···
From: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 2:04 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.01.0753 ET)]
See below.
From: Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 5:40 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
Fred,
I think you didn’t read carefully what I wrote. So please do it. You have to answer on all my questions if you want me to continue conversation. You understand what converation is ? You answer on my post and I answer on your post. We can’t exchange only informations you want. If you want to understand PCT than we have to make some conversation (dialog).
We can’t make conversation if you are demanding from me to answer your questions and you don’t answer mine. So my post conatined many questions about your “target” theory. For example :
-
Is your »target« theory general ? It can be applayed to any behavior ?
[FWN] No, it applies only to intentional acts, aimed at achieving goals.
HB (new) : You mean achieving goal state of “target” in outer enviroment ? I asked you to explain with your “target model” behaviors like sleeping, observing, thinking and sitting etc. It seems that you are intentionally avoiding these explanations. This is probably the third time I’m asking you to do it. These are all behaviors “aimed at achieving goals” in PCT sense. Do we understand what goal in PCT means ?
So the problem with your “target” theory is that you can’t explain all behaviors that organisms can do. Your diagram is not general. PCT diagram is meant to explain any behavior. It’s general. One or two examples - one theory is the problem here on CSGnet. You are creating “target” theory based on some examples which you think are “aimed at achieiving goals” in outer environment, so the control is done outside organism. You try to achieve “reference state” outside organism.Â
-
Explain some other behaviors with your »target« theory ? I put you some examples.
[FWN] I used to work at ETS (Educational Testing Service). Consider someone registering for a test. They have to fill out the registration form. If they don’t fill it out completely and correctly, they will not be registered. It behooves the testing company to ensure that the registrants have the proper reference standards for filling out the form, else the registration form will be rejected, creating additional work for the testing company. So, the testing company provides instructions for filling out the registration form. Now, the registrants can tell if they have filled out the form properly. Target: Registration Form. Goal: Properly filled out. Actions: Filling out the form. Perceptions: The current and evolving state of the registration form. Conditions or disturbances: None at the moment but there have been some. For example, the registrants used to be provided with a numerically organized list of institutions for use in filling out the form (organized by the institution’s code number). What the registrants needed was a list of institutions organized alphabetically so they could look up the name, get the code and put the code on the form.
HB : Again. You explained your example behavior “filling form” which is the bases of your “target” theory. I asked you to explain sleeping behavior, observing, sitting and thinking, and you can explain also walking, sunshining etc. ? These are all behaviors “aimed at achieving goals”. That’s what I was asking you in my post.
The main problem as I see it with your “target” theory is that you are manipulating (filling) “form” with your hand (Control of behavior) to some final state “filled form and send”. Your “target” theory is meant to manipulate some “target” in environment (form, glass of water etc.) “aimed at achieving goals” in environment. And as I can see you used Perceptions only to “monitor” state of “target” which in your case look like this : the current and evolving state of the registration form ?
In PCT control is not “reached” outside but in organism and organism will do whatever it has to do to establish control inside. It does it also through effects in outer enviroment until control in organism is established arround reference state. That’s how control is defined in PCT :
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.
Through effects in environment means that effects of action in environment change perception that is matched to references until control in controlling system is achieved or maintained.
-
Where did you get your diagram ?
[FWN] I created it based on my understanding of PCT.
HB : So you see. You didin’t use any Bills’ general diagram for “Controling perception”, you created your “common sense” diagram based on one (?) or few “behavioristic” examples where you manipulated some “target” in outer environment which by your statements represent “controlled aspect of environment”. According to Rick, you can “control aspect of environment” only if you assume that you “control your behavior” . In the case of “filling form” you control your hand so you get “controlled aspect of environment” (filled formular).
So if I sum what you were telling me about, your diagram is not general and it represent theory of “controlled aspect of environment”, which can be achieved with “control of behavior”. Did I miss something ? Thus it is almost the same as RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
PCT diagram (LCS III) can be used for any behavior including Amoeba or Bacteria or Plankton. Because these organisms can’t “manipuate target” in environment, as your “target” diagram of very limited kind shows. You can explain just some behaviors. PCT diagram is meant to explain how organisms function, so it can explain any behavior of any organism. Even worm or larva.Â
-
How you control your behavior or whatever "target" you manipulate with "actions" in outer environment ?
[FWN] I have perceptions of my own behavior. If I choose to make them match some reference am I not controlling my behavior?
HB : No you don’t. This is your main problem. You control perception of your behavior, you don’t control muscle tension. See B:CP why ? You are firing blindly “muscle tension” until it is perceived. Bill gave very nice description of what is happening :
Bill P :
Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make perceeption of the glass change from “on the table” to " near the mouth" – we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to tthe reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth.
HB : You would never know how your muscles of hand were fired if there wouldn’t be perception.
-
How you get "Controllled Perceptual Variable" or PCV ?
[FWN] I’ll turn this one around: Where did you get it? I didn’t write it. I spoke about a perception of an environmental variable.
HB : No. Where did you do that ? Where did you spoke about “perception of environmental variable”. You spoke about “controlled aspect of environment” what is probably equal to “controlled environmental variable” or “target”. That was our starting problem.
FN earlier : ….but I do know that PCT applies to our efforts to control aspects of our environment
HB :
If you "control aspect of environment with your actions, than you have to perceive “controlled aspect of environment”. And logically if perceive “controlled aspect” or “target” in environment it has to happen through “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or PCV. That’s the fundamental assumption of RCT :
RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) is based on assumption that the whole control loop contain control. So you find in any part of the loop traces of control. If you assume that “Behavior is control” and that there is some “controlled aspect of enviroment”, I have to assume that control from environment has to enter somehow into organism through perception. Is there any other way ? At least this was Ricks assumption what is from his aspect of looking on “control loop” logical. If there is “control in behavior”, and there is “control in some aspect of environment”, there must be control also in “perceptual signal”.
I assume that his way of thinking about “Control of behavior” etc is also present in your “target” theory. You assume that “Behavior is Control”, there is some “controlled aspect” in environment so control has somehow to enter into organism through “controlled perception”. So Rick assumed that there is control in perceptual signal. But from PCT diagram you can see that ordinary perceptual signal is entering comparator. So there is no control in it. But perceptual signal (the controlled variable) will be controlled in comparator. This is only place in control loop where control is happening. Only nervous system is “controlling” (matching different neural currents).
How can you perceive just “environmental variable” if you “controlled it” ?
PCT diagram does not contain “our efforts to control aspects of our environment”.
My suggestion is Fred that you decide what you try to present. If you want to present theory about “efforts affect environmental variables” than it’s good if you use Bills’ diagram, because it’s general. It can be applayed also to “behaviors” which don’t have “target” in environment :
![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
But if you want to use statement " our efforts to control aspects of our environment" than it’s probably O.K. if you use your “target” diagram. But then we are talking about new theory. Shall we call it FCT (Freds’ Control Theory)
![cid:image002.png@01D3E3AD.40C86A80]()
So Fred I expect mutual respect. You read and study my post. I’ll read and study your post. Is this fair enough ?
[FWN] Fair enough. Your turn, Boris.
Thanks Fred for “listening” me. We are having conversation.
Best,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 7:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
[From Fred Nickols (2018.04.30.1336 ET)]
Boris:
My Target diagram doesn’t indicate that the environmental variable is controlled. It does indicate that actions (output) affect the environmental variable, as do disturbances. All I know of this I know by way of my perceptions. So, technically, it is true that what is being controlled is my perception of the environmental variable, but I know lots of people, including me, who might say, “So what?� What’s the difference?
Let’s suppose that for some reason, you come to visit me. We’re sitting at my kitchen table when you ask if you might have a glass of water. I get a glass from the cupboard, fill it with water and set it in front of you. You say, “Thanks,� pick it up, take a drink, and set it back on the table. Did you grasp the glass? Did you lift it to your lips? Did you take a drink? Did you set the glass back down? Did you control the position of the glass and its movement to your lips and back to the table? Technically, I suppose we could say you controlled your perceptions of those things. An observer might conclude that you did in fact control the position and movement of the glass. What’s the difference?
For what it’s worth, I think the difference ties to the unobservable things we strive to control – as you mentioned in a post – things like the respect of others. We can ™t see what is being controlled. To continue, your asking for and drinking some water might have been incidental to your feeling thirsty, something you can sense but I cannot. Taking a drink of water served to slake your thirst and perhaps it was your thirst that was the controlled variable. I don’t know.
What do you say, Boris?
Fred Nickols
From: Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:17 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
Hi Fred,
I understand Fred that you got Bills blessing but it doesn’t mean that you have right informations about whether your »target model« is PCT or not. Offering Biils oppinion does not represent real arguments that manipulating with »target« in environment of control system is PCT. It more looks like »behaviorism«.
Bill P (B:CP) :
Behaviorism began in America by John B. Watson near the start of the century…. It waas recognized that valid experiment requires fixed experimental conditions and manipulation of single or more variables in environment and observe consequent effects on behavior…. Running throuh out psychhology (and almost identical to what is termed “scientific method” in psychology) is a particular concept of what orgsnism does, lies outside the organism…
In this case you see that »acting on environment« or »manipulating« with variables or »targets« means something very wrong in PCT. Your »target« diagram is about »behaviorism« or »how to manipulate« outdside variables (»target«) with control of behavior. In this way consequent effects in environment or »stimulus« control organisms. But question is why Bill gave you friendly (positive) oppinion.
Bill wrote a lot of literature and I doubt that you can reduce everything to simple »target« diagram. Organisms (nervous system) are much more complicated. Beside that we know from Riks’ case that Bill was »protecting« some members (his friends) no matter what they wrote or say. So I think that we should look all his literature and try to establish what PCT is really about. I wrote about this problem many times.
Bill was by my oppinion inventor and gentleman. As inventor he acted scientifically and we got great PCT. As gentleman he was supporting work of his friends sometimes with no real connection to scientific evidences. Problem is that friendship and science do not work together. Most of the literature Bill wrote contain very sofisticated scientific desciption of how organisms work. And I’m sorry to say Fred your diagram has nothing to do with how organisms work. It’s your imagination with no biological or physiological evidences.
We’ve talked so many times about this problem, so I thought it’s clear that in PCT no aspect of environment is controlled, generally speaking. At least according to Bills definitions of control loop and diagram in LCS III (this is my suggestion for analyzing PCT). I’m sure you’ll have no problem searching though archives and finding thme as I exposed them so many times that birds are singing about them.
Writings about PCT has to be in some mutual accordance. They can’t be in contradiction. But we know that Bill changed his mind sometimes. So we can find »double« meaning how organisms function. I think that most of Bills literature scientifically descibe PCT what means that organisms »Control Perception« and he supported that with scientific arguments. This »fact« can be represented with »definitions« of control loop (B:CP) and diagram in LCS III.
So first I have to ask you Fred where did you get your diagram ? Is it in accordance with any diagram Bill published ? The same problem I saw in Warrens student work (Max), where by my oppinion behaviorist diagram with some »target« was exposed as »adaptation« of some Bills’ work. Max didn’t use directly Bills’ diagram from LCS III although he was analyzing the example from LCS III. He also included Rick’s »control in environment« what means »manipulation« with external variable. It’s pure behaviorism like most of Ricks’ work is about »controlling«, »manipulating« something in environment.
I think that both diagrams are wrong and are not in accordance with any PCT diagram Bill published It’s simply personal invention. I think we got new control theories of how organisms function. Shall we call it FBT (Fred Control Theory) and WCT (Warren Control Theory) ?
As we don’t know where your diagram Fred was taken from it’s hard to say what scientific evidences you can offer for your »target« theory. You also didn’t list any evidences. I assume it’s your pure imagination. Where exactly did you see anything similar in Bills literature so that you can call »target« diagram as PCT diagram ? I’m sorry to say Fred but I never saw such a diagram in any Bills’ literature. There is no »target« or »controlled variable« in any of his diagrams in environment. And of course PCT theory is not about controlling outside but inside. Your diagram should be in accordance with Bills’ »definition of control«. Your diagram and explanation has nothing to do with science and with problem how organisms function. Control in PCT is not about controlling »target« outside (environment) but controlling in organism.
Bill P :
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 : If Bill told you that you are right about that there is »controlled aspect of environment« and that there is consequently »Controlled Perceptual Variable« than he was contradicting himself at least with his defitnitions of control. Bill did change his mind sometimes and he was friendly to his loyal PCT-ers. But this doesn’t mean that he acted scientifically.
I proved to Rick so many times that scientific facts are important about control loop. And known fatcs about human functioning are simply showing that there is no possible »material« way that control could be transfered into environment. Show me how ?
Do you have any scientific arguments that »Behavior can be controlled«, so you can control muscle tension. And where is »Controlled perception«, so that we could say that there is control in »perceptual signal« as consequnece of control in the environment. These are all Ricks constructs. I can’t understand how will you prove that there is »controlled aspect« in environment if you don’t prove that »Behavior is controlled« and that there is some »Controlled perception« ? Something has to control what is happening outside. Is it either »Behavior is Control« or there is »Telekinesis« which is moving »target« outside. »Telekinesis« has advantage because it’s directly »projecting« control from comparator into environment. But you can see this clearly only in science fiction or just fiction films. It’s possible that you’ll meet this also in some comedies.
I think that the main problem whether there is any control in environment or not, is the fact that control in outer environment is not continuous. So when you affirm that there is some »controlled aspect« or »target« in environment you think on specific case. But PCT theory is general. It works for every organisms’ behavior known on the Earth and control is continuously returning some »controlled variable« into it’s genetically determined limits all the time 24/7. And that’s why organisms survive. If control would work from time to time there wouldn’t be any organisms on the Earth.
So I begged you many times to explain to me some other behaviors. You never did it. But you can do it now. Explain to me with your »target« model, what is »target of control« when you are sleeping and what is target when you are sitting in the chair and thinking. What is »target of control« when you are observing ? Or when you are sunshining ? You presented your »target« model as general, so it should explain all behaviors.
Let me help with Ricks’ explanation about what is »target« of control in sleeping. It’s something that organisms do 6-10 or more hours a day…
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 : Even Rick admitted that »target« of control is inside organism not outside.
If you’ll try to look PCT in more general perspective you’ll see that behaviors all have the same mechanism. Continuous control inside organism (24/7) which is producing behavior from time to time to help control inside organism. So in this way behavior can appear in outer environment as consequence of continuous internal control and could be wrongly switched for control. And sometimes you can’t even determine whether there is really control going on in environment (for ex. when doing TCV). You can’t look on control proces only from »outside«. You have to look also what is happening inside organism, because it is most important for survival. That’s why »definition of control« in Bills literature is perfectly right. Organisms control only in one way to survive. But people can imagine many ways. Sooner or later »reality« force you to think in right way.
Another problem is that whole loop is really controlling but it contains parts of the loop which have no control. The control is really happening only in comparator inside organism. Rick was trying to prove for years that there is control in whole loop. So he got the chain of events :
-
Behavior is control
-
There is some »controlled aspect« in environment
-
There is some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or PCV
But please don’t offer just your »common sense« knowledge.
In PCT there is no »Control of Behavior« and there is no »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or PCV. So there is no »control« in some aspect of environment as part of the loop as PCT is concerned. But you can call your theory with »target« diagram as FCT (Fred Control Theory). It’s not PCT.
Bill P : That’s a really good article, Fred. You have developed a clear and simple style and your understanding of PCT is right “on target.” Well done.
HB : If this is Bills’ oppinion about PCT than he is contradicting most of his literature. I think that he wrote this as a gentlemen. He could not support this statement with scientific facts. Can you ?
Sorry to say it Fred, but Bill also told you that you were the first to discover mistake in B:CP (2005) – input functtion (p.61). I corrected him on CSGnet (see it). I told him for that mistake at least 3 years before your discovery. So truth is always relative Fred. Nothing is as it seems to be.
Best, Boris
P.S. I suggest you that you read by my oppinion the only real scientific proceedings of PCT with right description of control loop, beside Bills’ literature. Authors are : Richard Pfau (IAPCT presentation), Henry Yin (2014), Kent McClleland (1994, 1996, 1998, 2004, 2006), Timothy Carey (2006). I don’t have all the literature that was published about PCT, speccially from older PCT’ers. But if anybody thinks that something could look like PCT explanation with right diagram please send it to me.
From: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:03 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
[From Fred Nickols (2018.04.13.0959 ET)]
Boris: I suggest you read the paper at the link in my email below. https://www.nickols.us/ProximatetoUltimate.pdf
Here is what Bill Powers said about it in June 2011:
Hi, Fred –
That’s a really good article, Fred. You have developed a clear and simple style and your understanding of PCT is right “on target.” Well done.
Best,
Bill
Bill seemed to think my grasp of PCT was right on target so to speak. That’s good enough for me.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at a Distance�
From: Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 9:22 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
Fred,
FN : ….but I do know that PCT applies to our efforts to control aspects of our environment
HB : We don’t control aspects of our environment. See diagrma LCS III. If you control aspect of your environment than you have to control your actions (behavior) and there should be some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« which could transfer results of control in environmnet into organism. This is RCT (Ricks Control Theory). Bill and Kent rather used term »stability« of certain aspect of environment, because it »represents« more stabile perception, not controlled perception. There is no such term as »controlled perception« in PCT. It exists only in RCT.
Best,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 2:34 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
[From Fred Nickols (2018.04.13.0831 ET)]
I don’t know about extending the hierarchy, Eetu, but I do know that PCT applies to our efforts to control aspects of our environment that are often far removed from us in space and time and that include the behavior of other people. Bill Powers claimed to love my exposition on “proximate to ultimate� results and you can read one paper in that thread at this link: https://www.nickols.us/ProximatetoUltimate.pdf It uses my Target Model which is obviously based on PCT.
If you do read it, let me know what you think.
Fred Nickols
From: Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 7:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-04-13_10:48:50 UTC]
[Martin Taylor 2018.04.05.14.15]
[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.04.05 1240 EDT)]
Thanks Erling and Martin,
Yes, I think it as one way to connect to the environment when we create and use both ordinary tools and also control devices which broaden our control hierarchy “downwardsâ€?. Now I would like to add to this speculation the question of social relations and broadening the control hierarchy both upwards and downwards. We cannot control other people but we can (at least try to) a) utilize their action when they control their perceptions and b) affect their references somehow. Upwards we can subject ourselves to the power of some authority like company, army, religion etc. and let their representatives set (at least partly) our own references. Doesn’t that mean that we can broaden our control hierarchy also upwards as well as downwards – outside our ownn bodies?
Eetu
From: Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 9:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Building levels of control (was Re: PCT: what is the difference …)
Martin Taylor 2018.04.05.14.15]
[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.04.05 1240 EDT)]
Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-04-05_09:40:53 UTC
[quoting Alex Gomez-Marin, & then Martin Taylor] AG-M: �Purposiveness in living beings and a sub group of machines: would you grant intentionality too to those?�
MT: “If the human-initiated design of a machine includes intentionality, and the design is good, then the machine has intentionality.�
EP: I have been thinking about this in background and now I got an idea. A human being designs and uses machines as tools. But there is a specialty in control devices: they are used as (new lowest) part of our control hierarchy. Perhaps this is self-evident (or not correct at all)? Higher control units set – as their output – the reference of the next lower units. In the lowest level our effector organs set the reerence level to the thermostat or any other control device. And these devices effect the environmental variables which cause the perception we are controlling. So the device has an intention as much as our hand has.
Hello Eetu,
EJ: …
EJ: I have wondered about a slightly different process than the one you raise of inserting lower layers of control. Based on the work of Franz Plooij and Hetty van de Rijt-Plooij, I have viewed development as a process of inserting ever higher layers of control, as an infant or young child develops. The reorganization system would still rise above whatever layers have yet been formed, as a meta-level capable of affecting the structure of the developing perceptual hierarchy. But to my way of thinking, new developmental levels typically get inserted on the top of the existing perceptual capabilities.
My preference is not to think in terms of reorganization building entire levels of control all at once, but of development of new perceptions, and of new means of controlling existing perception. To rephrase the old PCT mantra: Many means to the same end, and many ends by the same means. The hierarchy is not a simple hierarchy but a pair of braided streams (to use Kent McLelland’s metaphor) a perceptual stream going upward and an action stream going downward, with new channels continually being developed in each direction. Really new control occurs when a new perception gets linked to new action possibility.
When you think of it this way, new controlled perceptions can be built at any level of the hierarchy, and you don’t have to think of putting a new level on top of the hierarchy so far built, which thereafter becomes rock-solid. Nor do you worry about a new tool being invented, whether that new tool is an action possibility within the organism that takes advantage of something in the environment that had been ignored (invention of new technique) or outside the organism (invention of new mechanism).
I like Eetu’s way of looking at the machine-organism dichotomy as autonomy. If the entity has been constructed with its highest-level purpose being to do something that controls a perception inside an organism, it is a machine, no matter how complex its control hierarchy and options for action might be. If the entity is built with its highest level purpose being to survive in its environment long enough to produce other machines that have the same purpose, I would call it “living”, but I’m not sure whether I would call it an “organism”, because that word seems to connote a particular kind of organic chemistry.
Martin
