Closed Loop Neuroscience

Alex_Gomez-Marin · May 21, 2016, 3:12am

http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Matti · May 21, 2016, 10:48am

[From MK (2016.05.21.1250 CET)]

Thanks. El Hady was one of the authors to an editorial on "closed-loop
neuroscience" published in /Frontiers in Neural Circuits/ during the
second half of 2014. It'll be interesting to see if the associated
work has coalesced into an approach that is markedly different from
more traditional ways of doing neuroscience. Here is El Hady's brief
description about the book on his homepage:

···

----
"Closed Loop Neuroscience " can be regarded as a stand alone field
where the brain is regarded as a set of loops interacting with itself,
among themselves and with the environment in a relational manner. Over
the past three years, I have worked closely with neuroscientists,
computer scientists, physicists, linguists and philosophers in order
to begin building the foundations of "Closed Loop Neuroscience".
-- Closed Loop Neuroscience | Ahmed El Hady
----

M

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin <agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition

bleach · May 21, 2016, 5:31pm

For me the big question is what is meant by 'in a relational manner.'
The understanding that the only significance to 'output' is its effect
on the goal (or set point for the perception). Not having read any of
his work, I of course do not know if he understands that most
fundamental concept in PCT (or control theory period).

While if have not read anything by William Glasser is at least 30 years,
I was initially stunned that he, a former control systems engineer,
failed 'to get' the principles that Bill Powers explained with such
clarity and completeness. Since then, I have come to realize that a
great many control systems engineers have this convoluted idea that the
control system 'controls output.' Why? I don't have a clue.

···

On 05/21/2016 04:48 AM, MK wrote:

[From MK (2016.05.21.1250 CET)]

Thanks. El Hady was one of the authors to an editorial on "closed-loop
neuroscience" published in /Frontiers in Neural Circuits/ during the
second half of 2014. It'll be interesting to see if the associated
work has coalesced into an approach that is markedly different from
more traditional ways of doing neuroscience. Here is El Hady's brief
description about the book on his homepage:

----
"Closed Loop Neuroscience " can be regarded as a stand alone field
where the brain is regarded as a set of loops interacting with itself,
among themselves and with the environment in a relational manner. Over
the past three years, I have worked closely with neuroscientists,
computer scientists, physicists, linguists and philosophers in order
to begin building the foundations of "Closed Loop Neuroscience".
-- Closed Loop Neuroscience | Ahmed El Hady
----

M

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin <agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition

lloydk · May 21, 2016, 5:40pm

[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.05.21.1240 CDT)]

I donât think so. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Glasser
He mostly didnât want his practice business spoiled by any theory. He mostly wanted

to use theory to ground his practice (at the beginning: Reality Therapy) and, if it

got in the way, then he wanted to tweak it or omit details just my take on Bill & Bill

Lloyd

Dr. Lloyd Klinedinst
10 Dover Lane
Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001
HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232

Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571
email: lloydk@klinedinst.com

website: http://www.klinedinst.com

···

On May 21, 2016, at 12:31, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:

I was initially stunned that he, a former control systems engineer

bleach · May 21, 2016, 5:52pm

Oh yes, the famous Winston Churchill:Â “Men occasionally stumble
over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as
if nothing had happened.”

Even though, especially at the time that I am thinking about and for

that matter today, PCT can not predict behaviour (certainly without
knowing the perceptions under control), it does provide a powerful
(in my opinion) point of view with which to analyze clinical cases.

As I recall, Ed Ford was a highly successful clinician tried to view

data and therapy approaches based upon a PCT "world view."Â So, I
guess that I still don’t really understand how Glasser might have
apprehended that PCT was a threat to his practice.

Re Closed Loop Neuroscience.gif

···

On 05/21/2016 11:40 AM,
wrote:

lloydk@klinedinst.com

[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.05.21.1240 CDT)]

I donâ€™t think so. SeeÂ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Glasser
He mostly didnâ€™t want his practice business
spoiled by any theory. He mostly wanted

      to use theory to ground his practice (at the
beginning: Reality Therapy) and, if it

      got in the way, then he wanted to tweak it or omit
details… just my take on Bill & Bill…

Lloyd

          Â Dr. Lloyd Klinedinst

          Â 10 Dover Lane

          Â Villa Ridge, MO 63089-2001

          HomeVoice: (636) 451-3232

Lloyd Mobile: (314)-609-5571

          email:Â lloydk@klinedinst.com

website:Â http://www.klinedinst.com

On May 21, 2016, at 12:31, Bill Leach < >
wrote:

              I was initially stunned
that he, a former control systems engineer

wrleach@cableone.net

lloydk · May 21, 2016, 9:06pm

Ed Ford also tweaked PCT to fit his Responsible Thinking Process
see http://www.responsiblethinking.com/

Tom Bourbon and Tim Carey, I believe, tried to keep him on scientific track, but I think he strayed any way

in favor of his practice.

Others can weigh in on this to correct or confirm. Of course, we each have our own perceptions, stories and reasons for why things happen.

I think PCT has done enough, perhaps the whole job, in stating, expressing in mathematical terms ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory#Mathematics_of_PCT](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Perceptual-5Fcontrol-5Ftheory-23Mathematics-5Fof-5FPCT&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=3DdF-PDK21iQOIGISan4YyNlGY_82rK_s64UdoD_T5k&s=_Srv18MdmDH8Zj6Fb_KCukO1JsAsgmNdg0xezU1m1PI&e=) )

and describing the theory of behavior as the control of perception. So I am convinced that it is ‘the’ theory to best provide a grounding for therapy aimed at more successful and satisfying behavior, esp. using MOL.

Good conversation and effort at historical review as we look forward to a conference in 2017. Thanks.

Lloyd

···

On May 21, 2016, at 12:52, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:

As I recall, Ed Ford was a highly successful clinician tried to view data and therapy approaches based upon a PCT “world view.” So, I guess that I still don’t really understand how Glasser might have apprehended that PCT was a threat to his practice.

rsmarken · May 22, 2016, 6:40pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]

···

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Hi Alex

Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment – the ones we deal with in PCT – are control loops. So it’s nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it’s not the loopiness that matters; it’s whether or not controlling is going on. I’m not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

MartinT · May 22, 2016, 8:56pm

[Martin Taylor 2016.05.22.22.45 CET]
(From somewhere west of WÃ¼rzburg on the river Main)
With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but maybe it will go through. And I have been unable to read the full blurb for the book, as the link freezes half-way through. But I would assume, in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of such a book, would know (as would his contributors) that positive feedback loops either runaway explosively or freeze against some limit. So I would give the various authors of this book the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that if they mention a positive feedback loop anywhere, it will be to point out that such a loop must be transient, and any long-standing feedback loops must be negative feedback loops -- not all of which are control loops. Beyond that, I choose not to speculate until the book comes out.

If this actually goes through, I may or may not see any follow-up.
Martin

···

On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com>, wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin <<mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com>agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

<Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition; Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition

Hi Alex
Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment -- the ones we deal with in PCT -- are control loops. So it's nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it's not the loopiness that matters; it's whether or not controlling is going on. I'm not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Controlling-2DPeople-2DParadoxical-2DNature-2DBeing_dp_1922117641_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1449541975-26sr-3D1-2D1&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=1c4ZsPQek-U_-Vhe9O9Ejp15wsktA9uzQrWi3sQ0KlY&s=0UchIv8ULNDOOXJFBhv-THbQrCXiQCYupUDuJdevbXw&e=>Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

MartinT · May 23, 2016, 6:08am

I should add that limiting positive feedback loops can be useful. In the form of flip-flops, they are the basic elements of logic in our computers, and quite probably in our brains. But circuitry composed mainly of them would seem to have much more in common with computers than with brains.

I hope that my other message gets through, because this will make no sense without it.
Martin

···

On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com>, wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin <<mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com>agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

<Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition; Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition

Hi Alex
Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment -- the ones we deal with in PCT -- are control loops. So it's nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it's not the loopiness that matters; it's whether or not controlling is going on. I'm not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Controlling-2DPeople-2DParadoxical-2DNature-2DBeing_dp_1922117641_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1449541975-26sr-3D1-2D1&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=1c4ZsPQek-U_-Vhe9O9Ejp15wsktA9uzQrWi3sQ0KlY&s=0UchIv8ULNDOOXJFBhv-THbQrCXiQCYupUDuJdevbXw&e=>Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

rsmarken · May 23, 2016, 11:51pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]

···

Martin Taylor (2016.05.22.22.45 CET)–

MT: (From somewhere west of Würzburg on the river Main)

With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but maybe it will go through.

RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the meaning of mine didn’t. Here was the main point of my post regarding the book “Closed-loop Neuroscience”:

MT: Here is your reply:

MT: I would assume, in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of such a book, would know (as would his contributors) that positive feedback loops either runaway explosively or freeze against some limit.

RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El Hady doesn’t know the difference between positive and negative feedback loops. That’s not at all what I meant. I simply meant that recognizing the closed-loop relationship that between the nervous system and its environment – the loopiness of the organism-environment relationship – does not guarantee that you recognize that the behavior is a process of control and that, therefore, the nervous system is organized as an input control system rather than as an input-output device.

RM: There are many examples of scientists who have recognized that behavior occurs in a closed loop and still treated the organism as an input-output device. They were able to do this by treating the events in the loop as though they occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit. There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop – at least, a behavioral closed loop – this way. For example, in one of his papers I found this statement: "Through active sensing, behaving animals can influence their
environment in ways that alter subsequent sensory inputs." [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of events: sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered sensing… wash>rinse>repeat.

RM: This, of course, is not a correct description of how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the events in such a loop are occurring at the same time. This means that you have to solve simultaneously the “forward” and feedback equations that describe the loop. When you do this you get the steady state equations that describe the behavior of the loop:

p = f(q.i) = r

o = r - 1/kf(d)

RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a controlled quantity, q.i, matching the reference specification, r, for the state of that perception and it does it by varying its output in proportion to any variations in r while opposing variations in the net disturbance, d, to the controlled quantity. Methods for studying the controlling done by such systems are aimed at determining what perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El Hady’s book describes methods for carrying out this kind of research – research aimed at testing for controlled perceptions – then I’ll be thrilled to read it!

Best

Rick

So I would give the various authors of this book the benefit of the doubt,

On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com, wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

RM: But from a PCT perspective, it’s not the loopiness that matters; it’s whether or not controlling is going on.

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Hi Alex

Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment – the ones we deal with in PCT – are control loops. So it’s nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it’s not the loopiness that matters; it’s whether or not controlling is going on. I’m not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

MartinT · May 24, 2016, 4:54am

Sorry for misinterpreting you. Did the book's preview web page in the link give a list of authors? I couldn't get it to load fully. I prefer not to review a book until it comes out, but I think I would give El Hady the benefit of the doubt based only on the sentence you quote, which is a precisely accurate statement about PCT as well as about TOTE. I know nothing else of his ideas beyond that quote.
Martin

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]

Martin Taylor (2016.05.22.22.45 CET)--

MT: (From somewhere west of WÃ¼rzburg on the river Main)
With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but maybe it will go through.

RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the meaning of mine didn't. Here was the main point of my post regarding the book "Closed-loop Neuroscience":

RM: But from a PCT perspective, it's not the loopiness that matters; it's whether or not controlling is going on.

MT: Here is your reply:

MT: I would assume, in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of such a book, would know (as would his contributors) that positive feedback loops either runaway explosively or freeze against some limit.

RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El Hady doesn't know the difference between positive and negative feedback loops. That's not at all what I meant. I simply meant that recognizing the closed-loop relationship that between the nervous system and its environment -- the loopiness of the organism-environment relationship -- does not guarantee that you recognize that the behavior is a process of control and that, therefore, the nervous system is organized as an input control system rather than as an input-output device.
RM: There are many examples of scientists who have recognized that behavior occurs in a closed loop and still treated the organism as an input-output device. They were able to do this by treating the events in the loop as though they occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit. There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop -- at least, a behavioral closed loop -- this way. For example, in one of his papers I found this statement: "Through active sensing, behaving animals can influence their environment in ways that alter subsequent sensory inputs." [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of events: sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered sensing... wash>rinse>repeat.
RM: This, of course, is not a correct description of how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the events in such a loop are occurring at the same time. This means that you have to solve simultaneously the "forward" and feedback equations that describe the loop. When you do this you get the steady state equations that describe the behavior of the loop:
p = f(q.i) = r
o = r - 1/kf(d)
RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a controlled quantity, q.i, matching the reference specification, r, for the state of that perception and it does it by varying its output in proportion to any variations in r while opposing variations in the net disturbance, d, to the controlled quantity. Methods for studying the controlling done by such systems are aimed at determining what perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El Hady's book describes methods for carrying out this kind of research -- research aimed at testing for controlled perceptions -- then I'll be thrilled to read it!
Best
Rick

So I would give the various authors of this book the benefit of the doubt,

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]

<Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition; Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition

Hi Alex
Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment -- the ones we deal with in PCT -- are control loops. So it's nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it's not the loopiness that matters; it's whether or not controlling is going on. I'm not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Controlling-2DPeople-2DParadoxical-2DNature-2DBeing_dp_1922117641_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1449541975-26sr-3D1-2D1&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=1c4ZsPQek-U_-Vhe9O9Ejp15wsktA9uzQrWi3sQ0KlY&s=0UchIv8ULNDOOXJFBhv-THbQrCXiQCYupUDuJdevbXw&e=>Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

--
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Controlling-2DPeople-2DParadoxical-2DNature-2DBeing_dp_1922117641_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1449541975-26sr-3D1-2D1&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=7UXc-rvgz32SIbQmX5Wdo-gRUj_tTMykT0OihwwY2IM&s=ooMI9xxeQsrFisk3JWR2w99dcEitxBFRYfCtGZteVYI&e=>Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

···

On May 24, 2016, 01:52 +0200, Richard Marken <rsmarken@gmail.com>, wrote:

On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken <<mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com>rsmarken@gmail.com>, wrote:

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin <<mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com>agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

bleach · May 24, 2016, 5:04am

Martin, have they found any oscillators (i.e. frequency or waveform
generators) in the brain? A steady state state, sustained positive
feedback loop would be appropriate for that (as I'm sure you know).

Of course as I think you are suggesting, loops (basically negative
feedback amplifiers) can have transient positive feedback to increase
gain during initial changes of input signals but as (again) you mention,
the net feedback for a steady state must be negative unless of course a
neuron set is functioning in a manner similar to a one-shot, as I
suppose could be used to initiate a reference signal for starting an
emergency response. Or a signal amplifier intended to possibly be an
input to a neuron set configured to act as an and gate to pass another
perception or reference to a set on neurons only when certain other
condition(s) is met.

You might know if any of this sort of stuff has been seen by the
researcher, as people with pretty much any digital logic training could
pretty easily recognize neuron sets operating in such manners (even if
they don't know anything about control systems). As for myself, I'm
still trying to catch up from 20 years ago.

···

On 05/22/2016 02:56 PM, mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2016.05.22.22.45 CET]
(From somewhere west of Würzburg on the river Main)

<snip>

MartinT · May 24, 2016, 6:45am

Once you get into dynamic considerations, the simple distinction between positive and negative feedback loops becomes less and less clear. The straightforward "classical" PCT control loop with transport lag is statically a negative feedback loop, but at many frequencies it is a positive feedback loop. The loop is structurally neither positive or negative feedback. Likewise when you include different kinds of nonlinearity things become unclear. Without nonlinearity, you don't get the kinds of oscillator you mention, because the oscillation explodes to infinity. Likewise, nonlinearity enables positive feedback loops to become flip flops (switches) and more complex selectors and gates. My comment was really directed to the steady-state continuous signal configuration analogous to the "classical" PCT control loop, but even there, different parallel pathways can be a mixture of positive and negative, which may change dominance dynamically (the "Bomb in the Machine").

There are lots of uses for transient positive feedback, but I question whether most internal loops in the neural network are positive feedback.
Martin

···

On May 24, 2016, 07:04 +0200, Bill Leach <wrleach@cableone.net>, wrote:

Martin, have they found any oscillators (i.e. frequency or waveform
generators) in the brain? A steady state state, sustained positive
feedback loop would be appropriate for that (as I'm sure you know).

Of course as I think you are suggesting, loops (basically negative
feedback amplifiers) can have transient positive feedback to increase
gain during initial changes of input signals but as (again) you mention,
the net feedback for a steady state must be negative unless of course a
neuron set is functioning in a manner similar to a one-shot, as I
suppose could be used to initiate a reference signal for starting an
emergency response. Or a signal amplifier intended to possibly be an
input to a neuron set configured to act as an and gate to pass another
perception or reference to a set on neurons only when certain other
condition(s) is met.

You might know if any of this sort of stuff has been seen by the
researcher, as people with pretty much any digital logic training could
pretty easily recognize neuron sets operating in such manners (even if
they don't know anything about control systems). As for myself, I'm
still trying to catch up from 20 years ago.

On 05/22/2016 02:56 PM, mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2016.05.22.22.45 CET]
(From somewhere west of Würzburg on the river Main)

<snip

bleach · May 24, 2016, 6:52am

Rick, I most emphatically agree. El Hadys statement is not some
much wrong because he could, though likely not, be talking about
control but to describe the process as “alter subsequent sensory
inputs” is, at least in my mind, ignoring the single most important
aspect of control. “Alter subsequent sensory inputs” is NOT an
objective of a control system, it is but an ancillary (but important
overall) aspect of what the system is doing and that of course is
minimize the error between ‘sensory inputs’ (perceptions of course)
and the reference for perception.

Sensory inputs are important to us because it is to only way that we

have for attempting to determine what perception is or what
perceptions are being controlled. Without that knowledge then we
don’t really have a clue as to what the behavior are observing means
beyond the idea that some sort of control is probably taking (based
upon the assumption that the studied living thing is actually
functioning as a living thing).

To me, and maybe my understandings are too old still (I'm working on

it) for the current state of PCT, but I see no other purpose for
talking about the actual controlled input(s) other than with
reference to a particular experiment (or simulation) or using the
nature of the specific controlled perception(s) in an analysis of
why control was not achieved (exceeding the output capabilities of
the organism for example).

Well I suppose that another purpose would be to explain why linear

theories can not be used to explain behavior of living things.

Please correct me if I am either outright wrong or even too

restrictive in what I said.

Best,
Bill

···

On 05/23/2016 05:51 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]
              Martin Taylor
(2016.05.22.22.45 CET)–

              MT: (From somewhere west
of Würzburg on the river Main)
              With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet
connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but maybe
it will go through.

          RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the
meaning of mine didn’t. Here was the main point of my post
regarding the book “Closed-loop Neuroscience”:

RM: But from a PCT
perspective, it’s not the loopiness that matters;
it’s whether or not controlling is going on.

MT: Here is your reply:

              MT: I would assume, in
contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of such a
book, would know (as would his contributors) that
positive feedback loops either runaway explosively or
freeze against some limit.

          RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El Hady
doesn’t know the difference between positive and negative
feedback loops. That’s not at all what I meant. I simply
meant that recognizing the closed-loop relationship that
between the nervous system and its environment – the
loopiness of the organism-environment relationship –
does not guarantee that you recognize that the behavior
is a process of control and that, therefore, the nervous
system is organized as an input control system rather than
as an input-output device.

          RM:  There are many examples of scientists who have
recognized that behavior occurs in a closed loop and still
treated the organism as an input-output device. They were
able to do this by treating the events in the loop as
though they occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit.
There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a
closed-loop – at least, a behavioral closed loop – this
way. For example, in one of his papers I found this
statement: “Through active sensing, behaving animals can
influence their
environment ** in ways that alter subsequent sensory
inputs.”** [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed
loop he is talking about is a sequence of events:
sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered
sensing… wash>rinse>repeat.

          RM: This, of course, is not a correct description of
how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the
events in such a loop are occurring at the same time .
This means that you have to solve simultaneously the
“forward” and feedback equations that describe the loop.
When you do this you get the steady state equations that
describe the behavior of the loop:

p = f(q.i) = r

o = r - 1/kf(d)

          RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a controlled
quantity, q.i, matching the reference specification, r,
for the state of that perception and it does it by varying
its output in proportion to any variations in r while
opposing variations in the net disturbance, d, to the
controlled quantity. Methods for studying the controlling
done by such systems are aimed at determining what
perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El Hady’s
book describes methods for carrying out this kind of
research – research aimed at testing for controlled
perceptions – then I’ll be thrilled to read it!

Best

Rick

              So I would give the
various authors of this book the benefit of the
doubt,

                  On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken <                      >,

wrote:

–
Richard S. Marken

                        Author, with Timothy A. Carey,
of Controlling
People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being
Human.

rsmarken@gmail.com

                      [From Rick Marken
(2016.05.22.1140)]
                          On Fri, May 20,
2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com
wrote:

http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Hi Alex

                        Not all closed-loop
are control loops. Only negative feedback
loops can be control loops; positive
feedback loops are amplification loops. I
suspect that the neural loops that are
internal to the nervous system are
amplification loops. The loops that go
through the environment – the ones we deal
with in PCT – are control loops. So it’s
nice that El Hady recognizes that functional
relationships between variables are often
connected in closed loops. But from a PCT
perspective, it’s not the loopiness that
matters; it’s whether or not controlling is
going on. I’m not sure that El Hady
understands that what the nervous system is
doing is controlling (not reacting to)
sensory input.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S.
Marken

                                          Author, with
Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling
People: The Paradoxical
Nature of Being Human.

MartinT · May 24, 2016, 9:49am

I find this thread a bit strange. The paper by Bill P. that was linked a little while ago put it clearly. Sensory inputs, observable actions, and so forth are at a different conceptual level from the emergent property of the structure, control. All of them are "ancillary aspects of what the system is doing". Minimizing the error is another such "ancillary aspect" at the component level of analysis.

El Hady might have said "alter subsequent sensory inputs so as to bring them closer to a desired state", or he might have said "alter subsequent sensory inputs in order that the brain can sit and think about what to do next", but he didn't say either of those things. What he did do is edit a book with "Closed Loop" in the title, and that suggests that the book will deal with the structural level of emergent phenomena, of which control is one possibility, though not the only one.
Martin

Rick, I most emphatically agree. El Hadys statement is not some much wrong because he could, though likely not, be talking about control but to describe the process as "alter subsequent sensory inputs" is, at least in my mind, ignoring the single most important aspect of control. "Alter subsequent sensory inputs" is NOT an objective of a control system, it is but an ancillary (but important overall) aspect of what the system is doing and that of course is minimize the error between 'sensory inputs' (perceptions of course) and the reference for perception.

Sensory inputs are important to us because it is to only way that we have for attempting to determine what perception is or what perceptions are being controlled. Without that knowledge then we don't really have a clue as to what the behavior are observing means beyond the idea that some sort of control is probably taking (based upon the assumption that the studied living thing is actually functioning as a living thing).

To me, and maybe my understandings are too old still (I'm working on it) for the current state of PCT, but I see no other purpose for talking about the actual controlled input(s) other than with reference to a particular experiment (or simulation) or using the nature of the specific controlled perception(s) in an analysis of why control was not achieved (exceeding the output capabilities of the organism for example).

Well I suppose that another purpose would be to explain why linear theories can not be used to explain behavior of living things.

Please correct me if I am either outright wrong or even too restrictive in what I said.

Best,
Bill

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]

Martin Taylor (2016.05.22.22.45 CET)--

MT: (From somewhere west of WÃ¼rzburg on the river Main)
With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but maybe it will go through.

RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the meaning of mine didn't. Here was the main point of my post regarding the book "Closed-loop Neuroscience":

RM: But from a PCT perspective, it's not the loopiness that matters; it's whether or not controlling is going on.

MT: Here is your reply:

MT: I would assume, in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of such a book, would know (as would his contributors) that positive feedback loops either runaway explosively or freeze against some limit.

RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El Hady doesn't know the difference between positive and negative feedback loops. That's not at all what I meant. I simply meant that recognizing the closed-loop relationship that between the nervous system and its environment -- the loopiness of the organism-environment relationship -- does not guarantee that you recognize that the behavior is a process of control and that, therefore, the nervous system is organized as an input control system rather than as an input-output device.
RM: There are many examples of scientists who have recognized that behavior occurs in a closed loop and still treated the organism as an input-output device. They were able to do this by treating the events in the loop as though they occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit. There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop -- at least, a behavioral closed loop -- this way. For example, in one of his papers I found this statement: "Through active sensing, behaving animals can influence their environment in ways that alter subsequent sensory inputs." [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of events: sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered sensing... wash>rinse>repeat.
RM: This, of course, is not a correct description of how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the events in such a loop are occurring at the same time. This means that you have to solve simultaneously the "forward" and feedback equations that describe the loop. When you do this you get the steady state equations that describe the behavior of the loop:
p = f(q.i) = r
o = r - 1/kf(d)
RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a controlled quantity, q.i, matching the reference specification, r, for the state of that perception and it does it by varying its output in proportion to any variations in r while opposing variations in the net disturbance, d, to the controlled quantity. Methods for studying the controlling done by such systems are aimed at determining what perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El Hady's book describes methods for carrying out this kind of research -- research aimed at testing for controlled perceptions -- then I'll be thrilled to read it!
Best
Rick

So I would give the various authors of this book the benefit of the doubt,

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]

<Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition; Closed Loop Neuroscience - 1st Edition

Hi Alex
Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment -- the ones we deal with in PCT -- are control loops. So it's nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it's not the loopiness that matters; it's whether or not controlling is going on. I'm not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Controlling-2DPeople-2DParadoxical-2DNature-2DBeing_dp_1922117641_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1449541975-26sr-3D1-2D1&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=1c4ZsPQek-U_-Vhe9O9Ejp15wsktA9uzQrWi3sQ0KlY&s=0UchIv8ULNDOOXJFBhv-THbQrCXiQCYupUDuJdevbXw&e=>Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

--
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Controlling-2DPeople-2DParadoxical-2DNature-2DBeing_dp_1922117641_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fs-3Dbooks-26ie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1449541975-26sr-3D1-2D1&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=7UXc-rvgz32SIbQmX5Wdo-gRUj_tTMykT0OihwwY2IM&s=ooMI9xxeQsrFisk3JWR2w99dcEitxBFRYfCtGZteVYI&e=>Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

···

On May 24, 2016, 08:52 +0200, Bill Leach <wrleach@cableone.net>, wrote:

On 05/23/2016 05:51 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken <<mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com><mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com>rsmarken@gmail.com>, wrote:

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin <<mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com>agomezmarin@gmail.com> wrote:

rsmarken · May 24, 2016, 7:43pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.24.1245)]

···

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:

BL: Rick, I most emphatically agree.  El Hadys statement is not some
much wrong because he could, though likely not, be talking about
control but to describe the process as “alter subsequent sensory
inputs” is, at least in my mind, ignoring the single most important
aspect of control.

RM: I think we only disagree about what we think is the most important aspect of control that is being ignored. You say the most important thing being ignored is the fact that the system acts to "minimize the error between 'sensory inputs' (perceptions of course)

and the reference for perception". I say the most important thing being ignored is controlled variables: the perceptual aspects of the environment that the are being controlled.

BL: ...I see no other purpose for
talking about the actual controlled input(s) other than with
reference to a particular experiment (or simulation) or using the
nature of the specific controlled perception(s) in an analysis of
why control was not achieved (exceeding the output capabilities of
the organism for example).

RM: And I see talking about the actual controlled input (controlled variables) as essential to understanding behavior from a PCT perspective. Indeed, the main goal of research aimed at understanding the behavior of living systems from a control theory (PCT) perspective is to determine what kinds of variables organisms control (using the "Test for the Controlled Variable) and how they control them (using modeling). An excellent description of Powers’ vision of a research program based on PCT can be found in his paper “A Cybernetic Model for research in Human Development”, reprinted in Living Control Systems I.

RM: Powers proposals for a PCT research program apply to neuroscience research as well. Neuroscience that is based on an input-output model (which is what a sequential state closed loop model is) will be looking for answers to the wrong questions about how the nervous system produces behavior; it will be aimed at studying the apparent (and illusory) causal relationship between input (disturbances) and output (responses) rather than the neural processes that underlay control of the perceptual variables that organisms actually control.

RM: I recommend reading all of section 3.2 in Powers’ “Systems Approach to Consciousness” chapter to see why treating living control systems as input-output devices is not a good approach to understanding these systems.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

bleach · May 24, 2016, 10:09pm

Martin, I do agree with you and thus see that my statement only
further muddied the water. I did say however, that I was talking
about what the control system was doing and not about what the
control system is.

···

On 05/24/2016 03:49 AM,
wrote:

mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net

    I find this thread a bit strange.
The paper by Bill P. that was linked a little while ago put it
clearly. Sensory inputs, observable actions, and so forth are at
a different conceptual level from the emergent property of the
structure, control. All of them are “ancillary aspects of what
the system is doing”. Minimizing the error is another such
“ancillary aspect” at the component level of analysis.
    El Hady might have said "alter subsequent sensory inputs so as
to bring them closer to a desired state", or he might have said
“alter subsequent sensory inputs in order that the brain can sit
and think about what to do next”, but he didn’t say either of
those things. What he did do is edit a book with “Closed Loop”
in the title, and that suggests that the book will deal with the
structural level of emergent phenomena, of which control is one
possibility, though not the only one.

    Martin

    On May 24, 2016, 08:52 +0200, Bill Leach

, wrote:

wrleach@cableone.net

      Rick, I most emphatically agree.  El
Hadys statement is not some much wrong because he could,
though likely not, be talking about control but to describe
the process as “alter subsequent sensory inputs” is, at least
in my mind, ignoring the single most important aspect of
control. “Alter subsequent sensory inputs” is NOT an
objective of a control system, it is but an ancillary (but
important overall) aspect of what the system is doing and that
of course is minimize the error between ‘sensory inputs’
(perceptions of course) and the reference for perception.
      Sensory inputs are important to us because it is to only way
that we have for attempting to determine what perception is or
what perceptions are being controlled. Without that knowledge
then we don’t really have a clue as to what the behavior are
observing means beyond the idea that some sort of control is
probably taking (based upon the assumption that the studied
living thing is actually functioning as a living thing).
      To me, and maybe my understandings are too old still (I'm
working on it) for the current state of PCT, but I see no
other purpose for talking about the actual controlled input(s)
other than with reference to a particular experiment (or
simulation) or using the nature of the specific controlled
perception(s) in an analysis of why control was not achieved
(exceeding the output capabilities of the organism for
example).
      Well I suppose that another purpose would be to explain why
linear theories can not be used to explain behavior of living
things.
      Please correct me if I am either outright wrong or even too
restrictive in what I said.
      Best,

      Bill

        On 05/23/2016 05:51 PM, Richard

Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]
                    Martin Taylor
(2016.05.22.22.45 CET)–

                    MT: (From somewhere
west of Würzburg on the river Main)
                    With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet
connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but
maybe it will go through.

                RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the
meaning of mine didn’t. Here was the main point of
my post regarding the book “Closed-loop
Neuroscience”:

RM: But from a PCT
perspective, it’s not the loopiness that
matters; it’s whether or not controlling is
going on.

MT: Here is your reply:

                    MT: I would assume,
in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of
such a book, would know (as would his
contributors) that positive feedback loops
either runaway explosively or freeze against
some limit.

                RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El
Hady doesn’t know the difference between positive
and negative feedback loops. That’s not at all what
I meant. I simply meant that recognizing the
closed-loop relationship that between the nervous
system and its environment – the loopiness of the
organism-environment relationship – does not
guarantee that you recognize that the behavior is a
process of control and that, therefore, the nervous
system is organized as an input control system
rather than as an input-output device.

                RM:  There are many examples of scientists who
have recognized that behavior occurs in a closed
loop and still treated the organism as an
input-output device. They were able to do this by
treating the events in the loop as though they
occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit. There are
some telltale signs that El Hady treats a
closed-loop – at least, a behavioral closed loop –
this way. For example, in one of his papers I found
this statement: “Through active sensing, behaving
animals can influence their environment ** in ways
that alter subsequent sensory inputs.”** [emphasis
mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking
about is a sequence of events: sensing>
acting>influencing environment>altered
sensing… wash>rinse>repeat.

                RM: This, of course, is not a correct description
of how a closed negative feedback control loop
works. All the events in such a loop are occurring * at
the same time* . This means that you have to
solve simultaneously the “forward” and feedback
equations that describe the loop. When you do this
you get the steady state equations that describe the
behavior of the loop:

p = f(q.i) = r

o = r - 1/kf(d)

                RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a
controlled quantity, q.i, matching the reference
specification, r, for the state of that perception
and it does it by varying its output in proportion
to any variations in r while opposing variations in
the net disturbance, d, to the controlled
quantity. Methods for studying the controlling done
by such systems are aimed at determining what
perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El
Hady’s book describes methods for carrying out this
kind of research – research aimed at testing for
controlled perceptions – then I’ll be thrilled to
read it!

Best

Rick

                    So I would give the
various authors of this book the benefit of the
doubt,

                        On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken

<>,
wrote:

–
Richard S. Marken

                              Author, with Timothy A.
Carey, of Controlling
People: The Paradoxical Nature of
Being Human.

rsmarken@gmail.com

                            [From Rick Marken
(2016.05.22.1140)]
                                On Fri, May
20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex
Gomez-Marin <>
wrote:

http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Hi Alex

                              Not all
closed-loop are control loops. Only
negative feedback loops can be control
loops; positive feedback loops are
amplification loops. I suspect that
the neural loops that are internal to
the nervous system are amplification
loops. The loops that go through the
environment – the ones we deal with
in PCT – are control loops. So it’s
nice that El Hady recognizes that
functional relationships between
variables are often connected in
closed loops. But from a PCT
perspective, it’s not the loopiness
that matters; it’s whether or not
controlling is going on. I’m not sure
that El Hady understands that what the
nervous system is doing is controlling
(not reacting to) sensory input.

Best

Rick

–
Richard
S. Marken

                                                Author,
with Timothy A.
Carey, of Controlling
People: The
Paradoxical Nature
of Being Human.

agomezmarin@gmail.com

_Boris_Hartman · June 24, 2016, 12:26pm

Sorry Rick to answer your Â»nonsenseÂ« so late. But as I wrote many times I have my reasons. I’ll occur from time to time as that was the wish of Powers ladies. But I don’t know when that will be. But I see one thing. Longer you stay without respons the greater damage is made to PCT.

RM :

There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop – at least, a behavioral closed loop – this way. For example, in one of his papers I found this statement: "Through active sensing, behaving animals can influence their environment in ways that alter subsequent sensory inputs." [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of events: sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered sensing… wash>rinse>repeat.

RM:

This, of course, is not a correct description of how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the events in such a loop are occurring at the same time.

HB :

Who could be so naive to talk that our world we live in, is time-space Â»continuumÂ« where Â»cause-effectÂ« procesess are happening in the same time. Of course who else but our Rick. Our abstract thinking man who think that World is spining arround like in his imagination. I’m sorry to say but you will have to Â»adaptÂ« thinking to the processes of nature. It will not work if you’ll try to adapt processes in nature to your thinking because that simply can’t happen. Sooner or later you will be forced to beleive that World is spinning arround in some space.time continuum where events in control loop happen sequentially as El Hardy argumented. He problably used just common sense.

Every physiologist knows and could explain to you that El Hady was right : whatever is happening in control loop is sequence of Â»cause-effectÂ« events through the loop (some time delays).

There are processes in plants and in nervous system which need time to occur as consequence of other processes. For example time lags (delays) for sequences in nervous system :

 Time needed in sensor to transform Â»physical variableÂ« into nerv signal in afferent nerv fiber.

 Time needed to spread the afferent signal to afferent neuron.

 Time needed to fire afferent neuron and form action potential in axon.

 Tiem needed for action potential to go through axon (different speeds of nerv fibres) and different synapses.

 Time needed to fire directly motor neuron or intemediate neuron (interneurons), what makes signaling from sensor input to motor output even longer, and so on……

Physiologist could measure you quite precisley how much time is lost in all these processes and prove to you that you are WRONG as many times before and that you are again misleading all here on CSG net forum.

Physiologist could even calculate you speed for every Â»control loopÂ« starting in any sensor. Differnces in different control loops starting in different sensors are hudge because the nerve fibers are different and impulses which travel with speed from aboutÂ 2m/s to 120 m/s. So the time delay in events through negative control loops starting in different senses will be significant.

I told you once or couple times that you should rethink all the ideas you have, with somebody (anybody). You should go and see some physiological books and learn something before you write any nonsence more…

But I’m not criticising only you. I’m cirticising all those your firends among them are surely those who understand your nonsense talkings and do nothing. In science there should be no friends as you can affect the truth no mattter how realtive is. Because your friends here aren’t giving you right Â»feed-backÂ«,.that you are wrong you are writing whatever you please. And that can be sisastress fo science. What friends are for ? To protect friends even if they talk nonsence ? This is not helping PCT. It’s rather dragging it into ignorancy.

So with you unchecked statements you can affect PCT and it’s stability. And you destabilize all those who received your posts on CSG net. I’m again sorry for Powers ladies if they’ll read these lines. But I hope they understand that whatever I’m doing is for the benefit of PCT. I try to be scientist, not anybody’s friend on CSGnet forum as PCT is scientific theory. But that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t be friends when meeting in person. Who knows. But not when we are talking about PCT. Scientific arguments should prevail.

So Rick as PCT is concerned I’ll always give you Â»feed-backÂ« speccially when you’ll write nonsence. I’ll give you feed-back even with a lot of time delay. So I’ll not respond in the same moment as you will post it JJJ And that’s also what all others should do, if they are your friends.

Best,

Boris

.

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:52 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Closed Loop Neuroscience

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]

Martin Taylor (2016.05.22.22.45 CET)–

MT: (From somewhere west of WÃ¼rzburg on the river Main)
With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but maybe it will go through.

RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the meaning of mine didn’t. Here was the main point of my post regarding the book “Closed-loop Neuroscience”:

RM: But from a PCT perspective, it’s not the loopiness that matters; it’s whether or not controlling is going on.

MT: Here is your reply:

MT: I would assume, in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of such a book, would know (as would his contributors) that positive feedback loops either runaway explosively or freeze against some limit.

RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El Hady doesn’t know the difference between positive and negative feedback loops. That’s not at all what I meant. I simply meant that recognizing the closed-loop relationship that between the nervous system and its environment – the loopiness of the organism-environment relationship – does not guarantee that you recognize that the behavior is a process of control and that, therefore, the nervous system is organized as an input control system rather than as an input-output device.

RM: There are many examples of scientists who have recognized that behavior occurs in a closed loop and still treated the organism as an input-output device. They were able to do this by treating the events in the loop as though they occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit. There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop – at least, a behavioral closed loop – this way. For example, in one of his papers I found this statement: "Through active sensing, behaving animals can influence their environment in ways that alter subsequent sensory inputs." [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of events: sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered sensing… wash>rinse>repeat.

RM: This, of course, is not a correct description of how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the events in such a loop are occurring at the same time. This means that you have to solve simultaneously the “forward” and feedback equations that describe the loop. When you do this you get the steady state equations that describe the behavior of the loop:

p = f(q.i) = r

o = r - 1/kf(d)

RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a controlled quantity, q.i, matching the reference specification, r, for the state of that perception and it does it by varying its output in proportion to any variations in r while opposing variations in the net disturbance, d, to the controlled quantity. Methods for studying the controlling done by such systems are aimed at determining what perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El Hady’s book describes methods for carrying out this kind of research – research aimed at testing for controlled perceptions – then I’ll be thrilled to read it!

Best

Rick

So I would give the various authors of this book the benefit of the doubt,

On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com, wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Hi Alex

Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment – the ones we deal with in PCT – are control loops. So it’s nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it’s not the loopiness that matters; it’s whether or not controlling is going on. I’m not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

rsmarken · June 24, 2016, 9:06pm

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.24.1400)]

···

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

BH: Sorry Rick to answer your Â»nonsenseÂ« so late.

Â RM: No need to apologize.Â

RM : There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop – at least, a behavioral closed loop – this way. For example, in one of his papers I found this statement: “Through active sensing, behaving animals can influence their environment **in ways that alter subsequent sensory inputs.”**Â [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of events: sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered sensing… wash>rinse>repeat.Â

Â

RM: This, of course, is not a correct description of how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the events in such a loop are occurring at the same time.

Â

HB :Â Who could be so naive to talk that our world we live in, is time-space Â»continuumÂ« where Â»cause-effectÂ« procesess are happening in the same time.

HB: Every physiologist knows and could explain to you that El Hady was right : whatever is happening in control loop is sequence of Â»cause-effectÂ« events through the loop (some time delays).

RM: You are absolutely right.Â I’ll try to give a better explanation of what I meant.Â

RM: Effects always follow their causes by some amount of time. But in a control loop, events that are causes are also effects at the same time. For example, in a control loop sensory inputs, A, cause, after a brief interval, motor outputs, B; effect (B) follows cause (A) .Â But in a control loop A is also an effect of outputs, B. So A is, at any instant, both a cause (of B) and an effect (of B). A is causing B at the same time that B is causing A.Â

RM: Due to the time delay between cause and effect, the value of A that is causing a particular value of B is not the same value of A that is being caused by that same value of Â B. But A is causing variations in B at the same time as B is causing variations in A. So the state of A at any instant is both a cause (of future) and an effect (of prior) states of B and B is, in the same instant,Â both a cause (of future) and an effect (of prior) states of A.Â

RM: That’s what I meant when I said that "All the events in a closed loop are occurringÂ at the same time". Maybe the best way to visualize it is as a wheel with many spokes, Each spoke is a cause of the next spoke and a result of the prior spoke. The time between cause and effect is the separation between the spokes. As the wheel turns these causal links are propagated around the loop with the causal delay in tact; but all causal relationships – all adjacent relationships between spokes – are operating at the same time.Â

RM: We have to use some “tricks” to simulate this closed loop causal process on a computer, since a computer only carries out the causal links in a control loop sequentially. The main trick is having the system put out only a fraction of it’s output during each iteration of the loop. There are much snazzier ways of simulating a closed loop on a sequential state device; I’m sure Richard Kennaway – Â if he’s still reading CSGNet. – can tell you what they are.

Best

Rick

Â

1.Â Â Â Â Â Time needed in sensor to transform Â»physical variableÂ« into nerv signal in afferent nerv fiber.

2.Â Â Â Â Â Time needed to spread the afferent signal to afferent neuron.

3.Â Â Â Â Â Time needed to fire afferent neuron and form action potential in axon.

4.Â Â Â Â Â Tiem needed for action potential to go through axon (different speeds of nerv fibres) and different synapses.

5.Â Â Â Â Â Time needed to fire directly motor neuron or intemediate neuron (interneurons), what makes signaling from sensor input to motor output even longer, and so on……

Â

Physiologist could measure you quite precisley how much time is lost in all these processes and prove to you that you are WRONG as many times before and that you are again misleading all here on CSG net forum.

Â

Physiologist could even calculate you speed for every Â»control loopÂ« starting in any sensor. Differnces in different control loops starting in different sensors are hudge because the nerve fibers are different and impulses which travel with speed from aboutÂ 2m/s to 120 m/s. So the time delay in events through negative control loops starting in different senses will be significant.

Â

I told you once or couple times that you should rethink all the ideas you have, with somebody (anybody). You should go and see some physiological books and learn something before you write any nonsence more…

Â

But I’m not criticising only you. I’m cirticising all those your firends among them are surely those who understand your nonsense talkings and do nothing. In science there should be no friends as you can affect the truth no mattter how realtive is. Because your friends here aren’t giving you right Â»feed-backÂ«,.that you are wrong you are writing whatever you please. And that can be sisastress fo science. What friends are for ? To protect friends even if they talk nonsence ? This is not helping PCT. It’s rather dragging it into ignorancy.

Â

So with you unchecked statements you can affect PCT and it’s stability. And you destabilize all those who received your posts on CSG net. I’m again sorry for Powers ladies if they’ll read these lines. But I hope they understand that whatever I’m doing is for the benefit of PCT. I try to be scientist, not anybody’s friend on CSGnet forum as PCT is scientific theory. But that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t be friends when meeting in person. Who knows. But not when we are talking about PCT. Scientific arguments should prevail.

Â

So Rick as PCT is concerned I’ll always give you Â»feed-backÂ« speccially when you’ll write nonsence. I’ll give you feed-back even with a lot of time delay. So I’ll not respond in the same moment as you will post it JJJ And that’s also what all others should do, if they are your friends.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

.

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:52 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Closed Loop Neuroscience

Â

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.23.1650)]

Â

Martin Taylor (2016.05.22.22.45 CET)–

Â

MT: (From somewhere west of WÃ¼rzburg on the river Main)
With the low bandwidth and intermittent internet connection I have, I hesitate to try this, but maybe it will go through.

Â

RM: Yes, your post got through but apparently the meaning of mine didn’t. Here was the main point of my post regarding the book “Closed-loop Neuroscience”:

RM:Â But from a PCT perspective, it’s not the loopiness that matters; it’s whether or not controlling is going on. Â

MT: Here is your reply:

Â

MT: I would assume, in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as editor of such a book, would know (as would his contributors) that positive feedback loops either runaway explosively or freeze against some limit.

Â

RM: Apparently you took me to be saying that El Hady doesn’t know the difference between positive and negative feedback loops. That’s not at all what I meant. I simply meant that recognizing the closed-loop relationship that between the nervous system and its environment – the loopiness of the organism-environment relationship – Â does not guarantee that you recognize that the behavior is a process of control and that, therefore, the nervous system is organized as an input control system rather than as an input-output device.

Â

RM: Â There are many examples of scientists who have recognized that behavior occurs in a closed loop and still treated the organism as an input-output device. They were able to do this by treating the events in the loop as though they occurred in sequence, as in the TOTE unit. There are some telltale signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop – at least, a behavioral closed loop – this way. For example, in one of his papers I found this statement: “Through active sensing, behaving animals can influence their environment **in ways that alter subsequent sensory inputs.”**Â [emphasis mine]. In other words, the closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of events: sensing> acting>influencing environment>altered sensing… wash>rinse>repeat.Â

Â

RM: This, of course, is not a correct description of how a closed negative feedback control loop works. All the events in such a loop are occurring at the same time. This means that you have to solve simultaneously the “forward” and feedback equations that describe the loop. When you do this you get the steady state equations that describe the behavior of the loop:Â

Â

p = f(q.i) = r

Â

o = r - 1/kf(d)

Â

RM: The loop keeps a perception, p, of a controlled quantity, q.i, Â matching the reference specification, r, for the state of that perception and it does it by varying its output in proportion to any variations in r while opposing variations in the net disturbance, d, Â to the controlled quantity.Â Methods for studying the controlling done by such systems are aimed at determining what perception (function of q.i)is under control. If El Hady’s book describes methods for carrying out this kind of research – research aimed at testing for controlled perceptions – then I’ll be thrilled to read it!

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

So I would give the various authors of this book the benefit of the doubt,Â

On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com, wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]

Â

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/

Â

Hi Alex

Â

Not all closed-loop are control loops. Only negative feedback loops can be control loops; positive feedback loops are amplification loops. I suspect that the neural loops that are internal to the nervous system are amplification loops. The loops that go through the environment – the ones we deal with in PCT – are control loops. So it’s nice that El Hady recognizes that functional relationships between variables are often connected in closed loops. But from a PCT perspective, it’s not the loopiness that matters; it’s whether or not controlling is going on. I’m not sure that El Hady understands that what the nervous system is doing is controlling (not reacting to) sensory input.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, ofÂ Â Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

Â

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, ofÂ Â Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

Â

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, ofÂ Â Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

bleach · June 25, 2016, 2:29am

Rick,
I find myself reminded of some control system work that I was
involved in some 40 years ago.Â A small mini-computer was programmed
to handle the control function that had previously been handled by
an analog computer.Â Abysmal failure!Â The mini-computer was just
too slow.
I am starting to think that one of the reasons that I don’t usually
seem to have any trouble with what you write here is that I grew up
with analog control (mostly electronic) and have pretty much always
analyzed systems by sequentially breaking the system down by
starting from the reference signal, (recognizing that the comparator
exists) to output generation, through the environmental feedback,
the latter’s effect on the controlled input, the input sensing and
then the comparator.Â All of that was, of course, needed to
understand how these system components functioned.Â But after that
analysis, to me, it was a continuous operation.Â I did not think of
the system as sequential.
I believe that when digital systems came along, I just saw them as a
(slower) emulation of these analog systems and that analyzing,
troubleshooting, and modification (reorganization?) was the same
process as with their analog equivalents… a process to be
understood as continuous, not sequential. Unfortunately we do not really have a way to describe the process
(beyond the formal mathematical method) that is not sequential and
it is that description, irrespective of all attempts to assert that
it is not actually a sequential process, that results in the
problems that people have with understanding the process of closed
loop negative feedback control.

···

On 06/24/2016 03:06 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.24.1400)]
        On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:26 AM,
Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net
wrote:
                BH: Sorry Rick to answer your
Â»nonsenseÂ« so late.

Â RM: No need to apologize.Â

              RM : There are some telltale signs
that El Hady treats a closed-loop – at least, a
behavioral closed loop – this way. For example, in
one of his papers I found this statement: “Through
active sensing, behaving animals can influence their
environment ** in ways that alter subsequent sensory
inputs.”** Â [emphasis mine]. In other words, the
closed loop he is talking about is a sequence of
events: sensing> acting>influencing
environment>altered sensing…
wash>rinse>repeat.Â

Â

RM: This, of course, is
not a correct description of how a closed negative
feedback control loop works. All the events in such
a loop are occurring at the same time.

Â

                HB
:Â Who
could be so naive to talk that our world we live in,
is time-space Â»continuumÂ« where Â»cause-effectÂ«
procesess are happening in the same time.

                HB:
Every physiologist knows and could explain to you
that El Hady was right : whatever is happening in
control loop is sequence of Â»cause-effectÂ« events
through the loop (some time delays).

          RM: You are absolutely right.Â  I'll try to give a

better explanation of what I meant.Â

          RM: Effects always follow their causes by some amount
of time. But in a control loop, events that are causes are
also effects at the same time . For example, in a
control loop sensory inputs, A, cause, after a brief
interval, motor outputs, B; effect (B) follows cause (A)
.Â But in a control loop A is also an effect of outputs,
B. So A is, at any instant, both a cause (of B) and an
effect (of B). A is causing B at the same time that B is
causing A.Â

          RM: Due to the time delay between cause and effect, the
value of A that is causing a particular value of B is not
the same value of A that is being caused by that same
value of Â B. But A is causing variations in B at the same
time as B is causing variations in A. So the state of A at
any instant is both a cause (of future) and an effect (of
prior) states of B and B is, in the same instant,Â both a
cause (of future) and an effect (of prior) states of A.Â

          RM: That's what I meant when I said that "All the
events in a closed loop are occurringÂ at the same time" .
Maybe the best way to visualize it is as a wheel with many
spokes, Each spoke is a cause of the next spoke and a
result of the prior spoke. The time between cause and
effect is the separation between the spokes. As the wheel
turns these causal links are propagated around the loop
with the causal delay in tact; but all causal
relationships – all adjacent relationships between spokes
– are operating at the same time.Â

          RM: We have to use some "tricks" to simulate this
closed loop causal process on a computer, since a computer
only carries out the causal links in a control loop
sequentially. The main trick is having the system put out
only a fraction of it’s output during each iteration of
the loop. There are much snazzier ways of simulating a
closed loop on a sequential state device; I’m sure Richard
Kennaway – Â if he’s still reading CSGNet. – can tell
you what they are.

Best

Rick

Â

1.Â Â Â Â Â Time needed in sensor
to transform Â»physical variableÂ« into nerv signal in
afferent nerv fiber.

2.Â Â Â Â Â Time needed to spread
the afferent signal to afferent neuron.

3.Â Â Â Â Â Time needed to fire
afferent neuron and form action potential in axon.

4.Â Â Â Â Â Tiem needed for action
potential to go through axon (different speeds of
nerv fibres) and different synapses.

5.Â Â Â Â Â Time needed to fire
directly motor neuron or intemediate neuron
(interneurons), what makes signaling from sensor
input to motor output even longer, and so on…¦…

Â

                Physiologist
could measure you quite precisley how much time is
lost in all these processes and prove to you that
you are WRONG as many times before and that you are
again misleading all here on CSG net forum.

Â

                Physiologist
could even calculate you speed for every Â»control
loopÂ« starting in any sensor. Differnces in
different control loops starting in different
sensors are hudge because the nerve fibers are
different and impulses which travel with speed from
aboutÂ 2m/s to 120 m/s. So the time delay in events
through negative control loops starting in different
senses will be significant.

Â

                I
told you once or couple times that you should
rethink all the ideas you have, with somebody
(anybody). You should go and see some physiological
books and learn something before you write any
nonsence more…

Â

                But
I’m not criticising only you. I’m cirticising all
those your firends among them are surely those who
understand your nonsense talkings and do nothing. In
science there should be no friends as you can affect
the truth no mattter how realtive is. Because your
friends here aren’t giving you right
Â»feed-backÂ«,.that you are wrong you are writing
whatever you please. And that can be sisastress fo
science. What friends are for ? To protect friends
even if they talk nonsence ? This is not helping
PCT. It’s rather dragging it into ignorancy.

Â

                So
with you unchecked statements you can affect PCT and
it’s stability. And you destabilize all those who
received your posts on CSG net. I’m again sorry for
Powers ladies if they’ll read these lines. But I
hope they understand that whatever I’m doing is for
the benefit of PCT. I try to be scientist, not
anybody’s friend on CSGnet forum as PCT is
scientific theory. But that doesn’t mean that we
couldn’t be friends when meeting in person. Who
knows. But not when we are talking about PCT.
Scientific arguments should prevail.

Â

                So
Rick as PCT is concerned I’ll always give you
Â»feed-backÂ« speccially when you’ll write nonsence.
I’ll give you feed-back even with a lot of time
delay. So I’ll not respond in the same moment as you
will post it JJJ And that’s also what
all others should do, if they are your friends.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

.

Â

From:
Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:52 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Closed Loop Neuroscience

Â

                    [From Rick Marken

(2016.05.23.1650)]

Â

                              Martin Taylor

(2016.05.22.22.45 CET)–

Â

                              MT: (From somewhere
west of WÃ¼rzburg on the river Main)
With the low bandwidth and
intermittent internet connection I
have, I hesitate to try this, but
maybe it will go through.

Â

                          RM: Yes, your post got
through but apparently the meaning of mine
didn’t. Here was the main point of my post
regarding the book “Closed-loop
Neuroscience”:

RM:Â But
from a PCT perspective, it’s not
the loopiness that matters; it’s
whether or not controlling is
going on. Â

                            MT: Here is

your reply:

Â

                              MT: I would assume,
in contrast to Rick, that El Hady, as
editor of such a book, would know (as
would his contributors) that positive
feedback loops either runaway
explosively or freeze against some
limit.

Â

                          RM: Apparently you took
me to be saying that El Hady doesn’t know
the difference between positive and
negative feedback loops. That’s not at all
what I meant. I simply meant that
recognizing the closed-loop relationship
that between the nervous system and its
environment – the loopiness of the
organism-environment relationship – Â does
not guarantee that you recognize that the
behavior is a process of control and that,
therefore, the nervous system is organized
as an input control system rather than as
an input-output device.

Â

                          RM: Â There are many
examples of scientists who have recognized
that behavior occurs in a closed loop and
still treated the organism as an
input-output device. They were able to do
this by treating the events in the loop as
though they occurred in sequence, as in
the TOTE unit. There are some telltale
signs that El Hady treats a closed-loop –
at least, a behavioral closed loop – this
way. For example, in one of his papers I
found this statement: “Through active
sensing, behaving animals can influence
their environment ** in ways that alter
subsequent sensory inputs.”** Â [emphasis
mine]. In other words, the closed loop he
is talking about is a sequence of events:
sensing> acting>influencing
environment>altered sensing…
wash>rinse>repeat.Â

Â

                          RM: This, of course, is
not a correct description of how a closed
negative feedback control loop works. All
the events in such a loop are occurring * at
the same time* . This means that you
have to solve simultaneously the “forward”
and feedback equations that describe the
loop. When you do this you get the steady
state equations that describe the behavior
of the loop:Â

Â

p = f(q.i) = r

Â

o = r - 1/kf(d)

Â

                          RM: The loop keeps a
perception, p, of a controlled quantity,
q.i, Â matching the reference
specification, r, for the state of that
perception and it does it by varying its
output in proportion to any variations in
r while opposing variations in the net
disturbance, d, Â to the controlled
quantity.Â Methods for studying the
controlling done by such systems are aimed
at determining what perception (function
of q.i)is under control. If El Hady’s book
describes methods for carrying out this
kind of research – research aimed at
testing for controlled perceptions – then
I’ll be thrilled to read it!

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

                              So I would give the
various authors of this book the
benefit of the doubt,Â

                                  On May 22, 2016, 20:41 +0200,

Richard Marken < >,
wrote:

                                    [From Rick

Marken (2016.05.22.1140)]

Â

                                        On Fri,
May 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM,
Alex Gomez-Marin < >
wrote:

Â

Hi Alex

Â

                                      Not all
closed-loop are control loops.
Only negative feedback loops
can be control loops; positive
feedback loops are
amplification loops. I suspect
that the neural loops that are
internal to the nervous system
are amplification loops. The
loops that go through the
environment – the ones we
deal with in PCT – are
control loops. So it’s nice
that El Hady recognizes that
functional relationships
between variables are often
connected in closed loops. But
from a PCT perspective, it’s
not the loopiness that
matters; it’s whether or not
controlling is going on. I’m
not sure that El Hady
understands that what the
nervous system is doing is
controlling (not reacting to)
sensory input.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

–

                                                      Richard

S. MarkenÂ

                                                      Author,
with Timothy
A. Carey, ofÂ Â Controlling People:
The
Paradoxical
Nature of
Being Human.Â

Â

–

                                        Richard

S. MarkenÂ

                                        Author,
with Timothy A. Carey, ofÂ Â Controlling
People: The Paradoxical
Nature of Being Human.Â

Â

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

                        Author, with Timothy A. Carey,
ofÂ Â Controlling
People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being
Human.Â

rsmarken@gmail.com

agomezmarin@gmail.com http://store.elsevier.com/Closed-Loop-Neuroscience/Ahmed-El-Hady/isbn-9780128024522/