Disturbances

[Richard_H_Pfau]

From [Richard Pfau (2012.07.23 1500 EDT)]

The statement that “in PCT, a disturbance is an independent variable that has some effect on a controlled variable” [Bill Powers (2012.07.07.0901 M<DTY)] seems to imply that independent variables that result in perceptual signals not related to perceptions of controlled variables are not disturbances. That is, not all environmental events are disturbances.

If this is correct then:

1. A term is needed (or would be helpful) to refer to independent variables that are sensed but that do not affect controlled variables. Does such a term now exist? If not, are there any suggestions for such a term that would make sense to most people? (“Non-disturbance” doesn’t seem too good a choice, for example. Would “uncontrolled input” be suitable?)

2. At least some, if not many, sensed variables are not disturbances at any given time

3. Using the term “disturbances” to refer to all sensed variables, events, and conditions is inappropriate. (I mention this, since I seem to have made that inappropriate mistake of conflated usage in my paper “Using Perceptual Control Theory as a Framework for Influencing and Changing Behavior”.)

4. Although control systems control what they sense, they do not control all that they sense; they only control perceptions related to their reference values.

5. Presumably then, some sensed variables that are not disturbances may lead to perceptual signals and related learning (ex., Hebbian networking?) without control mechanisms being activated. That is, other psychological processes, such as some forms of associative learning, may occur without control systems being actively involved**;** if an organism is perceiving events in its environment, learning may occur passively, via “uncontrolled inputs” (if we use that term), without control systems being a direct part of that learning.

6. This seems to mean that “uncontrolled inputs” (for example, inputs controlled by other people but not being controlled by a “perceiving person”) can affect and change aspects of someone’s control systems (temporarily or more permanently via learning), including the Input Function and Related Perceptual Signals, Reference Signals, the Output Function and Related Output Quantities, and the Feedback Function, as indicated in my above-mentioned paper (which is attached if needed for reference).

Does my thinking, as expressed above, seem on target?

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

Pfau - CSG Conference Paper - 11 June 2012 - with jpg figure.doc (610 KB)

[Bob_Hintz]

bob hintz 2012.7.23

I have been intending to respond to your paper for some time, but just keep putting it off. Much of what you propose seems to depend upon communication between two or more independent control systems. Most of PCT is restricted to the operation of one control system. Another control system may be a source of disturbances which will result in conflict when the other system’s reference is different from the first or is only accidentally related to a variable the first system is controlling.

I have proposed that some output (behavior is a tricky word) is produced as a message intended only to allow others to improve their ability to guess (if they care to and share a common language with me) what I am perceiving, what my reference might be and how I might hope that others would contribute to my control or at least not interfere with it. I believe a “message” might be perceived by others as one of your non-disturbance and/or uncontrolled perceptions that is none-the-less extremely useful.

Many of your proposals for using PCT seem to involve communication about how one controls and/or changes that process of control. You might find Marshall Rosenberg’s Non-Violent communication process extremely interesting in terms of the title of your paper. He asks the general question, “How can we get more of what we want in our relationships with others and less of what we don’t want?”

I have used PCT to help teach his process even though to the best of my knowledge, he has never heard of it.

bob

···

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Richard H. Pfau richardpfau4153@aol.com wrote:

From [Richard Pfau (2012.07.23 1500 EDT)]

The statement that “in PCT, a disturbance is an independent variable that has some effect on a controlled variable” [Bill Powers (2012.07.07.0901 M<DTY)] seems to imply that independent variables that result in perceptual signals not related to perceptions of controlled variables are not disturbances. That is, not all environmental events are disturbances.

If this is correct then:

1. A term is needed (or would be helpful) to refer to independent variables that are sensed but that do not affect controlled variables. Does such a term now exist? If not, are there any suggestions for such a term that would make sense to most people? (“Non-disturbance” doesn’t seem too good a choice, for example. Would “uncontrolled input” be suitable?)

2. At least some, if not many, sensed variables are not disturbances at any given time

3. Using the term “disturbances” to refer to all sensed variables, events, and conditions is inappropriate. (I mention this, since I seem to have made that inappropriate mistake of conflated usage in my paper “Using Perceptual Control Theory as a Framework for Influencing and Changing Behavior”.)

4. Although control systems control what they sense, they do not control all that they sense; they only control perceptions related to their reference values.

5. Presumably then, some sensed variables that are not disturbances may lead to perceptual signals and related learning (ex., Hebbian networking?) without control mechanisms being activated. That is, other psychological processes, such as some forms of associative learning, may occur without control systems being actively involved**;** if an organism is perceiving events in its environment, learning may occur passively, via “uncontrolled inputs” (if we use that term), without control systems being a direct part of that learning.

6. This seems to mean that “uncontrolled inputs” (for example, inputs controlled by other people but not being controlled by a “perceiving person”) can affect and change aspects of someone’s control systems (temporarily or more permanently via learning), including the Input Function and Related Perceptual Signals, Reference Signals, the Output Function and Related Output Quantities, and the Feedback Function, as indicated in my above-mentioned paper (which is attached if needed for reference).

Does my thinking, as expressed above, seem on target?

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.24.00.44]

True.

Perceptions.
I’d go for “uncontrolled perception”, since many of them could
become controlled variables, and more could be if one had the
physical means to affect the corresponding environmental variable
(e.g. the perceived phase of the moon).
I would say most, or almost all, sensed variables are not
disturbances at any one moment. One has millions of degrees of
freedom per second for perception (at low levels), but only tens of
degrees of freedom per second for output, which is the limit on how
much one can control. Hence only on the order of 0.001% of sensed
variables can be under control at any moment. Only those under
control can be affected by “disturbances”, by definition. Others
just vary according to external conditions.
True.
The PCT elementary control system senses only one thing: the
perceptual signal it controls. The complex of control systems that
control the totality of all the perceptions being controlled at any
one moment senses only those perceptions being controlled. So they
do control all that they sense. The problem for your language is
that in the brain at any moment there are many, many perceptual
signals that are not being controlled. A lot of these uncontrolled
perceptions contribute to controlled perceptions, but not all of
them do. It’s possible, even likely, although half a century ago, J.G.Taylor
demonstrated that in a variety of situations perceptions were
learned very much better when the subject was required to influence
them in a feedback loop, while other perceptions in the same
(usually visual) field were not learned (e.g. when the subject was
wearing distorting prism spectacles the track ahead where the
subject would walk quickly came to look straight and level, while
the surround remained tilted). Nevertheless, at the neural level,
Hebbian and anti-Hebbian learning does occur (whether it is Hebbian
or anti-Hebbian depends on spike timing relations). So you are
probably correct.
I believe this to be correct, though the effects would probably be
much greater if the person were controlling something disturbed by
inputs controlled by the other person.
Pretty much, according to my idiosyncratic understanding of PCT.
Martin

···

          From [Richard Pfau

(2012.07.23 1500 EDT)]

          The statement that **                "in PCT, a disturbance is an

independent variable that has some effect on a
controlled variable"** [Bill Powers
(2012.07.07.0901 M<DTY)] seems to imply that *** independent
variables that result in perceptual signals not
related to perceptions of controlled variables are not
disturbances.*** That is, not all
environmental events are disturbances.

If this is correct then:

          1.  A term is needed (or would be helpful) to refer

to independent variables that are sensed but that do
not affect controlled variables. Does such a term now
exist?

          If not, are there any suggestions for such a term that

would make sense to most people? (“Non-disturbance”
doesn’t seem too good a choice, for example. Would
“uncontrolled input” be suitable?)

          2.  At least some, if not many, sensed variables are

not disturbances at any given time

          3.  Using the term "disturbances" to refer to all

sensed variables, events, and conditions is inappropriate.

          (I mention this, since I seem to have made that

inappropriate mistake of conflated usage in my paper
“Using Perceptual Control Theory as a Framework for
Influencing and Changing Behavior”.)

          4.  Although control systems control what they sense,

they do not control all that they sense; they only control
perceptions related to their reference values.

          5.  Presumably then, some sensed variables that are not

disturbances may lead to perceptual signals
and related learning (ex., Hebbian networking?) without
control mechanisms being activated. That is, other
psychological processes, such as some forms of associative
learning, may occur without control systems being actively
involved**;** if an organism is perceiving
events in its environment, learning may occur passively,
via “uncontrolled inputs” (if we use that term), without
control systems being a direct part of that learning.

          6.  This seems to mean that "uncontrolled inputs" (for

example, inputs controlled by other people but not being
controlled by a “perceiving person”) can affect and
change aspects of someone’s control systems (temporarily
or more permanently via learning), including the Input
Function and Related Perceptual Signals, Reference
Signals, the Output Function and Related Output
Quantities, and the Feedback Function, as indicated in my
above-mentioned paper (which is attached if needed for
reference).

Does my thinking, as expressed above, seem on target?

[Richard_H_Pfau]

[Richard Pfau (2012.07.24 10:06 EDT)]

Ref: bob hintz 2012.7.23

I believe a “message” might be perceived by others as one of your non-disturbance and/or uncontrolled perceptions that is none-the-less extremely useful.

Bob,

You raise some relevant points that I find interesting and helpful, including your idea above. I’ll have a look at Marshall Rosenberg’s work. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

[Richard_H_Pfau]

[Richard Pfau (2012.07.24 11:01 EDT)]

Ref.: [Martin Taylor 2012.07.24.00.44]

Martin,

“Uncontrolled perceptions” sounds good to me! I’ll use that term.

Your other comments also are helpful. In short, your “ideosyncratic understanding of PCT” as expressed in your writing seems to make eminent sense.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2012.07.24.1127 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2012.07.24.00.44

From [Richard Pfau (2012.07.23
1500 EDT)]
The statement that “in PCT, a disturbance is an independent
variable that has some effect on a controlled variable” [Bill
Powers (2012.07.07.0901 M<DTY)] seems to imply that independent
variables that result in perceptual signals not related to perceptions of
controlled variables are not disturbances. That is,
not all environmental events are disturbances.

True.

A productive discussion here. The basic problem here is ambiguity that
doesn’t bother people in ordinary informal discourse, but which
causes all sorts of problems in scientific descriptions.

I’ve discussed this before in terms of disturbance applying both to
causes and to the effects of those causes. A crosswind, it is said, is a
disturbance affecting a car’s path on the road, calling for opposing
actions to keep the car in its lane. But we also speak of a deviation of
a car from its path as a disturbance that needs to be countered. Clearly,
the physical wind itself is not being sensed or controlled directly; it
is the path of the car that the driver is controlling. More
precisely, the driver is controlling the visual appearance of the car in
relation to the road as seen through the windshield, and it is an
unwanted change in that appearance that is considered a disturbance, an
unexpected, undesired deviation of the controlled variable from its
reference level.

These are clearly two different meanings of the term disturbance. The
crosswind is a measurable variable, and by measuring its velocity and
direction we can use physical formulas to calculate the amount of effect
it will have on the path of a car moving at a particular speed. But the
same word also applies to a perception of the path of the car: an
unexpected and unwanted change in the perceived path is a disturbance,
too.

When we use models we are not constrained to speak only of variables that
a person can perceive. We can speak of the crosswind as if we can see or
otherwise sense it out there, in the world. But that is when we are using
a model based on physics, in which we are allowed to imagine what we have
no way to experience. When driving, we don’t really experience the
crosswind itself, the moving air outside the car. We imagine it.

In fact, when you pause to reflect on this for a while, you have to
realized that while we have many kinds of perceptions, some controlled
and some not at any given time, we never experience what is causing those
perceptions. We experience only the effects of external variables on
internal perceptual signals. While we can imagine variables in the outer
world which are causing the perceptual signals (whether changing or
not), we do not perceive the causal variables as they are outside
us.

In the canonical PCT diagram, there is a disturbing variable depicted
just outside the input-output boundary of the control system. An arrow
shows the path from that disturbing variable to another variable called
the input quantity, from which the control system extracts a perception
of a controlled variable. Clearly, the disturbing variable is not
perceived by the control system in question.

There is another variable affecting the same input quantity, which is
also unperceived by this control system: the output quantity which is a
measure of the action of the control system. The net effect on the
controlled quantity, the state of this quantity, is the sum of the
effects of these two variables, Qo and D.

Since the perception under control is a representation of the controlled
quantity, it can behave quite differently from the way the action of
either the control system or the disturbing variable changes. In fact, if
control is reasonably good, the effect of the disturbing variable on the
controlled variable is nearly cancelled by concurrent changes in the
action of the system, the output quantity. So the disturbance does not
necessarily cause any significant disturbance.

There we have the two meanings of disturbance in the same sentence. One
refers to a cause, the other to an (absent) effect. The only
“disturbance” that can actually be sensed by this control
system is the change in the controlled quantity that results from the
difference between effects of Qo and D. That is obviously not at all the
same as the magnitude of the disturbing variable. So when we say we
“perceive a disturbance,” do we mean we are perceiving the net
change in the controlled variable, or a change in the disturbing
variable? A need to ask that question is best avoided.

I think, therefore, that we can say that disturbing variables are never
perceived by the system controlling the input variable being affected by
the disturbances. In PCT-speak, this means NEVER.

We are left, then, with other physical variables that do not affect
controlled quantities, but do affect inputs to the organism that are not
themselves controlled. The perceptual effects of those other variables do
not result in any correlated behaviors, because all behaviors, according
to PCT, exists only as part of a feedback loops involving controlled
variables.

If we want complete clarity and uniqueness, we should not call those
other variables disturbances, although informally we can say that they,
too, disturb input variables. In the context of discussing control,
disturbances are only the variables outside the input-output boundary
that affect controlled variables and result in opposing actions. Other
variables are just physical variables, and their effects on perceptions
on other physical quantities are just effects.

I don’t know if that clarifies or confuses, but it’s the best I can come
up with now.

Best,

Bill P.

[chadtgreen]

[Chad Green 2012.07.24.1650]

RM: I'd go for "uncontrolled perception", since many of them could become
controlled variables, and more could be if one had the physical means to
affect the corresponding environmental variable (e.g. the perceived
phase of the moon).

CG: I'd like to call them accidents--you know, the little things that often go unnoticed. I value them more than I do perceptions.

Terrence Deacon, author of Incomplete Nature, might call them absentials: Book Review: Who's in Charge? | Incomplete Nature - WSJ .

Here's an excerpt:

"I believe that we have been under the spell of a sort of Zeno's paradox of the mind. Like the ancient mathematicians confused by the behavior of zero, and unwilling to countenance incorporating it into their calculations, we seem baffled by the fact that absent referents, unrealized ends, and abstract values have definite physical consequences, despite their apparently null physicality. As a result, we have excluded these relations from playing constitutive roles in the natural sciences."

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET> 7/24/2012 1:11 AM >>>

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.24.00.44]

From [Richard Pfau (2012.07.23 1500 EDT)]

The statement that *"in PCT, a disturbance is an independent variable
that has some effect on a controlled variable"* [Bill Powers
(2012.07.07.0901 M<DTY)] seems to imply that */independent variables
that result in perceptual signals not related to perceptions
of controlled variables are not disturbances./* That is, not all
environmental events are disturbances.

True.

If this is correct then:
1. A term is needed (or would be helpful) to refer to independent
variables that are sensed but that do not affect controlled
variables. Does such a term now exist?

Perceptions.

If not, are there any suggestions for such a term that would make
sense to most people? ("Non-disturbance" doesn't seem too good a
choice, for example. Would "uncontrolled input" be suitable?)

I'd go for "uncontrolled perception", since many of them could become
controlled variables, and more could be if one had the physical means to
affect the corresponding environmental variable (e.g. the perceived
phase of the moon).

2. At least some, if not many, sensed variables are not disturbances
at any given time

I would say most, or almost all, sensed variables are not disturbances
at any one moment. One has millions of degrees of freedom per second for
perception (at low levels), but only tens of degrees of freedom per
second for output, which is the limit on how much one can control. Hence
only on the order of 0.001% of sensed variables can be under control at
any moment. Only those under control can be affected by "disturbances",
by definition. Others just vary according to external conditions.

3. Using the term "disturbances" to refer to all sensed variables,
events, and conditions is inappropriate.

True.

  (I mention this, since I seem to have made that inappropriate
mistake of conflated usage in my paper "Using Perceptual Control
Theory as a Framework for Influencing and Changing Behavior".)
4. Although control systems control what they sense, they do not
control all that they sense; they only control perceptions related to
their reference values.

The PCT elementary control system senses only one thing: the perceptual
signal it controls. The complex of control systems that control the
totality of all the perceptions being controlled at any one moment
senses only those perceptions being controlled. So they do control all
that they sense. The problem for your language is that in the brain at
any moment there are many, many perceptual signals that are not being
controlled. A lot of these uncontrolled perceptions contribute to
controlled perceptions, but not all of them do.

5. Presumably then, some sensed variables that are not disturbances
may lead to perceptual signals and related learning (ex., Hebbian
networking?) without control mechanisms being activated. That
is, other psychological processes, such as some forms of associative
learning, may occur without control systems being actively
involved*;* if an organism is perceiving events in its environment,
learning may occur passively, via "uncontrolled inputs" (if we use
that term), without control systems being a direct part of that learning.

It's possible, even likely, although half a century ago, J.G.Taylor
demonstrated that in a variety of situations perceptions were learned
very much better when the subject was required to influence them in a
feedback loop, while other perceptions in the same (usually visual)
field were not learned (e.g. when the subject was wearing distorting
prism spectacles the track ahead where the subject would walk quickly
came to look straight and level, while the surround remained tilted).
Nevertheless, at the neural level, Hebbian and anti-Hebbian learning
does occur (whether it is Hebbian or anti-Hebbian depends on spike
timing relations). So you are probably correct.

6. This seems to mean that "uncontrolled inputs" (for example, inputs
controlled by other people but not being controlled by a "perceiving
person") can affect and change aspects of someone's control systems
(temporarily or more permanently via learning), including the Input
Function and Related Perceptual Signals, Reference Signals, the Output
Function and Related Output Quantities, and the Feedback Function, as
indicated in my above-mentioned paper (which is attached if needed for
reference).

I believe this to be correct, though the effects would probably be much
greater if the person were controlling something disturbed by inputs
controlled by the other person.

Does my thinking, as expressed above, seem on target?

Pretty much, according to my idiosyncratic understanding of PCT.

Martin

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.24.1710)]

Chad Green (2012.07.24.1650) –

RM: I’d go for “uncontrolled perception”, since many of them could become
controlled variables, and more could be if one had the physical means to

affect the corresponding environmental variable (e.g. the perceived

phase of the moon).

CG: I’d like to call them accidents–you know, the little things that often go unnoticed. I value them more than I do perceptions.

It was MT (Martin Taylor) who said that about “uncontrolled perception”, not me (RM). And saying that they are “the little things that often go unnoticed” misses the point completely because uncontrolled perceptions, like the phases of the moon that Martin mentioned, are not necessarily unnoticed; they are just not controlled.

Speaking of unnoticed, I haven’t noticed your reply to my (and Martin’s) answer to your request for an answer to your question about the ultimate purpose of PCT. Was your reply one of those “absentials” that mean so much by not being there;-)

RSM

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[chadtgreen]

[From Chad Green (2012.07.25.0952)]

Isn't it fascinating how these accidents play themselves out? Here I am writing a brief note about them, completely unaware that I was about to exemplify that very process!

RM: Thank you for noticing.

Cheers,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/24/2012 8:08 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.24.1710)]

Chad Green (2012.07.24.1650) --

RM: I'd go for "uncontrolled perception", since many of them could become
controlled variables, and more could be if one had the physical means to
affect the corresponding environmental variable (e.g. the perceived
phase of the moon).

CG: I'd like to call them accidents--you know, the little things that
often go unnoticed. I value them more than I do perceptions.

It was MT (Martin Taylor) who said that about "uncontrolled perception",
not me (RM). And saying that they are "the little things that often go
unnoticed" misses the point completely because uncontrolled perceptions,
like the phases of the moon that Martin mentioned, are not necessarily
unnoticed; they are just not controlled.

Speaking of unnoticed, I haven't noticed your reply to my (and Martin's)
answer to your request for an answer to your question about the ultimate
purpose of PCT. Was your reply one of those "absentials" that mean so much
by not being there;-)

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.25.0800)]

Chad Green (2012.07.25.0952)–

Isn’t it fascinating how these accidents play themselves out? Here I am writing a brief note about them, completely unaware that I was about to exemplify that very process!

RM: Thank you for noticing.

And thank you for making it clear that I am being more foolish than Lear by trying to engage in an intelligent discussion with you.

Nothing will come of nothing (King Lear I.i.85).

RSM

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[chadtgreen]

from [Chad Green (2012.07.25 1701 EDT)]

Richard P.: Excellent article! I read it with the intention of figuring out why I had included Richard Marken's initials in a previous e-mail, an act that was neither intentional nor desired. Initially I thought it was an unconscious reference signal, but then I realized that it could also be an unconscious instance of the Premack principle. Another possibility is ego depletion due to a hyperactive mindfulness. The deeper I dig, the greater the possibilities! In other words, I can find no single rationale for my unintentional act. With the exception of drug use, they all make complete sense for this particular situation.

Thoughts?

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

"Richard H. Pfau" <richardpfau4153@AOL.COM> 7/23/2012 3:00 PM >>>

from [Richard Pfau (2012.07.23?1500 EDT)]

The statement that "in PCT, a disturbance is an independent variable that has some effect on a controlled variable" [Bill Powers (2012.07.07.0901 M&lt;DTY)] seems to imply that?independent variables that result in perceptual signals?not related to perceptions of?controlled variables are not disturbances.?? That is, not all environmental events are disturbances.
?
If this is correct then:
?
1.? A term is needed (or would be helpful) to refer to?independent variables that are sensed but that do not?affect controlled variables.? Does such a term now exist?? If not, are there any suggestions for such a term?that would make sense to most people?? ("Non-disturbance" doesn't seem too good a choice, for example.? Would "uncontrolled input" be suitable?)
?
2.? At least some, if not many,?sensed variables are not disturbances at any given time
?
3.? Using the term "disturbances" to refer to all sensed variables, events, and conditions?is inappropriate.? (I mention this, since I seem to have made that inappropriate mistake of conflated usage?in my paper "Using Perceptual Control Theory as a Framework for Influencing and Changing Behavior".)
?
4.? Although control systems control what they sense, they?do not control all that they sense; they only control perceptions related to their reference values.
?
5.? Presumably then, some?sensed variables that are not disturbances may lead to perceptual signals and?related?learning (ex., Hebbian networking?) without control mechanisms being activated.? That is,?other psychological processes, such as some forms of associative learning, may occur without control systems being actively involved;?if an organism is perceiving events in its environment, learning may occur passively, via "uncontrolled inputs" (if we use that term), without control systems being?a direct part of that learning.
?
6.? This seems to mean that "uncontrolled inputs" (for example, inputs controlled by other people but not being controlled by a "perceiving ?person") can affect and change aspects of someone's control systems (temporarily or more permanently via learning), including the Input Function and Related Perceptual Signals, Reference Signals, the Output Function and Related Output Quantities, and the Feedback Function,?as indicated in my above-mentioned paper (which is attached if needed for reference).
?
Does my thinking, as expressed above, seem on target?
?
With Regards,
Richard Pfau
?
?
?
?

[Richard_H_Pfau]

{Richard Pfau (2012.07.25 19:40 EDT)]

Ref.: [`Chad Green (2012.07.25 1701 EDT)]

``

CG: Richard P.: Excellent article! I read it with the intention of figuring out why I had included Richard Marken’s initials in a previous e-mail, an act that was neither intentional nor desired. Initially I thought it was an unconscious reference signal, but then I realized that it could also be an unconscious instance of the Premack principle. Another possibility is ego depletion due to a hyperactive mindfulness. The deeper I dig, the greater the possibilities! In other words, I can find no single rationale for my unintentional act. With the exception of drug use, they all make complete sense for this particular situation.

Thoughts?

`

``

Chad,

``

Thank you for the compliment. I'm glad that you found the paper worth reading.

``

As far as why your unintentional act occurred, your guess is as good as mine. Most such behaviors are "underdetermined" and open to a variety of theoretical explanations and "just-so stories".

``

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

[chadtgreen]

[Chad Green (2012.07.26 13:22 EDT)]

Richard, your response speaks volumes, namely, to the need to bridge PCT as meta-theory with normative ethics because whether we are conscious of our actions or not, our interpretation of neutral tools such as this one ultimately reveals more about our ethical stance than the theoretical underpinnings of the tool itself.

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

"Richard H. Pfau" <richardpfau4153@AOL.COM> 7/25/2012 7:41 PM >>>

[Richard Pfau (2012.07.25 19:40 EDT)]
Ref.: [Chad Green (2012.07.25 1701 EDT)]

CG: Richard P.: Excellent article! I read it with the intention of figuring out why I had included Richard Marken's initials in a previous e-mail, an act that was neither intentional nor desired. Initially I thought it was an unconscious reference signal, but then I realized that it could also be an unconscious instance of the Premack principle. Another possibility is ego depletion due to a hyperactive mindfulness. The deeper I dig, the greater the possibilities! In other words, I can find no single rationale for my unintentional act. With the exception of drug use, they all make complete sense for this particular situation.

Thoughts?

Chad,

Thank you for the compliment. I'm glad that you found the paper worth reading.

As far as why your unintentional act occurred, your guess is as good as mine. Most such behaviors are "underdetermined" and open to a variety of theoretical explanations and "just-so stories".

With Regards,
Richard Pfau

[chadtgreen]

[From Chad Green (2012.07.26.1444)]

Rick, to answer your question as to why I am on this list, the answer is mereotopological in the sense that if I take all the questions you have asked me in the past, all the questions which you are asking me right now as you read this message, whether consciously or not, and all your questions for me in the future, their sum will converge to yes.

The answer is dichotomous because of your preference for quantitativeness.

Here are two more musings for your consideration:

1) Is the hidden assumption of PCT that it applies to all levels of evidence (e.g., mathematical)?
2) Given your definition of PCT, is its inherent contradiction evident when it serves as its own representation?

Cheers,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/25/2012 11:01 AM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.25.0800)]

Chad Green (2012.07.25.0952)--

Isn't it fascinating how these accidents play themselves out? Here I am
writing a brief note about them, completely unaware that I was about to
exemplify that very process!

RM: Thank you for noticing.

And thank you for making it clear that I am being more foolish than Lear by
trying to engage in an intelligent discussion with you.

Nothing will come of nothing (King Lear I.i.85).

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.26.22.23]

Chad, Is it possible for you to answer questions put to you face to face, such as "would you like to come for dinner?" in ordinary English, in a way that the questioner would know whether you would in fact come to dinner?

If you can actually do that, why does it seem impossible for you to do the same in writing?

[From Chad Green (2012.07.26.1444)]

Rick, to answer your question as to why I am on this list, the answer is mereotopological in the sense that if I take all the questions you have asked me in the past, all the questions which you are asking me right now as you read this message, whether consciously or not, and all your questions for me in the future, their sum will converge to yes.

The answer is dichotomous because of your preference for quantitativeness.

Here are two more musings for your consideration:

1) Is the hidden assumption of PCT that it applies to all levels of evidence (e.g., mathematical)?

In the same way is is true for any other science based on physical principles. But this assumption is not hidden.

2) Given your definition of PCT, is its inherent contradiction evident when it serves as its own representation?

Please make plain its "inherent contradiction", and explain how PCT can be its own representation any more than Newtonian physics is its own representation.

Martin

[chadtgreen]

[Chad Green 2012.07.27.1044]

Martin, contradictions are a way of life. What do you think powers my metaphors?

HPCT and PCT are contradictory. HPCT itself is one: our personal communications are a testament to that!

PCT must be one because it had to reject something in order to assert itself.

My personality is contradictory: Face to face I'm an average Joe, but put me in front of a computer and I'll rock your virtual world!

What could possibly explain why we think and act this way? Neuroscience? It's so much more than that!

Deconstruction captures the mystery quite well: Deconstruction - Wikipedia . I used a similar approach to construct the metaphors.

Here's a suggestion for the future: May the truths between us be written in jest while we strive to do our very best.

Best,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET> 7/26/2012 10:28 PM >>>

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.26.22.23]

Chad, Is it possible for you to answer questions put to you face to
face, such as "would you like to come for dinner?" in ordinary English,
in a way that the questioner would know whether you would in fact come
to dinner?

If you can actually do that, why does it seem impossible for you to do
the same in writing?

[From Chad Green (2012.07.26.1444)]

Rick, to answer your question as to why I am on this list, the answer is mereotopological in the sense that if I take all the questions you have asked me in the past, all the questions which you are asking me right now as you read this message, whether consciously or not, and all your questions for me in the future, their sum will converge to yes.

The answer is dichotomous because of your preference for quantitativeness.

Here are two more musings for your consideration:

1) Is the hidden assumption of PCT that it applies to all levels of evidence (e.g., mathematical)?

In the same way is is true for any other science based on physical
principles. But this assumption is not hidden.

2) Given your definition of PCT, is its inherent contradiction evident when it serves as its own representation?

Please make plain its "inherent contradiction", and explain how PCT can
be its own representation any more than Newtonian physics is its own
representation.

Martin

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.28.12.17]

The following is your answer to my question:

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.26.22.23]

Chad, Is it possible for you to answer questions put to you face to
face, such as "would you like to come for dinner?" in ordinary English,
in a way that the questioner would know whether you would in fact come
to dinner?

If you can actually do that, why does it seem impossible for you to do
the same in writing?
[Chad Green 2012.07.27.1044]

Martin, contradictions are a way of life. What do you think powers my metaphors?

HPCT and PCT are contradictory. HPCT itself is one: our personal communications are a testament to that!

PCT must be one because it had to reject something in order to assert itself.

My personality is contradictory: Face to face I'm an average Joe, but put me in front of a computer and I'll rock your virtual world!

What could possibly explain why we think and act this way? Neuroscience? It's so much more than that!

Deconstruction captures the mystery quite well: Deconstruction - Wikipedia . I used a similar approach to construct the metaphors.

Here's a suggestion for the future: May the truths between us be written in jest while we strive to do our very best.

Best,
Chad

I suppose you are trying to let me know me how you respond to a dinner invitation. If I can hypothetically instantiate it, I imagine a dialogue such as the following:

MT: Chad, would you like to join us for dinner next Tuesday?

CG: The inherent dichotomy of alimentation and excretion leads to an inevitable rejection of the nullified response.

MT: But would you like to come to dinner next Tuesday?

CG: My personality is contradictory, and in the virtual world of the future, the past is immanent.

MT: Let's try this is parts. WIll you be free next Tuesday evening?

CG: What could explain freedom, other than the virtuality of all self-contradiction? Freedom is indeed slavery, and we are all slaves to the metaphor of our lives.

MT: I suppose we will be dining alone next Tuesday. Sorry you are not interested. I think the meal will be quite tasty.

Or something like that.

Martin

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.29.0930)]

Martin Taylor (2012.07.28.12.17)

MT: Chad, Is it possible for you to answer questions put to you face to

face, such as “would you like to come for dinner?” in ordinary English,

in a way that the questioner would know whether you would in fact come

to dinner?

CG: Martin, contradictions are a way of life. What do you think powers my metaphors?

MT: I suppose you are trying to let me know me how you respond to a dinner invitation. If I can hypothetically instantiate it, I imagine a dialogue such as the following:

MT: Chad, would you like to join us for dinner next Tuesday?

CG: The inherent dichotomy of alimentation and excretion leads to an inevitable rejection of the nullified response…

MT: Or something like that.

Great Martin. Not only does that show that Canadians can, in fact, be funny, but it also shows why I have not replied to Chad’s post where he called Richard Pfau’s paper on behavior control “Excellent!”. In that paper Richard explained all the different ways you can control behavior based on an understanding of PCT. I don’t agree with many of the things RIchard says in that paper, not least of which being the overall implication that arbitrary control of another person’s behavior (instituted without agreement from the controllee) is a reasonable approach to dealing with other people. But I do agree with much of what Richard says about how one person can control the behavior of another. Since Chad, in an earlier discussion about behavior control, had argued that behavior could not be controlled, I found it odd that he was so enthusiastic about Richard’s paper. But I decided not to say anything about it for the same reason you give above for not asking him to dinner. I’m sure I’d his answer to my question “How can you celebrate a paper that describes how to control human behavior while arguing that control of behavior is impossible?” would be something like what you say above:

CG: The inherent dichotomy of behavior control and freedom leads to an inevitable rejection of the nullified response. This would be obvious to you if you would just apply Deruda’s oppositional deconstruction which shows that everything you say is wrong.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[chadtgreen]

[Chad Green 2012.07.30.0953]

MT: That's more like it! Personally I identify more with Stoicism than any other philosophy.

In that vein, perhaps PCT is an "indifferent thing" and the differences between us are ultimately unbridgeable without an overarching ethical framework. Instead, we could recognize our differences as resources that push us to attain higher levels of virtue, both individually and collectively, because, as Einstein once said, to repeat the same behavior while expecting different results is insanity.

Cheers,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET> 7/28/2012 12:26 PM >>>

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.28.12.17]

The following is your answer to my question:

[Martin Taylor 2012.07.26.22.23]

Chad, Is it possible for you to answer questions put to you face to
face, such as "would you like to come for dinner?" in ordinary English,
in a way that the questioner would know whether you would in fact come
to dinner?

If you can actually do that, why does it seem impossible for you to do
the same in writing?
[Chad Green 2012.07.27.1044]

Martin, contradictions are a way of life. What do you think powers my metaphors?

HPCT and PCT are contradictory. HPCT itself is one: our personal communications are a testament to that!

PCT must be one because it had to reject something in order to assert itself.

My personality is contradictory: Face to face I'm an average Joe, but put me in front of a computer and I'll rock your virtual world!

What could possibly explain why we think and act this way? Neuroscience? It's so much more than that!

Deconstruction captures the mystery quite well: Deconstruction - Wikipedia . I used a similar approach to construct the metaphors.

Here's a suggestion for the future: May the truths between us be written in jest while we strive to do our very best.

Best,
Chad

I suppose you are trying to let me know me how you respond to a dinner
invitation. If I can hypothetically instantiate it, I imagine a dialogue
such as the following:

MT: Chad, would you like to join us for dinner next Tuesday?

CG: The inherent dichotomy of alimentation and excretion leads to an
inevitable rejection of the nullified response.

MT: But would you like to come to dinner next Tuesday?

CG: My personality is contradictory, and in the virtual world of the
future, the past is immanent.

MT: Let's try this is parts. WIll you be free next Tuesday evening?

CG: What could explain freedom, other than the virtuality of all
self-contradiction? Freedom is indeed slavery, and we are all slaves to
the metaphor of our lives.

MT: I suppose we will be dining alone next Tuesday. Sorry you are not
interested. I think the meal will be quite tasty.

Or something like that.

Martin

[chadtgreen]

[From Chad Green (2012.07.30.1010)]

RM: Rick, in your world, does the sum of all questions converge to no? If that's the case, what are the consequences of such a belief system, individually and collectively?

Look at our roles on this discussion list: Do you represent the no, and I, the yes? What separates your world from mine? What is the lowest common denominator?

Cheers,
Chad

Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633

"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself." - Norton Juster

Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/29/2012 12:33 PM >>>

[From Rick Marken (2012.07.29.0930)]

Martin Taylor (2012.07.28.12.17)

MT: Chad, Is it possible for you to answer questions put to you face to
face, such as "would you like to come for dinner?" in ordinary English,
in a way that the questioner would know whether you would in fact come
to dinner?

CG: Martin, contradictions are a way of life. What do you think powers my

metaphors?

MT: I suppose you are trying to let me know me how you respond to a dinner
invitation. If I can hypothetically instantiate it, I imagine a dialogue
such as the following:

MT: Chad, would you like to join us for dinner next Tuesday?

CG: The inherent dichotomy of alimentation and excretion leads to an
inevitable rejection of the nullified response...

MT: Or something like that.

Great Martin. Not only does that show that Canadians can, in fact, be
funny, but it also shows why I have not replied to Chad's post where he
called Richard Pfau's paper on behavior control "Excellent!". In that
paper Richard explained all the different ways you can control behavior
based on an understanding of PCT. I don't agree with many of the things
RIchard says in that paper, not least of which being the overall
implication that arbitrary control of another person's behavior (instituted
without agreement from the controllee) is a reasonable approach to dealing
with other people. But I do agree with much of what Richard says about how
one person can control the behavior of another. Since Chad, in an earlier
discussion about behavior control, had argued that behavior could not be
controlled, I found it odd that he was so enthusiastic about Richard's
paper. But I decided not to say anything about it for the same reason you
give above for not asking him to dinner. I'm sure I'd his answer to my
question "How can you celebrate a paper that describes _how_ to control
human behavior while arguing that control of behavior is impossible?" would
be something like what you say above:

CG: The inherent dichotomy of behavior control and freedom leads to an
inevitable rejection of the nullified response. This would be obvious to
you if you would just apply Deruda's oppositional deconstruction which
shows that everything you say is wrong.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com