Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.06.05.1347 ET)]

Boris:Â

I have a question for you regarding “behavior is control.�

I know you regularly take issue with Rick asserting that behavior is control but I wonder if you would agree with this statement: “Our behavior serves to control our perceptions.�

Fred Nickols

···

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 1:24 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Mad idea?

Hi Alison…

From: Alison Powers [mailto:controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 1:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Mad idea?

We are in a time when we need to push forward with this type of creative thinking as quickly as possible.

AP : One of the best things about the psychological aspect of PCT is that it teaches people not only to own and be responsible for their own thoughts and actions but to understand that it is not the environment that drives our thoughts and actions but a series of goals that we have developed within each of us based upon each of our own experiences, our own needs and desires.

HB : Great Alison. This is indeed one of the main points in PCT. Explain this to Rick. By his understanding »behavior is control«. »Error« comes somehow from environment into organism through »Controlled Perceptual Vriable« and initiate control in organism. So the »error« from envirnment should be somehow eliminated by organism. But as you pointed out, : it is not the environment that drives our thoughts and actions…This is definitelly in accordance wtih what Bill and Mary Powers had to say about PCT.

AP : At any moment we have the ability to change if only we have enough insight into what motivates us. Let us hope that a PCT based dialogue may help those involved in such a discussion, feel that taking a more empathic, sympathetic, insightful, and peaceful approach to solving humanity’s problems is worthwhile.

It’s not mad. It’s brilliant. And starting with children could also serve as a great indirect way to get through to the parents.

HB : I must admitt that your PCT thinking is briliant. Where were you all these years when I and Rick had »battles« about who controls people. Not social neither physical enviroment. PCT as you say »teaches people to own and be responsible for their own thoughts and actions

Perfect !!!

Best,

Boris

On Jun 4, 2017 2:17 PM, “Rupert Young” rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

Yes, I’m aware of Charlie Hebdo to that extent, but didn’t see how they were relevant to my post. I was talking about educating children to think for themselves so that they are not ripe for radicalisation in the first place

On 04/06/2017 18:32, Warren Mansell wrote:

Charlie Ebdo is a satirical secular magazine that is written by liberals and takes liberal values as a given and often provokes extremists with potentially offensive material, whereas this would be a forum for potential extremists to constructively criticise liberal values with arguments that due to screening and editing are not offensive but respectful. I am not sure how much they would stick with it as so much of their material wouldn’t get through the screening process, and I haven’t pre-empted what valid non-offensive criticisms would arise, but it seems like something very different from the current systems is needed. Maybe it could be piloted in adolescents first…

Warren

On 4 Jun 2017, at 18:03, rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

Would you elucidate, I’m not familiar with Charlie Hebdo?

On 4 June 2017 17:02:40 BST, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you Rupert! I realised that this initiative would actually be the opposite of what Charlie Hebdo do…

On 4 Jun 2017, at 15:18, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

Sounds like a great idea!

I think all so-called solutions I hear about in the media are addressing only the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. We see the end result of the problem as ideology, but to get to the core of the problem we need to address the process by which that ideology develops. This issue goes far wider than specifically Islamic ideology including any ideology based upon unsubstantiated belief. For want of a better term call it Faith Ideology, which would also cover racism, nationalism etc, and Christianity, moderate or otherwise.

In this sense the process of faith (believing in stuff without basis, and not questioning those beliefs) is seen as a virtue across society. For example, Faith schools are seen as a good thing by the current UK government. I think this cultivates and perpetuates an environment where any beliefs, no matter how extreme, can take hold. If we bring up our children to believe in nonsense we should not be surprised that when anger, resentment and dissatisfaction is thrown into the mix those beliefs turn extreme.

If, however, we bring up our children in an environment of critical thinking and scepticism, where they naturally question both what they are told and their own internal beliefs, and to be content with a neutral perspective rather than requiring certainty then they are more likely to be immune from extremism and radicalisation.

A solution that is put forward that takes that scepticism approach could extinguish extremism within a generation. If not then it will remain with us for many generations to come.

Unfortunately I don’t feel very optimistic that this will change as the moderates (Christian and Muslim) and the general “establishment” support this process themselves; they are personally invested in it, for whatever reason.

I would be very interested in what Prof Pilkington thinks about this and if there is any recognition of it amongst those who are in positions of appropriate influence.

Regards,
Rupert

On 04/06/2017 12:51, Warren Mansell wrote:

Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.

THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and protest against our western society

Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

< div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

Regards,
Dr Rupert Young
www.perceptualrobots.com

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[rsmarken]

MT: A colon is sometimes used in English where one might use “is”, often in a title, for emphasis. So I read that title as saying quite directly that “Behaviour is control” (of perception, of course).

···

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.06.1225)]

Fred Nickols (2017.06.05.1347 ET)

Â

FN: Boris: I have a question for you regarding “behavior is control.â€?

Â

FN: I know you regularly take issue with Rick asserting that behavior is control but I wonder if you would agree with this statement: “Our behavior serves to control our perceptions.â€?

RM: I think the problem here is with the word “behavior”. In PCT, “behavior” means what it does in common parlance: what we see people doing. In one of his papers Powers says that when he talks about “behavior” he is referring to the things people do to which we give names (because we see them done over and over again). Some examples of behavior are “lifting a finger”, “writing an email”, “tying shoelaces”, “playing Go”, “voting”, etc. In PCT, all behavior (except a muscle twitch or a glandular secretion) is both action and a controlled result of action. For example, what we see as “writing an email” consists of the actions (finger movements) used produce the email and the resulting email itself (the controlled result of those actions).Â

RM: When you say "Our behavior serves to control our perceptionsâ€? you are using the term “behavior” to refer only to the actions that produce a result, the result being a perception from the point of view of the person producing it. That is, you are privileging the “action” view a behavior over the “result” view. For example, take the behavior of “tying shoelaces”. You can say that this “behavior” consists of the actions (movements) that result in the tied laces; but you could also say that this behavior consists of the tied laces that result from these movements.Â

RM:  Saying that “behavior is control” simply calls attention to the fact what we call “behaviors” are both actions and results; in PCT lingo, behaviors are both outputs and the variables controlled by those outputs – controlled variables. So the behavior called “tying shoelaces” points to a control process where the controlled variable is the state of the laces, the reference state of this variable is “tied” and the outputs that produce this result are the hand movements the get the laces tied. Moreover, what we see as the output component of a behavior are typically controlled variables themselves and what we see as the controlled variable component of behavior is typically an output itself. For example, the movements (outputs) used to produce the reference state of a controlled variable (tied laces) are themselves a controlled variable; their speed and direction are the controlled result of muscle forces. And the tied laces (the controlled variable) that result from those outputs (movements) are themselves outputs that are the means of controlling another variable, the “onness” of the shoes.

RM: So “control” is just a more precise definition of the informal term “behavior”. “Control” refers to the observation of a variable being maintained in a reference state, protected from disturbance. And this is what we can see is what is going on with the things we call “behaviors”. “Tying shoelaces”, for example, refers to the observation that a variable (the state of the laces) is maintained in a reference state (consistently brought to the state “tied”) protected from disturbance (the different initial state of the laces, variations in the forces the affect the laces, etc). When you are able to see behavior – any named behavior – as being both output that affects the state of a controlled variable and a controlled variable itself – you have learned to see behavior through control theory glasses. By the way, this is all discussed in the first 2 chapters of “Controlling People”.Â

RM:  Bill called his book “Behavior” The control of perception" because psychologists are familiar with the term behavior; it is what  psychologists study. But the first thing Bill talks about in B:CP (as we do in “Controlling People”) is the fact that behavior is control. So Bill could have called the book “Control: The Control of Perception”,describing the fact that what is in the book is a theoy (control of perception) that accounts for the controlling we see as behavior. But that would have been rather confusing to people who didn’t already know that behavior is control. So I think the actual title of the book, “Behavior: The control of perception”, is perfect as is. And I especially like Martin’s way of reading it (since it’s the same way I read it):

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.06.06.1536 ET)]

I’ve read your response, Rick, and I think I understand what you’re saying. However, lumping actions in with the effects or results of those actions and calling that conglomeration “behavior� will, in my humble opinion, pose a massive barrier to getting most people I know to understand and accept PCT. The field of human performance technology has for many decades, drawn a distinction between a person’s actions and the outcomes or results of those actions.  If I understand what you’re saying, there is no distinction, they are simply part of behavior.

So, FWIW, I don’t buy your assertion that “writing an email� consists of the finger movements and the email itself. Ditto for your lace-tying example.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 3:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.06.1225)]

Fred Nickols (2017.06.05.1347 ET)

FN: Boris: I have a question for you regarding “behavior is control.�

FN: I know you regularly take issue with Rick asserting that behavior is control but I wonder if you would agree with this statement: “Our behavior serves to control our perceptions.�

RM: I think the problem here is with the word “behavior”. In PCT, “behavior” means what it does in common parlance: what we see people doing. In one of his papers Powers says that when he talks about “behavior” he is referring to the things people do to which we give names (because we see them done over and over again). Some examples of behavior are “lifting a finger”, “writing an email”, “tying shoelaces”, “playing Go”, “voting”, etc. In PCT, all behavior (except a muscle twitch or a glandular secretion) is both action and a controlled result of action. For example, what we see as “writing an email” consists of the actions (finger movements) used produce the email and the resulting email itself (the controlled result of those actions).

RM: When you say "Our behavior serves to control our perceptionsâ€? you are using the term “behavior” to refer only to the actions that produce a result, the result being a perception from the point of view of the person producing it. That is, you are privileging the “action” view a behavior over the “result” view. For example, take the behavior of “tying shoelaces”. You can say that this “behavior” consists of the actions (movements) that result in the tied laces; but you could also say that this behavior consists of the tied laces that result from these movements.

RM: Saying that “behavior is control” simply calls attention to the fact what we call “behaviors” are both actions and results; in PCT lingo, behaviors are both outputs and the variables controlled by those outputs – controlled variables. So the behavior called “tying shoelaces” points to a control process where the controlled variable is the state of the laces, the reference state of this variable is “tied” and the outputs that produce this result are the hand movements the get the laces tied. Moreover, what we see as the output component of a behavior are typically controlled variables themselves and what we see as the controlled variable component of behavior is typically an output itself. For example, the movements (outputs) used to produce the reference state of a controlled variable (tied laces) are themselves a controlled variable; their speed and direction are the controlled result of muscle forces. And the tied laces (the controlled variable) that result from those outputs (movements) are themselves outputs that are the means of controlling another variable, the “onness” of the shoes.

RM: So “control” is just a more precise definition of the informal term “behavior”. “Control” refers to the observation of a variable being maintained in a reference state, protected from disturbance. And this is what we can see is what is going on with the things we call “behaviors”. “Tying shoelaces”, for example, refers to the observation that a variable (the state of the laces) is maintained in a reference state (consistently brought to the state “tied”) protected from disturbance (the different initial state of the laces, variations in the forces the affect the laces, etc). When you are able to see behavior – any named behavior – as being both output that affects the state of a controlled variable and a controlled variable itself – you have learned to see behavior through control theory glasses. By the way, this is all discussed in the first 2 chapters of “Controlling People”.

RM: Bill called his book “Behavior” The control of perception" because psychologists are familiar with the term behavior; it is what psychologists study. But the first thing Bill talks about in B:CP (as we do in “Controlling People”) is the fact that behavior is control. So Bill could have called the book “Control: The Control of Perception”,describing the fact that what is in the book is a theoy (control of perception) that accounts for the controlling we see as behavior. But that would have been rather confusing to people who didn’t already know that behavior is control. So I think the actual title of the book, “Behavior: The control of perception”, is perfect as is. And I especially like Martin’s way of reading it (since it’s the same way I read it):

MT: A colon is sometimes used in English where one might use “is”, often in a title, for emphasis. So I read that title as saying quite directly that “Behaviour is control” (of perception, of course).

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.06.1410)]

···

Fred Nickols (2017.06.06.1536 ET)–

Â

FN: I’ve read your response, Rick, and I think I understand what you’re saying. However, lumping actions in with the effects or results of those actions and calling that conglomeration “behaviorâ€? will, in my humble opinion, pose a massive barrier to getting most people I know to understand and accept PCT.Â

RM: I don’t think I’m “lumping” actions with their effects. I’m just parsing behavior the way it’s parsed in a diagram of a living control system. Actions are the outputs and the results of those actions are the state of the controlled variable. Note that actions and controlled variable are outside the “system” in the PCT diagram. They are what an observer sees the system doing. They are the system’s behavior, which is a control process because the actions bring the controlled variable to a reference state while compensating for disturbances. I agree that this is a difficult thing to get across (let alone understand) Â – heck, it took an intelligence of the caliber of that of Bill Powers to first understand it – Â but I think it’s worth understanding. But perhaps it’s more important for researchers than others.

Â

FN: The field of human performance technology has for many decades, drawn a distinction between a person’s actions and the outcomes or results of those actions. If I understand what you’re saying, there is no distinction, they are simply part of behavior.

RM: Then you didn’t actually understand what I said. It looks like the human performance people are in a perfect position to understand the fact that behavior is control. As in the field of human performance, PCT also draws a distinction between actions and results. Actions are the outputs in the PCT model and the results of those actions are the state of the controlled variable, the input to the model. All the human performance people need to know is that the results of action are controlled. That’s why they are called a controlled variable.Â

RM: Maybe it would help the human performance people understand the fact that behavior is control if you developed the  idea in terms of a behavior that is probably familiar to them – operant behavior, such as pressing a lever to get a food reward. In this case the lever pressing is the action and the food delivery is the result. The two together are called an operant behavior. In PCT we would see the lever pressing as an output variable (varying in rate, for example) and food delivery as a controlled variable (also varying in rate). Henry Yin has shown that food reward rate is, indeed, a controlled variable since it is maintain in a reference state, protected from the effects of changes in the reward delivery schedule (food reward/press). Here’s his results:Â

Â

RM: So the operant behavior “pressing for food reward” that we see is a process of control; what is controlled is the reward delivery rate and the means of control is variation in the output press rate.Â

RM: But what you can also show using the example of operant behavior is that the action component of this behavior is also a controlled result and the controlled result component of this behavior is also an action. The action (lever pressing) component of the operant can be shown to be a controlled result in itself by introducing variable disturbances to the lever, so that variable amounts of force are needed to complete each “press”. What you should find is that the organism presses with exactly as much force as is needed to get the lever pressed each time. And the food delivery rate can be shown to be an action that controls another result – the amount of food consumed. You can do this by introducing disturbances to the size of the food rewards. What you should see is that the rate of pressing goes down when food rewards are large and increases when food rewards are small, so that the amount consumed remains fairly constant over time, protected from variations in the size of the food rewards.Â

Â

FN: So, FWIW, I don’t buy your assertion that “writing an email� consists of the finger movements and the email itself. Ditto for your lace-tying example.

RM: And I certainly can’t make you buy it. But I do ask that you consider what I say here and see if you can get yourself to buy it. I’m sure you’ll be very happy with your purchase (though we don’t take returns;-)

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 3:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.06.1225)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2017.06.05.1347 ET)

Â

FN: Boris: I have a question for you regarding “behavior is control.�

Â

FN: I know you regularly take issue with Rick asserting that behavior is control but I wonder if you would agree with this statement: “Our behavior serves to control our perceptions.�

Â

RM: I think the problem here is with the word “behavior”. In PCT, “behavior” means what it does in common parlance: what we see people doing. In one of his papers Powers says that when he talks about “behavior” he is referring to the things people do to which we give names (because we see them done over and over again). Some examples of behavior are “lifting a finger”, “writing an email”, “tying shoelaces”, “playing Go”, “voting”, etc. In PCT, all behavior (except a muscle twitch or a glandular secretion) is both action and a controlled result of action. For example, what we see as “writing an email” consists of the actions (finger movements) used produce the email and the resulting email itself (the controlled result of those actions).Â

Â

RM: When you say "Our behavior serves to control our perceptionsâ€? you are using the term “behavior” to refer only to the actions that produce a result, the result being a perception from the point of view of the person producing it. That is, you are privileging the “action” view a behavior over the “result” view. For example, take the behavior of “tying shoelaces”. You can say that this “behavior” consists of the actions (movements) that result in the tied laces; but you could also say that this behavior consists of the tied laces that result from these movements.Â

Â

RM:  Saying that “behavior is control” simply calls attention to the fact what we call “behaviors” are both actions and results; in PCT lingo, behaviors are both outputs and the variables controlled by those outputs – controlled variables. So the behavior called “tying shoelaces” points to a control process where the controlled variable is the state of the laces, the reference state of this variable is “tied” and the outputs that produce this result are the hand movements the get the laces tied. Moreover, what we see as the output component of a behavior are typically controlled variables themselves and what we see as the controlled variable component of behavior is typically an output itself. For example, the movements (outputs) used to produce the reference state of a controlled variable (tied laces) are themselves a controlled variable; their speed and direction are the controlled result of muscle forces. And the tied laces (the controlled variable) that result from those outputs (movements) are themselves outputs that are the means of controlling another variable, the “onness” of the shoes.

Â

RM: So “control” is just a more precise definition of the informal term “behavior”. “Control” refers to the observation of a variable being maintained in a reference state, protected from disturbance. And this is what we can see is what is going on with the things we call “behaviors”. “Tying shoelaces”, for example, refers to the observation that a variable (the state of the laces) is maintained in a reference state (consistently brought to the state “tied”) protected from disturbance (the different initial state of the laces, variations in the forces the affect the laces, etc). When you are able to see behavior – any named behavior – as being both output that affects the state of a controlled variable and a controlled variable itself – you have learned to see behavior through control theory glasses. By the way, this is all discussed in the first 2 chapters of “Controlling People”.Â

Â

RM:  Bill called his book “Behavior” The control of perception" because psychologists are familiar with the term behavior; it is what  psychologists study. But the first thing Bill talks about in B:CP (as we do in “Controlling People”) is the fact that behavior is control. So Bill could have called the book “Control: The Control of Perception”,describing the fact that what is in the book is a theoy (control of perception) that accounts for the controlling we see as behavior. But that would have been rather confusing to people who didn’t already know that behavior is control. So I think the actual title of the book, “Behavior: The control of perception”, is perfect as is. And I especially like Martin’s way of reading it (since it’s the same way I read it):

Â

MT: A colon is sometimes used in English where one might use “is”, often in a title, for emphasis. So I read that title as saying quite directly that “Behaviour is control” (of perception, of course).

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[wmansell]

Hi Rick, that is a great answer. I think we can often get into tangles when we try to reapply our PCT operational definitions of everyday terms, like ‘control’ and ‘Behavior’ back into everyday language. It is almost as though we should be explicit every time we use either ‘version’ in our explanations. Or maybe that we always use a technical term within the PCT model rather than the everyday term when we mean the PCT definition?

Warren

···

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.06.1225)]

Fred Nickols (2017.06.05.1347 ET)

FN: Boris: I have a question for you regarding “behavior is control.�

FN: I know you regularly take issue with Rick asserting that behavior is control but I wonder if you would agree with this statement: “Our behavior serves to control our perceptions.�

RM: I think the problem here is with the word “behavior”. In PCT, “behavior” means what it does in common parlance: what we see people doing. In one of his papers Powers says that when he talks about “behavior” he is referring to the things people do to which we give names (because we see them done over and over again). Some examples of behavior are “lifting a finger”, “writing an email”, “tying shoelaces”, “playing Go”, “voting”, etc. In PCT, all behavior (except a muscle twitch or a glandular secretion) is both action and a controlled result of action. For example, what we see as “writing an email” consists of the actions (finger movements) used produce the email and the resulting email itself (the controlled result of those actions).

RM: When you say "Our behavior serves to control our perceptionsâ€? you are using the term “behavior” to refer only to the actions that produce a result, the result being a perception from the point of view of the person producing it. That is, you are privileging the “action” view a behavior over the “result” view. For example, take the behavior of “tying shoelaces”. You can say that this “behavior” consists of the actions (movements) that result in the tied laces; but you could also say that this behavior consists of the tied laces that result from these movements.

RM: Saying that “behavior is control” simply calls attention to the fact what we call “behaviors” are both actions and results; in PCT lingo, behaviors are both outputs and the variables controlled by those outputs – controlled variables. So the behavior called “tying shoelaces” points to a control process where the controlled variable is the state of the laces, the reference state of this variable is “tied” and the outputs that produce this result are the hand movements the get the laces tied. Moreover, what we see as the output component of a behavior are typically controlled variables themselves and what we see as the controlled variable component of behavior is typically an output itself. For example, the movements (outputs) used to produce the reference state of a controlled variable (tied laces) are themselves a controlled variable; their speed and direction are the controlled result of muscle forces. And the tied laces (the controlled variable) that result from those outputs (movements) are themselves outputs that are the means of controlling another variable, the “onness” of the shoes.

RM: So “control” is just a more precise definition of the informal term “behavior”. “Control” refers to the observation of a variable being maintained in a reference state, protected from disturbance. And this is what we can see is what is going on with the things we call “behaviors”. “Tying shoelaces”, for example, refers to the observation that a variable (the state of the laces) is maintained in a reference state (consistently brought to the state “tied”) protected from disturbance (the different initial state of the laces, variations in the forces the affect the laces, etc). When you are able to see behavior – any named behavior – as being both output that affects the state of a controlled variable and a controlled variable itself – you have learned to see behavior through control theory glasses. By the way, this is all discussed in the first 2 chapters of “Controlling People”.

RM: Bill called his book “Behavior” The control of perception" because psychologists are familiar with the term behavior; it is what psychologists study. But the first thing Bill talks about in B:CP (as we do in “Controlling People”) is the fact that behavior is control. So Bill could have called the book “Control: The Control of Perception”,describing the fact that what is in the book is a theoy (control of perception) that accounts for the controlling we see as behavior. But that would have been rather confusing to people who didn’t already know that behavior is control. So I think the actual title of the book, “Behavior: The control of perception”, is perfect as is. And I especially like Martin’s way of reading it (since it’s the same way I read it):

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Fred….

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 9:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.06.1225)]

Fred Nickols (2017.06.05.1347 ET)

FN: Boris: I have a question for you regarding “behavior is control.�

FN: I know you regularly take issue with Rick asserting that behavior is control but I wonder if you would agree with this statement: “Our behavior serves to control our perceptions.�

HB : Ignore Rick’s phylosophy. He is contaminating CSGnet with his »Bull….«. and his full ignorancy about how organism control and stay alive. Non of Ricks Living Control Systems would survive more then 1 minute if it would control in the manner of his RCT. And if such RCT control loop would really exist in evolution of human kind, it would be on the stage of Amoeba.

You are on good way Fred. But you could say that »Our behaviors serves organism to control perceptions. By controlling perception orgsniam achieve and maintain preselected state in the controlling system not outside. If controlling system would control outside it would never survive,

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

HB : So your thinking is going in right direction Fred. Keep it on. Just ignore what Rick wrote although I’m criticizing his RCT theory. Â

HB : From Rikcs’ answer (in my name) maybe he has some pseudonim under Boris, we can see clearly, that he is promoting RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory).

There are all elements of it :

RM :

“Control” refers to the observation of a variable being maintained in a reference state, protected from disturbance.

RCT (definition of control) :

1.   CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
   

RM : When you are able to see behavior – any named behavior – as being both output that affects the state of a controlled variable and a controlled variable itself

RCT (definition of output function) :

2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

3.   FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
   

What is missing is definition of »input function« and RCT definition of »perceptual signal« what we clearly know what it is, because Rick described it so many times on CSGnet :

4.   INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
   

5.   COMPARATOR : ????
   

So know we have well known RCT (Rikcs’ Control theory) model of control loop. If we compoare this Rikcs »bull…« tto Bills real beauty PCT we got difference between real PCT and RCT :

Ladies and gentlemen and now real PCT control loop from inventor of PCT and founder of this forum to whom most of writings could be dedicated and with more respect :

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system…

<

Bill P (LCS III):

:…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

HB : We can see that difference between RCT (Ricks Cintrol Loop) and PCT control loop is enormous. RCT is promoting »Behavior is Control« and PCT is promoting »Control of Perception«.

RM : So Bill could have called the book “Control: The Control of Perception”,describing the fact that what is in the book is a theoy (control of perception) that accounts for the controlling we see as behavior.

HB : Bills’ book is theory about »Control of perception« and controlling in the control system with all variety of effectors that can maintain preselected state in the controlling system. Behavior is just one of those effectors that are supporting control in the controlling system. Â

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Now let us see what Mary Powers and Bill has to say about Ricks RCT theory.

Bill P :

1.   To control perception means to act on it in such a way as to bring it to desired state and keep it there despite other forces tending to disturb it. "Controlling perception" means controlling the state of some specific perception.
   

2.   In order to control is absolutely necesary to perceive. We control perception of our and other behavior not control it directly.
   

HB : RCT problem is that LCS didn’t perceive the effects of behavior and behavior is already controlling the »controlled variable« without being perceived.

Bill P :

3.   Behavior affects the world that really exist. Those effects, after being filtered through the properties of human perception, show up as changes in the world we know about.
   

Mary Powers :

•      PCT requires a major shift in thinking from the traditional approach : that what is controlled is not behavior, but perception
  

•      A control system receives input—perceptions—from its environment. This input is a combined fuunction of environmental effects plus the effects of its own actions. The input is compared to a reference state, and the difference drives the output, which is immediately and continuously perceived, along with its effect or lack of effect on the environment. The output varies to reduce the difference between input and reference states.
  

Ricks »control loop«  is promoting as I was right all the time »Behavior is control« theory instead of »Control of perception« theory. Â

Best,

Boris

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Warren

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 8:25 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

Hi Rick, that is a great answer.

HB : Don’t be naive Warren. It’s a tipycal behavioristic answer with elements of self-regulation. But I’m interested what do you think about Bills’ and Mary Powers Thesis. This is forum in their memorium. Remember ? And what they say is PCT which is total contrast to Ricks RCT. I’d like to »hear« how do you evaluate the real PCT ?

I think we can often get into tangles when we try to reapply our PCT operational definitions of everyday terms, like ‘control’ and ‘Behavior’ back into everyday language. It is almost as though we should be explicit every time we use either ‘version’ in our explanations. Or maybe that we always use a technical term within the PCT model rather than the everyday term when we mean the PCT definition?

HB : If you don’t understand PCT definition I’m sure that you don’t understand PCT. But your mouth are full of PCT and we didn’t know enough clear what your brains are doing in that time. It seems that they think about RCT and behaviorism.

Boris

Warren

On 6 Jun 2017, at 20:25, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.06.1225)]

Fred Nickols (2017.06.05.1347 ET)

FN: Boris: I have a question for you regarding “behavior is control.�

FN: I know you regularly take issue with Rick asserting that behavior is control but I wonder if you would agree with this statement: “Our behavior serves to control our perceptions.�

RM: I think the problem here is with the word “behavior”. In PCT, “behavior” means what it does in common parlance: what we see people doing. In one of his papers Powers says that when he talks about “behavior” he is referring to the things people do to which we give names (because we see them done over and over again). Some examples of behavior are “lifting a finger”, “writing an email”, “tying shoelaces”, “playing Go”, “voting”, etc. In PCT, all behavior (except a muscle twitch or a glandular secretion) is both action and a controlled result of action. For example, what we see as “writing an email” consists of the actions (finger movements) used produce the email and the resulting email itself (the controlled result of those actions).

RM: When you say "Our behavior serves to control our perceptionsâ€? you are using the term “behavior” to refer only to the actions that produce a result, the result being a perception from the point of view of the person producing it. That is, you are privileging the “action” view a behavior over the “result” view. For example, take the behavior of “tying shoelaces”. You can say that this “behavior” consists of the actions (movements) that result in the tied laces; but you could also say that this behavior consists of the tied laces that result from these movements.

RM: Saying that “behavior is control” simply calls attention to the fact what we call “behaviors” are both actions and results; in PCT lingo, behaviors are both outputs and the variables controlled by those outputs – controlled variables. So the behavior called “tying shoelaces” points to a control process where the controlled variable is the state of the laces, the reference state of this variable is “tied” and the outputs that produce this result are the hand movements the get the laces tied. Moreover, what we see as the output component of a behavior are typically controlled variables themselves and what we see as the controlled variable component of behavior is typically an output itself. For example, the movements (outputs) used to produce the reference state of a controlled variable (tied laces) are themselves a controlled variable; their speed and direction are the controlled result of muscle forces. And the tied laces (the controlled variable) that result from those outputs (movements) are themselves outputs that are the means of controlling another variable, the “onness” of the shoes.

RM: So “control” is just a more precise definition of the informal term “behavior”. “Control” refers to the observation of a variable being maintained in a reference state, protected from disturbance. And this is what we can see is what is going on with the things we call “behaviors”. “Tying shoelaces”, for example, refers to the observation that a variable (the state of the laces) is maintained in a reference state (consistently brought to the state “tied”) protected from disturbance (the different initial state of the laces, variations in the forces the affect the laces, etc). When you are able to see behavior – any named behavior – as being both output that affects the state of a controlled variable and a controlled variable itself – you have learned to see behavior through control theory glasses. By the way, this is all discussed in the first 2 chapters of “Controlling People”.

RM: Bill called his book “Behavior” The control of perception" because psychologists are familiar with the term behavior; it is what psychologists study. But the first thing Bill talks about in B:CP (as we do in “Controlling People”) is the fact that behavior is control. So Bill could have called the book “Control: The Control of Perception”,describing the fact that what is in the book is a theoy (control of perception) that accounts for the controlling we see as behavior. But that would have been rather confusing to people who didn’t already know that behavior is control. So I think the actual title of the book, “Behavior: The control of perception”, is perfect as is. And I especially like Martin’s way of reading it (since it’s the same way I read it):

MT: A colon is sometimes used in English where one might use “is”, often in a title, for emphasis. So I read that title as saying quite directly that “Behaviour is control” (of perception, of course).

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.08.1410)]

···

Eetu Pikkarainen (2017-06-07)–
Â

EP: However, I think it [the word “behavior”] is not the core point of “endless confusionâ€?, but rather the most central concept of “controlâ€?, which is used in a fuzzy every day meaning. In everyday speech (I
think as non-English speaker, but inferring from the use of the respective word “kontrolliâ€? in Finnish) control is a synonym to adjust, affect, alter, keep in place, restrict, surveillance etc. (And it is many of these meanings which have caused the repulsive
aura for the concept.)

Â

EP: In strict and technical use the definition of control – if I havee understood it right – is something like: “causing the valuue (measure) of some variable towards some reference value
and keeping it near it�.

RM: That’s good. Though I think it’s good to add “protected from disturbance” in order to be explicit about why “keeping it there” is an important part of the definition of control. It distinguishes “control” from “cause”. For example, a magnet causes the position of iron filings to move towards some reference value (the position of the magnet) and keeps it near it, but the magnet doesn’t control this variable, as is easily demonstrated by disturbing the iron filings by pushing them away from the magnet. If the position of the filings were controlled the pushing would have been resisted and, thus, the position of the filings would be protected from that disturbance.

EP: I do not want to change our everyday speech, but I hope that in so important theory as PCT, the theoretical speech could be strict and coherent – at least with the most central concepts.<

RM: Yes, and I think that it’s not only important to talk about things precisely but also to understand the phenomena to which the talk points. And it is, indeed, particularly important to get the technical meaning of “control” right in discussions of PCT since control (as it is seen in the behavior of living organisms) is the phenomenon that the theory explains. And I think the best way to get an understanding of what control is to do the demonstrations of the phenomenon of control that have been developed by Powers (http://www.pct-labs.com) and myself (http://mindreadings.com/demos.htm).

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.09.1100)]

···

Eetu Pikkarainen (2017-06-09)-

EP: In strict and technical use the definition of control – if I have understood it right  “ is something like: “causing the value (measure) of some variable towards
some reference value and keeping it near it�.

RM: That’s good. Though I think it’s good to add “protected from disturbance” in order to be explicit about why “keeping it there” is an important part of the definition of control. It distinguishes “control”
from “cause”. For example, a magnet causes the position of iron filings to move towards some reference value (the position of the magnet) and keeps it near it, but the magnet doesn’t control this variable, as is easily demonstrated by disturbing the iron filings
by pushing them away from the magnet. If the position of the filings were controlled the pushing would have been resisted and, thus, the position of the filings would be protected from that disturbance.

EP: Are you serious? That is quite Aristotelian view! A stone has a reference value to lay on the ground and a cloud has a reference value to hang in the sky? A magnet has a reference value
even for other objects namely the iron filings? No, there are no reference values and thus no control in inanimate (and non-engineered) nature. To cause just something (something causes an object to fall down or rise up or come near) does not mean that there
were a reference value.

RM: And that is precisely what I said above. The filings can be shown to not be controlled by the magnet because even though they appear to be kept in a reference state (close to the magnet) they are clearly not controlled because disturbances to that apparent reference (goal) state are completely effective; the position of the filings is not protected from disturbance so there is no control involved.

EP: The resistance against disturbances is crucially important thing.

RM: Yes, that was the point of my adding “protected from disturbance” to your definition of control. I gave the example of the iron filings to show that your definition of control is incomplete. The magnet’s effect on the filings is consistent with your definition of control: "causing the value (measure) of some variable towards some reference value and keeping it near itâ€?. The magnet does keep the filings at a reference value (at the magnet) but it doesn’t resist disturbances that push the filings away from that reference value; that is, it doesn’t act to protect the filings from the effects of disturbances. If, for some reason, you don’t like describing this as “protected from disturbance”, it’s fine with me if you add to your definition of control “while resisting disturbances that would push the variable away from the reference value”. Both phrases say the same thing but I think “protected from disturbance” is more elegant.

Â

EP:  I thought “keeping it thereâ€? as active keeping,

RM: Excellent. Your understanding of English is quite nuanced! Yes, if “keeping” were always understood to be “active keeping” my added phrase would be unnecessary. I added “protected from disturbance” to make it clear that the “keeping” aspect of control is active and to make explicit why it had to be active: because of those pesky disturbances. Â

Â

EP: But I would not use the term: protection, because first it
is too strong: it sounds like it keeps the disturbances away, so that they do not disturb.

RM: Well, that’s fine with me; you can use “resistance to disturbance” or “opposition to disturbance” if you prefer. But I like “protected from disturbance”, not only because it often makes for more elegant prose but because it better describes what happens when control is very good. In that case, the actions of a control system nearly perfectly oppose disturbances as they happen so that the effect of the disturbances on the controlled variable are almost non-existent; the controlled variable appears to be completely undisturbed when control is good so that the controlled variable can be quite correctly described as being protected from disturbances. Â

RM: Yes, and I think that it’s not only important to talk about things precisely but also to understand the phenomena to which the talk points.

And it is, indeed, particularly important to get the technical meaning of “control” right in discussions of PCT since control (as it is seen in the behavior of living organisms) is the phenomenon that the theory explains. And I think the best way to
get an understanding of what control is to do the demonstrations of the phenomenon of control that have been developed by Powers (http://www.pct-labs.com) and myself (http://mindreadings.com/demos.htm).

EP: Hmm, I am sorry but I have a bit feeling that after I had understood the first demo then the nest ones did not offer very much. Except of course higher level demos like Powers’ hand.

RM: Boy, you’re a tough audience;-) Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Down…

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 11:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.08.1410)]

Eetu Pikkarainen (2017-06-07)–

EP: However, I think it [the word “behavior”] is not the core point of “endless confusionâ€?, but rather the most central concept of “controlâ€?, which is used in a fuzzy every day meaning. In everyday speech (I think as non-English speaker, but inferring from the use of the respective word “kontrolliâ€? in Finnish) control is a synonym to adjust, affect, alter, keep in place, restrict, surveillance etc. (And it is many of these meanings which have caused the repulsive aura for the concept.)

EP: In strict and technical use the definition of control – if I have understood it right â– is something like: “causing the value (measure) of some variable towards some reference value and keeping it near itâ€?.

RM: That’s good. Though I think it’s good to add “protected from disturbance” in order to be explicit about why “keeping it there” is an important part of the definition of control.

HB : How many times do I have to repeat that nothing in orgsnism is protected against disturbances.

Definition of control is clear.

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

HB : There is no »protection from disturbances« but there are effects of actions on environment, among other things canceling the effects of disturbances.

If you are protected than you will of course allow that I ask somebody to shoot you, because nothing will happen. You control in such way that you are »protected« from disturbances (bullits). We are again in Occultism and Parapsychology. Beside Telekinesis and everything in control loop happening at the same time you are protected against all disturbances. And as I noticed in some of your posts we could be talking that you are developing also »Third Eye«.Â

As we know that nothing is controlled outside but inside organism, it’s not clear what could be so important part of the definition of control in organisms so that they could be »protected from disturbances«. Name one proces or structure in organism that is protected from disturbances ?

Obviously you can’t abandon idea that something is controlled outside and of course organism is that outside »protecting from disturbances« whatever it is controlled outside.

You need this useless term to emphasize that there is »controlled variable« in environment, that can be protected with »behavior is control«. And for bonus you constructed some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« that is carrying »protection« against distrubances into organism.

You just said that you know that there is no »controlled variable« in environment. So there is no need that »Behavior is control« and of course no need that something is »protected against disturbances« outside organism.

Rick, start thinking only in PCT manner that the only controlled variable in control loop is perceptual signal. If you don’t beleive me and Martin or anybody else, then you can at least beleive Rupert. He explained you many times the same thing, bur you still don’t use this knowledge.

RY earlier : Sure, a perceptual signal (q.i*g) may correspond to, or be a function of, variable aspects of the environment (q.i) but it is the perceptual signal that is controlled not the variable aspects of the environment.

HB : Usuall terms used in PCT (99 %) instead of »protected from disturbances« are : counteraction, canceling, adjustment, opposing, etc… »prottected from disturbances« is used so rare (1%) that it can be deleted.Â

RM: Yes, and I think that it’s not only important to talk about things precisely but also to understand the phenomena to which the talk points. And it is, indeed, particularly important to get the technical meaning of “control” right in discussions of PCT since control (as it is seen in the behavior of living organisms) is the phenomenon that the theory explains.

HB : The control is indeed the central point but not in environment of the controlling system, It is inside controlling system. See definition above.

RM : And I think the best way to get an understanding of what control is to do the demonstrations of the phenomenon of control that have been developed by Powers (http://www.pct-labs.com) and myself (http://mindreadings.com/demos.htm).

AGM : oh, man, you can’t stop listening to yourself, can you?

HB : I agree with Alex. You are talking too much Rick. Your demos are usless Rick. You mostly represent »controlled variable« in environment of the control system not inside it, starting with »distance« not »perception of distance«. The problem is that your RCT can work with some cases which you carefully choose. But generaly speaking you agree that your RCT theory fails when higher level variables are controlled in hierarchy…

RM (2013) : But the intentional behavior that occurs in real life often involves the control of variables that are impossible to represent as simple function of physical variables, e.g., the honesty of a communication or the intimacy of a realtionship. A quantitative approcah to the TCV will not work when trying to study such abstract variables….

RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.

HB : All these »beahviors« are in accordance with PCT model. But they are not in accordance with RCT model where there is »controlled variable« in environment. All these »behaviors« can’t be explained by your behavioristic model with »behavior is control« and »controlled variable« in environment, where »control« is coming from environment into controlling system. See Henry Yin.

HB : We need general theory that can explain all behaviors not just some choosen one. And that is PCT model of how organisms function and consequently behave with no »controlled variable« in outer environment.

If we can finally agree that this diagram is starting point of all PCT analyses on CSGnet and that you’ll start using »perception of control« and perceptual signal as »controlled variable« in your posts instead of »Behavior is control« and »controlled variable« in environment, we’ll agree upon technical meaning of "control"and thus about what PCT is. Do you understand ?

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery