Do we control "environmental variables"?

CSGnet Archive CSG2018
1

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.10.0853)]

I’ve been thinking about the issue often brought up here, namely, do we control only our perceptions or do we also control environmental variables?

In a purely technical sense (i.e., in terms of control theory), with “control” being evidenced by deliberate alignment of the perceived value of some variable with an intended reference value for that variable, I’m willing to accept the notion that all we really control is our perception.

In a more pragmatic, real-world sense, do I believe we affect environmental variables by way of our actions? Yes, I do. Do we control the value of those variables via our actions? I think so but I’ll also happily admit that all we know of the value of those environmental variables is known to us by way of perceptions. Do I believe there are often strong – very strong – correlations between those environmental variables and our perceptions of them. You betcha! If there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

So I will happily agree to the existence of environmental variables and that we can affect their value by way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no. It all depends, doesn’t it? It depends in particular on those pesky things we call “disturbances.” And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions. Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through that, our perceptions change to match changes in the controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going on.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”

2

[Martin Taylor 2018.05.10.10.27]

I agree with all that you say. The following is in general agreement

(but I would suggest that the word “often” in the middle of your
third paragraph becomes less forceful as we go higher in the control
hierarchy).
My own reflections suggest that much of our problem in discussing
this depends on the meanings we each attach to the word “control”.
Control can never be perfect, whether it be control of perception or
of anything else. There is a continuum between a state where we
would all agree that some variable is controlled and a state where
we would all agree it isn’t. There is another continuum, concerned with the accuracy with which
the perceptual variable co-varies with the environmental variable
visible to outside observers. If the perception is largely based on
imagination, the environmental variable can change wildly with very
little effect on the perception, but if it is almost entirely based
on sensory data, the correspondence is almost exact. At both ends of
this latter continuum, the perception may be controlled almost
perfectly, but at one end nobody would suggest that the
environmental variable visible to an outside observer is controlled,
while at the other end most people would say that it is well
controlled.
Whether we agree or disagree in discussing whether an environmental
variable is or is not controlled when a perception is controlled
depends on where we set boundaries in these two continua for our use
of the word. At one extreme environmental variables are, by
definition, not controlled. At the other extreme they are controlled
if their variation under the influence of disturbances is
consistently opposed, however ineffectually, by the action of an
organism or machine. Disagreements in discussion come from
differences as to where we place our personal boundaries on the use
of the word.
Martin

···

Fred, this is very nicely put. Thanks.

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.10.0853)]

      I’ve been thinking about the issue often

brought up here, namely, do we control only our perceptions or
do we also control environmental variables?

      In a purely technical sense (i.e., in terms

of control theory), with “control” being evidenced by
deliberate alignment of the perceived value of some variable
with an intended reference value for that variable, I’m
willing to accept the notion that all we really control is our
perception.

      In a more pragmatic, real-world sense, do I

believe we affect environmental variables by way of our
actions? Yes, I do. Do we control the value of those
variables via our actions? I think so but I’ll also happily
admit that all we know of the value of those environmental
variables is known to us by way of perceptions. Do I believe
there are often strong – very strong – correlations between
those environmental variables and our perceptions of them.
You betcha! If there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in
my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if
there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical
reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a
good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in
its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If
not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

      So I will happily agree to the existence of

environmental variables and that we can affect their value by
way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes,
yes; sometimes, no. It all depends, doesn’t it? It depends
in particular on those pesky things we call “disturbances.”
And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at
least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions.
Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through
that, our perceptions change to match changes in the
controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going
on.

3

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.05.10 1250 EDT)]
My reply below inadvertently got sent just to Fred, rather than the rest of CSGNet.

Confidentiality: This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.

Please also note: Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.

Erling Jorgensen 5/10/2018 10:43 AM >>>

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.05.10 0910 EDT)]

Fred Nickols (2018.05.10.0853)
FN: I’ve been thinking about the issue often brought up here, namely, do we control only our perceptions or do we also control environmental variables?
FN: In a purely technical sense (i.e., in terms of control theory), with “control� being evidenced by deliberate alignment of the perceived value of some variable with an intended reference value for that variable, I’m willing to accept the notion that all we really control is our perception.
FN: In a more pragmatic, real-world sense, do I believe we affect environmental variables by way of our actions? Yes, I do. Do we control the value of those variables via our actions? I think so but I’ll also happily admit that all we know of the value of those environmental variables is known to us by way of perceptions.

EJ: Fred, I think you state this very well, and this is exactly how I see these issues. "Control" of perceptions, and "de facto control" (I prefer the term "stabilization") of the corresponding environmental variables. I'm willing to accept the word control here, because I believe what we call the "Test for the Controlled Variable" is an important addition to science in terms of experimental procedures.

FN: Do I believe there are often strong – very strong – correlations between tn those environmental variables and our perceptions of them. You betcha! If there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

EJ: It is those "strong correlations" that allow us to use the "pragmatic, real-world" language of 'controlling the environmental variables'. AND YET, the correlations get somewhat weaker when we get up into the more abstract reaches of the perceptual hierarchy. There are fiery political debates whether either side is sufficiently correlated with a principle of 'Acting With Integrity'.
EJ: I would make two suggestions, to try to keep the distinctions clean. First, I wonder if we ought to resurrect the old CSGNet language (from some 20+ years ago) of "controlling for" a certain outcome. Maybe that can be the way we talk about those environmental variables, that we are "controlling for them to be in a certain state." Then the term "control" by itself can stay with the perceptions, where the internal matching to references takes place.
EJ: The second suggestion is a question that always occurs to me, when people talk about controlling the environment or controlling people. "Which specific aspects of said people or whatever are you seeking to control? No, which _specific_ aspects do you care about, and which ones do you not care about?"
EJ: I even want that to be the question when we use a loose term like "behavior". Behavior must be deconstructed into its various levels of implementation: Is it the Event quality of the action? Is it the Transitions that are underway? Is it a Categorical sense of whatever output seems to arise? Is it the Configurational joint angles? Is it the pooled muscle force Intensities? Any or all of those things are operative when 'behavior' is underway. So _which_specific_aspects_ are being talked about in any given conversation? I do not think it is sufficient to assume 'we all know what we mean'.

FN: So I will happily agree to the existence of environmental variables and that we can affect their value by way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

EJ: Back to those correlations between what is going on in the environment and what we think we perceive. One of the enormous strengths of Perceptual Control Theory, to my way of thinking, is the realization that control loops are (typically) closed through the environment. In my work as a psychologist and therapist, I have a number of clients who operate with what the clinical world calls "delusions or psychotic beliefs." I always try to reframe those as "idiosyncratic beliefs" that do not line up with a more "consensual reality" of those around them. From a PCT perspective, there seems to be a liberal use of "the imagination connection" to close the control loops for these clients. It is almost as if they operate with a presumption, 'I think it, therefore it is.' That may work for them, except where they may need to interface more with others.
EJ: There is certainly value in the use of imagination, because much creativity is born that way. It helps to see what 'could be' possible. But there is also value in actually taking the step to close the control loop environmentally. Because that helps confirm what actually 'is' possible. What I like about PCT is how that reality test is built into every standard-operating control loop. The Environment gets a vote, in terms of those strong correlations you talked about.

FN: And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions. Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through that, our perceptions change to match changes in the controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going on.

EJ: I'm thinking yes and no on this one. I appreciate the reminder that it is a mediated effect on our perceptions. And in fact, it is the NET disturbance, from any relevant source, that we seek to counteract when we control a certain perception. So, yes, disturbances are one step removed and their influences are pooled onto perceptions that matter to us.
EJ: However, I also wonder about the disturbing effect of mis-perceptions. People can take umbrage at something that was not intended. And it seems in many of those instances, there is an 'imagination connection' piece going on. So did it amount to an imagined disturbance that had little connection with the actual environment? Don't know.
EJ: In any event, thanks for your clear and lucid thoughts here.
All the best,
Erling

4

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_17:36:40]

···

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.05.10 1250 EDT)]

Â

FN: Do I believe there are often strong – very strong – correlations between th those environmental variables and our perceptions of them.

RM: It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects (functions) of those variables that are controlled. The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.The existence of controlled variables is the main fact that is explained by PCT – the fact of control. This fact is explained by assuming that controlled variables are represented in organisms as perceptual signals – perceptions – that are compared to reference signals, resulting in error signals, the magnitude of which drives outputs that drive the controlled variable – and the equivalent perceptual signal – toward the reference signal. So the correlation between controlled variables – the aspects of the environment that are controlled – and perceptions – the perceptual signals that are the theoretical analog of the controlled variables – is 1.0 because the PCT explanation of the observed controlling done by organisms includes the assumption that controlled variables are the same variable as the perceptual signals.Â

Best

Rick

You betcha! I f there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

Â

EJ: It is those “strong correlations” that allow us to use the “pragmatic, real-world” language of ‘controlling the environmental variables’. AND YET, the correlations get somewhat weaker when we get up into the more abstract reaches of the perceptual hierarchy. There are fiery political debates whether either side is sufficiently correlated with a principle of ‘Acting With Integrity’.

EJ: I would make two suggestions, to try to keep the distinctions clean. First, I wonder if we ought to resurrect the old CSGNet language (from some 20+ years ago) of “controlling for” a certain outcome. Maybe that can be the way we talk about those environmental variables, that we are “controlling for them to be in a certain state.” Then the term “control” by itself can stay with the perceptions, where the internal matching to references takes place.

EJ: The second suggestion is a question that always occurs to me, when people talk about controlling the environment or controlling people. “Which specific aspects of said people or whatever are you seeking to control? No, which specific aspects do you care about, and which ones do you not care about?”

EJ: I even want that to be the question when we use a loose term like “behavior”. Behavior must be deconstructed into its various levels of implementation: Is it the Event quality of the action? Is it the Transitions that are underway? Is it a Categorical sense of whatever output seems to arise? Is it the Configurational joint angles? Is it the pooled muscle force Intensities? Any or all of those things are operative when ‘behavior’ is underway. So which_specific_aspects are being talked about in any given conversation? I do not think it is sufficient to assume ‘we all know what we mean’.

FN: So I will happily agree to the existence of environmental variables and that we can affect their value by way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

EJ: Back to those correlations between what is going on in the environment and what we think we perceive. One of the enormous strengths of Perceptual Control Theory, to my way of thinking, is the realization that control loops are (typically) closed through the environment. In my work as a psychologist and therapist, I have a number of clients who operate with what the clinical world calls “delusions or psychotic beliefs.” I always try to reframe those as “idiosyncratic beliefs” that do not line up with a more “consensual reality” of those around them. From a PCT perspective, there seems to be a liberal use of “the imagination connection” to close the control loops for these clients. It is almost as if they operate with a presumption, ‘I think it, therefore it is.’ That may work for them, except where they may need to interface more with others.

EJ: There is certainly value in the use of imagination, because much creativity is born that way. It helps to see what ‘could be’ possible. But there is also value in actually taking the step to close the control loop environmentally. Because that helps confirm what actually ‘is’ possible. What I like about PCT is how that reality test is built into every standard-operating control loop. The Environment gets a vote, in terms of those strong correlations you talked about.

FN: And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions. Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through that, our perceptions change to match changes in the controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going on.

EJ: I’m thinking yes and no on this one. I appreciate the reminder that it is a mediated effect on our perceptions. And in fact, it is the NET disturbance, from any relevant source, that we seek to counteract when we control a certain perception. So, yes, disturbances are one step removed and their influences are pooled onto perceptions that matter to us.

EJ: However, I also wonder about the disturbing effect of mis-perceptions. People can take umbrage at something that was not intended. And it seems in many of those instances, there is an ‘imagination connection’ piece going on. So did it amount to an imagined disturbance that had little connection with the actual environment? Don’t know.

EJ: In any event, thanks for your clear and lucid thoughts here.

All the best,

Erling

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

5

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.11.0709 ET)]

Rick: Your paragraph below leaves me completely confused. First you say “It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects(functions) of those variables that are controlled.� Then you say, “The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.� Which is it - aspects of variables or aspects of the environment? More important, please provide an example that illustrates the distinction you are trying to make.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:42 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Do we control “environmental variables”?

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_17:36:40]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.05.10 1250 EDT)]

FN: Do I believe there are often strong – very strong – correlations between those environmenmental variables and our perceptions of them.

RM: It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects (functions) of those variables that are controlled. The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.The existence of controlled variables is the main fact that is explained by PCT – the fact of control. This fact is explained by assuming that controlled variables are represented in organisms as perceptual signals – perceptions – that are compared to reference signals, resulting in error signals, the magnitude of which drives outputs that drive the controlled variable – and the equivalent perceptual signal – toward the reference signal. So the correlation between controlled variables – the aspects of the environment that are controlled – and perceptions – the perceptual signals that are the theoretical analog of the controlled variables – is 1.0 because the PCT explanation of the observed controlling done by organisms includes the assumption that controlled variables are the same variable as the perceptual signals.

Best

Rick

You betcha! I f there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

EJ: It is those “strong correlations” that allow us to use the “pragmatic, real-world” language of ‘controlling the environmental variables’. AND YET, the correlations get somewhat weaker when we get up into the more abstract reaches of the perceptual hierarchy. There are fiery political debates whether either side is sufficiently correlated with a principle of ‘Acting With Integrity’.

EJ: I would make two suggestions, to try to keep the distinctions clean. First, I wonder if we ought to resurrect the old CSGNet language (from some 20+ years ago) of “controlling for” a certain outcome. Maybe that can be the way we talk about those environmental variables, that we are “controlling for them to be in a certain state.” Then the term “control” by itself can stay with the perceptions, where the internal matching to references takes place.

EJ: The second suggestion is a question that always occurs to me, when people talk about controlling the environment or controlling people. “Which specific aspects of said people or whatever are you seeking to control? No, which specific aspects do you care about, and which ones do you not care about?”

EJ: I even want that to be the question when we use a loose term like “behavior”. Behavior must be deconstructed into its various levels of implementation: Is it the Event quality of the action? Is it the Transitions that are underway? Is it a Categorical sense of whatever output seems to arise? Is it the Configurational joint angles? Is it the pooled muscle force Intensities? Any or all of those things are operative when ‘behavior’ is underway. So which_specific_aspects are being talked about in any given conversation? I do not think it is sufficient to assume ‘we all know what we mean’.

FN: So I will happily agree to the existence of environmental variables and that we can affect their value by way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

EJ: Back to those correlations between what is going on in the environment and what we think we perceive. One of the enormous strengths of Perceptual Control Theory, to my way of thinking, is the realization that control loops are (typically) closed through the environment. In my work as a psychologist and therapist, I have a number of clients who operate with what the clinical world calls “delusions or psychotic beliefs.” I always try to reframe those as “idiosyncratic beliefs” that do not line up with a more “consensual reality” of those around them. From a PCT perspective, there seems to be a liberal use of “the imagination connection” to close the control loops for these clients. It is almost as if they operate with a presumption, ‘I think it, therefore it is.’ That may work for them, except where they may need to interface more with others.

EJ: There is certainly value in the use of imagination, because much creativity is born that way. It helps to see what ‘could be’ possible. But there is also value in actually taking the step to close the control loop environmentally. Because that helps confirm what actually ‘is’ possible. What I like about PCT is how that reality test is built into every standard-operating control loop. The Environment gets a vote, in terms of those strong correlations you talked about.

FN: And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions. Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through that, our perceptions change to match changes in the controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going on.

EJ: I’m thinking yes and no on this one. I appreciate the reminder that it is a mediated effect on our perceptions. And in fact, it is the NET disturbance, from any relevant source, that we seek to counteract when we control a certain perception. So, yes, disturbances are one step removed and their influences are pooled onto perceptions that matter to us.

EJ: However, I also wonder about the disturbing effect of mis-perceptions. People can take umbrage at something that was not intended. And it seems in many of those instances, there is an ‘imagination connection’ piece going on. So did it amount to an imagined disturbance that had little connection with the actual environment? Don’t know.

EJ: In any event, thanks for your clear and lucid thoughts here.

All the best,

Erling

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

6

[Rick Marken 2018-05-11_17:19:06]

 Fred Nickols (2018.05.11.0709 ET)

Â

FN: Rick: Your paragraph below leaves me completely confused. First you say “It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects(functions) of those variables that are controlled.â€? Then you say, “The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.â€? Which is it - aspects of variables or aspects of the environment?Â

RM: In PCT "the environment" is understood to be made up of "environmental variables" that are the variables of chemistry and physics. So saying that we control aspects of environmental variables is the same as saying that we control aspects of the environment.Â
Â

FN: More important, please provide an example that illustrates the distinction you are trying to make.

RM: I'm not trying to make a distinction. I'm trying to explain that in PCT there is no distinction between the aspect of the environment that an observer can see being controlled and the perceptual variable (perceptual signal) that the controller is assumed to be controlling. For example, in the basic control task, the aspect of the environment that the observer can see being controlled is the position of the cursor. PCT assumes that the observer sees cursor position being controlled because the controller is controlling a perceptual signal that corresponds to what the observer perceives -- the position of the cursor. Â
RM: I think the term "environmental variable" is sometimes used to refer to perceptions like the position of the cursor that seem to be "out there" in the environment, . I think that is OK as long as we remember that what is being called an "environmental variable" is itself a perception -- a perception in the observer that is assumed to correspond to the perception being controlled by the controller. This is a concept that is most important for would-be PCT researchers to understand because the only way to be sure that what the observer (researcher) perceives as a controlled "environmental variable" is equivalent to the perceptual variable that is being controlled by the controller is by doing the test for the controlled variable -- the sine qua non of research on living control systems.Â
Best
Rick
 >

···

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Richard Marken (<mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com>rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:42 PM
To: <mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Do we control "environmental variables"?

Â

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_17:36:40]

Â

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.05.10 1250 EDT)]

Â

>FN: Do I believe there are often strong – very strong – correlations between those environmental variables and our percepptions of them.

Â

RM: It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects (functions) of those variables that are controlled. The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.The existence of controlled variables is the main fact that is explained by PCT -- the fact of control. This fact is explained by assuming that controlled variables are represented in organisms as perceptual signals -- perceptions -- that are compared to reference signals, resulting in error signals, the magnitude of which drives outputs that drive the controlled variable -- and the equivalent perceptual signal -- toward the reference signal. So the correlation between controlled variables -- the aspects of the environment that are controlled -- and perceptions -- the perceptual signals that are the theoretical analog of the controlled variables -- is 1.0 because the PCT explanation of the observed controlling done by organisms includes the assumption that controlled variables are the same variable as the perceptual signals.Â

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â

Â

You betcha! I f there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

EJ: It is those "strong correlations" that allow us to use the "pragmatic, real-world" language of 'controlling the environmental variables'. AND YET, the correlations get somewhat weaker when we get up into the more abstract reaches of the perceptual hierarchy. There are fiery political debates whether either side is sufficiently correlated with a principle of 'Acting With Integrity'.

Â

EJ: I would make two suggestions, to try to keep the distinctions clean. First, I wonder if we ought to resurrect the old CSGNet language (from some 20+ years ago) of "controlling for" a certain outcome. Maybe that can be the way we talk about those environmental variables, that we are "controlling for them to be in a certain state." Then the term "control" by itself can stay with the perceptions, where the internal matching to references takes place.

Â

EJ: The second suggestion is a question that always occurs to me, when people talk about controlling the environment or controlling people. "Which specific aspects of said people or whatever are you seeking to control? No, which _specific_ aspects do you care about, and which ones do you not care about?"

Â

EJ: I even want that to be the question when we use a loose term like "behavior". Behavior must be deconstructed into its various levels of implementation: Is it the Event quality of the action? Is it the Transitions that are underway? Is it a Categorical sense of whatever output seems to arise? Is it the Configurational joint angles? Is it the pooled muscle force Intensities? Any or all of those things are operative when 'behavior' is underway. So _which_specific_aspects_ are being talked about in any given conversation? I do not think it is sufficient to assume 'we all know what we mean'.

Â

>FN: So I will happily agree to the existence of environmental variables and that we can affect their value by way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

Â

EJ: Back to those correlations between what is going on in the environment and what we think we perceive. One of the enormous strengths of Perceptual Control Theory, to my way of thinking, is the realization that control loops are (typically) closed through the environment. In my work as a psychologist and therapist, I have a number of clients who operate with what the clinical world calls "delusions or psychotic beliefs." I always try to reframe those as "idiosyncratic beliefs" that do not line up with a more "consensual reality" of those around them. From a PCT perspective, there seems to be a liberal use of "the imagination connection" to close the control loops for these clients. It is almost as if they operate with a presumption, 'I think it, therefore it is.' That may work for them, except where they may need to interface more with others.

Â

EJ: There is certainly value in the use of imagination, because much creativity is born that way. It helps to see what 'could be' possible. But there is also value in actually taking the step to close the control loop environmentally. Because that helps confirm what actually 'is' possible. What I like about PCT is how that reality test is built into every standard-operating control loop. The Environment gets a vote, in terms of those strong correlations you talked about.

Â

>FN: And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions. Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through that, our perceptions change to match changes in the controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going on.

Â

EJ: I'm thinking yes and no on this one. I appreciate the reminder that it is a mediated effect on our perceptions. And in fact, it is the NET disturbance, from any relevant source, that we seek to counteract when we control a certain perception. So, yes, disturbances are one step removed and their influences are pooled onto perceptions that matter to us.

Â

EJ: However, I also wonder about the disturbing effect of mis-perceptions. People can take umbrage at something that was not intended. And it seems in many of those instances, there is an 'imagination connection' piece going on. So did it amount to an imagined disturbance that had little connection with the actual environment? Don't know.

Â

EJ: In any event, thanks for your clear and lucid thoughts here.

Â

All the best,

Erling

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

--

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

7

[Rick Marken 2018-05-11_17:19:06]

Fred Nickols (2018.05.11.0709 ET)

FN: Rick: Your paragraph below leaves me completely confused. First you say “It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects(functions) of those variables that are controlled.� Then you say, “The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.� Which is it - aspects of variables or aspects of the environment?

RM: In PCT “the environment” is understood to be made up of “environmental variables” that are the variables of chemistry and physics. So saying that we control aspects of environmental variables is the same as saying that we control aspects of the environment.

FN: More important, please provide an example that illustrates the distinction you are trying to make.

RM: I’m not trying to make a distinction. I’m trying to explain that in PCT

HB : In RCT not in PCT. In RCT is no distinction. But in PCT is. In RCT Rick is the only person in the world who exactly perceive what is and what is happening in reality. And that is wholly truth.

RM : … there is no distinction between the aspect of the environment that an observer can see being controlled and the perceptual variable (perceptual signal) that the controller is assumed to be controlling.

HB : I already expalined Maturana’s experiments with colours. Do you want me to explain also frog-experiment ? Both show cleary that you don’t percive exactly the reality. But Rick is somekind of specail medical phenomen. His eyes are probably based on laser vision. Â

RM : For example, in the basic control task, the aspect of the environment that the observer can see being controlled is the position of the cursor.

HB : This is RCT. Observer can see that perception of the position of cursor is being controlled. But he can see (perceive) changed position od cursor. Not controlled. You don’t how perception works. It’s not that you are perceiving “Controlled Perceptusl Variable” or PCV. You perceive only “Perceptual signal”.

RM : PCT assumes that the observer sees cursor position being controlled because the controller is controlling a perceptual signal that corresponds to what the observer perceives – the position of the cursor.

HB : How do you know what observer perceives and what he wants to perceive ? But you can assume.

HB _: And how many times I told you that PCT is general theory about how organisms contro. It’s not “one experiment – one theory”. So can you explaiin how your experimental RCT model works with sleepping, observing, sitting and thinking… And convince me that control is not coming from envirronmet. So that you are not explaining “S-R” experiment ? You say that “Control” from environment

HB : What kind of model of human behavior is this ???

Is it something like these :

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

  1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

  2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

  3. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.

  4. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«

  5. COMPARATOR : ???

  6. ERROR SIGNAL : ???

RM: I think the term “environmental variable” is sometimes used to refer to perceptions like the position of the cursor that seem to be “out there” in the environment, . I think that is OK as long as we remember that what is being called an “environmental variable” is itself a perception –

HB : All “environmental variables” are just perceptions ? You said that there are also “Controlled environmental variables”.

RM : ….a perception in the observer that is assumed to corrrespond to the perception being controlled by the controller.

HB : And how this perepctions correspond ? in which sense ? Perception in observer is assumed to correspond to the perception of the controller. What an imagination…. So they have the same perceptions. And maybe theyy control the same perceptions ???

RM : This is a concept that is most important for would-be PCT researchers to understand because the only way to be sure that what the observer (researcher) perceives as a controlled “environmental variable” is equivalent to the perceptual variable that is being controlled by the controller is by doing the test for the controlled variable – the sine qua non of research on living control systems.

HB : We’ll hardly clean so much bullshitting. Show us how you control “Controlled Environmental Variable” and how “Controled perception” enters organism ? You are bullshitting with you RCT concept for years and it seems that you’ll never stop. See above

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 2:23 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Do we control “environmental variables”?

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:42 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Do we control “environmental variables”?

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_17:36:40]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.05.10 1250 EDT)]

FN: Do I believe there are often strong – very strong – €“ correlations between those environmental variables and our perceptions of them.

RM: It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects (functions) of those variables that are controlled. The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.The existence of controlled variables is the main fact that is explained by PCT – the fact of control. This fact is explained by assuming that controlled variables are represented in organisms as perceptual signals – perceptions – that are compared to reference signals, resulting in error signals, the magnitude of which drives outputs that drive the controlled variable – and the equivalent perceptual signal – toward the reference signal. So the correlation between controlled variables – the aspects of the environment that are controlled – and perceptions – the perceptual signals that are the theoretical analog of the controlled variables – is 1.0 because the PCT explanation of the observed controlling done by organisms includes the assumption that controlled variables are the same variable as the perceptual signals.

Best

Rick

You betcha! I f there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

EJ: It is those “strong correlations” that allow us to use the “pragmatic, real-world” language of ‘controlling the environmental variables’. AND YET, the correlations get somewhat weaker when we get up into the more abstract reaches of the perceptual hierarchy. There are fiery political debates whether either side is sufficiently correlated with a principle of ‘Acting With Integrity’.

EJ: I would make two suggestions, to try to keep the distinctions clean. First, I wonder if we ought to resurrect the old CSGNet language (from some 20+ years ago) of “controlling for” a certain outcome. Maybe that can be the way we talk about those environmental variables, that we are “controlling for them to be in a certain state.” Then the term “control” by itself can stay with the perceptions, where the internal matching to references takes place.

EJ: The second suggestion is a question that always occurs to me, when people talk about controlling the environment or controlling people. “Which specific aspects of said people or whatever are you seeking to control? No, which specific aspects do you care about, and which ones do you not care about?”

EJ: I even want that to be the question when we use a loose term like “behavior”. Behavior must be deconstructed into its various levels of implementation: Is it the Event quality of the action? Is it the Transitions that are underway? Is it a Categorical sense of whatever output seems to arise? Is it the Configurational joint angles? Is it the pooled muscle force Intensities? Any or all of those things are operative when ‘behavior’ is underway. So which_specific_aspects are being talked about in any given conversation? I do not think it is sufficient to assume ‘we all know what we mean’.

FN: So I will happily agree to the existence of environmental variables and that we can affect their value by way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

EJ: Back to those correlations between what is going on in the environment and what we think we perceive. One of the enormous strengths of Perceptual Control Theory, to my way of thinking, is the realization that control loops are (typically) closed through the environment. In my work as a psychologist and therapist, I have a number of clients who operate with what the clinical world calls “delusions or psychotic beliefs.” I always try to reframe those as “idiosyncratic beliefs” that do not line up with a more “consensual reality” of those around them. From a PCT perspective, there seems to be a liberal use of “the imagination connection” to close the control loops for these clients. It is almost as if they operate with a presumption, ‘I think it, therefore it is.’ That may work for them, except where they may need to interface more with others.

EJ: There is certainly value in the use of imagination, because much creativity is born that way. It helps to see what ‘could be’ possible. But there is also value in actually taking the step to close the control loop environmentally. Because that helps confirm what actually ‘is’ possible. What I like about PCT is how that reality test is built into every standard-operating control loop. The Environment gets a vote, in terms of those strong correlations you talked about.

FN: And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions. Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through that, our perceptions change to match changes in the controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going on.

EJ: I’m thinking yes and no on this one. I appreciate the reminder that it is a mediated effect on our perceptions. And in fact, it is the NET disturbance, from any relevant source, that we seek to counteract when we control a certain perception. So, yes, disturbances are one step removed and their influences are pooled onto perceptions that matter to us.

EJ: However, I also wonder about the disturbing effect of mis-perceptions. People can take umbrage at something that was not intended. And it seems in many of those instances, there is an ‘imagination connection’ piece going on. So did it amount to an imagined disturbance that had little connection with the actual environment? Don’t know.

EJ: In any event, thanks for your clear and lucid thoughts here.

All the best,

Erling

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

8

[Rick Marken 2018-05-11_17:19:06]

Fred Nickols (2018.05.11.0709 ET)

FN: Rick: Your paragraph below leaves me completely confused. First you say “It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects(functions) of those variables that are controlled.� Then you say, “The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.� Which is it - aspects of variables or aspects of the environment?

RM: In PCT “the environment” is understood to be made up of “environmental variables” that are the variables of chemistry and physics. So saying that we control aspects of environmental variables is the same as saying that we control aspects of the environment.

HB : Well in your imagination is everything possible. Does “Controlled aspect of environment” means that RCT (Ricks Control Theory) is used :

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

  1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

  2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

  3. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.

  4. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«

  5. COMPARATOR : ???

  6. ERROR SIGNAL : ???

Well you have to prove that “Behavior is Control” and that there is some “Controled Perceptual Variable” carrying control into organism. You know like in S-R theory (stimulus respons). Control entering into organism and “controlling people” or their respons. Isn’t your your theory RCT about it. You “control behavior of people” with stimulus from environment. Don’t you ? You stimulate people’s “controled behavior”. How could you otherwise “control behavior of people” ?

FN: More important, please provide an example that illustrates the distinction you are trying to make.

RM: I’m not trying to make a distinction. I’m trying to explain that in PCT there is no distinction between the aspect of the environment that an observer can see being controlled and the perceptual variable (perceptual signal) that the controller is assumed to be controlling.

HB : Nothing is controlled in environemnt.

For example, in the basic control task, the aspect of the environment that the observer can see being controlled is the position of the cursor. PCT assumes that the observer sees cursor position being controlled because the controller is controlling a perceptual signal that corresponds to what the observer perceives – the position of the cursor.

HB : It seems like that environmental events with “stimulus” control perception of both : observer and controller. S-R theory ?

RM: I think the term “environmental variable” is sometimes used to refer to perceptions like the position of the cursor that seem to be “out there” in the environment, . I think that is OK as long as we remember that what is being called an “environmental variable” is itself a perception – a perception in the observer that is assumed to correspond to the perception being controlled by the controller.

HB: Well it’s your RCT Theory.

RM : This is a concept that is most important for would-be PCT researchers to understand because the only way to be sure that what the observer (researcher) perceives as a controlled “environmental variable” is equivalent to the perceptual variable that is being controlled by the controller is by doing the test for the controlled variable – the sine qua non of research on living control systems.

HB : As we said before. What is “controlled environmental variable” ?

Boris

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 2:23 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Do we control “environmental variables”?

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:42 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Do we control “environmental variables”?

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_17:36:40]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.05.10 1250 EDT)]

FN: Do I believe there are often strong – very strong – correlations between thoshose environmental variables and our perceptions of them.

RM: It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects (functions) of those variables that are controlled. The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.The existence of controlled variables is the main fact that is explained by PCT – the fact of control. This fact is explained by assuming that controlled variables are represented in organisms as perceptual signals – perceptions – that are compared to reference signals, resulting in error signals, the magnitude of which drives outputs that drive the controlled variable – and the equivalent perceptual signal – toward the reference signal. So the correlation between controlled variables – the aspects of the environment that are controlled – and perceptions – the perceptual signals that are the theoretical analog of the controlled variables – is 1.0 because the PCT explanation of the observed controlling done by organisms includes the assumption that controlled variables are the same variable as the perceptual signals.

Best

Rick

You betcha! I f there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

EJ: It is those “strong correlations” that allow us to use the “pragmatic, real-world” language of ‘controlling the environmental variables’. AND YET, the correlations get somewhat weaker when we get up into the more abstract reaches of the perceptual hierarchy. There are fiery political debates whether either side is sufficiently correlated with a principle of ‘Acting With Integrity’.

EJ: I would make two suggestions, to try to keep the distinctions clean. First, I wonder if we ought to resurrect the old CSGNet language (from some 20+ years ago) of “controlling for” a certain outcome. Maybe that can be the way we talk about those environmental variables, that we are “controlling for them to be in a certain state.” Then the term “control” by itself can stay with the perceptions, where the internal matching to references takes place.

EJ: The second suggestion is a question that always occurs to me, when people talk about controlling the environment or controlling people. “Which specific aspects of said people or whatever are you seeking to control? No, which specific aspects do you care about, and which ones do you not care about?”

EJ: I even want that to be the question when we use a loose term like “behavior”. Behavior must be deconstructed into its various levels of implementation: Is it the Event quality of the action? Is it the Transitions that are underway? Is it a Categorical sense of whatever output seems to arise? Is it the Configurational joint angles? Is it the pooled muscle force Intensities? Any or all of those things are operative when ‘behavior’ is underway. So which_specific_aspects are being talked about in any given conversation? I do not think it is sufficient to assume ‘we all know what we mean’.

FN: So I will happily agree to the existence of environmental variables and that we can affect their value by way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

EJ: Back to those correlations between what is going on in the environment and what we think we perceive. One of the enormous strengths of Perceptual Control Theory, to my way of thinking, is the realization that control loops are (typically) closed through the environment. In my work as a psychologist and therapist, I have a number of clients who operate with what the clinical world calls “delusions or psychotic beliefs.” I always try to reframe those as “idiosyncratic beliefs” that do not line up with a more “consensual reality” of those around them. From a PCT perspective, there seems to be a liberal use of “the imagination connection” to close the control loops for these clients. It is almost as if they operate with a presumption, ‘I think it, therefore it is.’ That may work for them, except where they may need to interface more with others.

EJ: There is certainly value in the use of imagination, because much creativity is born that way. It helps to see what ‘could be’ possible. But there is also value in actually taking the step to close the control loop environmentally. Because that helps confirm what actually ‘is’ possible. What I like about PCT is how that reality test is built into every standard-operating control loop. The Environment gets a vote, in terms of those strong correlations you talked about.

FN: And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions. Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through that, our perceptions change to match changes in the controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going on.

EJ: I’m thinking yes and no on this one. I appreciate the reminder that it is a mediated effect on our perceptions. And in fact, it is the NET disturbance, from any relevant source, that we seek to counteract when we control a certain perception. So, yes, disturbances are one step removed and their influences are pooled onto perceptions that matter to us.

EJ: However, I also wonder about the disturbing effect of mis-perceptions. People can take umbrage at something that was not intended. And it seems in many of those instances, there is an ‘imagination connection’ piece going on. So did it amount to an imagined disturbance that had little connection with the actual environment? Don’t know.

EJ: In any event, thanks for your clear and lucid thoughts here.

All the best,

Erling

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

9

Fred

···

From: “Fred Nickols” (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 1:12 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Re: Do we control “environmental variables”?

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.11.0709 ET)]

Rick: Your paragraph below leaves me completely confused. First you say “It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects(functions) of those variables that are controlled.” Then you say, “The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.” Which is it - aspects of variables or aspects of the environment? More important, please provide an example that illustrates the distinction you are trying to make.

HB : I have never met such a confused person as Rick is. But the problem is that he is confusing all around.

Boris

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:42 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Do we control “environmental variables”?

[Rick Marken 2018-05-10_17:36:40]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.05.10 1250 EDT)]

FN: Do I believe there are often strong – very strong – correlations between those environmental variables and our perceptions of them.

RM: It is not environmental variables that are controlled but aspects (functions) of those variables that are controlled. The aspects of the environment that are controlled are called controlled variables.The existence of controlled variables is the main fact that is explained by PCT – the fact of control. This fact is explained by assuming that controlled variables are represented in organisms as perceptual signals – perceptions – that are compared to reference signals, resulting in error signals, the magnitude of which drives outputs that drive the controlled variable – and the equivalent perceptual signal – toward the reference signal. So the correlation between controlled variables – the aspects of the environment that are controlled – and perceptions – the perceptual signals that are the theoretical analog of the controlled variables – is 1.0 because the PCT explanation of the observed controlling done by organisms includes the assumption that controlled variables are the same variable as the perceptual signals.

Best

Rick

You betcha! I f there weren’t, I wouldn’t dream of getting in my car and driving to the grocery store; much too risky if there’s no correlation between my perceptions and physical reality. More specifically, there sure as heck better be a good correlation between my perception of my car’s position in its lane and its actual, physical position in that lane. If not, me and lots of other drivers could be at serious risk.

EJ: It is those “strong correlations” that allow us to use the “pragmatic, real-world” language of ‘controlling the environmental variables’. AND YET, the correlations get somewhat weaker when we get up into the more abstract reaches of the perceptual hierarchy. There are fiery political debates whether either side is sufficiently correlated with a principle of ‘Acting With Integrity’.

EJ: I would make two suggestions, to try to keep the distinctions clean. First, I wonder if we ought to resurrect the old CSGNet language (from some 20+ years ago) of “controlling for” a certain outcome. Maybe that can be the way we talk about those environmental variables, that we are “controlling for them to be in a certain state.” Then the term “control” by itself can stay with the perceptions, where the internal matching to references takes place.

EJ: The second suggestion is a question that always occurs to me, when people talk about controlling the environment or controlling people. “Which specific aspects of said people or whatever are you seeking to control? No, which specific aspects do you care about, and which ones do you not care about?”

EJ: I even want that to be the question when we use a loose term like “behavior”. Behavior must be deconstructed into its various levels of implementation: Is it the Event quality of the action? Is it the Transitions that are underway? Is it a Categorical sense of whatever output seems to arise? Is it the Configurational joint angles? Is it the pooled muscle force Intensities? Any or all of those things are operative when ‘behavior’ is underway. So which_specific_aspects are being talked about in any given conversation? I do not think it is sufficient to assume ‘we all know what we mean’.

FN: So I will happily agree to the existence of environmental variables and that we can affect their value by way of our actions. Do we or can we control them? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

EJ: Back to those correlations between what is going on in the environment and what we think we perceive. One of the enormous strengths of Perceptual Control Theory, to my way of thinking, is the realization that control loops are (typically) closed through the environment. In my work as a psychologist and therapist, I have a number of clients who operate with what the clinical world calls “delusions or psychotic beliefs.” I always try to reframe those as “idiosyncratic beliefs” that do not line up with a more “consensual reality” of those around them. From a PCT perspective, there seems to be a liberal use of “the imagination connection” to close the control loops for these clients. It is almost as if they operate with a presumption, ‘I think it, therefore it is.’ That may work for them, except where they may need to interface more with others.

EJ: There is certainly value in the use of imagination, because much creativity is born that way. It helps to see what ‘could be’ possible. But there is also value in actually taking the step to close the control loop environmentally. Because that helps confirm what actually ‘is’ possible. What I like about PCT is how that reality test is built into every standard-operating control loop. The Environment gets a vote, in terms of those strong correlations you talked about.

FN: And here’s my final point: So far as I know, disturbances (at least most of them) do not directly affect our perceptions. Instead, they affect the environmental variable and, through that, our perceptions change to match changes in the controlled variable. At least, that’s what I think is going on.

EJ: I’m thinking yes and no on this one. I appreciate the reminder that it is a mediated effect on our perceptions. And in fact, it is the NET disturbance, from any relevant source, that we seek to counteract when we control a certain perception. So, yes, disturbances are one step removed and their influences are pooled onto perceptions that matter to us.

EJ: However, I also wonder about the disturbing effect of mis-perceptions. People can take umbrage at something that was not intended. And it seems in many of those instances, there is an ‘imagination connection’ piece going on. So did it amount to an imagined disturbance that had little connection with the actual environment? Don’t know.

EJ: In any event, thanks for your clear and lucid thoughts here.

All the best,

Erling

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery