Draft revision of entry on control theory

[Richard_H_Pfau]

[Richard Pfau (2015.03.31 1315 EST)]

Below is an e-mail that I just sent to APA in response to a message received today from their Director, Reference, APA Books, concerning the definition of control theory (also shown below).

The revisions suggested by APA seem satisfactory to me at least. I think that we have made our point, and that drawing out negotiations with APA about the definition could lead to endless controversy and not much more gain.

Sincerely,

Richard Pfau

···

-----Original Message-----

From: richardpfau4153 richardpfau4153@aol.com

To: tbaroody tbaroody@apa.org

Cc: gary gary@apa.org

Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 1:13 pm

Subject: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

Ted,

From my perspective, the revised definition of control theory that you sent seems satisfactory and is a great improvement over the original version contained in the first printing of the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2nd edition). In my opinion, given that there are different perspectives within psychology concerning control theory, you have done a good job presenting a general definition.

I belong to a group that favors perceptual control theory as described by William T Powers, and I am sure that some in the group might prefer a slightly different definition reflecting that theory more completely. But, then again, other individuals and groups having different perspectives within psychology might prefer other variations too.

With that in mind, I realize the difficulty or apparent impossibility up coming up with something that is acceptable to all, and wish to congratulate you for presenting what seems to be a fine general definition. I also wish to thank you and those you work with for being so responsive to the feedback sent to APA and taking such quick action to deal with the issues involved.

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

-----Original Message-----

From: Baroody, Ted tbaroody@apa.org

Cc: VandenBos, Gary gary@apa.org

Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 11:24 am

Subject: Draft revision of entry on control theory

Thank you for your comments and contributions in response to the entry on control theory in the newly published APA Dictionary of Psychology, Second Edition.

The APA Reference staff has drafted a new version of this entry, on the basis of comments from several respondents including yourself:

control theory 1. the idea that behavior is a component of a process that involves repeated cycles of comparing one’s current state to a standard and acting to reduce the perception of discrepancies. [evolving as an offshoot of a theory proposed by N. Wiener in Cybernetics: Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (1948), the concept emerged through several sources in psychology (behavioral, cognitive, and social), particularly such articles as “A General Feedback Theory of Human Behavior: Parts I and II” (1960) and the book Behavior: The Control of Perception (1973), both by W. T. Powers, and in the discussion of the TOTE model (see {feedback loop}) in Plans and the Structure of Behavior (1960) by G. Miller, E. Galanter, and K. H. Pribram] 2**. a field of mathematics and engineering dealing with monitoring and controlling the output of certain physical processes and systems to produce the desired or best outcome."

We hope that this definition is now both more accurate in itself and, especially, with regards to its derivation in the literature. This is a longer-than-typical etymology, but we hope it does combined justice to the reviewers comments. Please comment if you wish.

We would hope to be able to replace the previous version of the entry at the time of a second printing of the dictionary.

We are grateful for your participation in this process.

Best regards,

Ted

Theodore J. Baroody | Director, Reference

APA Books

American Psychological Association
750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242
Tel: (202) 336-5782 | Fax: (202) 336-5624

email: tbaroody@apa.org | www.apa.org

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.03.31.1625)]

···

Richard Pfau (2015.03.31 1315 EST)]

RP: Below is an e-mail that I just sent to APA in response to a message received today from their Director, Reference, APA Books, concerning the definition of control theory (also shown below).ice to the reviewers comments. Please comment if you wish.

RM: I got it too. Maybe it was copied to csgnet? Anyway, here is the reply I sent to Ted and Gary:

==================================

Hi Ted (cc Gary)

I think your revision of the control theory entry is better than the original (certainly in terms of giving proper credit to those involved in its early development) but the definition of control theory itself needs work. This is how you define control theory:

control theory 1. the idea that behavior is a component of a process that involves repeated cycles of comparing one’s current state to a standard and acting to reduce the perception of discrepancies.

Here are the problems with this definition: 1) Behavior is not a component of a control process; purposeful behavior is a process of control. 2) Control does not involve repeated cycles of comparison; the comparison process is carried out continuously 3) It is not “one’s current state” that is compared to a standard but, rather,“a perceptual representation of the state of a variable aspect of the environment” that is being compared to a standard. And, finally,4) one does not reduce the “perception of discrepancies” but, rather, the discrepancy itself – the discrepancy between the perception and standard – that is reduced by the actions of the system. So, all in all, the proposed definition gives, at best, a pretty misleading and, at worst, an incorrect idea of what control theory is about.

Here’s a better (and somewhat shorter) definition of control theory:

control theory 1. the idea that purposeful behavior is a process of control, which involves acting to keep perceptual representations of aspects of the environment in reference states, protected from disturbance.

For the sake of accuracy and usefulness I highly recommend that you use this definition of control theory in the Dictionary of Psychology.

Best regards

Rick Marken

–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

RM :

control theory 1. the idea that purposeful behavior is a process of control, which involves acting to keep perceptual representations of aspects of the environment in reference states, protected from disturbance.

HB:

This is nonsense. If control system (you probably meant Living Control System) is »protected from disturbances« it will not control. And purposeful behavior is NOT a process of control. And where did you get that »perceptual representations« of aspect of environment ? It’s all your defitnion. Is that how you want to come into the history of control theory instead of Bill ?

You gave better defintion of control theory, which is as you put it Bill’s.

control theory 1. a theory of how organisms produce purposeful behavior by acting so as to maintain perceptual variables in reference states specified by the organism itself. The theory was first proposed by William T. Powers (1926-2013 ) in *Behavior: The Control of Perception *(1973)

I don’t understand why you have to »push« yourself into the »front lines« on Bill’s work.

Best, Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

[From Rick Marken (2015.03.31.1625)]

Richard Pfau (2015.03.31 1315 EST)]

RP: Below is an e-mail that I just sent to APA in response to a message received today from their Director, Reference, APA Books, concerning the definition of control theory (also shown below).ice to the reviewers comments. Please comment if you wish.

RM: I got it too. Maybe it was copied to csgnet? Anyway, here is the reply I sent to Ted and Gary:

==================================

Hi Ted (cc Gary)

I think your revision of the control theory entry is better than the original (certainly in terms of giving proper credit to those involved in its early development) but the definition of control theory itself needs work. This is how you define control theory:

control theory 1. the idea that behavior is a component of a process that involves repeated cycles of comparing one’s current state to a standard and acting to reduce the perception of discrepancies.

Here are the problems with this definition: 1) Behavior is not a component of a control process; purposeful behavior is a process of control. 2) Control does not involve repeated cycles of comparison; the comparison process is carried out continuously 3) It is not “one’s current state” that is compared to a standard but, rather,“a perceptual representation of the state of a variable aspect of the environment” that is being compared to a standard. And, finally,4) one does not reduce the “perception of discrepancies” but, rather, the discrepancy itself – the discrepancy between the perception and standard – that is reduced by the actions of the system. So, all in all, the proposed definition gives, at best, a pretty misleading and, at worst, an incorrect idea of what control theory is about.

Here’s a better (and somewhat shorter) definition of control theory:

control theory 1. the idea that purposeful behavior is a process of control, which involves acting to keep perceptual representations of aspects of the environment in reference states, protected from disturbance.

For the sake of accuracy and usefulness I highly recommend that you use this definition of control theory in the Dictionary of Psychology.

Best regards

Rick Marken

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.03.1100)]

···

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:06 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM :

control theory 1. the idea that purposeful behavior is a process of control, which involves acting to keep perceptual representations of aspects of the environment in reference states, protected from disturbance.

HB: This is nonsense. If control system (you probably meant Living Control System) is »protected from disturbances« it will not control.

RM: Actually, the statement is true of both living and non-living control systems. And the definition doesn’t say that the control system is protected from disturbance; it says that it is the “perceptual representation of aspects of the environment” – that is, the controlled variable – that is protected from disturbance.

HB: And purposeful behavior is NOT a process of control.

RM: What is it then?

HB: And where did you get that »perceptual representations« of aspect of environment ?

RM: I got it from understanding what a controlled variable is in control theory.

HB: It’s all your defitnion.

RM: Well, not all mine. It’s just a verbal statement of the fact that p = f(x.1,x.2…x.n) in PCT. That is, the controlled perceptual variable, p, in a control system is a function, f(), of physical variables in the environment, x.i. Thus, the perceptual , f(), defines the aspect of the environment that is under control.

HB: Is that how you want to come into the history of control theory instead of Bill ?

RM: I’m just defining PCT as I understand it.

HB: You gave better defintion of control theory, which is as you put it Bill’s.

control theory 1. a theory of how organisms produce purposeful behavior by acting so as to maintain perceptual variables in reference states specified by the organism itself. The theory was first proposed by William T. Powers (1926-2013 ) in *Behavior: The Control of Perception *(1973)

RM: I think both definitions are good but the first may be a bit better because it says what perceptual variables are and that maintaining these variables in reference states involves protecting them from disturbance. And I’m surprised that you like this second definition any better than the first because it, like the first, says that purposeful behavior is a process of control,which you seem to think it is not.

HB: I don’t understand why you have to »push« yourself into the »front lines« on Bill’s work.

RM: PCT (which is what I presume you are referring to as Bill’s work; Bill did a lot of other incredible work as well) is not a religion and I am not pushing to the front lines to be the “recognized authority” on that religion. PCT is a scientific theory and I am doing the science that tests and develops that theory. The proof of my understanding of the theory is in the demos, models and experiments I do to test the theory. Anyone else who does the science of PCT is as much in the “front lines” of Bill’s work as I am. The only “pushing” that I do is against people who are not doing the science correctly (from my point of view). That’s why there are arguments on CSGNet. But this can be a healthy form of scientific debate as long as the final arbiter of these disagreements is nature and not anyone’s (or any text’s) presumed “authority”. That means that if you think I am wrong about something having to do with PCT you can convince me that I am wrong using scientific methods – modeling and empirical test.

Best

Rick

Best, Boris

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

[From Rick Marken (2015.03.31.1625)]

Richard Pfau (2015.03.31 1315 EST)]

RP: Below is an e-mail that I just sent to APA in response to a message received today from their Director, Reference, APA Books, concerning the definition of control theory (also shown below).ice to the reviewers comments. Please comment if you wish.

RM: I got it too. Maybe it was copied to csgnet? Anyway, here is the reply I sent to Ted and Gary:

==================================

Hi Ted (cc Gary)

I think your revision of the control theory entry is better than the original (certainly in terms of giving proper credit to those involved in its early development) but the definition of control theory itself needs work. This is how you define control theory:

control theory 1. the idea that behavior is a component of a process that involves repeated cycles of comparing one’s current state to a standard and acting to reduce the perception of discrepancies.

Here are the problems with this definition: 1) Behavior is not a component of a control process; purposeful behavior is a process of control. 2) Control does not involve repeated cycles of comparison; the comparison process is carried out continuously 3) It is not “one’s current state” that is compared to a standard but, rather,“a perceptual representation of the state of a variable aspect of the environment” that is being compared to a standard. And, finally,4) one does not reduce the “perception of discrepancies” but, rather, the discrepancy itself – the discrepancy between the perception and standard – that is reduced by the actions of the system. So, all in all, the proposed definition gives, at best, a pretty misleading and, at worst, an incorrect idea of what control theory is about.

Here’s a better (and somewhat shorter) definition of control theory:

control theory 1. the idea that purposeful behavior is a process of control, which involves acting to keep perceptual representations of aspects of the environment in reference states, protected from disturbance.

For the sake of accuracy and usefulness I highly recommend that you use this definition of control theory in the Dictionary of Psychology.

Best regards

Rick Marken

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

Bellow in the text…

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 8:04 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.03.1100)]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:06 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM :

control theory 1. the idea that purposeful behavior is a process of control, which involves acting to keep perceptual representations of aspects of the environment in reference states, protected from disturbance.

HB: This is nonsense. If control system (you probably meant Living Control System) is »protected from disturbances« it will not control.

RM: Actually, the statement is true of both living and non-living control systems. And the definition doesn’t say that the control system is protected from disturbance; it says that it is the “perceptual representation of aspects of the environment” – that is, the controlled variable – that is protected from disturbance.

HB : Where do you see »controlled variable« (perceptual representation) in generic PCT diagram and explanation that generaly control system »controls« something in external environment with behavior ? I see only feed-back function in external environment, probably representing »trasnformation« to affected enviroment.

Oh sorry to misunderstood you. You are saying that »controlled varibale« in outer environment is »being protected« from disturbances and that this is generally true. I suppose you are giving GENERAL DEFINITION OF CONTROL THEORY.

You must be a magician. O.K. show me please how can I protect course (path) of my car on the road from disturbances – cross wind ? Did I understand right that you are saying that i don’t COUNTER-ACT or CANCEL THE EFFECTS of disturbances (cross-wind) but with steerinng efforts I »protect« the course of the car on the road »from the wind« ?

The air-conditon’s output is »protecting« the room temperature from disturbances - the heat, entering, leaving through the walls…

Is this what you are saying ?

Isn’t it better what Bill proposed :

1.  The path of a car is affected not only by the driver's steering efforts, but by crosswinds, tilts and bumps in the road, soft tires, and misalignment of the wheels.
   

2.  The temperature of a house is affected not only by the furnace's output, but by heat entering, leaving, or being generated by other sources in the building.
   

He didn’t use word »protection«. He used that »controlled variable« is affected …. And I see in this two terms great difference.

HB: And purposeful behavior is NOT a process of control.

RM: What is it then?

Bill P :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances"

HB : It’s obviously at least to me, that behavior is means of control, which purpose serves the only possible thing : maintainance of homeostasis in the controlling system or survival.  It involves control to the extend that is governed by “error� signal. But behavior itself is not control, It is extending control to external environment and is just one of the effectors that do the same in internal environment where the most important control process is going on : achieving and maintaining preselected perceptual state.

So what’s wrong with this Bill’s definition of Control that you have to invent your own which is anyway just your derivate of his ? I don’t see that Bill’s  definition would mention any “behavior as control�. But I don’t blame you to understand PCT as you understand, as Bill many times changed his mind. I’ll explain later. So I understand your confusion. Behavior is means of control and you agreed with that. I’ll explain later where.

HB: And where did you get that »perceptual representations« of aspect of environment ?

RM: I got it from understanding what a controlled variable is in control theory.

HB: It’s all your defitnion.

RM: Well, not all mine. It’s just a verbal statement of the fact that p = f(x.1,x.2…x.n) in PCT. That is, the controlled perceptual variable, p, in a control system is a function, f(), of physical variables in the environment, x.i. Thus, the perceptual , f(), defines the aspect of the environment that is under control.

HB : Verbal state of the »FACT«. You know what the »FACT« is ? Or you beleive that what you are talking could be true ? How do you know that you are talking about the »fact« itself ? Can you offer some scientific proof except algebraic expression which could mean who knows what.

You could maybe give some experimental relations between physical quantities in environment and nerv signal and of course experimental person that will tell what happened. Do you really think that you will get »one answer« from many experimental persons that wiil lead you to the FACT what is »perceptual signal« ? What scientific bases you have for your statement ? Only formula ?

I didn’t want to answer you on your previous posts as I thought that you would not »push« so far the problem which definition has to be presented in Dictionary. I thought that is logical it will be Bill’s. Now it seems that I have no choice. As I said Bill changed his mind many tmes. And different versions of »perceptual signal« and it’s control on higher levels were in the game. So see my whole answer on your previous post.

HB: Is that how you want to come into the history of control theory instead of Bill ?

RM: I’m just defining PCT as I understand it.

HB : And your understading is the most accurate here on CSgnet, so that your definition should be booked in the Dictionary. Not Bil’s understanding, your understanding which is even BETTER than Bill’s. Incredible… Â

How is possible that we missed your geniosity ? You are the best here on CSGnet and  Bill doesn’t deserve to be author of defitnion in Dictionary ? Don’t you think that it would be right if you present Bill’s theory and his defintions of »Control« ? Why your oppinion, which is secondary to Bill’s ?

HB: You gave better defintion of control theory, which is as you put it Bill’s.

control theory 1. a theory of how organisms produce purposeful behavior by acting so as to maintain perceptual variables in reference states specified by the organism itself. The theory was first proposed by William T. Powers (1926-2013 ) in *Behavior: The Control of Perception *(1973)

RM: I think both definitions are good but the first may be a bit better because it says what perceptual variables are and that maintaining these variables in reference states involves protecting them from disturbance. And I’m surprised that you like this second definition any better than the first because it, like the first, says that purposeful behavior is a process of control,which you seem to think it is not.

HB : You defitnition is BETTER ? What a thinker you are. I’d like to »hear« oppinion of all here on CSGnet whether you also think that Rick’s definiton is better than Bill’s ? *barb ? Bruce ? Martin ? Kent ? Adam ? Fred ? Frank ? John ? Rupert ? Erling ? IAACT ? All of you ?

The difference is that Bill’s definition is not mentioning »behavior is control« and yours did. And that is very important. And your definiton is promoting »control of behavior«. It’s »control of perception«. You mixed this many times before.

HB: I don’t understand why you have to »push« yourself into the »front lines« on Bill’s work.

RM: PCT (which is what I presume you are referring to as Bill’s work; Bill did a lot of other incredible work as well) is not a religion and I am not pushing to the front lines to be the “recognized authority” on that religion. PCT is a scientific theory and I am doing the science that tests and develops that theory. The proof of my understanding of the theory is in the demos, models and experiments I do to test the theory. Anyone else who does the science of PCT is as much in the “front lines” of Bill’s work as I am. The only “pushing” that I do is against people who are not doing the science correctly (from my point of view). That’s why there are arguments on CSGNet. But this can be a healthy form of scientific debate as long as the final arbiter of these disagreements is nature and not anyone’s (or any text’s) presumed “authority”. That means that if you think I am wrong about something having to do with PCT you can convince me that I am wrong using scientific methods – modeling and empirical test.

HB :

We’ve talked about this one before. It seems that you have a bad memory. Modeling and empirical tests are maybe »third class« proofs. But as you already mentioned, let us use the »final arbiter« :

RM :

But this can be a healthy form of scientific debate as long as the final arbiter of these disagreements is nature…

HB : I suppose that you meant »experience of reality« by using word »nature«.

Or let us use better definition than yours of what we could do. I think anyway that you took it from Bill.

Bill P :

»If the effects of the model are just as hypothetical as the model, we don’t have a model, because we can’t check it against direct experience. The ultimate authority is always direct experience, the real reality we are incapable of doubting…« (LCS II, p.185)

HB :

So as I see it the final »arbiter« has to be »experience of reality«, which is defined in Bill’s work, not model or demo, which are imagined construct, which in you case has troubles with defining »controlled variables« and their »protection«.

So the proof of understanding some theory could go something like these :

1.  »experience« with reality, all kinds of experiments in reality (for example driving a car………)
   

2.  Pictures, videos of reality, for example »anatomy atlas«, biologicial, physilogical books, etc. showing direct contact with »reality«, how organisms are structured and so on…..
   

3.  Demos, models, test of theory and so on, where you can »arrange« imaginary data and results for your purposes. Like you did in »sheep and dog demo«. Or »baseball catch«. Did you »match« these demos to »reality« or they are still your imagination ?
   

So if I can see clearly what you are doing is that you are imagining something at your home and producing some DEMO CONSTRUCTS which you are »selling« here on CSGnet as primary »scientific« method.

Video, pictures of reality, books showing reality, are with no doubt closer to »reality« than your »model or demos«. Demo or model has to feet the experiences in reality or video, pictures or whatever they show.

Show me how much your demo of »baseball catch« match »reality« ? Bill asked you that and what was your answer ? As far as I remember your demo didn’t match the video of »the best baseball catch ever«. You even didn’t get interviews as Bill thought you did. You demo simply couldn’t explain what happened in reality (video) despite your algebraic formulas….models and demos.
<

So as far as I see your DEMOS, MODELS, ETC in explaining how organisms really function, are cronically lacking of some physiological evidence, or in your words »facts«.

But some of your definition of »control« in the past were very good. That was probably then when you didn’t use demos and models, but common sense thinking about reality :

RM (once upon a time) : Organisms seem to behave on purpose. Psychologist before Powers had noticed the purposiveness of behavior. They saw, for example, that organisms produce consistent results using highly variable actions. But most psychologist ended up attributing this variability to “statistical noise”; Powers on the other hand, saw it as essential. If actions did not vary, behavioral results would repeat only by chance., fluctuating as a result of the random effects of environmental disturbances. Instead, actions vary to compensate for the effects of disturbances, producing consistent results in an incosistent world – a process called “control” .

RM (once upon a time) : To understand the behavior of a living control system, the observer must learn what perceptions the system is controlling; what reference images the system is trying to match.

RM (once upon a time) : It takes a while to understand that control system compensate for disturbances rather than respond to stimuli; that stimuli are controlled and not in control ; that living control system control and cannot be controlled.

All other answers concerning your and my understanding of PCT you’ll find in other post.

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

Best, Boris

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

[From Rick Marken (2015.03.31.1625)]

Richard Pfau (2015.03.31 1315 EST)]

RP: Below is an e-mail that I just sent to APA in response to a message received today from their Director, Reference, APA Books, concerning the definition of control theory (also shown below).ice to the reviewers comments. Please comment if you wish.

RM: I got it too. Maybe it was copied to csgnet? Anyway, here is the reply I sent to Ted and Gary:

==================================

Hi Ted (cc Gary)

I think your revision of the control theory entry is better than the original (certainly in terms of giving proper credit to those involved in its early development) but the definition of control theory itself needs work. This is how you define control theory:

control theory 1. the idea that behavior is a component of a process that involves repeated cycles of comparing one’s current state to a standard and acting to reduce the perception of discrepancies.

Here are the problems with this definition: 1) Behavior is not a component of a control process; purposeful behavior is a process of control. 2) Control does not involve repeated cycles of comparison; the comparison process is carried out continuously 3) It is not “one’s current state” that is compared to a standard but, rather,“a perceptual representation of the state of a variable aspect of the environment” that is being compared to a standard. And, finally,4) one does not reduce the “perception of discrepancies” but, rather, the discrepancy itself – the discrepancy between the perception and standard – that is reduced by the actions of the system. So, all in all, the proposed definition gives, at best, a pretty misleading and, at worst, an incorrect idea of what control theory is about.

Here’s a better (and somewhat shorter) definition of control theory:

control theory 1. the idea that purposeful behavior is a process of control, which involves acting to keep perceptual representations of aspects of the environment in reference states, protected from disturbance.

For the sake of accuracy and usefulness I highly recommend that you use this definition of control theory in the Dictionary of Psychology.

Best regards

Rick Marken

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.04.1100)]

···

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:36 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB : Where do you see »controlled variable« (perceptual representation) in generic PCT diagram

RM: See Figure 1, p. 66 of LCS I (in the “Feedback: Beyond Behaviorism” paper that Fred just mentioned). The Input Quantity is made up of the environmental variables (the v’s) that are the basis of the controlled perceptual variable (called the Sensor Signal in the figure). The Input Variable is defined by the perceptual function (called the Sensor Function in the figure). So the controlled perceptual variable (Sensor Signal) is a function of the environmental variables, f(v.1, v.2…v.n); that is, the controlled variable is a perceptual representation of an aspect of the environment, the aspect defined by the perceptual function f().Â

Â

HB: and explanation that generaly control system »controls« something in external environment with behavior ?

RM: The control diagram shows that a control system controls an aspect of the environment – the aspect being defined by the perceptual function, f() – and it does this by varying its output effects on the environment. The outputs are the “acts” that keep an aspect of the environment – the “result” of these acts --under control. So, as discussed on p. 63 of LCS I, what we see as “behavior” consists of both “acts” and “results”. In PCT the acts are called system outputs and the results are called controlled variables.Â

HB: I see only feed-back function in external environment, probably representing »trasnformation« to affected enviroment.

RM: I don’ know which “generic” PCT diagram you are looking at but in all the diagrams I’ve seen there are three other variables in the external environment besides the feedback function; the system’s output (typically called q.o), the system’s input (typically called q.i) and an independent disturbance variable, d. The feedback function connects q.o, the systems’s output actions, to q.i. the aspect of the environment that the system is controlling – the controlled variable.Â

Â

 HB: You must be a magician. O.K. show me please how can I protect course (path) of my car on the road from disturbances – cross wind ?

RM: By varying the steering wheel appropriately to counter the effects of the cross-wind on the car’s path.Â

HB: Did I understand right that you are saying that i don’t COUNTER-ACT or CANCEL THE EFFECTS of disturbances (cross-wind)

RM: No, you didn’t understand me right. You protect a controlled variable from disturbances by acting so as to counter the net effect that disturbances would have had on the controlled variable. Saying that a control system “protects” a controlled variable is just another way of saying that a control system acts to counter the effects these disturbances would have had. I like describing it as “protection” from disturbance because it has less of an S-R flavor to it than describing it as “countering”. Describing disturbance resistance as “countering” sounds a bit like saying that the countering actions are a reaction to the disturbance, which they are not.Â

Â

HB: The air-conditon’s output is »protecting« the room temperature from disturbances - the heat, entering, leaving through the walls…/span>Â

Â

HB: Is this what you are saying ?

RM: Yes, this is a perfectly good way to describe what the room temperature control system is doing.Â

Â

 HB: Isn’t it better what Bill proposed :

1.     The path of a car is affected not only by the driver’s steering efforts, but by crosswinds, tilts and bumps in the road, soft tires, and misalignment of the wheels.

2.     The temperature of a house is affected not only by the furnace’s output, but by heat entering, leaving, or being generated by other sources in the building.

He didn’t use word »protection«. He used that »controlled variable« is affected …. And I see in this two termms great difference.

RM: Well, he didn’t use the term “counteracting” either. There is nothing Bill says here that is inconsistent with talking about control as either “protection” of a controlled variable from disturbance or “counteracting” the effect that a disturbance would have had on a controlled variable.Â

Â

HB: And purposeful behavior is NOT a process of control.

Â

RM: What is it then?

Â

HB : It’s obviously at least to me, that behavior is means of control, which purpose serves the only possible thing : maintainance of homeostasis in the controlling system or survival.Â

RM: So for you the term “behavior” apparently refers only to the outputs or “acts” of a control system. Which means that you don’t count the controlled “results” of these acts as “behavior”. When I say that “behavior is control” I’m saying what Bill is saying on p. 63 of LCS III; behavior consists of both acts and results. The acts are the outputs of the behaving system and the results are the controlled consequences of those outputs. So a “behavior” like “taking a sip of tea” is a control process in that it involves both acts (the arm movement outputs that lift the cup) and a controlled result (the cup ending up at the lips).Â

HB: It involves control to the extend that is governed by “error� signal.

RM: The error signal is a theoretical concept so it can’t be used to prove the fact that it is designed to explain. Behavior involves control because it can be seen to involve the production of consistent results – such as a cup consistently moving to the lips --in a disturbance prone environment – one where variables such as the weight of the cup and the location of the lips are different each time the same result is produced. In other words, behavior is objectively a control process. Control theory, which includes the idea of an error signal driving the outputs that produce a consistent result, is an explanation of the fact of control.

HB: But behavior itself is not control, It is extending control to external environment and is just one of the effectors that do the same in internal environment where the most important control process is going on : achieving and maintaining preselected perceptual state.

RM: Again, you are just limiting the term “behavior” to refer to the acts (outputs) that produce the consistent results that we also see as “behavior”. Those consistent results are explained as the maintenance of perceptual variables in pre-selected (reference) states.Â

Â

HB: So what’s wrong with this Bill’s definition of Control that you have to invent your own which is anyway just your derivate of his ? I don’t see that Bill’s  definition would mention any “behavior as control�.

RM: The observation that behavior is control can be made only after one knows what control is. Bill’s definition of control explains what control is. It doesn’t say “behavior is control” because you don’t know that just because you know what control is. You have to be able to analyze behavior correctly to see that what is going on when we see a behavior (like taking a sip of tea) is the same as what is defined as control; in both cases a consistent, pre-selected result is produced in the face of varying disturbances that should prevent such consistency.Â

RM: The rest of your post is just about how you don’t think much of my work. Which is fine. To each his (or her) own.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2015.04.05.0644 EDT)]

I think we can and do take steps to protect against disturbances but doing so requires forethought, conscious thinking and deliberate action. I don’t think the crosswinds example is a good fit with “protect.â€? It seems a much better fit with “counter.â€? To protect is to guard against what would happen and that is to imagine or envision some future state that we don’t want and we act so as to head it off. That is what it means to “protectâ€? – to guard against.Â

When I’m driving my car and crosswinds are buffeting it I generally keep the wheel turned a little farther against the wind than I would if the wind weren’t blowing it. If the wind stops I have to move the wheel the opposite direction or else I will veer from my lane. So if the controlled variable is my car’s position in the lane and the wind disturbs my reference for that variable (e.g., centered in the lane) I compensate by turning the wheel. I don’t turn the wheel against imagined wind. The wind is a disturbance and when it gusts my car moves and my sensing that movement is the occasion to correct for its effects.

I think the proof of this pudding is that in gusty crosswinds the actual position of my car varies with respect to its reference state more than it does when the wind is not blowing.

I’ll also admit that this is a somewhat complicated situation because compensating or correcting for or countering the effects of the wind does in fact protect against my car getting too far off center (unless of course the wind overwhelms my attempts to keep it in its lane).

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.04.1100)]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:36 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB: You must be a magician. O.K. show me please how can I protect course (path) of my car on the road from disturbances – cross wwind ?

RM: By varying the steering wheel appropriately to counter the effects of the cross-wind on the car’s path.

HB: Did I understand right that you are saying that i don’t COUNTER-ACT or CANCEL THE EFFECTS of disturbances (cross-wind)

RM: No, you didn’t understand me right. You protect a controlled variable from disturbances by acting so as to counter the net effect that disturbances would have had on the controlled variable. Saying that a control system “protects” a controlled variable is just another way of saying that a control system acts to counter the effects these disturbances would have had. I like describing it as “protection” from disturbance because it has less of an S-R flavor to it than describing it as “countering”. Describing disturbance resistance as “countering” sounds a bit like saying that the countering actions are a reaction to the disturbance, which they are not.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.05.1550)]

···

Fred Nickols (2015.04.05.0644 EDT)–

Â

FN: I think we can and do take steps to protect against disturbances but doing so requires forethought,

RM: That’s “predictive” control so it’s not really the kind of control I’m talking about since the “steps you take” to protect against disturbance are not necessarily the steps that are (or will be) preventing any future disturbance from having it’s effect.

Â

FN: When I’m driving my car and crosswinds are buffeting it I generally keep the wheel turned a little farther against the wind than I would if the wind weren’t blowing it. If the wind stops I have to move the wheel the opposite direction or else I will veer from my lane. So if the controlled variable is my car’s position in the lane and the wind disturbs my reference for that variable (e.g., centered in the lane) I compensate by turning the wheel. I don’t turn the wheel against imagined wind. The wind is a disturbance and when it gusts my car moves and my sensing that movement is the occasion to correct for its effects.

RM: This is just control with a difficult disturbance. So control will be poorer. But it’s still true that your actions are not a response to the disturbance, whether you are calling the wind the disturbance (which is usually what we mean by disturbance; the variable(s) that affect the controlled variable independent of the outputs of the system itself) or the effect of the wind on the position of the car (controlled variable). So even in this situation I think it’s better to say that your outputs (wheel movements) are protecting (as best as they can) the controlled variable from the effect that the disturbance variable would have on it. But, again, it’s equivalent to saying that the actions of the control system counter the effects of the disturbance. I just think “protecting” gives a better image of what is going on. Â

Â

FN:Â I think the proof of this pudding is that in gusty crosswinds the actual position of my car varies with respect to its reference state more than it does when the wind is not blowing.

RM: This implies that you think of the wind caused deviations of the controlled variable (car position) as the cause of  the outputs (wheel turns) that compensate for the disturbance, and that’s not the way it works. That’s why I prefer “protect” over “counter”; it has less of that S-R feel to it. But, again, this is just a preference about how to talk about control; what really matters is just understanding how the control model works, and it works by varying output appropriately so that o = -d so that p ~ r.Â

Â

 FN: I’ll also admit that this is a somewhat complicated situation because compensating or correcting for or countering the effects of the wind does in fact protect against my car getting too far off center (unless of course the wind overwhelms my attempts to keep it in its lane).

RM: It’s really not complicated; saying that control involves “compensating” or “protecting” is just two different ways of saying the same thing, as you basically have realized here.

Best

Rick

Â

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

Â

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.04.1100)]

Â

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:36 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

 HB: You must be a magician. O.K. show me please how can I protect course (path) of my car on the road from disturbances – cross wind ?

Â

RM: By varying the steering wheel appropriately to counter the effects of the cross-wind on the car’s path.Â

Â

HB: Did I understand right that you are saying that i don’t COUNTER-ACT or CANCEL THE EFFECTS of disturbances (cross-wind)

Â

RM: No, you didn’t understand me right. You protect a controlled variable from disturbances by acting so as to counter the net effect that disturbances would have had on the controlled variable. Saying that a control system “protects” a controlled variable is just another way of saying that a control system acts to counter the effects these disturbances would have had. I like describing it as “protection” from disturbance because it has less of an S-R flavor to it than describing it as “countering”. Describing disturbance resistance as “countering” sounds a bit like saying that the countering actions are a reaction to the disturbance, which they are not.Â

–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

Bellow….

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 12:54 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.05.1550)]

Fred Nickols (2015.04.05.0644 EDT)–

FN: I think we can and do take steps to protect against disturbances but doing so requires forethought,

RM: That’s “predictive” control so it’s not really the kind of control I’m talking about since the “steps you take” to protect against disturbance are not necessarily the steps that are (or will be) preventing any future disturbance from having it’s effect.

HB :

Can you please expIain »scientifically« what is »predictive control«. It would be nice if you could be more scientific, when explaining terms as you already demanded form others to be more scientific. But I hope you won’t mind if we are not scientific in your way of understanding.

I don’t understand why you probably delibratelly left out from Fred’s text definition of »protection«. I think that Fred’s text was oriented in scientific direction :

FN :

I don’t think the crosswinds example is a good fit with “protect.â€? It seems a much better fit with “counter.â€? To protect is to guard against what would happen and that is to imagine or envision some future state that we don’t want and we act so as to head it off. That is what it means to “protectâ€? – to guard against.

FN: When I’m driving my car and crosswinds are buffeting it I generally keep the wheel turned a little farther against the wind than I would if the wind weren’t blowing it. If the wind stops I have to move the wheel the opposite direction or else I will veer from my lane. So if the controlled variable is my car’s position in the lane and the wind disturbs my reference for that variable (e.g., centered in the lane) I compensate by turning the wheel. I don’t turn the wheel against imagined wind. The wind is a disturbance and when it gusts my car moves and my sensing that movement is the occasion to correct for its effects.

RM: This is just control with a difficult disturbance. So control will be poorer. But it’s still true that your actions are not a response to the disturbance, whether you are calling the wind the disturbance (which is usually what we mean by disturbance; the variable(s) that affect the controlled variable independent of the outputs of the system itself) or the effect of the wind on the position of the car (controlled variable). So even in this situation I think it’s better to say that your outputs (wheel movements) are protecting (as best as they can) the controlled variable from the effect that the disturbance variable would have on it.

HB :

Maybe it would be better for you to sit beside the driver when the wind is blowing and see in »real« how it looks like when you are trying to »straighten« the car when it’s »pushed« by the wind. I still think that Fred is right that you can’t »predict« when the wind will »change the perception« of the car position and that you’ll have to oppose already disturbed perception. »Protection« just don’t fit in. But let us see some definitions of the terms so to be more scientific.

Definitons of the terms :

Counteraction : a force or influence that makes an opposing force ineffective or less effective.

Compensation : Something that counterbalances

Protection : to guard against, to keep safe, to protect someone or something means to prevent them from being damaged or harmed….

I think that term »protection« has nothing to do with »control«, maybe only with »feed-forward« control, but that’s something that doesn’t exist in PCT. At least I see it in this way. Defitnitions of »PROTECTION« seems to involve prediction« as Fred discribed the term. »Protection« by his words means to »guard against«, to PREVENT something that will happen. So term »protecting« simply doesn’t fit here, because we can’t predict when wind will disturb perception. Â

But maybe you Rick could help with your scientific explanation…

RM :

But, again, it’s equivalent to saying that the actions of the control system counter the effects of the disturbance. I just think “protecting” gives a better image of what is going on.

Well maybe I really don’t understand American (English) so maybe you could help me. What does it mean »equivalent« ?

Here are some synonims of words »counter.act, compensate, opposing :             Â

When I put into dictionary counter-action some synonims were : compensation, opposing, neutralization……

When I put into dictionary compensation some synonims were : adjustment, counterbalance…

When I put innto dictionary opposing some synonims were : counter, contradict, confront…

But NOT in one case term »protection« apeared that can be somehow »equivalent« with terms counter-action, compensation or opposing.

When I put into dictionary »protection« some synonims were : conservation, presevation, security, safeguard, defence, self-defence, bodyguard, watch dog…but there wasn’t any of upper terms.

So I think it’s not proper to equalize this terms if we want to be just a little scientific.

Could you be so kind and finaly explain YOUR SCIENTIFIC WAY what terms means. It seems that counter-action, compensation and opposing are reprsenting »control in present moment« and term »protection« some »future« control as Fred explained. I’m really interested that these terms are clear to use them in the way what they really mean.

But I admitt. I have problems, as American is not my native language.

FN: I think the proof of this pudding is that in gusty crosswinds the actual position of my car varies with respect to its reference state more than it does when the wind is not blowing.

RM: This implies that you think of the wind caused deviations of the controlled variable (car position) as the cause of the outputs (wheel turns) that compensate for the disturbance, and that’s not the way it works.

HB : Could you be so kind and explain why is Fred’s explanation is not the way it works ?

RM:

That’s why I prefer “protect” over “counter”; it has less of that S-R feel to it. But, again, this is just a preference about how to talk about control; what really matters is just understanding how the control model works, and it works by varying output appropriately so that o = -d so that p ~ r.

HB :

Old Rick. This could be a great manipulation. Make an attempt or control of others with using »S-R threat«, and you can do what you want. If you are demanding from others to be scientific, prove to us with scientific tools that “protect” over "counter"is justified not with »threats of S-R.

I understood Martin that every part of control loops for itself is S-R. So where is the problem if isolated terms of control loop describe exactly waht they should, S-R.

FN: I’ll also admit that this is a somewhat complicated situation because compensating or correcting for or countering the effects of the wind does in fact protect against my car getting too far off center (unless of course the wind overwhelms my attempts to keep it in its lane).

RM: It’s really not complicated; saying that control involves “compensating” or “protecting” is just two different ways of saying the same thing, as you basically have realized here.

HB : I think it’s not. As we see defnitions of the terms and synonims I think it’s misleading to use term »protection«.

It doesn’t sound to me right, although I’m not American. This term simply doesn’t  even sound to be »equal«. But I’m not an expert for American. So could somebody help me understand.Â

It would be nice Rick, if you present any evidence where you will justify the use of term »protection« for GENERAL control purposes. I don’t say that it can’t be used in some cases, as we can really »protect« ourselves with umbrella when it’s raining, but I would like to see how »protection« can be used in GENERAL SENSE as equal to »counter-action, opposing, compensated«…

If the furnace output is affecting the »controlled variable« :  room temperature and heat from outside is afffecting »room temperature«, I would really like to see how can you PROTECT ROOM TEMPERATURE from heat affecting it from outside the building.

I can understand that furnace you can reduce efects of heat coming through walls into the room. But I don’t understand how can you »protect« the room from disturbances FROM NOT AFFECTING THE ROOM TEMPRATURE.

And how can you protect the LCS from the heat exchange though the skin, as this is the fundamental process of living beings to exist ? Â

I don’t know why equalizing of terms »counter«, opposing, »cancel the efects«, »compensating« is necesary. As I said before Bill used terms counteractiom. opposing, cancel the effect of disturbances and so on in 99% of his writings, and I’m sure he knew waht he was doing. Why don’t use the terms that were used so many more times than others. Why using rare terms ?

I think that if we use terms that were usualy used in Bill’s literatuure terms that describe what’s happening in control, I’m sure there is less probability that we miss, what I think it’s not the case with »protection« which can be used in special cases and in other meanings of control. Â

Maybe this is also the way how we could avoid misunderstandings.

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.04.1100)]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:36 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB: You must be a magician. O.K. show me please how can I protect course (path) of my car on the road from disturbances – cross wind ?

RM: By varying the steering wheel appropriately to counter the effects of the cross-wind on the car’s path.

HB: Did I understand right that you are saying that i don’t COUNTER-ACT or CANCEL THE EFFECTS of disturbances (cross-wind)

RM: No, you didn’t understand me right. You protect a controlled variable from disturbances by acting so as to counter the net effect that disturbances would have had on the controlled variable. Saying that a control system “protects” a controlled variable is just another way of saying that a control system acts to counter the effects these disturbances would have had. I like describing it as “protection” from disturbance because it has less of an S-R flavor to it than describing it as “countering”. Describing disturbance resistance as “countering” sounds a bit like saying that the countering actions are a reaction to the disturbance, which they are not.

–

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2015.04.10.1008 EDT)]

···

From: “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 12:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Re: Draft revision of entry on control theory

Bellow….

Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:36 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB: You must be a magician. O.K. show me please how can I protect course (path) of my car on the road from disturbances – cross wind ?

<

RM: By varying the steering wheel appropriately to counter the effects of the cross-wind on the car’s path.

HB: Did I understand right that you are saying that i don’t COUNTER-ACT or CANCEL THE EFFECTS of disturbances (cross-wind)

RM: No, you didn’t understand me right. You protect a controlled variable from disturbances by acting so as to counter the net effect that disturbances would have had on the controlled variable. Saying that a control system “protects” a controlled variable is just another way of saying that a control system acts to counter the effects these disturbances would have had. I like describing it as “protection” from disturbance because it has less of an S-R flavor to it than describing it as “countering”. Describing disturbance resistance as “countering” sounds a bit like saying that the countering actions are a reaction to the disturbance, which they are not.

[Fred Nickols] Hmm. Counter the effects that disturbances “would have hadâ€?? That sounds a lot like predicting and heading off the future. From where I sit “counteringâ€? sounds to me as though reacting is what is going on – at least in part.Â

Fred Nickols

[rsmarken]

[From RickMarken (2015.04.10.2125)]

···

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:05 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

FN: I think we can and do take steps to protect against disturbances but doing so requires forethought,

Â

RM: That’s “predictive” control so it’s not really the kind of control I’m talking about since the “steps you take” to protect against disturbance are not necessarily the steps that are (or will be) preventing any future disturbance from having it’s effect.

Â

HB : Can you please expIain »scientifically« what is »predictive control«.

RM: Pure predictive control is open loop control where the output is driven by input rather than output influenced error. In predictive control system output is predicted based on some kind of prediction algorithm or model to produce the desired result. The predicted output, o’, is usually some function of the current and past outputs, so that:

o’ = f(i.t,i.t-1, i.t-2…i.t-n)

Â

HB : Maybe it would be better for you to sit beside the driver when the wind is blowing and see in »real« how it looks like when you are trying to »straighten« the car when it’s »pushed« by the wind.

RM: As I said in my earlier post to Fred, it would look like the turn of the wheel is a “compensating response” so the wind gusts; the gustier the wind, the more it would look like the wheel turns are a response to the wind gusts. As I said in that post, is the behavioral illusion.Â

HB**: Protection** : to guard against, to keep safe, to protect someone or something means to prevent them from being damaged or harmed….

Â

HB: I think that term »protection« has nothing to do with »control«

RM: See my last post to Fred. I think it’s a perfectly good description of what a control system does with the controlled variable. It protects it from the effects of disturbance.

Â

HB: But maybe you Rick could help with your scientific explanation…

RM: My scientific explanation is in my post to Fred (Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540)).Â

Â

RM :Â But, again, it’s equivalent to saying that the actions of the control system counter the effects of the disturbance. I just think “protecting” gives a better image of what is going on. Â

Â

HB: Well maybe I really don’t understand American (English) so maybe you could help me. What does it mean »equivalent« ?

RM: It means that they say essentially the same thing: control involves protecting the controlled variable from disturbances by acting to counter those disturbances.

Â

HB: Could you be so kind and finaly explain YOUR SCIENTIFIC WAY what terms means. It seems that counter-action, compensation and opposing are reprsenting »control in present moment« and term »protection« some »future« control as Fred explained. I’m really interested that these terms are clear to use them in the way what they really mean.Â

RM: I did that in my post to Fred (Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540)

Â

FN:Â I think the proof of this pudding is that in gusty crosswinds the actual position of my car varies with respect to its reference state more than it does when the wind is not blowing.

Â

RM: This implies that you think of the wind caused deviations of the controlled variable (car position) as the cause of  the outputs (wheel turns) that compensate for the disturbance, and that’s not the way it works.

Â

HB : Could you be so kind and explain why is Fred’s explanation is not the way it works ?

RM: id that in my post to Fred (Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540). The reason why Fred’s explanation is not the way it works is because Fred is describing a behavioral illusion; the illusion that a change in the value of the disturbance causes the change in output of the system. It’s the change in the controlled variable – not the disturbance – that causes the change in the the output of the system.

 RM :That’s why I prefer “protect” over “counter”; it has less of that S-R feel to it. But, again, this is just a preference about how to talk about control; what really matters is just understanding how the control model works, and it works by varying output appropriately so that o = -d so that p ~ r.Â

Â

HB : Old Rick. This could be a great manipulation. Make an attempt or control of others with using »S-R threat«, and you can do what you want. If you are demanding from others to be scientific, prove to us with scientific tools that “protect” over “counter” is justified not with »threats of S-R.

RM: I did that in my post to Fred  (Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540).Â

HB: I understood Martin that every part of control loops for itself is S-R. So where is the problem if isolated terms of control loop describe exactly waht they should, S-R.

RM: No problem as long as you get the Ss and R’s right. And the disturbance is not in the loop, by the way.Â

 HB: It would be nice Rick, if you present any evidence where you will justify the use of term »protection« for GENERAL control purposes.

RM: I did that in my post to Fred (I did that in my post to Fred (Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540)

HB: If the furnace output is affecting the »controlled variable« :  room temperature and heat from outside is afffecting »room temperature«, I would really like to see how can you PROTECT ROOM TEMPERATURE from heat affecting it from outside the building.

RM: See Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540)Â

Â

HB: I can understand that furnace you can reduce efects of heat coming through walls into the room. But I don’t understand how can you »protect« the room from disturbances FROM NOT AFFECTING THE ROOM TEMPRATURE.

RM: See Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540) Â

Â

HB: And how can you protect the LCS from the heat exchange though the skin, as this is the fundamental process of living beings to exist ? Â

RM: I don’t believe heat exchange is a controlled variable. But if it is, it is protected from disturbance (such as conductance of the skin) ny varying teh conductance of the skin somehow.

Â

HB: I don’t know why equalizing of terms »counter«, opposing, »cancel the efects«, »compensating« is necesary. As I said before Bill used terms counteractiom. opposing, cancel the effect of disturbances and so on in 99% of his writings, and I’m sure he knew waht he was doing. Why don’t use the terms that were used so many more times than others. Why using rare terms ?

RM: See Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540) Â

Â

HB: I think that if we use terms that were usualy used in Bill’s literatuure terms that describe what’s happening in control, I’m sure there is less probability that we miss, what I think it’s not the case with »protection« which can be used in special cases and in other meanings of control. Â

RM: I think that’s an odd basis for using language to communicate meaning. Â

Â

HB: Maybe this is also the way how we could avoid misunderstandings.

 RM: The only way to minimize misunderstandings is to learn how the model works.

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble