Correcting Errors/Reaching Goals (was Re: Best-Laid Plans)

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.04.1730)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1453)--

I just got this. Are you trailing the west coast by a whole day?

You are an exceptional scientist and have much to offer. It's a shame
you don't have the necessary skills to "teach" rather then
"indoctrinate".

Why don't we focus on substance for the nonce and worry about my
possibly non-existent teaching skills later?

You said that you thought people spend more time correcting error than
trying to reach goals. I can't make sense of this. Could you please try
to explain, once again, what you mean by this? You seem to think that
this is a very important conjecture. You also seem dismayed by my
failure to appreciate its importance. I think you attribute my failure
to the fact that I am evaluating what you say only in terms of the
technical details of PCT. So why don't we forget about PCT for a moment.
What have you observed about people (including yourself) that has led
you to speculate that they spend more time correcting error than trying
to reach goals? Once I know what you're talking about then perhaps we
can see if we can relate it to PCT.

I'm listening!

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

from [Marc Abrams (2003.05.04.2103)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.04.1730)]

> Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1453)--

I just got this. Are you trailing the west coast by a whole day?

What year is it? LOL. Just a typing mistake.

Why don't we focus on substance for the nonce and worry about my
possibly non-existent teaching skills later?

Fine. Your right. I got over it. :slight_smile:

You said that you thought people spend more time correcting error than
trying to reach goals. I can't make sense of this. Could you please try
to explain, once again, what you mean by this?

I used a "normative" phrase. ( are we together on what I mean by this?). I
am putting together a post right now and will be getting it out tonight. If
you have any questions about this concept wait for that post before
replying. OK, back to business. I used "adjusting for error" ( which I
believe is your term , not mine, but that's fine) as a "meta" concept. It
has _nothing_ to do with the actual running or functioning of the model. The
Lexicon and glossary will clear all this up. For instance Goal is a
Technical term meaning a group of a perceptions. "Goal" also means
"planning" which is _not_ currently a Technical term ( meaning it is not in
the glossary of B:CP ) So Goal/"Goal" can have two valid meanings in one
talking about the model and the "affects" of the model. GOAL and "Goal" have
two seperate meanings when talking about HPCT. A Goal is _NOT_ a Reference
condition or Level.
It has one specific meaning( as it must ) for the model. Conflict is
another kind of example. Conflict is _not_ defined in the glossary. But it
does have a very specific meaning in and for the model. Bill needs to define
the word Conflict and make it a Technical word. Right now it is a
"normative" word (i.e. open to various definitions and meanings ) this is
also true and bad for PCT/HPCT business. The dictionary's first meaning is
closly aligned with the PCT/HPCT meaning, but take a look a these;

2 a : an engagement between men under arms : STRUGGLE, CONTEST, FIGHT b :
prolonged fighting especially with weapons : WARFARE, STRIFE c : the
opposition of persons or forces upon which the dramatic action depends in
drama or fiction d : CONFLICT OF LAWS
3 : a striking or clashing together of material bodies or substances (as air
currents, parts of a mechanism) : COLLISION
synonym see CONTEST, DISCORD

2 & 3 are valid interpretations and definitions of the word but they do not
represent model meaning.

That was step #1. "adjusting for error" was my way of talking about the
affects of the totality of control systems in a human over a period of time.

I gave the example of a diet. We have "goal" of losing 100lbs. This "goal is
made up of controlling many variables over a period of time. Bill and I
spoke about this. My point was ( it might have changed ) over long periods
of time our "goals" are often "disappated" over time by disturbances. That
is, I set a "goal" of losing the weight. But I am forced to deal with
disturbances to any number of variables I am controlling for losing that
weight on a minute by minute, hour, by hour, etc. you get the picture. When
we act to correct for Error we are "adjusting for error" to help reach our
"goal". It is the "adjustments" that put us on different courses because any
"adjustment" (action) we take will lead to different Perceptions, which in
turn will lead to other Errors and further "adjustments". I am almost using
the term as a figure of speech. Bill does not disagree with the notion, he
points out, maybe correctly or equally, that it is over _short_ not long
periods of time. We both agreed that making long range goals are easy. You
don't have to do anything _now_ to realize them LOL. I'm giving his
suggestionsome thought. But that does not change my use of the phrase or my
view of the model. "adjusting for error" is nothing more, nothing less then
a meta view of the "affects" of the total summation of all control in a
human over a period of time.

Capesh? :slight_smile:

You seem to think that
this is a very important conjecture.

Yes

You also seem dismayed by my

failure to appreciate its importance.

Not dismayed. Just resigned to the fact that I curreently don't have the
communicating skills` necessary to convey a certain concept to you. It
doesn't mean we can't talk about anything else. It just means we are at a
road block. I hope this clears up the problem?

I think you attribute my failure

to the fact that I am evaluating what you say only in terms of the
technical details of PCT.

Yes. we both were having a problem. This was yours. But it was not the
Tecnical _details_. It was a Technical use of a word that was not intended
to be Technical. My "error" and your Error do not mean the same thing. I
acknowledge that your definition is the correct one to use when describing
Error, but it is not necessarily the "right" one to use for discussions of
"error"

Here is the dictionary's definiton for "error";

1 a : an act or condition of often ignorant or imprudent deviation from a
code of behavior : violation of ritual holiness, moral rectitude, or social
convention : SIN <entice with licentious passions of the flesh men who have
barely escaped from ... error -- 2 Pet 2:18 (Revised Standard Version)> :
OFFENSE, FAULT <the official's errors of nepotism and acceptance of large
gifts from lobbyists> b : an act involving an unintentional deviation from
truth or accuracy : a mistake in perception, reasoning, recollection, or
expression <made an error in adding up the bill> <gunnery errors> c : an act
that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to
achieve what should be done <got lost when he made the error of turning left
at the fork> <an error of judgment> <the error of writing last year's date
early in January>: as (1) : a misplay (as a fumble or a wild throw) by a
baseball player when normal play would have resulted in an out or prevented
an advance by a base runner -- not used of a passed ball or wild pitch <an
error is charged against a fielder at the discretion of the official scorer>
(2) : a failure in bowling to make a spare when the previous ball left no
split (3) : a failure in a racket game to return the ball to the opponent's
court after touching it with the racket (as in tennis by hitting it into the
net or outside the court) d (1) : a mistake in the proceedings of a court of
record in matters of law or of fact (2) : WRIT OF ERROR (3) : proceedings
for a writ of error
2 a : the quality or state of erring; especially : the act of believing or
of setting forth what is not true <the firm is in error as to the facts of
the case> <the map is in error regarding the junction> b Christian Science :
illusion about the nature of reality that is the cause of human suffering :
the contradiction of truth <error is a supposition that pleasure and pain,
that intelligence, substance, life are existent in matter -- Mary B. Eddy> c
: an instance of false belief : a mistaken idea or system of ideas <an
opposite error ... is the belief that children are naturally virtuous --
Bertrand Russell> d : the body of false beliefs : FALSEHOOD <hope to reduce
error by promoting education>
3 : something (as a misstatement or misprint) produced by mistake <a
typographical error>; specifically : a postage stamp released for use that
shows flaw in its manufacture (as in differing in color or paper from others
of its issue and denomination)
4 archaic : an irregular course : WANDERING <brooks rolling with mazy
error -- John Milton>
5 a mathematics : the difference between an observed or calculated value of
a quantity and the true value; specifically statistics : variation in the
measurements, calculations, or observations of a quantity due to mistakes or
to usually uncontrollable factors -- see PROBABLE ERROR, STANDARD ERROR b in
artillery fire : the divergence of a point of impact from the center of
impact in a dispersion of shots : the distance of a shot from the target c :
the amount of deviation from a standard or specification <weights used to
determine the error of a scale> <the allowable error in milling a machine
part is called its tolerance>
6 : a deficiency or imperfection in structure or function : DEFECT <an error
in vision may cause headaches>
synonyms MISTAKE, BLUNDER, SLIP, LAPSE, FAUX PAS, BULL, HOWLER, BONER: error
indicates a deviation from correct, sanctioned, approved belief, procedure,
practice, or course <the errors in their beliefs> <an error in reasoning>
<it is a common error to speak of the doctrine of science when what is meant
is naturalism -- W.R.Inge> <an error in addition> <sent by error to the
wrong department> MISTAKE suggests a misunderstanding, wrong decision, or
inadvertent wrong action; it may apply to the unimportant or momentary but
does not always do so <a mistake in reading the road map> <a mistake in
admitting these students> <a mistake in copying the list> BLUNDER may imply
ignorance, stupidity, or culpable lack of foresight and care <fortunate to
be acquitted by a court-martial after he had made a tragic blunder and lost
many of his own men -- Peter Forster> <we usually call our blunders mistakes
and our friends style our mistakes blunders -- H.B.Wheatley> SLIP may apply
to a trivial readily forgivable mistake, inadvertence, or accident <a slip
of the pen> <a list such as a busy and not very well educated library clerk
might make, with many slips and grammatical mistakes -- R.W.Southern> LAPSE
may suggest forgetfulness, inattention, or weakness <you gave natives bits
to copy under all possible threats against lapses of accuracy, only to
discover at the end that they had embroidered the work pleasantly to their
own fancy -- Mary Austin> FAUX PAS now usually indicates a social blunder as
a violation of etiquette or an instance of tactlessness <John and I,
horrified, hustled him out before he could commit any further faux pas --
S.H.Adams> BULL usually applies to a blunder marked by stupidity although it
is often applied to a remark purposely contrived to contain an amusing
incongruity <the well-known bull stating that "as one man is just as good as
another -- and sometimes more so"> <"the next train to Dublin has just
gone", the stationmaster said and laughed at his own bull> HOWLER usually
applies to a ludicrous blunder made through ignorance or dim-wittedness <a
schoolboy howler that turns the title "Intimations of Immortality" into
"Imitations of Immorality"> <refused to go on a quiz show for fear he'd make

BONER suggests a blunder made through thoughtlessness as well as

dim-wittedness <made the boner of inviting his boss to dinner on the night
his wife's bridge group was due to meet at his house> <pulled a real boner
when he said the American Civil War was in the 18th century>

The definition in B:CP glossary is;
The descrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which
drives a control system's output function. The discrepancy between a
controlled quantity and it's present reference level, which causes
observable behavior.

hmmm! First of all it doesn't seem like this defintion is in the dictionary.
So the other 6 that are, would be considered "normative" uses. B:CP makes it
7 plausible definitions. It does not erase the other 6.

Second, I wonder what Bill meant by "drives the output function & CAUSES
BEHAVIOR". Sounds like it is the "main" reason for action to me. How do you
read it?

So why don't we forget about PCT for a moment.

What have you observed about people (including yourself) that has led
you to speculate that they spend more time correcting error than trying
to reach goals? Once I know what you're talking about then perhaps we
can see if we can relate it to PCT.

How did I do?

Marc

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.05.1334 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.04.1730)--
(Writing to Marc Abrams)
>You said that you thought people spend more time correcting error than
trying to reach >goals. I can't make sense of this.

What Mark hasn't said on CSGnet is that by "goal" he means the consciously
experienced collection of many reference signals at many levels that we
informally lump into one thing and call a goal (like "getting an
education"). This is also how he uses the term perception, and why he
distinguishes perception (informal language term) from Perception
(technical term). I hope I have that right, Mark.

I think that Rick and I and others in PCT consider the informal terms of
natural language (relating to behavior) to be useful mainly for
communicating with people who know nothing about PCT. Of course Marc is
very interested in doing that. I think, also, that many of us who have been
in PCT for a long time tend to treat the technical language as the
preferred one, the one we assume by default. So if someone says "goal" we
automatically think "reference signal," because the ordinary-language uses
of this term lead mostly to confusion. However, it often happens that
people will refer to phenomena like perception and goal-seeking and emotion
and the like with the informal natural-language meanings assumed as the
default. This leads to misunderstandings among those who take the PCT
meaning, not the informal meaning, as being intended whenever the context
is not stated.

I'm not enthusiastic about formal conventions for handling problems like
this, but I think that if we keep the problem in mind and try to be clear
about whether we are talking informally or formally, the main problems can
be solved.

Best,

Bill P.

.

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0505.0859)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.05.1334 MDT)

What Mark hasn't said on CSGnet is that by "goal" he means the consciously
experienced collection of many reference signals at many levels that we
informally lump into one thing and call a goal (like "getting an
education").

I'm not sure how this differs from a reference signal at the concept
level of the perceptual hierarchy.

This is also how he uses the term perception, and why he
distinguishes perception (informal language term) from Perception
(technical term).

It's not clear to me what is gained by this definition. As far as I have
been able to tell, informal perceptions can in almost all cases be
translated into inputs to control loops.

I'm not enthusiastic about formal conventions for handling problems like
this, but I think that if we keep the problem in mind and try to be clear
about whether we are talking informally or formally, the main problems can
be solved.

I've never had a problem keeping them separated, as far as I can recall.
My disagreements have never involved definitions, but rather questions
about exactly what behavior one was trying to model.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1836)]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.05.1334 MDT)]

What Mark hasn't said on CSGnet is that by "goal" he means the consciously
experienced collection of many reference signals at many levels that we
informally lump into one thing and call a goal (like "getting an
education"). This is also how he uses the term perception, and why he
distinguishes perception (informal language term) from Perception
(technical term). I hope I have that right, Mark.

Yep. Don't forget the quotes around "perception" :slight_smile:

I think that Rick and I and others in PCT consider the informal terms of
natural language (relating to behavior) to be useful mainly for
communicating with people who know nothing about PCT.

Can you please provide the data that validates this inference in your mind?
How do you "know" this to be true?

Of course Marc is

very interested in doing that. I think, also, that many of us who have

been

in PCT for a long time tend to treat the technical language as the
preferred one, the one we assume by default. So if someone says "goal" we
automatically think "reference signal," because the ordinary-language uses
of this term lead mostly to confusion. However, it often happens that
people will refer to phenomena like perception and goal-seeking and

emotion

and the like with the informal natural-language meanings assumed as the
default. This leads to misunderstandings among those who take the PCT
meaning, not the informal meaning, as being intended whenever the context
is not stated.

Yes, I believe this happens a lot. More then you ever realize.

I'm not enthusiastic about formal conventions for handling problems like
this, but I think that if we keep the problem in mind and try to be clear
about whether we are talking informally or formally, the main problems can
be solved.

How would this look in practice?

Marc

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.05.2144 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.1836) --

Yep. Don't forget the quotes around "perception" :slight_smile:

To me, quotes around a word indicate that I am talking about the word, not
the experience to which the word points. For example, if I say [That car
doesn't belong there] I am saying that I am referring to an automobile in a
place, say a parking place, where it doesn't belong. If I say [That "car"
doesn't belong there], I am saying that the word c-a-r is written in a
place where it shouldn't have been written. I believe this is pretty
conventional usage. Bruce N?

Another usage is to indicate "so-called," indicating doubt that the word
really is appropriate, or meaning that it is being used sarcastically.
Here, let me share my "fortune" with you (handing you a dime).

Then, of course, there is the basic use of quotation marks, to surround
words that are being quoted verbatim.

When I say perception, I mean the experience to which the word "perception"
points. It doesn't need any added help, unless you would like to capitalize
it to indicate formal rather than informal usage. If I write "perception"
you know I am talking about the word rather than what it points to. In
informal usage, people say "Oh, that's just your perception," meaning to
indicate that what you perceive is different from what is really there.
This use of "perception" is much like the use of the word "opinion."

> I think that Rick and I and others in PCT consider the informal terms of
> natural language (relating to behavior) to be useful mainly for
> communicating with people who know nothing about PCT.

Can you please provide the data that validates this inference in your mind?
How do you "know" this to be true?

Ordinary language is full of assertions that we know are contrary to fact,
or that are so ambiguous that they are useless for exact communication. A
lot of expressions that we take for granted in ordinary language are
leftovers from beliefs and knowledge from centuries ago. For example, we
still say that we "look at" things, which is left over from the time when
natural philosophers actually thought that the eyes emitted sight-rays that
went from the eye to the object seen. We still talk about "reacting to"
events, which is the legacy of our history of ideas about stimulus and
response. And of course we use words like "learning," which was once
thought to be a single phenomenon that underlay all changes in behavior,
skill, organization, understanding, perception, and even physiology. I
suppose that is still believed in some quarters, but I don't believe it,
and I argue against it.

>

> I'm not enthusiastic about formal conventions for handling problems like
> this, but I think that if we keep the problem in mind and try to be clear
> about whether we are talking informally or formally, the main problems can
> be solved.

How would this look in practice?

I suppose it would look like using more words to explain what we mean
rather than brief conventions that one has to remember. I have a lousy
memory for things like that, and always have to go back and look them up,
if I can still find the information.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.05.2212 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0505.0859)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.05.1334 MDT)

What Mark hasn't said on CSGnet is that by "goal" he means the consciously
experienced collection of many reference signals at many levels that we
informally lump into one thing and call a goal (like "getting an
education").

I'm not sure how this differs from a reference signal at the concept
level of the perceptual hierarchy.

I doubt that we ever have just one single reference signal at a given
level. When we experience a collection of reference signals (in
imagination) more or less relating to a given topic, we don't usually list
them all -- we just name the topic: "education." Marc seems to be saying
that he uses the term "goal" to mean such indefinite collections of
reference signals.

  I see you point, though. High-level perceptions break down into many
lower-level perceptions, so a single higher-level reference signal might
actually be related to a large number of lower-level perceptions. I don't
have any problem with using "goal" and "reference signal" interchangeably,
but I usually don't use "goal" when speaking technically. Sort of like the
Pope giving notice of when he's speaking infallibly.

This is also how he uses the term perception, and why he
distinguishes perception (informal language term) from Perception
(technical term).

It's not clear to me what is gained by this definition. As far as I have
been able to tell, informal perceptions can in almost all cases be
translated into inputs to control loops.

In the example I just used in a reply to Marc, when people say that
something is just your perception, they're using the word in an informal,
nontechnical sense, meaning roughly "opinion" or "interpretation." One way
we could avoid confusion in that regard would be to capitalize the
technical term, Perception then meaning the experience of a perceptual
signal, or perhaps Perceptual Signal, at some level in the hierarchy.
That's clearly not what most people mean when they say "perception."
Another example is "control". When people use the word control, they can
mean what we mean, or they can mean influence, affect, restrain, cause, or
determine (to mention a few things that the technical term Control does not
mean in PCT).

The question is not how we translate informal uses of "perception". The
translations will vary a lot depending on context, which you have to get
from listening and questioning. We're not going to convince laymen that
they should use words to mean one and only one thing, as we try to do in
PCT. Perhaps one feature of the lexicon Marc is considering would be a
listing of alternative translations into formal PCT language with
descriptions of the different meanings that could be intended by the lay
speaker.

Best,

Bill P.

from [Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.2113)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0505.0859)]

I'm not sure how this differs from a reference signal at the concept
level of the perceptual hierarchy.

It doesn't

It's not clear to me what is gained by this definition.

Nothing. I never claimed it gained anything. It was simply used as an
example of a word that might have multiple meanings to an individual.

As far as I have
been able to tell, informal perceptions can in almost all cases be
translated into inputs to control loops.

In this particular case I agree with you. What about goal? It's interesting
you chose perception and said nothing about goal.

> I've never had a problem keeping them separated, as far as I can recall.

My disagreements have never involved definitions, but rather questions
about exactly what behavior one was trying to model.

One of the chosen. lucky guy.

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0506.0530)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.05.2144 MDT)

And of course we use words like "learning," which was once
thought to be a single phenomenon that underlay all changes in behavior,
skill, organization, understanding, perception, and even physiology. I
suppose that is still believed in some quarters, but I don't believe it,
and I argue against it.

For me, learning describes a change of the state of a neural system from
S1 to S2 as a result of input to, and output by, the system.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0506.0545)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.05.2212 MDT)

I see your point, though. High-level perceptions break down into many
lower-level perceptions, so a single higher-level reference signal might
actually be related to a large number of lower-level perceptions. I don't
have any problem with using "goal" and "reference signal" interchangeably,
but I usually don't use "goal" when speaking technically. Sort of like the
Pope giving notice of when he's speaking infallibly.

Communication of CSGnet might benefit if we all were to give notice when
we are speaking ex cathedra. I'll try to remember to do that in the future.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0506.0648)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.05.2113)

I said (2003.0505.0859:

As far as I have
been able to tell, informal perceptions can in almost all cases be
translated into inputs to control loops.

Marc said:

In this particular case I agree with you. What about goal? It's interesting
you chose perception and said nothing about goal.

As far as I have been able to tell, informal goals can in almost all
cases be translated into reference signals to control loops.

My disagreements have never involved definitions, but rather questions
about exactly what behavior one was trying to model.

One of the chosen. lucky guy.

I know.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Fred Nickols (2003.05.06.1112 EDT)] --

>From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.0930)]

> [From Bill Powers (2003.05.05.2212 MDT)]

> Perhaps one feature of the lexicon Marc is considering would be a
> listing of alternative translations into formal PCT language with
> descriptions of the different meanings that could be intended by the lay
> speaker.

Actually Bill, this is the _only_ reason for a lexicon, not simply "one
of..."

Huh?

Unless I missed something, Bill P was referring to "one feature" of a
lexicon and Marc is responding to that statement with a comment about the
"only reason for a lexicon,..."

Anyway, I think some kind of formalized (and consolidated) PCT lexicon
might be useful although I shudder at the prospect of what it will take to
produce definitions for any terms not already defined in existing materials.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.06.0930)]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.05.2212 MDT)]

Perhaps one feature of the lexicon Marc is considering would be a
listing of alternative translations into formal PCT language with
descriptions of the different meanings that could be intended by the lay
speaker.

Actually Bill, this is the _only_ reason for a lexicon, not simply "one
of..."

Marc