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.
···
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