ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

_Boris_Hartman · January 6, 2018, 6:16pm

Warren

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

WMÂ Hi all, now I get where Boris is coming from. It appears that he wants to use what Bill has already produced in terms of theory and evidence and nothing more.

HB : How did you come to that conclussion ? And you have yourself for some kind of representative of Â»academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of disseminationÂ«. If you are aimimg so high you could do some research. Isn’t that the point of scientific approach to find a truth. But you didn’t. You concluded on the level of the saleswoman on the market and rumors. What kind of science is this ? On the level of which mammal ?

If you would read carefully what I wrote you would understand that beside undertsanding PCT I proposed also upgrading PCT diagram or betterment of PCT.

If you would search through archives (it’s scientific method for searching the Â»truthÂ«) you would find out that I was promoting confirmation about whether PCT is GENERAL MODEL OF HOW ANY ORGANISM FUNCTION OR NERVOUS SYSTEM. I proposed many behaviors which should be incuded in analyses of PCT GENERAL MODEL in contrast to Rick who is all the time proposing ONE (JOYSTICK) CASE – ONE THEORY MOODEL.

So reasearching PCT through any behavior we can know about, we could confirm or not whether PCT is general theory of human (LCS) behavior or not. Do you understand what I wanted ? So that we can be sure that we can explain any behavior with PCT model ? What can we do more if this is CSGnet forum and project about PCT ? Are we talking about something else?

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

WM : To be honest, I agree with him in the sense that this is all I personally need to support those research aims in my mind.

HB : Well surprise. Now we have something in common J. If we’ll go this way I’ll maybe reveal you a secret of one of your experiments which confirmed PCT, but you thought it didin’t because you were using wrong theory.

WM : But at the same time that approach is completely at odds with the academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of dissemination.

HB : Again. You didn’t understand what I wrote or what I wanted to say with my message to Bruce. It’s better to make a research than to make fool of yourself. If you are making all your researches for Â»truthÂ« in that way Â»God help usÂ« L.

WM : We at least have to sign up to these principles of empiricism and wider dissemination to be part of Research Gate in the first place?

HB : Before you sign you have to understand what you are signing.

Boris

Warren

On 3 Jan 2018, at 09:02, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Bruce

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.01.22:52 ET)]

BN : On the principle that no response means I have introduced no disturbance that would cause error in anyone’s control,

HB : What can I say. Wrong principle. Change it. No respons colud mean also that somebody didn’t read yet whatever you think was disturbance. It was New Year. Some of us obviously enjoyed our vacations.

BN : I assume that for each person receiving this either this text is OK or they are not controlling (with any effective gain) a perception of how we represent the goal of our Researchgate project,

HB : What is Â»Researchgate projectÂ«. Something apart from PCT ?

BN : ….andd I will replace the existing text with the below:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

HB : I don’t understand why one should investigate what you mentioned if we already have PCT which is answering on your Â»3 pointÂ« proposal.

I’ve been proposing for years what you are trying to propose here. And I didn’t only propose. I gave solutions. To all your Â»pointsÂ« already exist answers. Why should you investigate again and again and discover again and again Â»hot waterÂ« ?

Everything is clear at least in PCT. So I don’t understand what project Â»ResearchgateÂ« is for ?

Most of the work about how Â»organisms functionÂ« from the view of PCT was done by Bill. You just have to agree with him. It’s interesting that nobody want to give agreement to his Â»definitionsÂ« (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III). I didn’t see any critics. It seems that nobody agree with PCT, except Richard Pfau who agreed that Behavior can be Â»consequence of control of perceptionÂ«.

You don’t need any Â»…gateÂ« project if you understand PCT. But I couuld already conclude that most here on CSGnet don’t understand PCT because of confussion which was created by Rick and supported by you and Fred and some others.

PCT already offers answers to your Â»3-pointÂ« investigations.:

 investigate the purposeful behavior ("controlling") done by living systems, particularly humans

HB : On CSGnet were already many investigations of purposefull behavior. But I agree that it should be continued. Bill already investigated purposefull behavior and the conclussons are clear. It’s just have to applyed to everyday life examples so that we all can see that they work.

 develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling

HB : Which model of perceptual control theory (PCT) is that, PCT or RCT ? I don’t understand which Â»controllingÂ« model of PCT you want to develope by tests and demonstrations ? We already have a model of PCT and there were given many life-examples that demonstrates PCT model like :

```
     Bruce Abbott (sunshining),
```

```
     Rick (sleeping),
```

```
     Martin (observing) and
```

     I gave thinker, table tennis and baseball examples (see attched file),

```
     Etc.
```

Why Â»developingÂ« something what already exists ?

Any behavior should fit into PCT model if it is GENERAL THEORY about behavior of living beings.

So I ask you again and all others in Â»ResearchgateÂ« project including Powers Ladies : do you agree with my proposal of PCT diagram (LCS II) and definitions of control loop (B:CP) to be Â»cornerstonesÂ« of PCT conversations and all projects about PCT including Â»ResearchgateÂ« project ??? <image001.jpg>

It seems to me that diagram above (LCS III) is the result of Bills’ 50 years work on PCT.

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

 OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box repressents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

 FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : Â»DefinitionsÂ« of the control loop were published in Bills’ main work (B:CP). And they are in perfect agreement with diagram (LCS III). Atleast I see that way.

  develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general

HB : This is a liitle bit heavy task, becasue if you want to make betterment in undrestanding humans in particular and humans societies in general you have to understand how PCT organism function. So before you develope any application you have to finnish diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) or better Â»Bill and Dug versionÂ« of it :

<image002.png>

HB : I hope we all understand that this diagram has to be finnished one day.

Boris

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.30.22:16)]

How’s this:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Rupert, does “demonstrations” adequately include robotics as you see it? Perhaps if you also consider robots as potential “applications for betterment”?

Anyone else have comments? Does this statement of purpose cover the bases?

/Bruce

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.30.1515)]

Bruce Nevin (2017.12.29.17:35 ET)–

BN: I like this simplification; it’s more direct. However, addressed to a diverse audience unfamiliar with PCT, does it communicate the breadth of ‘controlling’, that it encompasses all (purposeful) behavior?

BN: We want robotics to be more in scope of the goal. Are we saying that Robots are tests of the theory and applications for betterment of individuals and society?

BN: Maybe (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of this controlling.

RM: OK, how about:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) consider the implications of the PCT model for applications aimed of the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

wmansell · January 7, 2018, 7:56am

Warren

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

WM Hi all, now I get where Boris is coming from. It appears that he wants to use what Bill has already produced in terms of theory and evidence and nothing more.

HB : How did you come to that conclussion ? And you have yourself for some kind of representative of Â»academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of disseminationÂ«. If you are aimimg so high you could do some research. Isn’t that the point of scientific approach to find a truth. But you didn’t. You concluded on the level of the saleswoman on the market and rumors. What kind of science is this ? On the level of which mammal ?

If you would read carefully what I wrote you would understand that beside undertsanding PCT I proposed also upgrading PCT diagram or betterment of PCT.

If you would search through archives (it’s scientific method for searching the Â»truthÂ«) you would find out that I was promoting confirmation about whether PCT is GENERAL MODEL OF HOW ANY ORGANISM FUNCTION OR NERVOUS SYSTEM. I proposed many behaviors which should be incuded in analyses of PCT GENERAL MODEL in contrast to Rick who is all the time proposing ONE (JOYSTICK) CASE – ONE THEORY MODEL.

So reasearching PCT through any behavior we can know about, we could confirm or not whether PCT is general theory of human (LCS) behavior or not. Do you understand what I wanted ? So that we can be sure that we can explain any behavior with PCT model ? What can we do more if this is CSGnet forum and project about PCT ? Are we talking about something else?

WM : To be honest, I agree with him in the sense that this is all I personally need to support those research aims in my mind.

HB : Well surprise. Now we have something in common J. If we’ll go this way I’ll maybe reveal you a secret of one of your experiments which confirmed PCT, but you thought it didin’t because you were using wrong theory.

WM : But at the same time that approach is completely at odds with the academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of dissemination.

HB : Again. You didn’t understand what I wrote or what I wanted to say with my message to Bruce. It’s better to make a research than to make fool of yourself. If you are making all your researches for Â»truthÂ« in that way Â»God help usÂ« L.

WM : We at least have to sign up to these principles of empiricism and wider dissemination to be part of Research Gate in the first place?

HB : Before you sign you have to understand what you are signing.

Boris

Warren

On 3 Jan 2018, at 09:02, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Bruce

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.01.22:52 ET)]

BN : On the principle that no response means I have introduced no disturbance that would cause error in anyone’s control,

HB : What can I say. Wrong principle. Change it. No respons colud mean also that somebody didn’t read yet whatever you think was disturbance. It was New Year. Some of us obviously enjoyed our vacations.

BN : I assume that for each person receiving this either this text is OK or they are not controlling (with any effective gain) a perception of how we represent the goal of our Researchgate project,

HB : What is Â»Researchgate projectÂ«. Something apart from PCT ?

BN : ….and I will replace the existing text with thee below:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

HB : I don’t understand why one should investigate what you mentioned if we already have PCT which is answering on your Â»3 pointÂ« proposal.

I’ve been proposing for years what you are trying to propose here. And I didn’t only propose. I gave solutions. To all your Â»pointsÂ« already exist answers. Why should you investigate again and again and discover again and again Â»hot waterÂ« ?

Everything is clear at least in PCT. So I don’t understand what project Â»ResearchgateÂ« is for ?

Most of the work about how Â»organisms functionÂ« from the view of PCT was done by Bill. You just have to agree with him. It’s interesting that nobody want to give agreement to his Â»definitionsÂ« (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III). I didn’t see any critics. It seems that nobody agree with PCT, except Richard Pfau who agreed that Behavior can be Â»consequence of control of perceptionÂ«.

You don’t need any Â»…gateÂÂ« project if you understand PCT. But I could already conclude that most here on CSGnet don’t understand PCT because of confussion which was created by Rick and supported by you and Fred and some others.

PCT already offers answers to your Â»3-pointÂ« investigations.:

 investigate the purposeful behavior ("controlling") done by living systems, particularly humans

HB : On CSGnet were already many investigations of purposefull behavior. But I agree that it should be continued. Bill already investigated purposefull behavior and the conclussons are clear. It’s just have to applyed to everyday life examples so that we all can see that they work.

 develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling

HB : Which model of perceptual control theory (PCT) is that, PCT or RCT ? I don’t understand which Â»controllingÂ« model of PCT you want to develope by tests and demonstrations ? We already have a model of PCT and there were given many life-examples that demonstrates PCT model like :

```
     Bruce Abbott (sunshining),
```

```
     Rick (sleeping),
```

```
     Martin (observing) and
```

     I gave thinker, table tennis and baseball examples (see attched file),

```
     Etc.
```

Why Â»developingÂ« something what already exists ?

Any behavior should fit into PCT model if it is GENERAL THEORY about behavior of living beings.

So I ask you again and all others in Â»ResearchgateÂ« project including Powers Ladies : do you agree with my proposal of PCT diagram (LCS II) and definitions of control loop (B:CP) to be Â»cornerstonesÂ« of PCT conversations and all projects about PCT including Â»ResearchgateÂ« project ??? <image001.jpg>

It seems to me that diagram above (LCS III) is the result of Bills’ 50 years work on PCT.

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

 OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the meeans this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

 FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : Â»DefinitionsÂ« of the control loop were published in Bills’ main work (B:CP). And they are in perfect agreement with diagram (LCS III). Atleast I see that way.

  develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general

HB : This is a liitle bit heavy task, becasue if you want to make betterment in undrestanding humans in particular and humans societies in general you have to understand how PCT organism function. So before you develope any application you have to finnish diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) or better Â»Bill and Dug versionÂ« of it :

<image002.png>

HB : I hope we all understand that this diagram has to be finnished one day.

Boris

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.30.22:16)]

How’s this:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Rupert, does “demonstrations” adequately include robotics as you see it? Perhaps if you also consider robots as potential “applications for betterment”?

Anyone else have comments? Does this statement of purpose cover the bases?

/Bruce

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.30.1515)]

Bruce Nevin (2017.12.29.17:35 ET)–

BN: I like this simplification; it’s more direct. However, addressed to a diverse audience unfamiliar with PCT, does it communicate the breadth of ‘controlling’, that it encompasses all (purposeful) behavior?

BN: We want robotics to be more in scope of the goal. Are we saying that Robots are tests of the theory and applications for betterment of individuals and society?

BN: Maybe (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of this controlling.

RM: OK, how about:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) consider the implications of the PCT model for applications aimed of the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

wmansell · January 12, 2018, 5:52pm

Hi Warren,

I didn’t say I want to do empirical tests. I’m sick of doing them on field of sport. They all match Bruces’ demand about RCT empirical tests with Â»controlled variableÂ« in outside environment which is perceived ??? I still don’t understand how control can be perceived from environment probably causing Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« ??? Â»Empirical testsÂ« in the meaning that there is Â»controlled vairbale in environment of organisms does not exist. It has nothing to do wiith PCT. I hope you understand why I don’t want to do these sort of tests. .

And I’ve done so many PCT Â»testsÂ« here on CSGnet that I have enough of repeating myself what is PCT and what is not PCT.

And beside that I think that Â»empirical testsÂ« are problematic because the way of Â»inquisitionÂ« research method for some behaviors which has Â»controlled variableÂ« in environment. In this way GENERALITY OF PCT DIAGRAM can never be confirmed. So totaly another approcah is needed.

I’m sorry to take a look just at some of your articles. Although they are all Â»more authoiÂ« articlesI question myself how much PCT they comprehend. But it seems that Â»more authorsÂ« articles are good course of reaserch. Humanistic. I’ll probably start reading them as much are not to pay.

But I’ll be glad if you show me some articles of your own which shows your own PCT approach. Can you direct me to such an article ?

And I think that you should do more of your own reading of Bills’ literature.

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 8:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

Hi Boris, thatâ€™s great you are wanting to do empirical tests of PCT too! My published studies to date are on my university website.

All the best

Warren

On 6 Jan 2018, at 18:16, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Warren

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

WM Hi all, now I get where Boris is coming from. It appears that he wants to use what Bill has already produced in terms of theory and evidence and nothing more.

HB : How did you come to that conclussion ? And you have yourself for some kind of representative of Â»academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of disseminationÂ«. If you are aimimg so high you could do some research. Isn’t that the point of scientific approach to find a truth. But you didn’t. You concluded on the level of the saleswoman on the market and rumors. What kind of science is this ? On the level of which mammal ?

If you would read carefully what I wrote you would understand that beside undertsanding PCT I proposed also upgrading PCT diagram or betterment of PCT.

If you would search through archives (it’s scientific method for searching the Â»truthÂ«) you would find out that I was promoting confirmation about whether PCT is GENERAL MODEL OF HOW ANY ORGANISM FUNCTION OR NERVOUS SYSTEM. I proposed many behaviors which should be incuded in analyses of PCT GENERAL MODEL in contrast to Rick who is all the time proposing ONE (JOYSTICK) CASE – ONE THEORY MODEL.

So reasearching PCT through any behavior we can know about, we could confirm or not whether PCT is general theory of human (LCS) behavior or not. Do you understand what I wanted ? So that we can be sure that we can explain any behavior with PCT model ? What can we do more if this is CSGnet forum and project about PCT ? Are we talking about something else?

WM : To be honest, I agree with him in the sense that this is all I personally need to support those research aims in my mind.

HB : Well surprise. Now we have something in common J. If we’ll go this way I’ll maybe reveal you a secret of one of your experiments which confirmed PCT, but you thought it didin’t because you were using wrong theory.

WM : But at the same time that approach is completely at odds with the academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of dissemination.

HB : Again. You didn’t understand what I wrote or what I wanted to say with my message to Bruce. It’s better to make a research than to make fool of yourself. If you are making all your researches for Â»truthÂ« in that way Â»God help usÂ« L.

WM : We at least have to sign up to these principles of empiricism and wider dissemination to be part of Research Gate in the first place?

HB : Before you sign you have to understand what you are signing.

Boris

Warren

On 3 Jan 2018, at 09:02, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Bruce

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.01.22:52 ET)]

BN : On the principle that no response means I have introduced no disturbance that would cause error in anyone’s control,

HB : What can I say. Wrong principle. Change it. No respons colud mean also that somebody didn’t read yet whatever you think was disturbance. It was New Year. Some of us obviously enjoyed our vacations.

BN : I assume that for each person receiving this either this text is OK or they are not controlling (with any effective gain) a perception of how we represent the goal of our Researchgate project,

HB : What is Â»Researchgate projectÂ«. Something apart from PCT ?

BN : ….and I wwill replace the existing text with the below:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

HB : I don’t understand why one should investigate what you mentioned if we already have PCT which is answering on your Â»3 pointÂ« proposal.

I’ve been proposing for years what you are trying to propose here. And I didn’t only propose. I gave solutions. To all your Â»pointsÂ« already exist answers. Why should you investigate again and again and discover again and again Â»hot waterÂ« ?

Everything is clear at least in PCT. So I don’t understand what project Â»ResearchgateÂ« is for ?

Most of the work about how Â»organisms functionÂ« from the view of PCT was done by Bill. You just have to agree with him. It’s interesting that nobody want to give agreement to his Â»definitionsÂ« (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III). I didn’t see any critics. It seems that nobody agree with PCT, except Richard Pfau who agreed that Behavior can be Â»consequence of control of perceptionÂ«.

You don’t need any Â»…gateÂ« project if you understand PCT. Buut I could already conclude that most here on CSGnet don’t understand PCT because of confussion which was created by Rick and supported by you and Fred and some others.

PCT already offers answers to your Â»3-pointÂ« investigations.:

 investigate the purposeful behavior ("controlling") done by living systems, particularly humans

HB : On CSGnet were already many investigations of purposefull behavior. But I agree that it should be continued. Bill already investigated purposefull behavior and the conclussons are clear. It’s just have to applyed to everyday life examples so that we all can see that they work.

 develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling

HB : Which model of perceptual control theory (PCT) is that, PCT or RCT ? I don’t understand which Â»controllingÂ« model of PCT you want to develope by tests and demonstrations ? We already have a model of PCT and there were given many life-examples that demonstrates PCT model like :

```
     Bruce Abbott (sunshining),
```

```
     Rick (sleeping),
```

```
     Martin (observing) and
```

     I gave thinker, table tennis and baseball examples (see attched file),

```
     Etc.
```

Why Â»developingÂ« something what already exists ?

Any behavior should fit into PCT model if it is GENERAL THEORY about behavior of living beings.

So I ask you again and all others in Â»ResearchgateÂ« project including Powers Ladies : do you agree with my proposal of PCT diagram (LCS II) and definitions of control loop (B:CP) to be Â»cornerstonesÂ« of PCT conversations and all projects about PCT including Â»ResearchgateÂ« project ??? <image001.jpg>

It seems to me that diagram above (LCS III) is the result of Bills’ 50 years work on PCT.

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

 OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

 FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : Â»DefinitionsÂ« of the control loop were published in Bills’ main work (B:CP). And they are in perfect agreement with diagram (LCS III). Atleast I see that way.

  develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general

HB : This is a liitle bit heavy task, becasue if you want to make betterment in undrestanding humans in particular and humans societies in general you have to understand how PCT organism function. So before you develope any application you have to finnish diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) or better Â»Bill and Dug versionÂ« of it :

<image002.png>

HB : I hope we all understand that this diagram has to be finnished one day.

Boris

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.30.22:16)]

How’s this:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Rupert, does “demonstrations” adequately include robotics as you see it? Perhaps if you also consider robots as potential “applications for betterment”?

Anyone else have comments? Does this statement of purpose cover the bases?

/Bruce

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.30.1515)]

Bruce Nevin (2017.12.29.17:35 ET)–

BN: I like this simplification; it’s more direct. However, addressed to a diverse audience unfamiliar with PCT, does it communicate the breadth of ‘controlling’, that it encompasses all (purposeful) behavior?

BN: We want robotics to be more in scope of the goal. Are we saying that Robots are tests of the theory and applications for betterment of individuals and society?

BN: Maybe (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of this controlling.

RM: OK, how about:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) consider the implications of the PCT model for applications aimed of the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

_Boris_Hartman · January 12, 2018, 6:47pm

Warren,

I was specific. I don’t want Â»multi authorÂ« article where you are present at the end of the line, but YOUR ARTICLE where only you are mentioned as author. Do we understand ?

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 6:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

Hi Boris,

Here is a start as itâs open access…

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-017-1398-2

Perceptual control models of pursuit manual tracking demonstrate individual specificity and parameter consistency

Abstract

Computational models that simulate individualsâ movements in pursuit-tracking tasks have been used to elucidate mechanisms of human motor control. Whilst there is evidence that individuals demonstrate idiosyncratic control-tracking strategies, it remains unclear whether models can be sensitive to these idiosyncrasies. Perceptual control theory (PCT) provides a unique model architecture with an internally set reference value parameter, and can be optimized to fit an individualâs tracking behavior. The current study investigated whether PCT models could show temporal stability and individual specificity over time. Twenty adults completed three blocks of 15 1-min, pursuit-tracking trials. Two blocks (training and post-training) were completed in one session and the third was completed after 1 week (follow-up). The target moved in a one-dimensional, pseudorandom pattern. PCT models were optimized to the training data using a least-mean-squares algorithm, and validated with data from post-training and follow-up. We found significant inter-individual variability (partial Î·2: .464.697) and intra-indivvidual consistency (Cronbachâs Î±: .880.976) in parameter estimates. Polynomiaal regression revealed that all model parameters, including the reference value parameter, contribute to simulation accuracy. Participantsâ tracking performances were significantly more accurately simulated by models developed from their own tracking data than by models developed from other participantsâ data. We conclude that PCT models can be optimized to simulate the performance of an individual and that the test-retest reliability of individual models is a necessary criterion for evaluating computational models of human performance

On 12 Jan 2018, at 16:24, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I didn’t say I want to do empirical tests. I’m sick of doing them on field of sport. They all match Bruces’ demand about RCT empirical tests with Â»controlled variableÂ« in outside environment which is perceived ??? I still don’t understand how control can be perceived from environment probably causing Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« ??? Â»Empirical testsÂ« in the meaning that there is Â»controlled vairbale in environment of organisms does not exist. It has nothing to do wiith PCT. I hope you understand why I don’t want to do these sort of tests. .

And I’ve done so many PCT Â»testsÂ« here on CSGnet that I have enough of repeating myself what is PCT and what is not PCT.

And beside that I think that Â»empirical testsÂ« are problematic because the way of Â»inquisitionÂ« research method for some behaviors which has Â»controlled variableÂ« in environment. In this way GENERALITY OF PCT DIAGRAM can never be confirmed. So totaly another approcah is needed.

I’m sorry to take a look just at some of your articles. Although they are all Â»more authoiÂ« articlesI question myself how much PCT they comprehend. But it seems that Â»more authorsÂ« articles are good course of reaserch. Humanistic. I’ll probably start reading them as much are not to pay.

But I’ll be glad if you show me some articles of your own which shows your own PCT approach. Can you direct me to such an article ?

And I think that you should do more of your own reading of Bills’ literature.

Boris

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 8:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

Hi Boris, thatâs great you are wanting to do empirical tests of PCT too! My published studies to date are on my university website.

All the best

Warren

On 6 Jan 2018, at 18:16, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Warren

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

WM Hi all, now I get where Boris is coming from. It appears that he wants to use what Bill has already produced in terms of theory and evidence and nothing more.

HB : How did you come to that conclussion ? And you have yourself for some kind of representative of Â»academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of disseminationÂ«. If you are aimimg so high you could do some research. Isn’t that the point of scientific approach to find a truth. But you didn’t. You concluded on the level of the saleswoman on the market and rumors. What kind of science is this ? On the level of which mammal ?

If you would read carefully what I wrote you would understand that beside undertsanding PCT I proposed also upgrading PCT diagram or betterment of PCT.

If you would search through archives (it’s scientific method for searching the Â»truthÂ«) you would find out that I was promoting confirmation about whether PCT is GENERAL MODEL OF HOW ANY ORGANISM FUNCTION OR NERVOUS SYSTEM. I proposed many behaviors which should be incuded in analyses of PCT GENERAL MODEL in contrast to Rick who is all the time proposing ONE (JOYSTICK) CASE â ONE THEORY MODEL.

So reasearching PCT through any behavior we can know about, we could confirm or not whether PCT is general theory of human (LCS) behavior or not. Do you understand what I wanted ? So that we can be sure that we can explain any behavior with PCT model ? What can we do more if this is CSGnet forum and project about PCT ? Are we talking about something else?

WM : To be honest, I agree with him in the sense that this is all I personally need to support those research aims in my mind.

HB : Well surprise. Now we have something in common J. If we’ll go this way I’ll maybe reveal you a secret of one of your experiments which confirmed PCT, but you thought it didin’t because you were using wrong theory.

WM : But at the same time that approach is completely at odds with the academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of dissemination.

HB : Again. You didn’t understand what I wrote or what I wanted to say with my message to Bruce. It’s better to make a research than to make fool of yourself. If you are making all your researches for Â»truthÂ« in that way Â»God help usÂ« L.

WM : We at least have to sign up to these principles of empiricism and wider dissemination to be part of Research Gate in the first place?

HB : Before you sign you have to understand what you are signing.

Boris

Warren

On 3 Jan 2018, at 09:02, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Bruce

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.01.22:52 ET)]

BN : On the principle that no response means I have introduced no disturbance that would cause error in anyone’s control,

HB : What can I say. Wrong principle. Change it. No respons colud mean also that somebody didn’t read yet whatever you think was disturbance. It was New Year. Some of us obviously enjoyed our vacations.

BN : I assume that for each person receiving this either this text is OK or they are not controlling (with any effective gain) a perception of how we represent the goal of our Researchgate project,

HB : What is Â»Researchgate projectÂ«. Something apart from PCT ?

BN : .and I will replace the existing text with the below:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

HB : I don’t understand why one should investigate what you mentioned if we already have PCT which is answering on your Â»3 pointÂ« proposal.

I’ve been proposing for years what you are trying to propose here. And I didn’t only propose. I gave solutions. To all your Â»pointsÂ« already exist answers. Why should you investigate again and again and discover again and again Â»hot waterÂ« ?

Everything is clear at least in PCT. So I don’t understand what project Â»ResearchgateÂ« is for ?

Most of the work about how Â»organisms functionÂ« from the view of PCT was done by Bill. You just have to agree with him. It’s interesting that nobody want to give agreement to his Â»definitionsÂ« (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III). I didn’t see any critics. It seems that nobody agree with PCT, except Richard Pfau who agreed that Behavior can be Â»consequence of control of perceptionÂ«.

You don’t need any Â»gateÂ« project if you understand PCCT. But I could already conclude that most here on CSGnet don’t understand PCT because of confussion which was created by Rick and supported by you and Fred and some others.

PCT already offers answers to your Â»3-pointÂ« investigations.:

 investigate the purposeful behavior ("controlling") done by living systems, particularly humans

HB : On CSGnet were already many investigations of purposefull behavior. But I agree that it should be continued. Bill already investigated purposefull behavior and the conclussons are clear. It’s just have to applyed to everyday life examples so that we all can see that they work.

 develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling

HB : Which model of perceptual control theory (PCT) is that, PCT or RCT ? I don’t understand which Â»controllingÂ« model of PCT you want to develope by tests and demonstrations ? We already have a model of PCT and there were given many life-examples that demonstrates PCT model like :

```
     Bruce Abbott (sunshining),
```

```
     Rick (sleeping),
```

```
     Martin (observing) and
```

     I gave thinker, table tennis and baseball examples (see attched file),

```
     Etc.
```

Why Â»developingÂ« something what already exists ?

Any behavior should fit into PCT model if it is GENERAL THEORY about behavior of living beings.

So I ask you again and all others in Â»ResearchgateÂ« project including Powers Ladies : do you agree with my proposal of PCT diagram (LCS II) and definitions of control loop (B:CP) to be Â»cornerstonesÂ« of PCT conversations and all projects about PCT including Â»ResearchgateÂ« project ??? <image001.jpg>

It seems to me that diagram above (LCS III) is the result of Bills’ 50 years work on PCT.

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

 OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):the output function shown in it’ss own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

 FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâs output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâs present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : Â»DefinitionsÂ« of the control loop were published in Bills’ main work (B:CP). And they are in perfect agreement with diagram (LCS III). Atleast I see that way.

  develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general

HB : This is a liitle bit heavy task, becasue if you want to make betterment in undrestanding humans in particular and humans societies in general you have to understand how PCT organism function. So before you develope any application you have to finnish diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) or better Â»Bill and Dug versionÂ« of it :

<image002.png>

HB : I hope we all understand that this diagram has to be finnished one day.

Boris

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.30.22:16)]

How’s this:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Rupert, does “demonstrations” adequately include robotics as you see it? Perhaps if you also consider robots as potential “applications for betterment”?

Anyone else have comments? Does this statement of purpose cover the bases?

/Bruce

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.30.1515)]

Bruce Nevin (2017.12.29.17:35 ET)–

BN: I like this simplification; it’s more direct. However, addressed to a diverse audience unfamiliar with PCT, does it communicate the breadth of ‘controlling’, that it encompasses all (purposeful) behavior?

BN: We want robotics to be more in scope of the goal. Are we saying that Robots are tests of the theory and applications for betterment of individuals and society?

BN: Maybe (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of this controlling.

RM: OK, how about:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) consider the implications of the PCT model for applications aimed of the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

wmansell · January 12, 2018, 8:26pm

Warren,

I was specific. I don’t want Â»multi authorÂ« article where you are present at the end of the line, but YOUR ARTICLE where only you are mentioned as author. Do we understand ?

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 6:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

Hi Boris,

Here is a start as itâ€™s open access…

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-017-1398-2

Perceptual control models of pursuit manual tracking demonstrate individual specificity and parameter consistency

Abstract

Computational models that simulate individualsâ€™ movements in pursuit-tracking tasks have been used to elucidate mechanisms of human motor control. Whilst there is evidence that individuals demonstrate idiosyncratic control-tracking strategies, it remains unclear whether models can be sensitive to these idiosyncrasies. Perceptual control theory (PCT) provides a unique model architecture with an internally set reference value parameter, and can be optimized to fit an individualâ€™s tracking behavior. The current study investigated whether PCT models could show temporal stability and individual specificity over time. Twenty adults completed three blocks of 15 1-min, pursuit-tracking trials. Two blocks (training and post-training) were completed in one session and the third was completed after 1 week (follow-up). The target moved in a one-dimensional, pseudorandom pattern. PCT models were optimized to the training data using a least-mean-squares algorithm, and validated with data from post-training and follow-up. We found significant inter-individual variability (partial Î·2: .464–.697) and intra-individual consiistency (Cronbachâ€™s Î±: .880–.976) in parameter estimates. Polynomial regreession revealed that all model parameters, including the reference value parameter, contribute to simulation accuracy. Participantsâ€™ tracking performances were significantly more accurately simulated by models developed from their own tracking data than by models developed from other participantsâ€™ data. We conclude that PCT models can be optimized to simulate the performance of an individual and that the test-retest reliability of individual models is a necessary criterion for evaluating computational models of human performance

On 12 Jan 2018, at 16:24, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I didn’t say I want to do empirical tests. I’m sick of doing them on field of sport. They all match Bruces’ demand about RCT empirical tests with Â»controlled variableÂ« in outside environment which is perceived ??? I still don’t understand how control can be perceived from environment probably causing Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« ??? Â»Empirical testsÂ« in the meaning that there is Â»controlled vairbale in environment of organisms does not exist. It has nothing to do wiith PCT. I hope you understand why I don’t want to do these sort of tests. .

And I’ve done so many PCT Â»testsÂ« here on CSGnet that I have enough of repeating myself what is PCT and what is not PCT.

And beside that I think that Â»empirical testsÂ« are problematic because the way of Â»inquisitionÂ« research method for some behaviors which has Â»controlled variableÂ« in environment. In this way GENERALITY OF PCT DIAGRAM can never be confirmed. So totaly another approcah is needed.

I’m sorry to take a look just at some of your articles. Although they are all Â»more authoiÂ« articlesI question myself how much PCT they comprehend. But it seems that Â»more authorsÂ« articles are good course of reaserch. Humanistic. I’ll probably start reading them as much are not to pay.

But I’ll be glad if you show me some articles of your own which shows your own PCT approach. Can you direct me to such an article ?

And I think that you should do more of your own reading of Bills’ literature.

Boris

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 8:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

Hi Boris, thatâ€™s great you are wanting to do empirical tests of PCT too! My published studies to date are on my university website.

All the best

Warren

On 6 Jan 2018, at 18:16, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Warren

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

WM Hi all, now I get where Boris is coming from. It appears that he wants to use what Bill has already produced in terms of theory and evidence and nothing more.

HB : How did you come to that conclussion ? And you have yourself for some kind of representative of Â»academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of disseminationÂ«. If you are aimimg so high you could do some research. Isn’t that the point of scientific approach to find a truth. But you didn’t. You concluded on the level of the saleswoman on the market and rumors. What kind of science is this ? On the level of which mammal ?

If you would read carefully what I wrote you would understand that beside undertsanding PCT I proposed also upgrading PCT diagram or betterment of PCT.

If you would search through archives (it’s scientific method for searching the Â»truthÂ«) you would find out that I was promoting confirmation about whether PCT is GENERAL MODEL OF HOW ANY ORGANISM FUNCTION OR NERVOUS SYSTEM. I proposed many behaviors which should be incuded in analyses of PCT GENERAL MODEL in contrast to Rick who is all the time proposing ONE (JOYSTICK) CASE – ONE THEORY MODEL.

So reasearching PCT through any behavior we can know about, we could confirm or not whether PCT is general theory of human (LCS) behavior or not. Do you understand what I wanted ? So that we can be sure that we can explain any behavior with PCT model ? What can we do more if this is CSGnet forum and project about PCT ? Are we talking about something else?

WM : To be honest, I agree with him in the sense that this is all I personally need to support those research aims in my mind.

HB : Well surprise. Now we have something in common J. If we’ll go this way I’ll maybe reveal you a secret of one of your experiments which confirmed PCT, but you thought it didin’t because you were using wrong theory.

WM : But at the same time that approach is completely at odds with the academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of dissemination.

HB : Again. You didn’t understand what I wrote or what I wanted to say with my message to Bruce. It’s better to make a research than to make fool of yourself. If you are making all your researches for Â»truthÂ« in that way Â»God help usÂ« L.

WM : We at least have to sign up to these principles of empiricism and wider dissemination to be part of Research Gate in the first place?

HB : Before you sign you have to understand what you are signing.

Boris

Warren

On 3 Jan 2018, at 09:02, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Bruce

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.01.22:52 ET)]

BN : On the principle that no response means I have introduced no disturbance that would cause error in anyone’s control,

HB : What can I say. Wrong principle. Change it. No respons colud mean also that somebody didn’t read yet whatever you think was disturbance. It was New Year. Some of us obviously enjoyed our vacations.

BN : I assume that for each person receiving this either this text is OK or they are not controlling (with any effective gain) a perception of how we represent the goal of our Researchgate project,

HB : What is Â»Researchgate projectÂ«. Something apart from PCT ?

BN : â€¦.and I will replace the existing text with the below:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

HB : I don’t understand why one should investigate what you mentioned if we already have PCT which is answering on your Â»3 pointÂ« proposal.

I’ve been proposing for years what you are trying to propose here. And I didn’t only propose. I gave solutions. To all your Â»pointsÂ« already exist answers. Why should you investigate again and again and discover again and again Â»hot waterÂ« ?

Everything is clear at least in PCT. So I don’t understand what project Â»ResearchgateÂ« is for ?

Most of the work about how Â»organisms functionÂ« from the view of PCT was done by Bill. You just have to agree with him. It’s interesting that nobody want to give agreement to his Â»definitionsÂ« (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III). I didn’t see any critics. It seems that nobody agree with PCT, except Richard Pfau who agreed that Behavior can be Â»consequence of control of perceptionÂ«.

You don’t need any Â»…gateÂ« project if you undeerstand PCT. But I could already conclude that most here on CSGnet don’t understand PCT because of confussion which was created by Rick and supported by you and Fred and some others.

PCT already offers answers to your Â»3-pointÂ« investigations.:

 investigate the purposeful behavior ("controlling") done by living systems, particularly humans

HB : On CSGnet were already many investigations of purposefull behavior. But I agree that it should be continued. Bill already investigated purposefull behavior and the conclussons are clear. It’s just have to applyed to everyday life examples so that we all can see that they work.

 develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling

HB : Which model of perceptual control theory (PCT) is that, PCT or RCT ? I don’t understand which Â»controllingÂ« model of PCT you want to develope by tests and demonstrations ? We already have a model of PCT and there were given many life-examples that demonstrates PCT model like :

```
     Bruce Abbott (sunshining),
```

```
     Rick (sleeping),
```

```
     Martin (observing) and
```

     I gave thinker, table tennis and baseball examples (see attched file),

```
     Etc.
```

Why Â»developingÂ« something what already exists ?

Any behavior should fit into PCT model if it is GENERAL THEORY about behavior of living beings.

So I ask you again and all others in Â»ResearchgateÂ« project including Powers Ladies : do you agree with my proposal of PCT diagram (LCS II) and definitions of control loop (B:CP) to be Â»cornerstonesÂ« of PCT conversations and all projects about PCT including Â»ResearchgateÂ« project ??? <image001.jpg>

It seems to me that diagram above (LCS III) is the result of Bills’ 50 years work on PCT.

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

 OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the ouutput function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

 FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : Â»DefinitionsÂ« of the control loop were published in Bills’ main work (B:CP). And they are in perfect agreement with diagram (LCS III). Atleast I see that way.

  develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general

HB : This is a liitle bit heavy task, becasue if you want to make betterment in undrestanding humans in particular and humans societies in general you have to understand how PCT organism function. So before you develope any application you have to finnish diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) or better Â»Bill and Dug versionÂ« of it :

<image002.png>

HB : I hope we all understand that this diagram has to be finnished one day.

Boris

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.30.22:16)]

How’s this:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Rupert, does “demonstrations” adequately include robotics as you see it? Perhaps if you also consider robots as potential “applications for betterment”?

Anyone else have comments? Does this statement of purpose cover the bases?

/Bruce

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.30.1515)]

Bruce Nevin (2017.12.29.17:35 ET)–

BN: I like this simplification; it’s more direct. However, addressed to a diverse audience unfamiliar with PCT, does it communicate the breadth of ‘controlling’, that it encompasses all (purposeful) behavior?

BN: We want robotics to be more in scope of the goal. Are we saying that Robots are tests of the theory and applications for betterment of individuals and society?

BN: Maybe (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of this controlling.

RM: OK, how about:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) consider the implications of the PCT model for applications aimed of the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

wmansell · January 12, 2018, 8:28pm

Warren,

I was specific. I don’t want Â»multi authorÂ« article where you are present at the end of the line, but YOUR ARTICLE where only you are mentioned as author. Do we understand ?

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 6:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

Hi Boris,

Here is a start as itâ€™s open access…

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-017-1398-2

Perceptual control models of pursuit manual tracking demonstrate individual specificity and parameter consistency

Abstract

Computational models that simulate individualsâ€™ movements in pursuit-tracking tasks have been used to elucidate mechanisms of human motor control. Whilst there is evidence that individuals demonstrate idiosyncratic control-tracking strategies, it remains unclear whether models can be sensitive to these idiosyncrasies. Perceptual control theory (PCT) provides a unique model architecture with an internally set reference value parameter, and can be optimized to fit an individualâ€™s tracking behavior. The current study investigated whether PCT models could show temporal stability and individual specificity over time. Twenty adults completed three blocks of 15 1-min, pursuit-tracking trials. Two blocks (training and post-training) were completed in one session and the third was completed after 1 week (follow-up). The target moved in a one-dimensional, pseudorandom pattern. PCT models were optimized to the training data using a least-mean-squares algorithm, and validated with data from post-training and follow-up. We found significant inter-individual variability (partial Î·2: .464–.697) and intra-individual consiistency (Cronbachâ€™s Î±: .880–.976) in parameter estimates. Polynomial regreession revealed that all model parameters, including the reference value parameter, contribute to simulation accuracy. Participantsâ€™ tracking performances were significantly more accurately simulated by models developed from their own tracking data than by models developed from other participantsâ€™ data. We conclude that PCT models can be optimized to simulate the performance of an individual and that the test-retest reliability of individual models is a necessary criterion for evaluating computational models of human performance

On 12 Jan 2018, at 16:24, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

I didn’t say I want to do empirical tests. I’m sick of doing them on field of sport. They all match Bruces’ demand about RCT empirical tests with Â»controlled variableÂ« in outside environment which is perceived ??? I still don’t understand how control can be perceived from environment probably causing Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« ??? Â»Empirical testsÂ« in the meaning that there is Â»controlled vairbale in environment of organisms does not exist. It has nothing to do wiith PCT. I hope you understand why I don’t want to do these sort of tests. .

And I’ve done so many PCT Â»testsÂ« here on CSGnet that I have enough of repeating myself what is PCT and what is not PCT.

And beside that I think that Â»empirical testsÂ« are problematic because the way of Â»inquisitionÂ« research method for some behaviors which has Â»controlled variableÂ« in environment. In this way GENERALITY OF PCT DIAGRAM can never be confirmed. So totaly another approcah is needed.

I’m sorry to take a look just at some of your articles. Although they are all Â»more authoiÂ« articlesI question myself how much PCT they comprehend. But it seems that Â»more authorsÂ« articles are good course of reaserch. Humanistic. I’ll probably start reading them as much are not to pay.

But I’ll be glad if you show me some articles of your own which shows your own PCT approach. Can you direct me to such an article ?

And I think that you should do more of your own reading of Bills’ literature.

Boris

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 8:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

Hi Boris, thatâ€™s great you are wanting to do empirical tests of PCT too! My published studies to date are on my university website.

All the best

Warren

On 6 Jan 2018, at 18:16, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Warren

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

WM Hi all, now I get where Boris is coming from. It appears that he wants to use what Bill has already produced in terms of theory and evidence and nothing more.

HB : How did you come to that conclussion ? And you have yourself for some kind of representative of Â»academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of disseminationÂ«. If you are aimimg so high you could do some research. Isn’t that the point of scientific approach to find a truth. But you didn’t. You concluded on the level of the saleswoman on the market and rumors. What kind of science is this ? On the level of which mammal ?

If you would read carefully what I wrote you would understand that beside undertsanding PCT I proposed also upgrading PCT diagram or betterment of PCT.

If you would search through archives (it’s scientific method for searching the Â»truthÂ«) you would find out that I was promoting confirmation about whether PCT is GENERAL MODEL OF HOW ANY ORGANISM FUNCTION OR NERVOUS SYSTEM. I proposed many behaviors which should be incuded in analyses of PCT GENERAL MODEL in contrast to Rick who is all the time proposing ONE (JOYSTICK) CASE – ONE THEORY MODEL.

So reasearching PCT through any behavior we can know about, we could confirm or not whether PCT is general theory of human (LCS) behavior or not. Do you understand what I wanted ? So that we can be sure that we can explain any behavior with PCT model ? What can we do more if this is CSGnet forum and project about PCT ? Are we talking about something else?

WM : To be honest, I agree with him in the sense that this is all I personally need to support those research aims in my mind.

HB : Well surprise. Now we have something in common J. If we’ll go this way I’ll maybe reveal you a secret of one of your experiments which confirmed PCT, but you thought it didin’t because you were using wrong theory.

WM : But at the same time that approach is completely at odds with the academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of dissemination.

HB : Again. You didn’t understand what I wrote or what I wanted to say with my message to Bruce. It’s better to make a research than to make fool of yourself. If you are making all your researches for Â»truthÂ« in that way Â»God help usÂ« L.

WM : We at least have to sign up to these principles of empiricism and wider dissemination to be part of Research Gate in the first place?

HB : Before you sign you have to understand what you are signing.

Boris

Warren

On 3 Jan 2018, at 09:02, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Bruce

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.01.22:52 ET)]

BN : On the principle that no response means I have introduced no disturbance that would cause error in anyone’s control,

HB : What can I say. Wrong principle. Change it. No respons colud mean also that somebody didn’t read yet whatever you think was disturbance. It was New Year. Some of us obviously enjoyed our vacations.

BN : I assume that for each person receiving this either this text is OK or they are not controlling (with any effective gain) a perception of how we represent the goal of our Researchgate project,

HB : What is Â»Researchgate projectÂ«. Something apart from PCT ?

BN : â€¦.and I will replace the existing text with the below:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

HB : I don’t understand why one should investigate what you mentioned if we already have PCT which is answering on your Â»3 pointÂ« proposal.

I’ve been proposing for years what you are trying to propose here. And I didn’t only propose. I gave solutions. To all your Â»pointsÂ« already exist answers. Why should you investigate again and again and discover again and again Â»hot waterÂ« ?

Everything is clear at least in PCT. So I don’t understand what project Â»ResearchgateÂ« is for ?

Most of the work about how Â»organisms functionÂ« from the view of PCT was done by Bill. You just have to agree with him. It’s interesting that nobody want to give agreement to his Â»definitionsÂ« (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III). I didn’t see any critics. It seems that nobody agree with PCT, except Richard Pfau who agreed that Behavior can be Â»consequence of control of perceptionÂ«.

You don’t need any Â»…gateÂ« project if you undeerstand PCT. But I could already conclude that most here on CSGnet don’t understand PCT because of confussion which was created by Rick and supported by you and Fred and some others.

PCT already offers answers to your Â»3-pointÂ« investigations.:

 investigate the purposeful behavior ("controlling") done by living systems, particularly humans

HB : On CSGnet were already many investigations of purposefull behavior. But I agree that it should be continued. Bill already investigated purposefull behavior and the conclussons are clear. It’s just have to applyed to everyday life examples so that we all can see that they work.

 develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling

HB : Which model of perceptual control theory (PCT) is that, PCT or RCT ? I don’t understand which Â»controllingÂ« model of PCT you want to develope by tests and demonstrations ? We already have a model of PCT and there were given many life-examples that demonstrates PCT model like :

```
     Bruce Abbott (sunshining),
```

```
     Rick (sleeping),
```

```
     Martin (observing) and
```

     I gave thinker, table tennis and baseball examples (see attched file),

```
     Etc.
```

Why Â»developingÂ« something what already exists ?

Any behavior should fit into PCT model if it is GENERAL THEORY about behavior of living beings.

So I ask you again and all others in Â»ResearchgateÂ« project including Powers Ladies : do you agree with my proposal of PCT diagram (LCS II) and definitions of control loop (B:CP) to be Â»cornerstonesÂ« of PCT conversations and all projects about PCT including Â»ResearchgateÂ« project ??? <image001.jpg>

It seems to me that diagram above (LCS III) is the result of Bills’ 50 years work on PCT.

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

 OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the ouutput function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

 FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : Â»DefinitionsÂ« of the control loop were published in Bills’ main work (B:CP). And they are in perfect agreement with diagram (LCS III). Atleast I see that way.

  develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general

HB : This is a liitle bit heavy task, becasue if you want to make betterment in undrestanding humans in particular and humans societies in general you have to understand how PCT organism function. So before you develope any application you have to finnish diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) or better Â»Bill and Dug versionÂ« of it :

<image002.png>

HB : I hope we all understand that this diagram has to be finnished one day.

Boris

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.30.22:16)]

How’s this:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Rupert, does “demonstrations” adequately include robotics as you see it? Perhaps if you also consider robots as potential “applications for betterment”?

Anyone else have comments? Does this statement of purpose cover the bases?

/Bruce

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.30.1515)]

Bruce Nevin (2017.12.29.17:35 ET)–

BN: I like this simplification; it’s more direct. However, addressed to a diverse audience unfamiliar with PCT, does it communicate the breadth of ‘controlling’, that it encompasses all (purposeful) behavior?

BN: We want robotics to be more in scope of the goal. Are we saying that Robots are tests of the theory and applications for betterment of individuals and society?

BN: Maybe (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of this controlling.

RM: OK, how about:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) consider the implications of the PCT model for applications aimed of the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

_Boris_Hartman · January 12, 2018, 4:24pm

Hi Warren,

I didn’t say I want to do empirical tests. I’m sick of doing them on field of sport. They all match Bruces’ demand about RCT empirical tests with Â»controlled variableÂ« in outside environment which is perceived ??? I still don’t understand how control can be perceived from environment probably causing Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« ??? Â»Empirical testsÂ« in the meaning that there is Â»controlled vairbale in environment of organisms does not exist. It has nothing to do wiith PCT. I hope you understand why I don’t want to do these sort of tests. .

And I’ve done so many PCT Â»testsÂ« here on CSGnet that I have enough of repeating myself what is PCT and what is not PCT.

And beside that I think that Â»empirical testsÂ« are problematic because the way of Â»inquisitionÂ« research method for some behaviors which has Â»controlled variableÂ« in environment. In this way GENERALITY OF PCT DIAGRAM can never be confirmed. So totaly another approcah is needed.

I’m sorry to take a look just at some of your articles. Although they are all Â»more authoiÂ« articlesI question myself how much PCT they comprehend. But it seems that Â»more authorsÂ« articles are good course of reaserch. Humanistic. I’ll probably start reading them as much are not to pay.

But I’ll be glad if you show me some articles of your own which shows your own PCT approach. Can you direct me to such an article ?

And I think that you should do more of your own reading of Bills’ literature.

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 8:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: ENERAL RE: goal of our researchgate project

Hi Boris, thatâ€™s great you are wanting to do empirical tests of PCT too! My published studies to date are on my university website.

All the best

Warren

On 6 Jan 2018, at 18:16, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Warren

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

WM Hi all, now I get where Boris is coming from. It appears that he wants to use what Bill has already produced in terms of theory and evidence and nothing more.

HB : How did you come to that conclussion ? And you have yourself for some kind of representative of Â»academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of disseminationÂ«. If you are aimimg so high you could do some research. Isn’t that the point of scientific approach to find a truth. But you didn’t. You concluded on the level of the saleswoman on the market and rumors. What kind of science is this ? On the level of which mammal ?

If you would read carefully what I wrote you would understand that beside undertsanding PCT I proposed also upgrading PCT diagram or betterment of PCT.

If you would search through archives (it’s scientific method for searching the Â»truthÂ«) you would find out that I was promoting confirmation about whether PCT is GENERAL MODEL OF HOW ANY ORGANISM FUNCTION OR NERVOUS SYSTEM. I proposed many behaviors which should be incuded in analyses of PCT GENERAL MODEL in contrast to Rick who is all the time proposing ONE (JOYSTICK) CASE – ONE THEORY MODEL.

So reasearching PCT through any behavior we can know about, we could confirm or not whether PCT is general theory of human (LCS) behavior or not. Do you understand what I wanted ? So that we can be sure that we can explain any behavior with PCT model ? What can we do more if this is CSGnet forum and project about PCT ? Are we talking about something else?

WM : To be honest, I agree with him in the sense that this is all I personally need to support those research aims in my mind.

HB : Well surprise. Now we have something in common J. If we’ll go this way I’ll maybe reveal you a secret of one of your experiments which confirmed PCT, but you thought it didin’t because you were using wrong theory.

WM : But at the same time that approach is completely at odds with the academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of dissemination.

HB : Again. You didn’t understand what I wrote or what I wanted to say with my message to Bruce. It’s better to make a research than to make fool of yourself. If you are making all your researches for Â»truthÂ« in that way Â»God help usÂ« L.

WM : We at least have to sign up to these principles of empiricism and wider dissemination to be part of Research Gate in the first place?

HB : Before you sign you have to understand what you are signing.

Boris

Warren

On 3 Jan 2018, at 09:02, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Bruce

From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.01.22:52 ET)]

BN : On the principle that no response means I have introduced no disturbance that would cause error in anyone’s control,

HB : What can I say. Wrong principle. Change it. No respons colud mean also that somebody didn’t read yet whatever you think was disturbance. It was New Year. Some of us obviously enjoyed our vacations.

BN : I assume that for each person receiving this either this text is OK or they are not controlling (with any effective gain) a perception of how we represent the goal of our Researchgate project,

HB : What is Â»Researchgate projectÂ«. Something apart from PCT ?

BN : ….and I will repllace the existing text with the below:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

HB : I don’t understand why one should investigate what you mentioned if we already have PCT which is answering on your Â»3 pointÂ« proposal.

I’ve been proposing for years what you are trying to propose here. And I didn’t only propose. I gave solutions. To all your Â»pointsÂ« already exist answers. Why should you investigate again and again and discover again and again Â»hot waterÂ« ?

Everything is clear at least in PCT. So I don’t understand what project Â»ResearchgateÂ« is for ?

Most of the work about how Â»organisms functionÂ« from the view of PCT was done by Bill. You just have to agree with him. It’s interesting that nobody want to give agreement to his Â»definitionsÂ« (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III). I didn’t see any critics. It seems that nobody agree with PCT, except Richard Pfau who agreed that Behavior can be Â»consequence of control of perceptionÂ«.

You don’t need any Â»…gateÂ« project if you understand PCT. But I could already concclude that most here on CSGnet don’t understand PCT because of confussion which was created by Rick and supported by you and Fred and some others.

PCT already offers answers to your Â»3-pointÂ« investigations.:

 investigate the purposeful behavior ("controlling") done by living systems, particularly humans

HB : On CSGnet were already many investigations of purposefull behavior. But I agree that it should be continued. Bill already investigated purposefull behavior and the conclussons are clear. It’s just have to applyed to everyday life examples so that we all can see that they work.

 develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling

HB : Which model of perceptual control theory (PCT) is that, PCT or RCT ? I don’t understand which Â»controllingÂ« model of PCT you want to develope by tests and demonstrations ? We already have a model of PCT and there were given many life-examples that demonstrates PCT model like :

```
     Bruce Abbott (sunshining),
```

```
     Rick (sleeping),
```

```
     Martin (observing) and
```

     I gave thinker, table tennis and baseball examples (see attched file),

```
     Etc.
```

Why Â»developingÂ« something what already exists ?

Any behavior should fit into PCT model if it is GENERAL THEORY about behavior of living beings.

So I ask you again and all others in Â»ResearchgateÂ« project including Powers Ladies : do you agree with my proposal of PCT diagram (LCS II) and definitions of control loop (B:CP) to be Â»cornerstonesÂ« of PCT conversations and all projects about PCT including Â»ResearchgateÂ« project ??? <image001.jpg>

It seems to me that diagram above (LCS III) is the result of Bills’ 50 years work on PCT.

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

 OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):â€¦the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

 FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

  : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

 ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : Â»DefinitionsÂ« of the control loop were published in Bills’ main work (B:CP). And they are in perfect agreement with diagram (LCS III). Atleast I see that way.

  develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general

HB : This is a liitle bit heavy task, becasue if you want to make betterment in undrestanding humans in particular and humans societies in general you have to understand how PCT organism function. So before you develope any application you have to finnish diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) or better Â»Bill and Dug versionÂ« of it :

<image002.png>

HB : I hope we all understand that this diagram has to be finnished one day.

Boris

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.12.30.22:16)]

How’s this:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Rupert, does “demonstrations” adequately include robotics as you see it? Perhaps if you also consider robots as potential “applications for betterment”?

Anyone else have comments? Does this statement of purpose cover the bases?

/Bruce

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.30.1515)]

Bruce Nevin (2017.12.29.17:35 ET)–

BN: I like this simplification; it’s more direct. However, addressed to a diverse audience unfamiliar with PCT, does it communicate the breadth of ‘controlling’, that it encompasses all (purposeful) behavior?

BN: We want robotics to be more in scope of the goal. Are we saying that Robots are tests of the theory and applications for betterment of individuals and society?

BN: Maybe (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of this controlling.

RM: OK, how about:

Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) consider the implications of the PCT model for applications aimed of the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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