I think that if we want to talk you have to keep you promises. We’ve talked already about the matter you are offering here. And you promissed that you’ll answer about physiological evidences how neuron (comparator) function. But you didn’t. I really don’t see any sense in repeating myself if somebody doesn’t keep his promises. Instead you are repeating your »mistakes« about »comparator«. You are affirming things without any evidence. It’s just because you said so. What kind of science is that ?
···
From: Bruce Abbott [mailto:bbabbott@frontier.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 3:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion (was Re: What is revolutionary about PCT?)
[From Bruce Abbott (2017.10.15.0910 EDT)]
From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 5:03 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Behavioural Illusion (was Re: What is revolutionary about PCT?)
Sorry Bruce to interrupt…
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 1:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Behavioural Illusion (was Re: What is revolutionary about PCT?)
Rick Marken (2017.10.11.1608)
Bruce Abbott (2017.10.09.2240 EDT)
Rick Marken (2017.10.09.1030) –
RM: The relationship between disturbance and output is not causal The causal link from disturbance to output is “erased” by the simultaneous effect of the output on the controlled variable.
HB : Which is what ?
RM : The actual cause of the output in a closed loop is the controlled variable itself.
HB : Do I understand right that perceptual variable (the controlled variable) is the actual cause of output ?
BA new: I think that Rick meant the input variable, qi. CV is another label for same.
HB (new) : So if I understand right you just say that CV is another label for i.q. and now we have to believe you ??? Just because Bruce said so. I think you’ll have to support you affirmation with evidences :
-
Can you find me 90 % of Bills diagrams and definitions where we can see clearly that i.q. and CV is the same.
-
Can you explain what is controlling CV outside and how ?
-
Are you saying that “behavior is control� ? Otherwise we can’t understand how control was transferred outside the organism ?
-
If there is something controlled outside (CV) then we can expect that control is transferred inside organism through perceptual signal which become in Ricks’ theory “Controlled Perceptual Variable�. Find me in Bills’ literature that term ???
-
How many controlled variables are there in control loop ? From PCT we know that there is sure one “controlled variable� and that is “perceptual signal�.
-
How many everyday behaviors can you describe with some CV in the environment ? I hope that we understand that in PCT we are talking about general diagram that should explain all behaviors.
BA (new) : If the perceptual signal is controlled, then so is qi,
HB (new) : Just because you said so. How i.q. is controlled to become CV ? What is controlling i.q. ? Behavior or Telekinesis ? When you are sunshining, lying on the beach how you are controlling outside organism the light (i.q.) coming from the Sun ?
BA (new) : ….because one is jjust a mathematical transformation of the other. Rick is saying that, as qi changes, this changes p, which changes the error signal, which changes the output. The output feeds back (via the feedback function) on qi.
HB (new) : I’ll not guess what Rick meant. Whatever theoretical games you are playing I’ve presented you physiological evidences that real organisms are not functioning in this way. Here you are talking about “causation� in the control loop. So If I understand right it works always in any LCS behavior ? What you are proposing is general “causation� ? It can be applied in functioning of every organism any time ? Do I understand right ?
Again I have to ask you : Do you want to introduce “behavior as control� ? In PCT whatever is outside is just affected by actions not controlled, so i.q. is not controlled. Find me one PCT diagram where you see that there is “controlled variable� outside organism. Or find me one definition in Bills PCT where we can see that there is some CV outside organism ?
RM : But this causal connection is difficult to see – especially when control is good --because the effect of the CV on output is quickly reduced by the output itself.
HB : Can you translate this into PCT language ?
BA new: qi = disturbance effect on qi – output effect on qi (the latter viaa the feedback function
HB : (new) : Here you are surprisingly talking just about i.q. And you are using right PCT terminology : “effect on� not “control�.
(BA new) : The effect of the disturbance changes qi. This change propagates around the loop to produce a change in output that quickly compensates for the effect of the disturbance on qi.
HB (new) : Why should nervous system always “quickly� compensate for the disturbance. Sometimes you have to think how you will compensate for the disturbance. Or plan. It’s not S-R. Perceptual signal cause directly output ??? That’s not how nervous system function. But in theory and imagination everything is possible.
BA: Let’s trace the events once around the loop. (I assume a constant reference value.) The disturbance causes the controlled variable (CV) to change, which causes the sensed input to change, ….
HB : Sorry Bruce I don’t understand quite. Does this mean that there is “controlled variable� in environment of control system that is changed by disturbances and then they “both� change perceptual signal, the controlled variable.
BA: No.
HB (new) : Do you want to say that perceptual signal is not the only “controlled variable� in the loop ? So that there is some other “controlled variable� in the environment of organism ? There are many “controlled variables� in the loop ? How many ? A great answer about this problem was given by Rupert.
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.
BA (new) : I had assumed an initial state of the control system in which there is no error, and therefore an output of zero, which produces a feedback value of zero.
HB (new): We’ve already talked about the problem of references being zero so to produce zero “error signalâ€?. If that happens I assume that organism is dead. I already explained to you that nervous system (neuron) function on the principle “All or nothingâ€?. The state of nothing is also termed as 0. Imagine that “zero reference signalâ€? is transferred down the hierarchy. Or in physiological terms : “nothingâ€? is transferred down the hierarchy.Â
BA (new) : Under this condition, we suddenly impose a constant disturbance. The change in the CV (i.e., qi)
HB (new) : There is no change in CV. There is no CV in outer environment. There is just i.q. “added effects of disturbances and output� not “controlled effects�.  See Bills diagram (LCS III)
CV is not i.q. until you prove it. Whatever you theoretically assumed about CV I want you to prove me this with at least 90% of Bills’ diagrams and definitions and the whole literature so that will be sure that there is any CV in environment of organism through whole of his writings.
There is only i.q. in environment of organism. Look at diagrams and definitions of PCT and find me those about CV in environment of organism. It seems that you start to support RCT “Ricks Control Theory�. Can you please answer me directly if you agree with the basic postulates of RCT :
RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
-
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
- OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
-
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
-
COMPARATOR : ????
-
ERROR SIGNAL : ???
Do you agree with these points ?
And can you compare RCT postulates to Bills’ PCT and tell me what it should be changed in Bills’ definitions (B:CP) in accordance to RCT :
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.
Bill P (B:CP)
-
 : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
BA (new): …therefore depends only on the change in disturbance value. With the change of qi, the perceptual signal changes.
HB (new) : Yes perceptual signal is changed by i.q. You said right. And the perceptual signal is only changed not already controlled. Control is not coming into organism from environment through perceptual signal. Do you want to say that there is some “Perceptual Controlled Variable� instead of “Perceptual signal�. Are you saying what Rick is saying ?
BAÂ (new)Â : If the reference signal is constant, then the change in error reflects only the change in perceptual signal.
HB (new) : In our discussion before I explained you clearly why what you are theoretically saying is not true. You are neglecting physiological evidences how neurons function. They function by the law “all or nothing� or 1 or 0. Perceptual signal will or will not fire the neuron in any case no matter what the value of reference is. They both always “mismatch� as Bill assumed whether reference is steady or not and the outcome is probability that neuron will fire or not.
BA (new) : The change in error signal changes the output, which changes the feedback to qi. Thus the chain of cause and effect propagates around the loop.
Bill P : 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.
HB : Is this what you meant ?
BA new: Yes
HB (new) : So there is no mistery. Output affects its own input, the controlled variabel. There is no other “controlled variableâ€? or CV in the control loop. You can see it in definition in green color. There is no CV in environment of organism. Its just feedback function – effects of ouptut on input.
/span>
If you want to change Bills definition of “feedback� show us how it should look like with CV ? Bur you already agreed that Bills’ definition of “feedback� is right ?
BA (new) : ….which causes the perceptual signal to change, which causes the errror signal to change,
HB (new) : Again. This is just your assumption in the case that “reference signal� is steady. But from physiological law “all or nothing� perceptual signal doesn’t CAUSE ALWAYS “error� signal to change. It can or it can not. Nervous system does not function in S-R logic. Every perceptual signal does not ALWAYS cause “error signal� to change. Or in terms of nervous system functioning : every afferent nerv signal does not cause nerv signal in axon. Or you want to present new theory of how neurons or nervous system function ?
Bruce. My advice is that you stop theorizing (imagining) loops and you start working also with real life loops in real organisms.Â
In physiological and PCT terms perceptual signal form with references “mismatch� and the result (error-signal), what by my opinion means that there is probability whether perceptual signal will fire neuron of not. Bill was physiologically educated and he worked also with physiologist.
BA new: Yes, assuming that the reference signal did not change, the change in perceptual signal causes the error signal to change.
HB (new) : Again. There is probability that perceptual signal will fire neuron. I think that’s clear even in psychological experiments where you’ll find proofs that every perceptual signal does not cause “error� signal to change.
BA : …which causes the output to change which causes the feedback output to change in a direction opposite to that of the disturbance All this takes place in the time it takes these causes to propagate around the loop. At no point is the series of causal links between disturbance and output broken.
HB : We already talked about the »comparator« which breaks the casual loop. Abstractly in Bills’ diagram it maybe looks like that everything is smooth and matematically perferct, but in real organism that is not so.
BA new: The comparator does not break the causal loop. The comparator receives two inputs: perceptual signal and reference signal. It has one output, the error signal, which depends on the values of both inputs. With a constant reference signal, a change in perceptual signal causes the error signal to change.
HB (new) : Mechanically it could look so, but in real neuron, that’s not how it works. And it would be good if you consider that you are operating with theoretical model. Neuron (comparator, nervous system) is real life function and it’s functioning by law »all or nothing« so perceptual signal or reference can cause neuron to fire or not. It can brake the loop and cause output much later. Neuron is unit of thinking process.
We’ve talked about these problems before, and you promised that you’ll give an answer to my physiological evidences how neuron function. But you never gave one. So could you please give an answer to our discussion in the past so that we can continue conversation with physiological evidences. This is useless discussion. You are not considering physiological evidences.
I thought that we understood that both values (p and r) can trigger output of neuron, but its’ not necessary. So there is no functional connection between perceptual signal and “error� signal or casual connection so that perceptual signal would always cause changes in “error� signal. There is no such thing in physiology. And even if perceptual signal would cause change in “error� signal you have a condition “steady reference signal�. So you can’t talk about casual connection between perceptual and “error� signal if reference signal changes. So there is no fixed (casual) connection between perceptual signal and “error� signal. There is no place for S-R theory in PCT.
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
HB :
Mismatch between perceptual signal and reference signal could mean that there is no casual connection between iether of them and »error« signal. I think that mismatch is indicating the probability of outcome or result of interaction between perceptual and reference signal. They are both nerv signal.Â
But I’m wondering if your intention is to find new theory about how neurons function ?
Boris
Bruce
