Let’s see who can control my behavior. You say you can control my finger position if I am controlling the knot position. Let’s see if you can control what I say if I am controlling the truth of my statements. This is a game called persuasion. What statement will I admit?
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.13.10.55]
Let’s see who can control my behavior. You say you can control my finger position if I am controlling the knot position. Let’s see if you can control what I say if I am controlling the truth of my statements. This is a game called persuasion. What statement will I admit?
Philip, unless I misunderstand you, you are asking a set of possibly related questions all packed into five short sentences. Those questions are based in a bunch of assumptions, or they make no sense at all. My perception of your assumptions (possibly quite incorrect) is as follows.
Sentence 1.
Assumptions: 1. "control" means success in bringing some perception close to its reference level.
2. There exists someone who wants to control your behaviour.
3. (Implicit, i.e. my assumption about your assumption) You don't want anyone to control your behaviour.
4. Your sentence disturbs a perception in several people in such a way that at least some of them will act to oppose the disturbance in such a way as to control your behaviour by disturbing some perception you control. (This isn't quite the same as 2, but it is close).
Comment: "Control" implies acting to oppose a disturbance, not that the action will succeed in opposing it. To succeed would be good control. Not all control is good.
Sentence 2:
Assumption: If there is one circumstance in which a particular action is the only one that can oppose a particular disturbance, then in all circumstances only one action can oppose a different disturbance.
Comment: The rubber band demo works only because the subject has agreed to use only one action to keep the knot over the mark. The subject is assumed to be controlling for keeping his or her word, and not to hold the dot over the mark by nailing it there, nor to stop controlling the perceived position of the knot when moving the finger.
Sentence 3:
Assumptions: 1. You have the possibility of making many different statements, but you are controlling so that you perceive each of them to have some unspecified truth value (implicitly that you perceive them to be true).
2. (Implicit) You will act to correct any statement made by someone else that you perceive to be untrue.
3. You will have many different ways of correcting the untruth of any statement made by another.
4. You will define as failure to control what you say if any of these methods of correction are worded differently from what the disturber wanted you to say.
5. You will correctly perceive what the disturber wants you to say.
Comment: If I were to say that 2+2=5, you might choose to control for not being controlled by responding "and 3+3 = 7", meaning not that you were telling an untruth, but you were using this wording to say I was wrong in my assertion. Or you might say "No, it isn't", or you might ignore my statement entirely. Would I have failed in my effort to control what you say? Maybe, maybe not. I would depend on what I was trying to achieve. Might I be controlling for perceiving whether you were controlling for perceiving my statements to be true? If so, any of those responses, among a myriad of other possibilities, would show good control.
Sentence 4: I confess I don't know where the leap to "persuasion" came from -- what perception you were controlling in imagination against what imagined disturbance --, so I can't guess your assumptions or comment on them. Sentence 5 seems as though it should follow from Sentence 4, but the connection is not obvious, because it seems as though it is intended to disturb someone into probing the entirety of your current belief structure -- how you currently perceive every aspect of your real and imagined world. I doubt that you will find many takers for that project.
Taking all five sentences as a unit, I perceive that you do not understand the point of the rubber-band demo, or that you do not accept the PCT mantra "many means to the same end". Of course, it is quite possible that neither of these is true, and that you were controlling for someone to try to provide a serious answer to your message, in which case, your control of my behaviour was quite good.
Martin
···
On 2018/05/13 2:28 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
I like your response. I’ll mull it over in detail. As an initial response, I’ll say control means dependency. The variable x controls the value of a function of x. To control something means that you are a variable in a function of yourself.
···
On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.13.10.55]
On 2018/05/13 2:28 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Let’s see who can control my behavior. You say you can control my finger position if I am controlling the knot position. Let’s see if you can control what I say if I am controlling the truth of my statements. This is a game called persuasion. What statement will I admit?
Philip, unless I misunderstand you, you are asking a set of possibly related questions all packed into five short sentences. Those questions are based in a bunch of assumptions, or they make no sense at all. My perception of your assumptions (possibly quite incorrect) is as follows.
Sentence 1.
Assumptions: 1. “control” means success in bringing some perception close to its reference level.
2. There exists someone who wants to control your behaviour. 3. (Implicit, i.e. my assumption about your assumption) You don't want anyone to control your behaviour. 4. Your sentence disturbs a perception in several people in such a way that at least some of them will act to oppose the disturbance in such a way as to control your behaviour by disturbing some perception you control. (This isn't quite the same as 2, but it is close).
Comment: “Control” implies acting to oppose a disturbance, not that the action will succeed in opposing it. To succeed would be good control. Not all control is good.
Sentence 2:
Assumption: If there is one circumstance in which a particular action is the only one that can oppose a particular disturbance, then in all circumstances only one action can oppose a different disturbance.
Comment: The rubber band demo works only because the subject has agreed to use only one action to keep the knot over the mark. The subject is assumed to be controlling for keeping his or her word, and not to hold the dot over the mark by nailing it there, nor to stop controlling the perceived position of the knot when moving the finger.
Sentence 3:
Assumptions: 1. You have the possibility of making many different statements, but you are controlling so that you perceive each of them to have some unspecified truth value (implicitly that you perceive them to be true).
(Implicit) You will act to correct any statement made by someone else that you perceive to be untrue.
You will have many different ways of correcting the untruth of any statement made by another.
You will define as failure to control what you say if any of these methods of correction are worded differently from what the disturber wanted you to say.
You will correctly perceive what the disturber wants you to say.
Comment: If I were to say that 2+2=5, you might choose to control for not being controlled by responding “and 3+3 = 7”, meaning not that you were telling an untruth, but you were using this wording to say I was wrong in my assertion. Or you might say “No, it isn’t”, or you might ignore my statement entirely. Would I have failed in my effort to control what you say? Maybe, maybe not. I would depend on what I was trying to achieve. Might I be controlling for perceiving whether you were controlling for perceiving my statements to be true? If so, any of those responses, among a myriad of other possibilities, would show good control.
Sentence 4: I confess I don’t know where the leap to “persuasion” came from – what perception you were controlling in imagination against what imagined disturbance --, so I can’t guess your assumptions or comment on them. Sentence 5 seems as though it should follow from Sentence 4, but the connection is not obvious, because it seems as though it is intended to disturb someone into probing the entirety of your current belief structure – how you currently perceive every aspect of your real and imagined world. I doubt that you will find many takers for that project.
Taking all five sentences as a unit, I perceive that you do not understand the point of the rubber-band demo, or that you do not accept the PCT mantra “many means to the same end”. Of course, it is quite possible that neither of these is true, and that you were controlling for someone to try to provide a serious answer to your message, in which case, your control of my behaviour was quite good.
Martin
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.13.12.49]
“The variable x controls the value of a function of x .”
No. You could say that the variable x commands the value of a
function of x, but it does not control it. There’s no feedback.
It’s a pure S-R process. Stick a bunch of such S-R processes head
to tail and have the snake bite its own tail, and you have a
feedback loop, which might be one that performs control. Control
is an emergent property of a very particular structure of
functional S-R processes.
Martin
···
On 2018/05/13 12:20 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:
I
like your response. I’ll mull it over in detail. As an initial
response, I’ll say control means dependency. The variable x
controls the value of a function of x. To control something means
that you are a variable in a function of yourself.On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
[Martin Taylor
2018.05.13.10.55]
On 2018/05/13 2:28 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet
Mailing List) wrote:
Let’s see who can control my behavior. You say you can control
my finger position if I am controlling the knot position.
Let’s see if you can control what I say if I am controlling
the truth of my statements. This is a game called persuasion.
What statement will I admit?Philip, unless I misunderstand you, you are asking a set of
possibly related questions all packed into five short sentences.
Those questions are based in a bunch of assumptions, or they
make no sense at all. My perception of your assumptions
(possibly quite incorrect) is as follows.Sentence 1. Assumptions: 1. "control" means success in bringing some
perception close to its reference level.
2. There exists someone who wants to control your
behaviour.
3. (Implicit, i.e. my assumption about your assumption)
You don’t want anyone to control your behaviour.
4. Your sentence disturbs a perception in several people
in such a way that at least some of them will act to oppose the
disturbance in such a way as to control your behaviour by
disturbing some perception you control. (This isn’t quite the
same as 2, but it is close).Comment: "Control" implies acting to oppose a disturbance, not
that the action will succeed in opposing it. To succeed would be
good control. Not all control is good.Sentence 2: Assumption: If there is one circumstance in which a particular
action is the only one that can oppose a particular disturbance,
then in all circumstances only one action can oppose a different
disturbance.Comment: The rubber band demo works only because the subject has
agreed to use only one action to keep the knot over the mark.
The subject is assumed to be controlling for keeping his or her
word, and not to hold the dot over the mark by nailing it there,
nor to stop controlling the perceived position of the knot when
moving the finger.Sentence 3: Assumptions: 1. You have the possibility of making many
different statements, but you are controlling so that you
perceive each of them to have some unspecified truth value
(implicitly that you perceive them to be true).2. (Implicit) You will act to correct any statement made by
someone else that you perceive to be untrue.
3. You will have many different ways of correcting the untruth
of any statement made by another.
4. You will define as failure to control what you say if any of
these methods of correction are worded differently from what the
disturber wanted you to say.5. You will correctly perceive what the disturber wants you to
say.
Comment: If I were to say that 2+2=5, you might choose to
control for not being controlled by responding “and 3+3 = 7”,
meaning not that you were telling an untruth, but you were using
this wording to say I was wrong in my assertion. Or you might
say “No, it isn’t”, or you might ignore my statement entirely.
Would I have failed in my effort to control what you say? Maybe,
maybe not. I would depend on what I was trying to achieve. Might
I be controlling for perceiving whether you were controlling for
perceiving my statements to be true? If so, any of those
responses, among a myriad of other possibilities, would show
good control.Sentence 4: I confess I don't know where the leap to
“persuasion” came from – what perception you were controlling
in imagination against what imagined disturbance --, so I can’t
guess your assumptions or comment on them. Sentence 5 seems as
though it should follow from Sentence 4, but the connection is
not obvious, because it seems as though it is intended to
disturb someone into probing the entirety of your current belief
structure – how you currently perceive every aspect of your
real and imagined world. I doubt that you will find many takers
for that project.Taking all five sentences as a unit, I perceive that you do not
understand the point of the rubber-band demo, or that you do not
accept the PCT mantra “many means to the same end”. Of course,
it is quite possible that neither of these is true, and that you
were controlling for someone to try to provide a serious answer
to your message, in which case, your control of my behaviour was
quite good.Martin
I like how you use the words command and control opposite the way I would use them. I would say that a feedback system commands a value, but it may not receive what it commands. I would like to use the word control when the value of a variable would control an outcome. Like, the temperature controls the fluidity of the honey.
···
On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.13.12.49]
“The variable x controls the value of a function of x .”
No. You could say that the variable x commands the value of a
function of x, but it does not control it. There’s no feedback.
It’s a pure S-R process. Stick a bunch of such S-R processes head
to tail and have the snake bite its own tail, and you have a
feedback loop, which might be one that performs control. Control
is an emergent property of a very particular structure of
functional S-R processes.
Martin
On 2018/05/13 12:20 PM, PHILIP JERAIR > YERANOSIAN wrote:
I
like your response. I’ll mull it over in detail. As an initial
response, I’ll say control means dependency. The variable x
controls the value of a function of x. To control something means
that you are a variable in a function of yourself.On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > > > wrote:
[Martin Taylor
2018.05.13.10.55]
On 2018/05/13 2:28 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet > > > Mailing List) wrote:
Let’s see who can control my behavior. You say you can control
my finger position if I am controlling the knot position.
Let’s see if you can control what I say if I am controlling
the truth of my statements. This is a game called persuasion.
What statement will I admit?Philip, unless I misunderstand you, you are asking a set of
possibly related questions all packed into five short sentences.
Those questions are based in a bunch of assumptions, or they
make no sense at all. My perception of your assumptions
(possibly quite incorrect) is as follows.Sentence 1. Assumptions: 1. "control" means success in bringing some
perception close to its reference level.
2. There exists someone who wants to control your
behaviour.
3. (Implicit, i.e. my assumption about your assumption)
You don’t want anyone to control your behaviour.
4. Your sentence disturbs a perception in several people
in such a way that at least some of them will act to oppose the
disturbance in such a way as to control your behaviour by
disturbing some perception you control. (This isn’t quite the
same as 2, but it is close).Comment: "Control" implies acting to oppose a disturbance, not
that the action will succeed in opposing it. To succeed would be
good control. Not all control is good.Sentence 2: Assumption: If there is one circumstance in which a particular
action is the only one that can oppose a particular disturbance,
then in all circumstances only one action can oppose a different
disturbance.Comment: The rubber band demo works only because the subject has
agreed to use only one action to keep the knot over the mark.
The subject is assumed to be controlling for keeping his or her
word, and not to hold the dot over the mark by nailing it there,
nor to stop controlling the perceived position of the knot when
moving the finger.Sentence 3: Assumptions: 1. You have the possibility of making many
different statements, but you are controlling so that you
perceive each of them to have some unspecified truth value
(implicitly that you perceive them to be true).2. (Implicit) You will act to correct any statement made by
someone else that you perceive to be untrue.
3. You will have many different ways of correcting the untruth
of any statement made by another.
4. You will define as failure to control what you say if any of
these methods of correction are worded differently from what the
disturber wanted you to say.5. You will correctly perceive what the disturber wants you to
say.
Comment: If I were to say that 2+2=5, you might choose to
control for not being controlled by responding “and 3+3 = 7”,
meaning not that you were telling an untruth, but you were using
this wording to say I was wrong in my assertion. Or you might
say “No, it isn’t”, or you might ignore my statement entirely.
Would I have failed in my effort to control what you say? Maybe,
maybe not. I would depend on what I was trying to achieve. Might
I be controlling for perceiving whether you were controlling for
perceiving my statements to be true? If so, any of those
responses, among a myriad of other possibilities, would show
good control.Sentence 4: I confess I don't know where the leap to
“persuasion” came from – what perception you were controlling
in imagination against what imagined disturbance --, so I can’t
guess your assumptions or comment on them. Sentence 5 seems as
though it should follow from Sentence 4, but the connection is
not obvious, because it seems as though it is intended to
disturb someone into probing the entirety of your current belief
structure – how you currently perceive every aspect of your
real and imagined world. I doubt that you will find many takers
for that project.Taking all five sentences as a unit, I perceive that you do not
understand the point of the rubber-band demo, or that you do not
accept the PCT mantra “many means to the same end”. Of course,
it is quite possible that neither of these is true, and that you
were controlling for someone to try to provide a serious answer
to your message, in which case, your control of my behaviour was
quite good.Martin
Ed,
You’re on the right track but what I am looking for is not evidence that will make me think differently but rather some logical argument that will make me think differently. Like a mathematical proof of something, which is composed of words instead of observations.
···
On Sunday, May 13, 2018, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
I like how you use the words command and control opposite the way I would use them. I would say that a feedback system commands a value, but it may not receive what it commands. I would like to use the word control when the value of a variable would control an outcome. Like, the temperature controls the fluidity of the honey.
On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.13.12.49]
“The variable x controls the value of a function of x .”
No. You could say that the variable x commands the value of a
function of x, but it does not control it. There’s no feedback.
It’s a pure S-R process. Stick a bunch of such S-R processes head
to tail and have the snake bite its own tail, and you have a
feedback loop, which might be one that performs control. Control
is an emergent property of a very particular structure of
functional S-R processes.
Martin
On 2018/05/13 12:20 PM, PHILIP JERAIR > > YERANOSIAN wrote:
I
like your response. I’ll mull it over in detail. As an initial
response, I’ll say control means dependency. The variable x
controls the value of a function of x. To control something means
that you are a variable in a function of yourself.On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > > > > wrote:
[Martin Taylor
2018.05.13.10.55]
On 2018/05/13 2:28 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet > > > > Mailing List) wrote:
Let’s see who can control my behavior. You say you can control
my finger position if I am controlling the knot position.
Let’s see if you can control what I say if I am controlling
the truth of my statements. This is a game called persuasion.
What statement will I admit?Philip, unless I misunderstand you, you are asking a set of
possibly related questions all packed into five short sentences.
Those questions are based in a bunch of assumptions, or they
make no sense at all. My perception of your assumptions
(possibly quite incorrect) is as follows.Sentence 1. Assumptions: 1. "control" means success in bringing some
perception close to its reference level.
2. There exists someone who wants to control your
behaviour.
3. (Implicit, i.e. my assumption about your assumption)
You don’t want anyone to control your behaviour.
4. Your sentence disturbs a perception in several people
in such a way that at least some of them will act to oppose the
disturbance in such a way as to control your behaviour by
disturbing some perception you control. (This isn’t quite the
same as 2, but it is close).Comment: "Control" implies acting to oppose a disturbance, not
that the action will succeed in opposing it. To succeed would be
good control. Not all control is good.Sentence 2: Assumption: If there is one circumstance in which a particular
action is the only one that can oppose a particular disturbance,
then in all circumstances only one action can oppose a different
disturbance.Comment: The rubber band demo works only because the subject has
agreed to use only one action to keep the knot over the mark.
The subject is assumed to be controlling for keeping his or her
word, and not to hold the dot over the mark by nailing it there,
nor to stop controlling the perceived position of the knot when
moving the finger.Sentence 3: Assumptions: 1. You have the possibility of making many
different statements, but you are controlling so that you
perceive each of them to have some unspecified truth value
(implicitly that you perceive them to be true).2. (Implicit) You will act to correct any statement made by
someone else that you perceive to be untrue.
3. You will have many different ways of correcting the untruth
of any statement made by another.
4. You will define as failure to control what you say if any of
these methods of correction are worded differently from what the
disturber wanted you to say.5. You will correctly perceive what the disturber wants you to
say.
Comment: If I were to say that 2+2=5, you might choose to
control for not being controlled by responding “and 3+3 = 7”,
meaning not that you were telling an untruth, but you were using
this wording to say I was wrong in my assertion. Or you might
say “No, it isn’t”, or you might ignore my statement entirely.
Would I have failed in my effort to control what you say? Maybe,
maybe not. I would depend on what I was trying to achieve. Might
I be controlling for perceiving whether you were controlling for
perceiving my statements to be true? If so, any of those
responses, among a myriad of other possibilities, would show
good control.Sentence 4: I confess I don't know where the leap to
“persuasion” came from – what perception you were controlling
in imagination against what imagined disturbance --, so I can’t
guess your assumptions or comment on them. Sentence 5 seems as
though it should follow from Sentence 4, but the connection is
not obvious, because it seems as though it is intended to
disturb someone into probing the entirety of your current belief
structure – how you currently perceive every aspect of your
real and imagined world. I doubt that you will find many takers
for that project.Taking all five sentences as a unit, I perceive that you do not
understand the point of the rubber-band demo, or that you do not
accept the PCT mantra “many means to the same end”. Of course,
it is quite possible that neither of these is true, and that you
were controlling for someone to try to provide a serious answer
to your message, in which case, your control of my behaviour was
quite good.Martin
So you mow your lawn.
···
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 2:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Ed,
You’re on the right track but what I am looking for is not evidence that will make me think differently but rather some logical argument that will make me think differently. Like a mathematical proof of something, which is composed of words instead of observations.On Sunday, May 13, 2018, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
I like how you use the words command and control opposite the way I would use them. I would say that a feedback system commands a value, but it may not receive what it commands. I would like to use the word control when the value of a variable would control an outcome. Like, the temperature controls the fluidity of the honey.
On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.13.12.49]
“The variable x controls the value of a function of x .”
No. You could say that the variable x commands the value of a
function of x, but it does not control it. There’s no feedback.
It’s a pure S-R process. Stick a bunch of such S-R processes head
to tail and have the snake bite its own tail, and you have a
feedback loop, which might be one that performs control. Control
is an emergent property of a very particular structure of
functional S-R processes.
Martin
On 2018/05/13 12:20 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:
I
like your response. I’ll mull it over in detail. As an initial
response, I’ll say control means dependency. The variable x
controls the value of a function of x. To control something means
that you are a variable in a function of yourself.On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
[Martin Taylor
2018.05.13.10.55]
On 2018/05/13 2:28 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet
Mailing List) wrote:
Let’s see who can control my behavior. You say you can control
my finger position if I am controlling the knot position.
Let’s see if you can control what I say if I am controlling
the truth of my statements. This is a game called persuasion.
What statement will I admit?Philip, unless I misunderstand you, you are asking a set of
possibly related questions all packed into five short sentences.
Those questions are based in a bunch of assumptions, or they
make no sense at all. My perception of your assumptions
(possibly quite incorrect) is as follows.Sentence 1. Assumptions: 1. "control" means success in bringing some
perception close to its reference level.
2. There exists someone who wants to control your
behaviour.
3. (Implicit, i.e. my assumption about your assumption)
You don’t want anyone to control your behaviour.
4. Your sentence disturbs a perception in several people
in such a way that at least some of them will act to oppose the
disturbance in such a way as to control your behaviour by
disturbing some perception you control. (This isn’t quite the
same as 2, but it is close).Comment: "Control" implies acting to oppose a disturbance, not
that the action will succeed in opposing it. To succeed would be
good control. Not all control is good.Sentence 2: Assumption: If there is one circumstance in which a particular
action is the only one that can oppose a particular disturbance,
then in all circumstances only one action can oppose a different
disturbance.Comment: The rubber band demo works only because the subject has
agreed to use only one action to keep the knot over the mark.
The subject is assumed to be controlling for keeping his or her
word, and not to hold the dot over the mark by nailing it there,
nor to stop controlling the perceived position of the knot when
moving the finger.Sentence 3: Assumptions: 1. You have the possibility of making many
different statements, but you are controlling so that you
perceive each of them to have some unspecified truth value
(implicitly that you perceive them to be true).2. (Implicit) You will act to correct any statement made by
someone else that you perceive to be untrue.
3. You will have many different ways of correcting the untruth
of any statement made by another.
4. You will define as failure to control what you say if any of
these methods of correction are worded differently from what the
disturber wanted you to say.5. You will correctly perceive what the disturber wants you to
say.
Comment: If I were to say that 2+2=5, you might choose to
control for not being controlled by responding “and 3+3 = 7”,
meaning not that you were telling an untruth, but you were using
this wording to say I was wrong in my assertion. Or you might
say “No, it isn’t”, or you might ignore my statement entirely.
Would I have failed in my effort to control what you say? Maybe,
maybe not. I would depend on what I was trying to achieve. Might
I be controlling for perceiving whether you were controlling for
perceiving my statements to be true? If so, any of those
responses, among a myriad of other possibilities, would show
good control.Sentence 4: I confess I don't know where the leap to
“persuasion” came from – what perception you were controlling
in imagination against what imagined disturbance --, so I can’t
guess your assumptions or comment on them. Sentence 5 seems as
though it should follow from Sentence 4, but the connection is
not obvious, because it seems as though it is intended to
disturb someone into probing the entirety of your current belief
structure – how you currently perceive every aspect of your
real and imagined world. I doubt that you will find many takers
for that project.Taking all five sentences as a unit, I perceive that you do not
understand the point of the rubber-band demo, or that you do not
accept the PCT mantra “many means to the same end”. Of course,
it is quite possible that neither of these is true, and that you
were controlling for someone to try to provide a serious answer
to your message, in which case, your control of my behaviour was
quite good.Martin
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.14.11.28]
I would say that the temperature influences the fluidity of the
honey, because a wide range of fluidity can be associated with any
temperature, depending on other properties of the honey such as
crystallization and water content. But temperature changes do change
the fluidity in a consistent direction – higher temperature, more
fluid. To control the fluidity of the honey to a viscosity you want,
you would need a fluidity sensor for the actual sample of honey and
compare its result with your wanted viscosity (I take “fluidity” to
mean the inverse of viscosity). If it is too viscous, you raise the
temperature, or you lower the temperature if it is too fluid.
I could command the fluidity of the honey by telling someone “bring
me honey with a viscosity X”. I might not get it with the desired
viscosity (or at all if I don’t ask nicely or are insufficiently
senior in authority). But what I get is whatever it happens to be.
Control doesn’t always get you what you want, either, but it allows
you to continue acting to improve the situation. Command does not.
In a control hierarchy, the sending of a reference value is a
command to a lower-level loop “Bring me this value for the
perception you control”. What the lower-level loop does actually
produce is part of the input to the higher-level perceptual
function. Changes in the relation of the higher-level perception to
its reference value imply changes in the reference value “commands”,
all of which is happening continuously. In a military analogy, a colonel may command a major to “take that
hill”, which the major will try to do by commanding his captains as
to what they should do, and so in down the “chain of command”. But
the major may not succeed in taking the hill, so the colonel, who is
controlling a wider perception of the battlefield, may see this is
not happening and may command another major to perform a flanking
manoeuvre to surround the hill. The colonel controls for a
perception that his side occupies the field, but uses a variety of
command to perform that control, depending on how the external
environment affects the ability of the subordinated to control their
own perceptions of the smaller chunks, such as the occupancy of the
hill and of the terrain behind the hill. If the first major’s troops
take the hill, they then may have to “control the field” by
resisting enemy counter-attacks.
Martin
···
On 2018/05/13 2:52 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
pyeranos@ucla.edu
I
like how you use the words command and control opposite the way I
would use them. I would say that a feedback system commands a
value, but it may not receive what it commands. I would like to
use the word control when the value of a variable would control an
outcome. Like, the temperature controls the fluidity of the honey.
On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net >
wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.13.12.49]
“The variable x controls the value of a function of x .”
No. You could say that the variable x commands the value of
a function of x, but it does not control it. There’s no
feedback. It’s a pure S-R process. Stick a bunch of such S-R
processes head to tail and have the snake bite its own tail,
and you have a feedback loop, which might be one that
performs control. Control is an emergent property of a very
particular structure of functional S-R processes.
Martin
On 2018/05/13 12:20 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:
I like your response. I’ll mull it
over in detail. As an initial response, I’ll say control
means dependency. The variable x controls the value of a
function of x. To control something means that you are a
variable in a function of yourself.On Sunday, May 13, 2018, Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
[Martin
Taylor 2018.05.13.10.55]
On 2018/05/13 2:28 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet
Mailing List) wrote:
Let’s
see who can control my behavior. You say you can control
my finger position if I am controlling the knot
position. Let’s see if you can control what I say if I
am controlling the truth of my statements. This is a
game called persuasion. What statement will I admit?Philip, unless I misunderstand you, you are asking a set
of possibly related questions all packed into five short
sentences. Those questions are based in a bunch of
assumptions, or they make no sense at all. My perception
of your assumptions (possibly quite incorrect) is as
follows.Sentence 1. Assumptions: 1. "control" means success in bringing some
perception close to its reference level.
2. There exists someone who wants to control your
behaviour.
3. (Implicit, i.e. my assumption about your
assumption) You don’t want anyone to control your
behaviour.4. Your sentence disturbs a perception in several
people in such a way that at least some of them will act
to oppose the disturbance in such a way as to control your
behaviour by disturbing some perception you control. (This
isn’t quite the same as 2, but it is close).Comment: "Control" implies acting to oppose a disturbance,
not that the action will succeed in opposing it. To
succeed would be good control. Not all control is good.Sentence 2: Assumption: If there is one circumstance in which a
particular action is the only one that can oppose a
particular disturbance, then in all circumstances only one
action can oppose a different disturbance.Comment: The rubber band demo works only because the
subject has agreed to use only one action to keep the knot
over the mark. The subject is assumed to be controlling
for keeping his or her word, and not to hold the dot over
the mark by nailing it there, nor to stop controlling the
perceived position of the knot when moving the finger.Sentence 3: Assumptions: 1. You have the possibility of making many
different statements, but you are controlling so that you
perceive each of them to have some unspecified truth value
(implicitly that you perceive them to be true).2. (Implicit) You will act to correct any statement made
by someone else that you perceive to be untrue.
3. You will have many different ways of correcting the
untruth of any statement made by another.
4. You will define as failure to control what you say if
any of these methods of correction are worded differently
from what the disturber wanted you to say.5. You will correctly perceive what the disturber wants
you to say.
Comment: If I were to say that 2+2=5, you might choose to
control for not being controlled by responding “and 3+3 =
7”, meaning not that you were telling an untruth, but you
were using this wording to say I was wrong in my
assertion. Or you might say “No, it isn’t”, or you might
ignore my statement entirely. Would I have failed in my
effort to control what you say? Maybe, maybe not. I would
depend on what I was trying to achieve. Might I be
controlling for perceiving whether you were controlling
for perceiving my statements to be true? If so, any of
those responses, among a myriad of other possibilities,
would show good control.Sentence 4: I confess I don't know where the leap to
“persuasion” came from – what perception you were
controlling in imagination against what imagined
disturbance --, so I can’t guess your assumptions or
comment on them. Sentence 5 seems as though it should
follow from Sentence 4, but the connection is not obvious,
because it seems as though it is intended to disturb
someone into probing the entirety of your current belief
structure – how you currently perceive every aspect of
your real and imagined world. I doubt that you will find
many takers for that project.Taking all five sentences as a unit, I perceive that you
do not understand the point of the rubber-band demo, or
that you do not accept the PCT mantra “many means to the
same end”. Of course, it is quite possible that neither of
these is true, and that you were controlling for someone
to try to provide a serious answer to your message, in
which case, your control of my behaviour was quite good.Martin