[From Rick Marken (2012.07.30.0900)]
Chad Green (2012.07.30.1010)–
CG: Rick, in your world, does the sum of all questions converge to no?
RM: Chad, in my world that question sounds like “blah, blah, blah”.
CG: 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?
RM: To which I can only answer “blah, blah, blah…”
RSM
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[Martin Taylor 2012.07.30.14.43]
[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?
Chad, in your program analysis for your school board, does the sum of all your questions converge to no? If that is the case, what are the consequences of such a belief system, to the individual schoolchild and the schools collectively?
Martin
[From Chad Green (2012.07.30.1626)]
Actually they converge to yes (or positive affect, see link below) because the questions are based on core values, something that we all should share as a system. Your questions pertain more to my adolescent experiences in public education, a period marked by bitterness and resentment.
Source: http://figuraleffect.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/bits-of-emotion-theorie/
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> 7/30/2012 2:45 PM >>>
[Martin Taylor 2012.07.30.14.43]
[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?
Chad, in your program analysis for your school board, does the sum of all your questions converge to no? If that is the case, what are the consequences of such a belief system, to the individual schoolchild and the schools collectively?
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2012.07.30.25)]
Chad Green (2012.07.30.1626) to Martin Taylor –
CG:…Your questions pertain more to my adolescent experiences in public education, a period marked by bitterness and resentment.
Your bitterness and resentment or your teachers’?
RSM
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
Sorry I’m a little late as usual J
Bill P :
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.
HB :
I see here another ambiguity problem which I think could be the basic problem, when people are used to talk about environmental events as something that is happening “really” out there (objective reality). I see mostly the problem when people in their discussions talk about perceptions of “environmental” events, which are different in different observers, as something that is really happening “outside”, the way they perceive it. They can talk about “external events” as it is “absolute truth”. But even the perceptions of the same events are different in different observers (LCS).
So I don’t think that “ambiguity” doesn’t bother people in ordinary informal discourses, but I see it, as the “cause” of many problems (conflicts) in their informal discussions and of course in scientific. I see it as a problem also on courts (witnesses), and other descriptions of “external world” that are given by different people.
BP : I’ve discussed this before in terms of disturbance applying both to causes and to the effects of those causes.
HB : Is disturbance every “outer” effect on “controlled variable” or on control unit ? Is disturbance everything what is affecting control ?
BP : 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.
HB : If disturbance is “unexpected, undesired deviation of the controlled variable from it’s reference level”, what is “error” ?
BP : In fact, when you pause to reflect on this for a while, you have to realize 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.
HB : Where in the human internal structure of control units do “uncontrolled perceptions” go. Beside the comparator ?
BP : 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.
HB : What do you perceive if you open the window of the car when the cross-wind is blowing and “causing” unwanted change in perceived path of the car ?
Best,
Boris
----- Original Message -----
From:
Bill Powers
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Disturbances
[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.
[From Chad Green (2012.07.31.1122)]
Rick, are you trying to read my mind? 
What is the theoretical basis for this question?
If you want to validate a particular assumption of yours, just tell me what that assumption is and I'll oblige.
BTW, your time signature below was off the mark. 
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 Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM> 7/30/2012 6:23 PM >>>
[From Rick Marken (2012.07.30.25)]
Chad Green (2012.07.30.1626) to Martin Taylor --
CG:...Your questions pertain more to my adolescent experiences in public
education, a period marked by bitterness and resentment.
Your bitterness and resentment or your teachers'?
RSM
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[Paul George 940718 0930]
[From Bill Powers (940717.0620 MDT)]
So: where do we stand on the subject of disturbances now?
Just fine. I share your distinction between 'problem' and 'disturbance'.
The engineer is usually interested in 1) keeping some controlled variable
within a range (normal operation), 2) designing the system so that it has the
necessary sensors and instrumentality to keep the process under control, and 3)
anticipating and detecting any circumstance that indicate the process is
getting out of control (i.e. a defect in 2). The latter is why control systems
have 'alarms' to detect potentially dangerous situations in areas not under
adaptive control.'Alerting' (ducking to avoid bricks from Rick Marken) is a big
part of industrial control systems, of course they are alerting the human part
of the control system. The operator may then take mitigating action by opening
a valve, shutting off power, calling for evacuating a tri state area :-}, etc.
[From Rick Marken (950711.1615)]
Bill Powers (950711.0735 MDT) --
I am really getting curious about how the original conclusion was
reached, the one that associates an increase in amount of reinforcement
with an increase in amount of behavior.
Bruce Abbott (950711.1615 EST) --
You keep asking this question, and I keep answering it... In learning one
would expect that following a response with a so-called reinforcing
consequence would "strengthen" the behavior (relative to other behaviors not
so reinforced). Maintained performance is another game altogether--a
dynamic equilibrium involving all sorts of effects. You don't necessarily
expect _rate_ or responding to be directly related to _rate_ of
reinforcement under these conditons. There are too many other factors to
consider and could alter this simple relationship.
So reinforcement stops "strengthening" behavior when responses have been
learned and are being "maintained". How does the reinforcement know when to
stop strengthening and start maintaining? What are all the sorts of effects
that maintain dynamic equilibrium (betweem responses and reinforcemnts,
I presume)? What factors enter the picture during the "maintaining" stage
that alter the simple relationship between reinforcmement and response
rate that presumably existed during the learning stage?
Isn't it possible that what is happening is actually quite different than
what you describe -- and much simpler, too? Isn't is possible that organisms
are controlling the rate of reinforcement as best as they can under the
circumstances (the reinforcement "schedule"). Nothing is "maintaining
performance" (rate of responding). Rate of responding is just one variable
that affects another variable that is under control. Nor is there a "dynamic
equilibrium" between input and output variables; the apparent equilibrum
disappears when there is a randomlu varying disturbance is added to the
controlled variable; in that case response rate changes randomly while
reinforcement rate remains constant.
The problem with your description of the "facts" of "maintained behavior" is
that it is based on observation of behavior when there are no disturbances to
the controlled variable. As Bill mentioned earlier, the best way to see what
is actually going on in operant studies is to add disturbances.
Best
Rick
[FROM Dennis Delprato (920813)]
I have been enjoying the discussion of disturbances and simplifying
assumptions. For those who wish to talk to non PCT experimental
psychologists, I suggest you have an excellent "hook" here.
Start at the beginning. What is the raison d'etre of the much
acclaimed experimental method? Control over so-called extraneous
variables that are the source of unaccounted-for (error) variance
in events of interest. How successful is the IV-DV strategy?
Citation, citation, .... Not very, even when statistical control in
the form of factorial designs and multivariate statistics is
incorporated into the manipulative strategy. Furthermore, aren't
we aware of a fundamental problem with highly controlled
experimental research, even when (or if) its application permits
impressively confirmed predictions? Yes, we find the actual
world controlled away such that results are applicable to only
a very restricted set of conditions. We end up not knowing any more
than before the rigorous experimentation was conduct--with the
exception of what applies to an extremely narrow range of conditions.
Tied in here are ceteris paribus assumptions in an attempt to salvage
the experimenter-as-manipulator methodology.
Thirdly, what is one implicitly assuming when control over
extraneous variables is placed in the hands of the experimenter?
Aren't we assuming that the individual is pushed and pulled around
by external forces, that they are not active participants in their
world?
Well, here's a suggestion from an area that is based on the
fundamental proposition that the psychologically-active
individual always participates fully in all actions. First,
consider this notion of extraneous variables; this idea that
there are variables that often operate insidiously to befuddle
well-intentioned researchers. An alternative is not to deny
that something like extraneous variables is found in psychological
events, but to re-conceptualize them as disturbances. With
the idea of disturbances and the conceptual framework in which
they are found as formal constructs, we (a) need not rely on
a wind-weather vane conceptualization of psychological behavior,
(b) can methodologically handle all variables of whatever number
and however classified by the classical experimental model....
Get the point? KISS (Keep It Simple ...)
Basically, I am suggesting a critical look at the classic
experimental framework (CEF), a set of assumptions not questioned by
adherents to otherwise divergent theories and approaches. CEF-thinking
is taught to all psychologists. It is possibly one of the very few
points of general agreement in the fractured field of psychology.
Not a pleasant thought for those who are not impressed with it.
However, it does seem that there may be enough of an undercurrent
of dissatisfaction to lead some, at least, to consider an alternative.
Dennis Delprato
Dept. of Psychology
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI 48197 U.S.A.
Psy_Delprato@emunix.emich.edu (Internet)
[From Rick Marken (920813.1000)]
Dennis Delprato (920813) --
Great to hear from you. I think your ideas about introducing PCT
to non-PCT psychologists are EXCELLENT.
Basically, I am suggesting a critical look at the classic
experimental framework (CEF), a set of assumptions not questioned by
adherents to otherwise divergent theories and approaches. CEF-thinking
is taught to all psychologists. It is possibly one of the very few
points of general agreement in the fractured field of psychology.
I agree completely. I've always felt that the difference between conventional
and PCT psychology could be best approached from the point of view of
methodology (since its the same for all psychologists, regardless of
theoretical persuasion). I like your suggestion about moving non-PCT
psychologists gently to the concept of control by showing them how
they might profitably reconceptualize "extraneous" variables as
disturbances. I think you might consider taking the lead on this
approach. Perhaps there are some operant conditioning studies where
people have felt that the results were a bit too noisy due to these
extraneous variables? If you could find a study like this then
perhaps you could show that the "noisiness" of the behavior is the organism's
efforts to reduce the effect of these variables on a controlled variable.
In fact, now that I think of it, the concept of a controlled variable
let's you distinguish between "extraneous variables" that are disturbances
and extraneous variables that are extraneous. Only variables that have
an effect on the controlled variable are disturbances -- ie. the kind of
extraneous variable that will actually influence behavior.
Go with this idea Dennis.
Oded Maler (920814)
It is also not
self-evident at all that a world where all people know what control is
will be a better one - but anyway I'm not interested in Ideology
(unless I'm in a historical museum).
I agree that it is not self-evident. I can see that my sloganizing is
coming back to haunt me. What I meant was simply that, if people
understood that people were control systems, then they would KNOW for
a FACT that their efforts to control people (in order to "make things
better") will not work. The reason is simple -- one person's efforts to
control another are just disturbances, and will be automatically countered
by the controllee. This is not an ideological point -- but a fact about
how control systems work.
I have a demo which illustrates this point. It's sort of the inverse of
my mindreading program. I know it's a good demo because Gary Cziko liked
it. I call it "find mind". Here's how it works:
There are 5 numbers roaming around the computer screen. The behavior of
4 of the numbers is determined by a VERY simple output generation model;
at each time interval the x,y specification of position is updated and
the number "moves" to the specified screen position. One of the numbers,
however, is a control system. The x,y specification at each time interval
is the value of the REFERENCE SIGNAL. So this system is controlling it's
perceived x,y position relative to a varying reference. The position of
ALL FIVE numbers is also influenced by the position of the mouse. If you
leave the mouse alone, this just means that a constant is being added to
the x,y position of all 5 numbers. When you look at the screen what you
see are five numbers drifting around, each taking a different path (determined
by the particular waveform that determines its x,y coordinates (or reference
signal)). There is NO WAY to tell, by looking at their behavior, which of
the 5 numbers is a control system and which are "output generators". The
appearance of the behavior of all 5 numbers is EXACTLY the same.
But you can very quickly tell which of the 5 numbers is a control system
if you introduce a disturbance by moving the mouse. If you move the mouse
abruptly, you will see all 5 numbers shift in the direction of mouse movement,
but one number will "bounce back" to its intended path. This bounce is easy to
see, even though you don't really know where the number intends to move.
So the control system "responds" to the mouse disturbance in a very obvious
way; the rest of the numbers show no such bounce -- they just shift their
movement to the "offset" caused by the mouse disturbance. The behavior of
the control system number is like a "reflex" -- such as the behavior of the
pupil when you suddenly shine a light in the eye.
If you apply the disturbance more smoothly then you cannot see it's
differential effect on the "control system" number. If you just move
the mouse around slowly and aimlessly you will not be able to tell, again,
which of the numbers is "alive". But you will quickly learn which number is
alive when you try to hold a number at some target position on the screen --
ie. if you try to control the position of a number. If you try to control
one of the "output generation" numbers then there is no problem -- you
can easily move the mouse appropriately to compensate for the changing
x,y position of the number. But if you happen to pick the control system
number, then you find that your mouse movements become much more exaggerated.
It turns out that the control system is generating outputs to prevent your
disturbance (mouse movements) from moving it from its intended path. Your
efforts to get that number to stay on target are, in fact, placing you in
a conflict with that number. Since I have placed no limit on the amount of
output that the control system number can generate, the control system will
win the conflict (you will run out of disturbance -- mouse -- first). Some-
times, this is the way things work out in real life (like when you try to
control little kids) -- but, as I said, not for long, since control systems
don't give up.
This little demo illustrates my basic point -- if people are control systems
then efforts to control them just create conflict; and conflict is not
good for either party because it involves loss of control.
Best regards
Rick
**************************************************************
Richard S. Marken USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: marken@aero.org
(310) 336-6214 (day)
(310) 474-0313 (evening)
[From Bill Powers (940806.1610 MDT)]
Bob Clark (940806.1530 EDT) --
I can see what you're getting at by talking about "small" disturbances.
In the rubber-band experiment, people acting as the experimenter often
try to apply disturbances that are large enough and fast enough to cause
a significant effect on the position of the knot, so they can see some
results from them. They have to be told that the point is to observe
NORMAL control behavior.
The problem is that "large" and "small" don't really convey the scale.
The range of disturbances that can be counteracted is set by the range
of opposing output that a control system can produce. I was thinking of
this as a "large" disturbance, not considering disturbances so large (or
of such a nature, like a knife in the ribs) as to make control
impossible.
People who use the term disturbance to mean the _effect_ of a
disturbance are generally looking at the controlled variable, and seeing
its small excursions away from the reference level as "the disturbance."
These excursions, of course, ought to be small in relation to the whole
range possible, if control is effective. So I was confused about what
you meant by the disturbance: variations in the causative variable, or
variations in the controlled quantity that result. This can be a
difficult point to keep straight, vis. our discussions with Taylor and
company last year.
I'm sympathetic with your aim of describing control in ordinary terms.
It's hard, however, to know what associations people will come up with
for _any_ terms one uses; all one can do is keep cross-checking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (960919.0630 MDT)]
Hans Blom, 960918e --
"A disturbance ... can be measured quite independently". That makes
it a perception if it _is_ measured and otherwise an unmeasured but
potentially measurable perception.
So could we say that a disturbance is, in principle, something that
_could be_ but _is not_ measured? If that is the case, the PCT and
MCT views suddenly coincide...
Well, they partially overlap at least. We have to be clear about what point
of view the modeler is taking. It might help to think of the modeler as a
human being, and the system being modeled as a laboratory rat. A human being
can see the rat's environment, which he models in terms of the physical
sciences, and speculates about the rat's brain in terms of neural systems.
The rat, I presume, does neither. So the human being can see that something
is disturbing the rat's perceptions, but the rat can't see it. All the rat
can know is that one of its controlled perceptions has, for some unknown
reason, departed from its reference condition (which may be static or
dynamic). However, the rat can control the perception because its actions
affect it; therefore the rat can oppose the effects of the disturbance even
though it can't perceive the cause of the disturbance. If the apparatus
suddenly begins to yield a piece of food for every third press of the lever
instead of every press, the rat can't know why this change has taken place,
but it can compensate by pressing the bar more often.
One more thing. Those familiar with the feedforward control
literature know that in feedforward controllers one installs extra
sensors to measure what would otherwise be disturbances. If _all_
disturbances could be measured, one would not need closed loop
control anymore. Yet, even if lots of sensors are installed (which
has its problems too, because sensors can fail), feedback is usually
employed to remove the residual error.
This reminds me, Hans -- could you give me some more details about your home
thermostat? As you've described it, it is strictly a feedforward system,
sensing external influences that might change the temperature of your house
and operating the furnace in a way calculated to oppose their effects on
room temperature. What kinds of sensors are used? Where are they located?
How do you calibrate the system response to suit the properties of your
house? I am interested enough that I'd like to write to the manufacturer to
enquire about the design specifications -- do you think you could find the
address for me? I would greatly appreciate your help with this. As far as I
can tell, no such controllers for homes are used in the United States, so I
must depend on you.
(Of course if there are any other Europeans listening in, I would appreciate
any details they could add -- Wolfgang Zocher, are you there? Marcos
Rodrigues?).
Best,
Bill P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------