# B:CP Course Week 12: Summary of CH. 11 Sequence Control

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-cp-course-week-12-summary-of-ch-11-sequence-control/1456>\
**Category:** CSG2013\
**Created:** [September 24, 2013, 3:28am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-cp-course-week-12-summary-of-ch-11-sequence-control/1456 "2013-09-24T03:28:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 3:28am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-cp-course-week-12-summary-of-ch-11-sequence-control/1456/1 "2013-09-24T03:28:49Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2013.09.23.0830)]

> **···**
>
> Here is the summary of Ch. 11, Sequence Control. Comments  
> welcome as usual. Again, no study guide for the next chapter (The Brains Model, Ch. 12). I have asked David to do the Summary of that chapter next week because I am running out of gas. But I would again like to thank those who have participated in the course-related discussions this week – particularly Rupert Young (who provided me with much of this weeks summary) and John Kirkland (who reminded me, perhaps unintentionally, that modeling is fundamental to PCT).
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Rick
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> 
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 3:35am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-cp-course-week-12-summary-of-ch-11-sequence-control/1456/2 "2013-09-24T03:35:28Z")

</div>

Oops, forgot to attach the Summary file.

[Summary, Ch 11 Sequence Control.doc](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/d80EfmZo4sUUqY6Nw9TVj3Ke2ts.doc) (53.5 KB)

> **···**
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Richard Marken [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2013.09.23.0830)]
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)
> 
> Here is the summary of Ch. 11, Sequence Control. Comments  
> welcome as usual. Again, no study guide for the next chapter (The Brains Model, Ch. 12). I have asked David to do the Summary of that chapter next week because I am running out of gas. But I would again like to thank those who have participated in the course-related discussions this week – particularly Rupert Young (who provided me with much of this weeks summary) and John Kirkland (who reminded me, perhaps unintentionally, that modeling is fundamental to PCT).
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Rick
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> 
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Erling\_Jorgensen](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/58956e/32.png) [@\_Erling\_Jorgensen](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Erling_Jorgensen)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-cp-course-week-12-summary-of-ch-11-sequence-control/1456/3 "2013-09-24T18:04:12Z")

</div>

[From Erling Jorgensen (2013.09.24 1300 EDT)

> Rick Marken (Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:35:28 -0700)

Hi Rick,  
I'm very impressed with the paper you, Warren Mansell, & Zahra Khatib  
have put together, on "Motor Control as the Control of Perception,"  
Perceptual & Motor Skills: Perception, 2013, 117, 1, 1-12. It  
is exceedingly clear & well written. It also gets your elegant  
simulation / demonstration of levels of perceptual control out among  
a wider readership.

I like the method of strong inference that you folks use, by noting  
a key difference in predictions between the "controlled outputs"  
approach versus the "controlled results" approach. You lay out the  
distinction very well about whether the timing delay of more complex  
levels would arise from the motor output side or the perceptual  
input side. By settling on the same motor output (i.e., a mouse-press)  
for any of the conditions of your study, you identify a key place  
where differences in those predictions would show themselves.

The instructions to press the mouse button as quickly as possible,  
following introduction of a disturbance to the task, thereby restoring  
the previous condition, allow you to operationalize the task in a  
very straightforward way with your "% on Target" metric. The sooner  
the button was pressed, the greater the percentage of time spent under  
effective control, allowing clear measurements across conditions.

In the Discussion section, I especially liked how you anticipated &  
dealt with the possible criticism that a higher level perception  
would require more animation frames to perceive -- in your words,  
"it is true that shape cold be perceived in a single frame while  
motion and sequence could be perceived only after at least two frames"  
(p. 10). You go on to show that a \_change\_ in any of those conditions  
could be detected right away within one frame, & thus the motor task  
would be equivalent among all of them.

I also like that you folks include the caveat that some motor tasks  
are more complex than others, & so would lead to differential rates  
of motor production. The reason for utilizing the same motor output  
on all the conditions of the experiment was not to 'stack the deck'  
against "controlled output" theories, but simply to test a spot where  
"controlled output" versus "controlled result" would lead to  
different predictions.

I always think it's a good idea, in such write-ups, to be very clear  
about the limiting conditions of what is being advanced. Not only  
is the humility better received by the reader, but it subtly invites  
the reader to expand the study into those new areas that have not  
yet been tested.

Again, kudos to you, Warren, & Zahra, on an excellent article. Here's  
hoping that its clean logic will be persuasive to a variety of readers.

All the best,  
Erling

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-cp-course-week-12-summary-of-ch-11-sequence-control/1456/4 "2013-09-24T20:43:35Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2013.09.24.1345)]

> **···**
>
> > Erling Jorgensen (2013.09.24 1300 EDT)–
> > 
> > > Rick Marken (Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:35:28 -0700)
> > 
> > Hi Rick,
> > 
> > I’m very impressed with the paper you, Warren Mansell, & Zahra Khatib
> > 
> > have put together, on “Motor Control as the Control of Perception,”
> > 
> > Perceptual & Motor Skills: Perception, 2013, 117, 1, 1-12. It
> > 
> > is exceedingly clear & well written. It also gets your elegant
> > 
> > simulation / demonstration of levels of perceptual control out among
> > 
> > a wider readership.
> 
> Thank you! Thank you. On behalf of Warren & Zahra I would like to thank the Academy… Oops, wrong award;-)
> 
> Seriously, thanks very much Erling. It’s feels really nice to get praise but it’s especially nice to get such intelligent praise!
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Rick
> 
> > I like the method of strong inference that you folks use, by noting
> > 
> > a key difference in predictions between the “controlled outputs”
> > 
> > approach versus the “controlled results” approach. You lay out the
> > 
> > distinction very well about whether the timing delay of more complex
> > 
> > levels would arise from the motor output side or the perceptual
> > 
> > input side. By settling on the same motor output (i.e., a mouse-press)
> > 
> > for any of the conditions of your study, you identify a key place
> > 
> > where differences in those predictions would show themselves.
> > 
> > The instructions to press the mouse button as quickly as possible,
> > 
> > following introduction of a disturbance to the task, thereby restoring
> > 
> > the previous condition, allow you to operationalize the task in a
> > 
> > very straightforward way with your “% on Target” metric. The sooner
> > 
> > the button was pressed, the greater the percentage of time spent under
> > 
> > effective control, allowing clear measurements across conditions.
> > 
> > In the Discussion section, I especially liked how you anticipated &
> > 
> > dealt with the possible criticism that a higher level perception
> > 
> > would require more animation frames to perceive – in your words,
> > 
> > "it is true that shape cold be perceived in a single frame while
> > 
> > motion and sequence could be perceived only after at least two frames"
> > 
> > (p. 10). You go on to show that a _change_ in any of those conditions
> > 
> > could be detected right away within one frame, & thus the motor task
> > 
> > would be equivalent among all of them.
> > 
> > I also like that you folks include the caveat that some motor tasks
> > 
> > are more complex than others, & so would lead to differential rates
> > 
> > of motor production. The reason for utilizing the same motor output
> > 
> > on all the conditions of the experiment was not to ‘stack the deck’
> > 
> > against “controlled output” theories, but simply to test a spot where
> > 
> > “controlled output” versus “controlled result” would lead to
> > 
> > different predictions.
> > 
> > I always think it’s a good idea, in such write-ups, to be very clear
> > 
> > about the limiting conditions of what is being advanced. Not only
> > 
> > is the humility better received by the reader, but it subtly invites
> > 
> > the reader to expand the study into those new areas that have not
> > 
> > yet been tested.
> > 
> > Again, kudos to you, Warren, & Zahra, on an excellent article. Here’s
> > 
> > hoping that its clean logic will be persuasive to a variety of readers.
> > 
> > All the best,
> > 
> > Erling
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JohnK](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/johnk/32/3043_2.png) [@JohnK](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/JohnK)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 6:12am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-cp-course-week-12-summary-of-ch-11-sequence-control/1456/5 "2013-09-29T06:12:12Z")

</div>

[John Kirkland 20130929]

Whilst reading para 3, page 140 I was reminded of Stephen Potter’s little book ‘Gamemanship: the art of winning without actually cheating’. For instance if you’re being beaten at golf ask your opponent to show you how they wrap their little finger of the left hand. This is enough to break the event sequence. Potter offers a number of ruses which follow the same principle.

[http://www.heretical.com/potter/](http://www.heretical.com/potter/)

Of course academics have done this since too, possibly unaware of the basic PCT principle involved.

With respect to leading question #5, consider Morse Code where V = …- Two sound sound configurations, dit and a dah. If there was no change there would be an ‘h’ (4 dits), and all the other Morse characters (and I don’t mean Lewis). Morse code is known as c/w (continuous wave) but perceptually there are sequences obtained by varying the ‘on/off’ switch.

As for Q#4 Rick’s set a little puzzle. This could lead to an understanding of speech/language therapy, say with dyslexia. The phenomenon Bill mentions in Q#4 gained some publicity recently, see  
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typoglycemia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typoglycemia)

From a PCT perspective could these ‘words’ be considered as events, with redundancy?

Perhaps txt messages are of the same ilk.

With one of the grandchildren the other day reading Dahl’s Matilda the word ‘queer’ appeared. I asked her to spell queen and was told ‘quine’.

Kinds regards

JohnK

> **···**
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Richard Marken [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2013.09.24.1345)]
> 
> > Erling Jorgensen (2013.09.24 1300 EDT)–
> > 
> > > Rick Marken (Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:35:28 -0700)
> > 
> > Hi Rick,
> > 
> > I’m very impressed with the paper you, Warren Mansell, & Zahra Khatib
> > 
> > have put together, on “Motor Control as the Control of Perception,”
> > 
> > Perceptual & Motor Skills: Perception, 2013, 117, 1, 1-12. It
> > 
> > is exceedingly clear & well written. It also gets your elegant
> > 
> > simulation / demonstration of levels of perceptual control out among
> > 
> > a wider readership.
> 
> Thank you! Thank you. On behalf of Warren & Zahra I would like to thank the Academy… Oops, wrong award;-)
> 
> Seriously, thanks very much Erling. It’s feels really nice to get praise but it’s especially nice to get such intelligent praise!
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Rick
> 
> > I like the method of strong inference that you folks use, by noting
> > 
> > a key difference in predictions between the “controlled outputs”
> > 
> > approach versus the “controlled results” approach. You lay out the
> > 
> > distinction very well about whether the timing delay of more complex
> > 
> > levels would arise from the motor output side or the perceptual
> > 
> > input side. By settling on the same motor output (i.e., a mouse-press)
> > 
> > for any of the conditions of your study, you identify a key place
> > 
> > where differences in those predictions would show themselves.
> > 
> > The instructions to press the mouse button as quickly as possible,
> > 
> > following introduction of a disturbance to the task, thereby restoring
> > 
> > the previous condition, allow you to operationalize the task in a
> > 
> > very straightforward way with your “% on Target” metric. The sooner
> > 
> > the button was pressed, the greater the percentage of time spent under
> > 
> > effective control, allowing clear measurements across conditions.
> > 
> > In the Discussion section, I especially liked how you anticipated &
> > 
> > dealt with the possible criticism that a higher level perception
> > 
> > would require more animation frames to perceive – in your words,
> > 
> > "it is true that shape cold be perceived in a single frame while
> > 
> > motion and sequence could be perceived only after at least two frames"
> > 
> > (p. 10). You go on to show that a _change_ in any of those conditions
> > 
> > could be detected right away within one frame, & thus the motor task
> > 
> > would be equivalent among all of them.
> > 
> > I also like that you folks include the caveat that some motor tasks
> > 
> > are more complex than others, & so would lead to differential rates
> > 
> > of motor production. The reason for utilizing the same motor output
> > 
> > on all the conditions of the experiment was not to ‘stack the deck’
> > 
> > against “controlled output” theories, but simply to test a spot where
> > 
> > “controlled output” versus “controlled result” would lead to
> > 
> > different predictions.
> > 
> > I always think it’s a good idea, in such write-ups, to be very clear
> > 
> > about the limiting conditions of what is being advanced. Not only
> > 
> > is the humility better received by the reader, but it subtly invites
> > 
> > the reader to expand the study into those new areas that have not
> > 
> > yet been tested.
> > 
> > Again, kudos to you, Warren, & Zahra, on an excellent article. Here’s
> > 
> > hoping that its clean logic will be persuasive to a variety of readers.
> > 
> > All the best,
> > 
> > Erling
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-cp-course-week-12-summary-of-ch-11-sequence-control/1456/6 "2013-09-29T17:53:21Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2013.09.29.1050)]

> **···**
>
> > John Kirkland (20130929)
> 
> > JK: Whilst reading para 3, page 140 I was reminded of Stephen Potter’s little book ‘Gamemanship: the art of winning without actually cheating’. For instance if you’re being beaten at golf ask your opponent to show you how they wrap their little finger of the left hand. This is enough to break the event sequence. Potter offers a number of ruses which follow the same principle.
> > 
> > [http://www.heretical.com/potter/](http://www.heretical.com/potter/)
> 
> > Of course academics have done this since too, possibly unaware of the basic PCT principle involved.
> 
> RM: Wow, someone else who knows about “Gamesmanship”; wonderful, gentle, sly, self-deprecating humor. What you describe is a case of disturbing a sequence if you ask the question _while_ they are putting. If your golf friend stops the putt sequence to answer you, this is a disturbance to the sequence (which can be annoying to your friend) but the sequence can be started over and carried our expertly after the explanation.
> 
> I think what Potter was getting at in this little piece of gamesmanship was not the winning by interrupting but, rather, winning by making your golf friend “self-conscious”. In PCT, what you are doing when you try to explain how you do something is bringing consciousness to a control process (making a putt) that you do (when you do it skillfully) without much consciousness. When you become conscious of what you are doing (controlling) you are bringing the reorganizing system into play (or so says PCT) which starts changing the parameters of control, the initial result being that your performance (control) becomes worse.
> 
> I think Potter, in this little piece of gamesmanship, was demonstrating the importance of “the zen of the game” for doing things well. Once you’ve learned to do something skillfully – once the reorganization system has done it’s work of building a good control organization - you want it to bug out (go into a zen state). Potter understood this (as do many people who do things skillfully) and knew, then, that the way to screw up your opponent was to get their reorganizing system into the game.
> 
> This aspect of PCT – the role of reorganization in skillful control – will be the main topic of chapter 14, on learning. So we’ll be getting their pretty soon!
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> > 
> 
> > With respect to leading question #5, consider Morse Code where V = …- Two sound sound configurations, dit and a dah. If there was no change there would be an ‘h’ (4 dits), and all the other Morse characters (and I don’t mean Lewis). Morse code is known as c/w (continuous wave) but perceptually there are sequences obtained by varying the ‘on/off’ switch.
> 
> > As for Q#4 Rick’s set a little puzzle. This could lead to an understanding of speech/language therapy, say with dyslexia. The phenomenon Bill mentions in Q#4 gained some publicity recently, see  
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typoglycemia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typoglycemia)
> 
> > From a PCT perspective could these ‘words’ be considered as events, with redundancy?
> 
> > Perhaps txt messages are of the same ilk.
> 
> > With one of the grandchildren the other day reading Dahl’s Matilda the word ‘queer’ appeared. I asked her to spell queen and was told ‘quine’.
> 
> > Kinds regards
> 
> > JohnK
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Richard Marken [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2013.09.24.1345)]
> 
> > Erling Jorgensen (2013.09.24 1300 EDT)–
> > 
> > > Rick Marken (Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:35:28 -0700)
> > 
> > Hi Rick,
> > 
> > I’m very impressed with the paper you, Warren Mansell, & Zahra Khatib
> > 
> > have put together, on “Motor Control as the Control of Perception,”
> > 
> > Perceptual & Motor Skills: Perception, 2013, 117, 1, 1-12. It
> > 
> > is exceedingly clear & well written. It also gets your elegant
> > 
> > simulation / demonstration of levels of perceptual control out among
> > 
> > a wider readership.
> 
> Thank you! Thank you. On behalf of Warren & Zahra I would like to thank the Academy… Oops, wrong award;-)
> 
> Seriously, thanks very much Erling. It’s feels really nice to get praise but it’s especially nice to get such intelligent praise!
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Rick
> 
> > I like the method of strong inference that you folks use, by noting
> > 
> > a key difference in predictions between the “controlled outputs”
> > 
> > approach versus the “controlled results” approach. You lay out the
> > 
> > distinction very well about whether the timing delay of more complex
> > 
> > levels would arise from the motor output side or the perceptual
> > 
> > input side. By settling on the same motor output (i.e., a mouse-press)
> > 
> > for any of the conditions of your study, you identify a key place
> > 
> > where differences in those predictions would show themselves.
> > 
> > The instructions to press the mouse button as quickly as possible,
> > 
> > following introduction of a disturbance to the task, thereby restoring
> > 
> > the previous condition, allow you to operationalize the task in a
> > 
> > very straightforward way with your “% on Target” metric. The sooner
> > 
> > the button was pressed, the greater the percentage of time spent under
> > 
> > effective control, allowing clear measurements across conditions.
> > 
> > In the Discussion section, I especially liked how you anticipated &
> > 
> > dealt with the possible criticism that a higher level perception
> > 
> > would require more animation frames to perceive – in your words,
> > 
> > "it is true that shape cold be perceived in a single frame while
> > 
> > motion and sequence could be perceived only after at least two frames"
> > 
> > (p. 10). You go on to show that a _change_ in any of those conditions
> > 
> > could be detected right away within one frame, & thus the motor task
> > 
> > would be equivalent among all of them.
> > 
> > I also like that you folks include the caveat that some motor tasks
> > 
> > are more complex than others, & so would lead to differential rates
> > 
> > of motor production. The reason for utilizing the same motor output
> > 
> > on all the conditions of the experiment was not to ‘stack the deck’
> > 
> > against “controlled output” theories, but simply to test a spot where
> > 
> > “controlled output” versus “controlled result” would lead to
> > 
> > different predictions.
> > 
> > I always think it’s a good idea, in such write-ups, to be very clear
> > 
> > about the limiting conditions of what is being advanced. Not only
> > 
> > is the humility better received by the reader, but it subtly invites
> > 
> > the reader to expand the study into those new areas that have not
> > 
> > yet been tested.
> > 
> > Again, kudos to you, Warren, & Zahra, on an excellent article. Here’s
> > 
> > hoping that its clean logic will be persuasive to a variety of readers.
> > 
> > All the best,
> > 
> > Erling
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)