[Attachment Removed] Revised Hammer and Nail Model

CSGnet Archive CSG2015
21

[Martin Taylor 2015.11.15.17.29]

The controlled variable is the perception. The environmental

correlate that I always call the “Complex Environmental Variable”
(CEV) is not Qi, because there’s lots that can happen between the
CEV and the input to the perceptual function (Qi).
That’s how I see it. It seems right to me, provided that you assume that nothing
intervenes between the physical meeting of the hammer and nail and
the perception of the the height of the nail. If you put some
optical apparatus so you can get the nail flush to within a micron,
you have to include that apparatus in the feedback function. It
changes the loop gain.
The former is a change in the perception – a discrete version of
the derivative of the perception – while the latter is the same in
the physical environment. Neither takes any account of the parts od
the feedback function between the control unit’s output and the CEV
(the relative heights of the nailhead and the plank) or between the
CEV and the control unit’s input. The feedback function is
EVERYTHING between the control system’s output and its perceptual
input.
Martin

image0044.png
image0044.png763×830 24 KB

···

On 2015/11/15 4:22 PM, Fred Nickols
wrote:

        [From

Fred Nickols (2015.11.15.1815)]

Â

        I

know, I’m responding to my own post.

Â

        Here’s

the problem I’m having.

Â

        The

Feedback Function, as I understand it, is how my output (Qo )
is connected or linked to the controlled variable (Qi).

Â

        Ordinarily,

I would consider “feedback� to be changes in the height of
the nail head. I hit the nail with the hammer and it moves
down (or doesn’t as the case may be).

Â

        However,

I’m thinking the “Feedback Function� in the formal PCT model
is something else; namely, how Qo and Qi
are connected or linked.

Â

        My

swinging of the hammer and the height of the nail head are
connected by virtue of the force of my swing and the
accuracy of that swing (the arc Bruce Abbott mentioned).

Â

        So

what do I put in the “Feedback Function� box? Is it “change
in height of nail� or is it “downward force on nail exerted
by hammer� or is it ??? “Effect of hammer swings on height
of nail head� as suggested by Rick seems right

        but, at the same time, why not just say “changes in height

of nail head� or as Bob Hintz suggested, “distance nail
moves�?

Â

        Fred

Nickols

Â

From:
Fred Nickols Sunday, November 15, 2015 3:49 PM
RE: [Attachment Removed] Revised
Hammer and Nail Model

Â

          [From

Fred Nickols (2015.11.15.1550)]

Â

          I

was thinking about “Changes in height of nail head�

Â

          Fred

Nickols

Â

From:
Bob Hintz [mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com ]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 3:34 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: [Attachment Removed] Revised
Hammer and Nail Model

Â

how about distance nail moves

Â

              On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 5:08 AM,

Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us >
wrote:

                    [From Fred Nickols

(2015.11.15.0605)]

Â

                    Bruce Abbott says that the

force with which the hammer strikes the nail
head is Qo , not the feedback
function. He also suggests that the feedback
function is the relationship between that force
and nail movement and that is affected by
resistance (which is not a disturbance). I can
see how resistance to nail penetration is not a
disturbance and I can remove that from the list
of disturbances but what goes in the Feedback
Function box?

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From:
Bruce Abbott [mailto:
]
Saturday, November 14, 2015
7:00 PM
RE: [Attachment Removed]
Revised Hammer and Nail Model

Â

                      [>From Bruce Abbott

(2015.11.14.1900 EST]

Â

                    Fred

Nickols (2015.11.14.0815) –

Â

                    I

am most interested in any comments about the
Feedback Function. Do I have that right?

Â

Â

                      No, the force of the

hammer hitting the nail head is Qo .Â
The feedback function is the relationship
between that force and nail movement. That
relationship depends on the resistance of the
planks to nail penetration, which determines
the force required to get the nail moving into
the wood. This resistance is not a
disturbance but an environmental constant.Â
The other factors you list as disturbances
influence this resistance, but they are not
likely to be changing while you are hammering
a particular nail.

Â

                      I’m not sure what you

might list as disturbances. Whatever they
are, they would have to affect the height of
the nail (independently of the hammer blows)
as this is the controlled variable in your
example.

Â

                      If you were seating the

nail with a press, then you might vary the
force exerted on the nail head to control the
rate of nail penetration. This force might be
set proportional to the error between nail
height and nail-height reference. As the
error approached zero, the force being
generated by the press would decrease,
reaching zero when the head was flush with the
board.

Â

                      Hammering is a different

situation, of course, in that the force is
generated only briefly with each blow. The
distance the nail is driven will depend on the
size of that force and the board’s resistance
to nail penetration. Usually one blow will
not be sufficient to seat the nail, so the
process must be repeated until that condition
is reached.

Â

                      As I’m sure you know,

the process of driving nails with a hammer
requires the control of several variables.Â
The hammer must be swung in an arc that
terminates with the head of the hammer close
to being centered on the nail head. The
direction of the arc must be controlled so
that the force applied to the nail head is
directed along the axis of the nail, lest the
nail be bent or its angle changed. The hammer
must be raised some distance above the nail
head before the blow is struck and then
lowered with force. Thus a detailed
scientific description of hammering would have
to include all these control systems and the
sequencing of the actions. But for your
purposes the simplified version you present is
probably adequate.

Â

Bruce A.

Â

mailto:fred@nickols.us
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:

bbabbott@frontier.com
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:

22

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.15.1630)]

image0044.png
image0044.png763×830 24 KB

···

Martin Taylor (2015.11.15.17.29)–

        FN: The

Feedback Function, as I understand it, is how my output (Qo )
is connected or linked to the controlled variable (Qi).

MT: The controlled variable is the perception. The environmental

correlate that I always call the “Complex Environmental Variable”
(CEV) is not Qi, because there’s lots that can happen between the
CEV and the input to the perceptual function (Qi).

RM: Actually, Qi is not the input to the perceptual function. The input to the perceptual function is ultimately the set of environmental variables at the sensory surface, call it (v.1,v.2,…v.n), as per Fig. 1, p. 66 of LCS I. Qi is the function of this set of variables that corresponds to a controlled perception: Qi = f(v.1,v.2,…v.n), where f() is the perceptual function. Another way to look at this is that Qi represents the aspect of the environment that is controlled when the perceptual signal, p, that corresponds to Qi, p = f(v.1,v.2,…v.n), is controlled.

RM: There is no CEV that is separate from Qi in PCT. Qi the observer’s model of that is controlled. Qi is equivalent to p.s (perception of shock probability) and r.s (perception of shock rate) in Bill’s model of shock avoidance. Both p.s and r.s are perceptual variables computed from observable environmental variables (response rate and shock interval). There is no CEV in the model that is separate, let alone different, from these perceptions.

RM: You can convince me that my “belief” is wrong by showing me a model of behavior where you had to include a CEV and a perceptual variables as two separate calculations.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

23

[David Goldstein (2015.11.16.0829)]

Maybe the problem with the diagram is that we haven’t identified all the perceptions which much be controlled.

I think that someone did research using this situation and asked people what they were aware of as they were doing it.

The person must grab the hammer.

The person must see the nail where it is. As I look out of the window to my back porch, I see a nail coming out of the wood and it

is at an angle, not straight up.

I must control the relationship between the hammer head and the nail head. It is not just putting the hammer head on the nail head.

It involves a movement of the hammer head through space until it strikes the nail head.

I keep on doing this until the nail head is flush against the wood.

I have no idea how many repetitions will be needed.

The angle of the nail head may change as I do this.

The movement of the hammer head towards the nail head may have to change as the nail responds to the hammer head.

I will go and do it and report if I notice any more perceptions which I have to control.

David

···

Martin Taylor (2015.11.15.17.29)–

FN: The Feedback Function, as I understand it, is how my output (Qo) is connected or linked to the controlled variable (Qi).

MT: The controlled variable is the perception. The environmental correlate that I always call the “Complex Environmental Variable” (CEV) is not Qi, because there’s lots that can happen between the CEV and the input to the perceptual function (Qi).

RM: Actually, Qi is not the input to the perceptual function. The input to the perceptual function is ultimately the set of environmental variables at the sensory surface, call it (v.1,v.2,…v.n), as per Fig. 1, p.
66 of LCS I. Qi is the function of this set of variables that corresponds to a controlled perception: Qi = f(v.1,v.2,…v.n), where f() is the perceptual function. Another way to look at this is that Qi represents the aspect of the environment that is controlled when the perceptual signal, p, that corresponds to Qi, p = f(v.1,v.2,…v.n), is controlled.

RM: There is no CEV that is separate from Qi in PCT. Qi the observer’s model of that is controlled. Qi is equivalent to p.s (perception of shock probability) and r.s (perception of shock rate) in Bill’s model of shock avoidance. Both p.s and r.s are perceptual variables computed from observable environmental variables (response rate and shock interval). There is no CEV in the model that is separate, let alone different, from these perceptions.

RM: You can convince me that my “belief” is wrong by showing me a model of behavior where you ha
d to include a CEV and a perceptual variables as two separate calculations.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

24

[Fred Nickols (2015.11.16.1032)]

Looking forward to what you find out, David.

Fred Nickols

···

From: davidmg@verizon.net [mailto:davidmg@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: [Attachment Removed] Revised Hammer and Nail Model

[David Goldstein (2015.11.16.0829)]

To: Fred, Rick, Martin

Maybe the problem with the diagram is that we haven’t identified all the perceptions which much be controlled.

I think that someone did research using this situation and asked people what they were aware of as they were doing it.

The person must grab the hammer.

The person must see the nail where it is. As I look out of the window to my back porch, I see a nail coming out of the wood and it

is at an angle, not straight up.

I must control the relationship between the hammer head and the nail head. It is not just putting the hammer head on the nail head.

It involves a movement of the hammer head through space until it strikes the nail head.

I keep on doing this until the nail head is flush against the wood.

I have no idea how many repetitions will be needed.

The angle of the nail head may change as I do this.

The movement of the hammer head towards the nail head may have to change as the nail responds to the hammer head.

I will go and do it and report if I notice any more perceptions which I have to control.

David

On 11/15/15, Richard Markenrsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.15.1630)]

Martin Taylor (2015.11.15.17.29)–

FN: The Feedback Function, as I understand it, is how my output (Qo) is connected or linked to the controlled variable (Qi).

MT: The controlled variable is the perception. The environmental correlate that I always call the “Complex Environmental Variable” (CEV) is not Qi, because there’s lots that can happen between the CEV and the input to the perceptual function (Qi).

RM: Actually, Qi is not the input to the perceptual function. The input to the perceptual function is ultimately the set of environmental variables at the sensory surface, call it (v.1,v.2,…v.n), as per Fig. 1, p. 66 of LCS I. Qi is the function of this set of variables that corresponds to a controlled perception: Qi = f(v.1,v.2,…v.n), where f() is the perceptual function. Another way to look at this is that Qi represents the aspect of the environment that is controlled when the perceptual signal, p, that corresponds to Qi, p = f(v.1,v.2,…v.n), is controlled.

RM: There is no CEV that is separate from Qi in PCT. Qi the observer’s model of that is controlled. Qi is equivalent to p.s (perception of shock probability) and r.s (perception of shock rate) in Bill’s model of shock avoidance. Both p.s and r.s are perceptual variables computed from observable environmental variables (response rate and shock interval). There is no CEV in the model that is separate, let alone different, from these perceptions.

RM: You can convince me that my “belief” is wrong by showing me a model of behavior where you ha d to include a CEV and a perceptual variables as two separate calculations.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

25

[Fred Nickols (2015.11.16.1032)]

Looking forward to what you find out, David.

Fred Nickols

···

From: davidmg@verizon.net [mailto:davidmg@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: [Attachment Removed] Revised Hammer and Nail Model

[David Goldstein (2015.11.16.0829)]

To: Fred, Rick, Martin

Maybe the problem with the diagram is that we haven’t identified all the perceptions which much be controlled.

I think that someone did research using this situation and asked people what they were aware of as they were doing it.

The person must grab the hammer.

The person must see the nail where it is. As I look out of the window to my back porch, I see a nail coming out of the wood and it

is at an angle, not straight up.

I must control the relationship between the hammer head and the nail head. It is not just putting the hammer head on the nail head.

It involves a movement of the hammer head through space until
it strikes the nail head.

I keep on doing this until the nail head is flush against the wood.

I have no idea how many repetitions will be needed.

The angle of the nail head may change as I do this.

The movement of the hammer head towards the nail head may have to change as the nail responds to the hammer head.

I will go and do it and report if I notice any more perceptions which I have to control.

David

On 11/15/15, Richard Markenrsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.15.1630)]

Martin Taylor (2015.11.15.17.29)–

FN: The Feedback Function, as I understand it, is how my output (Qo) is connected or linked to the controlled variable (Qi).

MT: The controlled variable is the perception. The environmental correlate that I always call the “Complex Environmental Variable” (CEV) is not Qi, because there’s lots that can happen between the CEV and the input to the perceptual function (Qi).

RM: Actually, Qi is not the input to the perceptual function. The input to the perceptual function is ultimately the set of environmental variables at the sensory surface, call it (v.1,v.2,…v.n), as per Fig. 1, p. 66 of LCS I. Qi is the function of this set of variables that corresponds to a controlled perception: Qi = f(v.1,v.2,…v.n), where f() is the perceptual function. Another way to look at this is that Qi represents the aspect of the environment that is controlled when the perceptual signal, p, that corresponds to Qi, p = f(v.1,v.2,…v.n), is controlled.

RM: There is no CEV that is separate from Qi in PCT. Qi the observer’s model of that is controlled. Qi is equivalent to p.s (perception of shock probability) and
r.s (perception of shock rate) in Bill’s model of shock avoidance. Both p.s and r.s are perceptual variables computed from observable environmental variables (response rate and shock interval). There is no CEV in the model that is separate, let alone different, from these perceptions.

RM: You can convince me that my “belief” is wrong by showing me a model of behavior where you ha d to include a CEV and a perceptual variables as two separate calculations.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble