# Confusing Language  (Was \[Attachment Removed\] Some Simple Questions)

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/confusing-language-was-attachment-removed-some-simple-questions/2822>\
**Category:** CSG2016\
**Created:** [October 2, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/confusing-language-was-attachment-removed-some-simple-questions/2822 "2016-10-02T17:27:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/confusing-language-was-attachment-removed-some-simple-questions/2822/1 "2016-10-02T17:27:43Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (2016.10.02.1321 ET)]

I want to pick up on and pursue something Rick wrote farther down. It might give Boris heartburn but to me it’s simply confusing. Here’s the snippet:

RM: “qi corresponds to whatever variable aspect of the environment the system is controlling. It would correspond to the amount of coffee in the cup if this were the system controlling for the amount of coffee in the cup.�

I know that what you’ve written is essentially Bill’s definition of “controlled quantity� but how does the system controlling some variable aspect of the environment square with the control of perception? Do we control perception, some aspect of the environment, or both?

Fred (confused) Nickols

![image00187.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/2ef896a450777946a9ac9e9ff65c90e32a426771.png)

> **···**
>
> **From:** Richard Marken [[mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)]  
> **Sent:** Sunday, October 02, 2016 12:12 PM  
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:** Re: [Attachment Removed] Some Simple Questions
> 
> [From Rick Marken (2016.10.02.0910)]
> 
> > Fred Nickols (2016.10.02.0826 ET)
> 
> > FN: The diagram below is essentially the same one that appears on page 286 in B:CP (2nd Edition). The only changes I have made were to remove the annotations Bill used for linear analysis purposes. I have a few simple questions:
> 
> > ![]()
> 
> > Is _qo_ the controlled quantity?
> 
> RM: No, qi is the controlled quantity.
> 
> > FN: Is _p_ the perceptual signal that corresponds to _qo_?
> 
> RM: No, p is the perceptual signal that corresponds to qi.
> 
> > FN: In terms of my coffee cup example, is _qo_ the amount of coffee in the cup?
> 
> RM: qo is the output variable. qi corresponds to whatever variable aspect of the environment the system is controlling. It would correspond to the amount of coffee in the cup if this were the system controlling for the amount of coffee in the cup.
> 
> > FN: In terms of my coffee cup example, is _p_ my perception of the amount of coffee in the cup?
> 
> RM: If that’s what this system is controlling then, yes. The perceptual signal in a control loop corresponds to whatever variable aspect of the environment the system is controlling. Think of it in terms of a thermostat. qi is the aspect of the environment that is sensed and controlled. So in the thermostat qi is a measure of molecular motion; this measure is converted into an electrical current, equivalent to the perceptual signal, p. So variations in p in a thermostat correspond to the rate of molecular motion at the thermostat’s sensor (the bimetallic coil). If instead of a thermostat the device is a humidity controller then qi is some measure of the ratio of molecular motion to vapor content of the air. And variations in p correspond to variations in this ratio.
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> > Regards,
> 
> > Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker
> 
> > My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours
> 
> > **[DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nickols.us_&d=DQMFAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=t2iSxOD1jHpdv_I7TT7tZ5SSuIaD67T_VAithLY5UZE&s=b7euZMFwrRqi3LLnV40_pSkZb8hhWh64MV1pvcGGuzg&e=)**
> 
> > _“Assistance at a Distance�_SM
> 
> –
> 
> Richard S. Marken
> 
> “The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/confusing-language-was-attachment-removed-some-simple-questions/2822/2 "2016-10-02T20:59:30Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2016.10.02.0910)]

> Fred Nickols (2016.10.02.0826 ET)

> FN: The diagram below is essentially the same one that appears on page 286 in B:CP (2nd Edition). The only changes I have made were to remove the annotations Bill used for linear analysis purposes. I have a few simple questions:

> ![]()

> Is _qo_ the controlled quantity?

RM: No, qi is the controlled quantity.

No, Qi is imagined “controlled quantity� in RCT. Qi is place where effects of Qo and d are added. It’s imagined “controlled quantity� in RCT.

> FN: Is _p_ the perceptual signal that corresponds to _qo_?

RM: No, p is the perceptual signal that corresponds to qi.

Right. It corresponds to added effects of Qo and d.

> FN: In terms of my coffee cup example, is _qo_ the amount of coffee in the cup?

RM: qo is the output variable.

HB : Well it’s better to say that Qo is output quantity, effects of the system on the environment.

qi corresponds to whatever variable aspect of the environment the system is controlling.

HB . Again Rick’s imagination (fantasy) and his RCT. Fred you can see clearly from Bill’s diagram (LCS III) that nothing in the outer environment is controlled. There are just “mixed� effects.

It would correspond to the amount of coffee in the cup if this were the system controlling for the amount of coffee in the cup.

HB : Again. Nothing is controlled in outer environment.

> FN: In terms of my coffee cup example, is _p_ my perception of the amount of coffee in the cup?

> HB : The problem is with physiological definition of the structure of perceptual signal. Actually perceptual signal doesn’t correspond to any “structureâ€? in the outer environment. So no. Cup of coffee is not “structuredâ€? in perceptual signal (see physiological evidence). Â

> I’ll answer to the bellow imagination of Rick and RCT, although I’ve  answered Rick’s nonsense for 55 x.

RM: If that’s what this system is controlling then, yes.

HB : Of course not. Live System is not controlling anything outside.

The perceptual signal in a control loop corresponds to whatever variable aspect of the environment the system is controlling.

HB : Prove it Rick !!! You can use B:CP JJJJ

Think of it in terms of a thermostat. qi is the aspect of the environment that is sensed and controlled. So in the thermostat qi is a measure of molecular motion; this measure is converted into an electrical current, equivalent to the perceptual signal, p. So variations in p in a thermostat correspond to the rate of molecular motion at the thermostat’s sensor (the bimetallic coil). If instead of a thermostat the device is a humidity controller then qi is some measure of the ratio of molecular motion to vapor content of the air. And variations in p correspond to variations in this ratio.

HB: You can’t compare Live Control system with thermostat. I’ve explained that in conversation with Bruce. Also Henry Yin explained it well where is mistake in such thinking. So Rick you’ll have to read many things until you could understand how organism works with “Control of perceptionâ€? not “Control of behaviorâ€?.  Â

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

![image00353.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/7c8b47998d2c246c42bc96ff995d0003abf4cf5a.jpeg)

![image00187.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/2ef896a450777946a9ac9e9ff65c90e32a426771.png)

> **···**
>
> **From:** Fred Nickols [[mailto:fred@nickols.us](mailto:fred@nickols.us)]  
> **Sent:** Sunday, October 02, 2016 7:28 PM  
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:** Confusing Language (Was [Attachment Removed] Some Simple Questions)
> 
> [From Fred Nickols (2016.10.02.1321 ET)]
> 
> I want to pick up on and pursue something Rick wrote farther down. It might give Boris heartburn but to me it’s simply confusing. Here’s the snippet:
> 
> RM: “qi corresponds to whatever variable aspect of the environment the system is controlling.
> 
> HB : This is of course the biggest lie Rick is saying. Where did you get this Rick ? Where do you see any “variable aspect� of the environment in LCS III diagram the system is controlling ???
> 
> It’s no secret any more that you are the biggest bulllshiter on CSGnet. Live systems are not controlling anything in the environment.
> 
> ![cid:image001.png@01D1CF6C.D20A8F20]()
> 
> HB : Where do you see in the LCS III diagram the existence of “ controlled quantity� ? Qi is the point (imagined) of course, which is showing added effects of Qo and d (in Fred diagram).
> 
> RM earlier : The difference is that the controlled quantity is the controlled variable seen from the perspective of an observer of the control system.
> 
> HB : This is quite near to the truth. Rick is the observer of the control system and he is observing control system from his point of view, which is RCT. And “controlled quantity� is his imagination.
> 
> It would correspond to the amount of coffee in the cup if this were the system controlling for the amount of coffee in the cup.�
> 
> HB : You can see clearly from the LCS III diagram that there is no “controlled variable� in the environment of the system. There are just “mixed� effects as Kent McClelland is efficiently describing what is happening outside, because effects are just added (mixed).
> 
> The perceptual signal of the environment will be controlled in comparator. Only nervous system controls. “Controlled perceptual signal� never enters comparator. Just perceptual signal with no “controlled values�.
> 
> FN : I know that what you’ve written is essentially Bill’s definition of “controlled quantity�
> 
> HB : Where did you find Fred that whatever Rick said about “controlled quantity� is Bills’ definition ?
> 
> FN : ….but how does the system controlling some variable aspect of the environment square with the control of perception?
> 
> HB : It doesn’t. Control can’t be done twice in the loop. Rick is manipulating. You better believe what you see in LCS III diagram.
> 
> FN : Do we control perception, some aspect of the environment, or both?
> 
> HB : PCT is theory about “Control of perception� not about “Control of some aspect of outer environment�.
> 
> Rick is the highest class manipulator with his RCT, so I don’t blame you that you are confused. You will stay confused if you’ll believe him. Just discard his posts and you’ll have no problem understanding PCT.
> 
> Best regards Fred and cheers.
> 
> Boris
> 
> Fred (confused) Nickols
> 
> Fred I’m really sorry that you are confused. I’d explain to you how PCT works but you don’t believe me. You don’t believe Rick either. So believe Bill.
> 
> See also bellow……
> 
> **From:** Richard Marken [[mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)]  
> **Sent:** Sunday, October 02, 2016 12:12 PM  
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:** Re: [Attachment Removed] Some Simple Questions
> 
> > Regards,
> 
> > Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker
> 
> > My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours
> 
> > **[DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nickols.us_&d=DQMFAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=t2iSxOD1jHpdv_I7TT7tZ5SSuIaD67T_VAithLY5UZE&s=b7euZMFwrRqi3LLnV40_pSkZb8hhWh64MV1pvcGGuzg&e=)**
> 
> > _“Assistance at a Distance�_SM
> 
> –
> 
> Richard S. Marken
> 
> “The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers