze against
some limit.

                RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El

Hady doesn’t know the difference between positive
and negative feedback loops. That’s not at all what
I meant. I simply meant that recognizing the
closed-loop relationship that between the nervous
system and its environment – the loopiness of the
organism-environment relationship – does not
guarantee that you recognize that the behavior is a
process of control and that, therefore, the nervous
system is organized as an input control system
rather than as an input-output device.

                RM:  There are many examples of scientists who

have recognized that behavior occurs in a closed
loop and still treated the organism as an
input-output device. They were able to do this by
treating the events in the loop as though they
occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit. There are
some telltale signs that El Hady treats a
closed-loop – at least, a behavioral closed loop –
this way. For example, in one of his papers I found
this statement: “Through active sensing, behaving
animals can influence their environment ** in ways
that alter subsequent sensory inputs.”** [emphasis
mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking
about is a sequence of events: sensing>
acting>influencing environment>altered
sensing… wash>rinse>repeat.

                RM: This, of course, is not a correct description

of how a closed negative feedback control loop
works. All the events in such a loop are occurring * at
the same time* . This means that you have to
solve simultaneously the “forward” and feedback
equations that describe the loop. When you do this
you get the steady state equations that describe the
behavior of the loop:

p = f(q.i) = r

o = r - 1/kf(d)

                RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a

controlled quantity, q.i, matching the reference
specification, r, for the state of that perception
and it does it by varying its output in proportion
to any variations in r while opposing variations in
the net disturbance, d, to the controlled
quantity. Methods for studying the controlling done
by such systems are aimed at determining what
perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El
Hady’s book describes methods for carrying out this
kind of research – research aimed at testing for
controlled perceptions – then I’ll be thrilled to
read it!

Best

Rick

                    So I would give the

various authors of this book the benefit of the
doubt,

                        On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken

<>,
wrote:


Richard S. Marken

                              Author, with Timothy A.

Carey, of Controlling
People: The Paradoxical Nature of
Being Human
.

rsmarken@gmail.com

                            [From Rick Marken

(2016.05.22.1140)]

                                On Fri, May

20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex
Gomez-Marin <>
wrote:

http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Hi Alex

                              Not all

closed-loop are control loops. Only
negative feedback loops can be control
loops; positive feedback loops are
amplification loops. I suspect that
the neural loops that are internal to
the nervous system are amplification
loops. The loops that go through the
environment – the ones we deal with
in PCT – are control loops. So it’s
nice that El Hady recognizes that
functional relationships between
variables are often connected in
closed loops. But from a PCT
perspective, it’s not the loopiness
that matters; it’s whether or not
controlling is going on. I’m not sure
that El Hady understands that what the
nervous system is doing is controlling
(not reacting to) sensory input.

Best

Rick


Richard
S. Marken

                                                Author,

with Timothy A.
Carey, of Controlling
People: The
Paradoxical Nature
of Being Human
.

agomezmarin@gmail.com

Thank you, but I'm not clear wherein you find your offence. I took none, so maybe we can keep the apology in the bank awaiting a further occasion to use it.
Martin

Martin,

I owe you an apology. I should NOT have tried to justify what I had written. It was sloppy and you pointed that out (without your making a direct criticism of me). So please accept my apology and my assurance that I will be much more careful in the future to not make a posting that is not deserving of this group.

Thank you sir,
Bill

I find this thread a bit strange. The paper by Bill P. that was linked a little while ago put it clearly. Sensory inputs, observable actions, and so forth are at a different conceptual level from the emergent property of the structure, control. All of them are "ancillary aspects of what the system is doing". Minimizing the error is another such "ancillary aspect" at the component level of analysis.

El Hady might have said "alter subsequent sensory inputs so as to bring them closer to a desired state", or he might have said "alter subsequent sensory inputs in order that the brain can sit and think about what to do next", but he didn't say either of those things. What he did do is edit a book with "Closed Loop" in the title, and that suggests that the book will deal with the structural level of emergent phenomena, of which control is one possibility, though not the only one.
Martin

Rick, I most emphatically agree. El Hadys statement is not some much wrong because he could, though likely not, be talking about control but to describe the process as "alter subsequent sensory inputs" is, at least in my mind, ignoring the single most important aspect of control. "Alter subsequent sensory inputs" is NOT an objective of a control system, it is but an ancillary (but important overall) aspect of what the system is doing and that of course is minimize the error between 'sensory inputs' (perceptions of course) and the reference for perception.

Sensory inputs are important to us because it is to only way that we have for attempting to determine what perception is or what perceptions are being controlled. Without that knowledge then we don't really have a clue as to what the behavior are observing means beyond the idea that some sort of control is probably taking (based upon the assumption that the studied living thing is actually functioning as a living thing).

To me, and maybe my understandings are too old still (I'm working on it) for the current state of PCT, but I see no other purpose for talking about the actual controlled input(s) other than with reference to a particular experiment (or simulation) or using the nature of the specific controlled perception(s) in an analysis of why control was not achieved (exceeding the output capabilities of the organism for example).

Well I suppose that another purpose would be to explain why linear theories can not be used to explain behavior of living things.

Please correct me if I am either outright wrong or even too restrictive in what I said.

Best,
Bill

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]

Martin Taylor (2016.05.22.22.45 CET)--

MT: (From somewhere west of Würzburg on the river Main)
With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but maybe it will go through.

RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the meaning of mine didn't. Here was the main point of my post regarding the book "Closed-loop Neuroscience":

RM: But from a PCT perspective, it's not the loopiness that matters; it's whether or not controlling is going on.

MT: Here is your reply:

MT: I would assume, in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of such a book, would know (as would his contributors) that positive feedback loops either runaway explosively or freeze against some limit.

RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El Hady doesn't know the difference between positive and negative feedback loops. That's not at all what I meant. I simply meant that recognizing the closed-loop relationship that between the nervous system and its environment -- the loopiness of the organism-environment relationship -- does not guarantee that you recognize that the behavior is a process of control and that, therefore, the nervous system is organized as an input control system rather than as an input-output device.
RM: There are many examples of scientists who have recognized that behavior occurs in a closed loop and still treated the organism as an input-output device. They were able to do this by treating the events in the loop as though they occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit. There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop -- at least, a behavioral closed loop -- this way. For example, in one of his papers I found this statement: "Through active sensing, behaving animals can influence their environment in ways that alter subsequent sensory inputs." [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of events: sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered sensing... wash>rinse>repeat.
RM: This, of course, is not a correct description of how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the events in such a loop are occurring at the same time. This means that you have to solve simultaneously the "forward" and feedback equations that describe the loop. When you do this you get the steady state equations that describe the behavior of the loop:
p = f(q.i) = r
o = r - 1/kf(d)
RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a controlled quantity, q.i, matching the reference specification, r, for the state of that perception and it does it by varying its output in proportion to any variations in r while opposing variations in the net disturbance, d, to the controlled quantity. Methods for studying the controlling done by such systems are aimed at determining what perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El Hady's book describes methods for carrying out this kind of research -- research aimed at testing for controlled perceptions -- then I'll be thrilled to read it!
Best
Rick

So I would give the various authors of this book the benefit of the doubt,

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__store.elsevier.com_Closed-2DLoop-2DNeuroscience_Ahmed-2DEl-2DHady_isbn-2D9780128024522_&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=XXPAp2hP3bO57Hn6EuAXnmc-ZEklQcdLw-4ENRk9uhQ&s=w8jIrAfjXBflfhx-uOLSlQ-xmlyy03vfEVpHRhxDj78&e=>>>>>>>> http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Hi Alex
Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment -- the ones we deal with in PCT -- are control loops. So it's nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it's not the loopiness that matters; it's whether or not controlling is going on. I'm not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Controlling-2DPeople-2DParadoxical-2DNature-2DBeing_dp_1922117641_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1449541975-26sr-3D1-2D1&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=1c4ZsPQek-U_-Vhe9O9Ejp15wsktA9uzQrWi3sQ0KlY&s=0UchIv8ULNDOOXJFBhv-THbQrCXiQCYupUDuJdevbXw&e=>Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

--
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Controlling-2DPeople-2DParadoxical-2DNature-2DBeing_dp_1922117641_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1449541975-26sr-3D1-2D1&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=7UXc-rvgz32SIbQmX5Wdo-gRUj_tTMykT0OihwwY2IM&s=ooMI9xxeQsrFisk3JWR2w99dcEitxBFRYfCtGZteVYI&e=>Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

···

On May 25, 2016, 09:42 +0200, Bill Leach <wrleach@cableone.net>, wrote:

On 05/24/2016 03:49 AM, <mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net>mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

On May 24, 2016, 08:52 +0200, Bill Leach <mailto:wrleach@cableone.net><wrleach@cableone.net>, wrote:

On 05/23/2016 05:51 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken <<mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com>rsmarken@gmail.com>, wrote:

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin <<mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com><mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com>agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

<chuckle> Ok, save it for later. No Martin, while I appreciate that
you are not upset, you did just remind me of the nature of the group
that I was posting in. In this group, at least most of the time, one
should really think clearly about what one is saying... and not do it
when one is really tired.

Thank you, but I'm not clear wherein you find your offence. I took
none, so maybe we can keep the apology in the bank awaiting a further
occasion to use it.

Martin

<snip>

···

On 05/25/2016 04:55 AM, mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

On May 25,

[From Dag Forssell (970723.2115)]

Last Sunday I posted an op-ed article from the Los Angeles Times that I
thought illustrated the dumbing of our society in general. I thought it was
funny.

I did not realize that the author, Edwin A. Locke has interacted with both
Bill Powers and Tom Bourbon. Now that I have had that pointed out to me, I
remember Mary recounting comments by a certain Locke to Jeff Vancouver a
few years ago.

Mr. Locke is professor of management, a notoriously touchy-feely subject.
Now that I know that he keeps himself deliberately ignorant of reality, I
realize that the airplane pilot metaphor featured none other than Mr. Locke
himself at the controls. I am reminded of a Swedish saying which loosely
translated goes like this: By yourself you know others. Mr. Locke
understands the prospective pilot all too well.

Best, Dag

From [ Marc Abrams (980907.1208) ]

Sorry Bill, I should have taken it private.

Marc

[From Kenny Kitzke (990903.1515EDT)]

In a dialogue mostly with Bruce Gregory about the Twelfth Level, I suggested
and he agreed, it would be best to correspond privately rather than bore and
offend the CSGNet group with discussions about such specific HPCT system
concepts as the truth of the Bible, Christianity, God, etc., and how they
relate to human nature.

It appears that some of what I intended as private posts has been posted on
the net. I apologize. I suspect what I thought were some private posts from
Bruce indeed had been posted on CSGNet and I too carelessly hit the reply
button.

My friends (assuming I have any left) in the CSG, are friends because of our
joint interest in PCT and HPCT and in people. That they care one iota about
my theology or not, and vice versa, is not what matters, at least to me. It
is obvious that some atheists know much more about PCT than I do. And, I
think some atheists know less about human nature than I do. That is why it
is fun and educational to share some ideas on the edge of PCT, if anyone
wants to do that.

Respectfully,

Kenny

My apologies to the list for having sent what was intended to be private
mail to Dag to the entire list. Even though I write papers warning other
people of the problems of working with a list server, I'm dumb enough
to do it myself!

Brian Gaines Knowledge Science Institute, University of Calgary
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
                          http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KSI/KSI.html
                          tel: 403-220-5901 fax: 403-284-4707