environmental correlate

philip 6/9 12:50

Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

[From Fred Nickols (2018.06.09.1718 ET)]

Whose honesty? Their own or someone else’s or perhaps the government?

Fred Nickols

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 4:54 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: environmental correlate

philip 6/9 12:50

Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

either or

···

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:18 PM, “Fred Nickols” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2018.06.09.1718 ET)]

Whose honesty? Their own or someone else’s or perhaps the government?

Fred Nickols

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 4:54 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: environmental correlate

philip 6/9 12:50

Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

[Rick Marken 2018-06-09_19:00:21]

···

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

PY: Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

RM: There are not necessarily environmental correlates of controlled perceptions. Environmental (physical) variables are the basis of controlled perceptions; controlled perceptions (and controlled quantities, of course) are ultimately functions of environmental variables.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

HI Philip…

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 10:54 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: environmental correlate

philip 6/9 12:50

PY : Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

RM (2013) : But the intentional behavior that occurs in real life often involves the control of variables that are impossible to represent as simple function of physical variables, e.g., the honesty of a communication or the intimacy of a realtionship. A quantitative approcah to the TCV will not work when trying to study such abstract variables….

There isn’t one.

···

On 09/06/2018 21:53, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

      Suppose someone were controlling a perception of "honesty".

What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

pyeranos@ucla.edu

Do you really mean that there no (environmental) difference between honest and dishonest behavior? If so then you are probably in a danger to become cheated?

Eetu

···

From: Rupert Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:14:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: environmental correlate

There isn’t one.

On 09/06/2018 21:53, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

Yes. Meaning only comes through a perception, which is how I can
tell if I am being cheated. Do you think “honesty” is a property
of the environment (independent of a perceiver) or of a perceptual
system?

Rupert

···

On 10/06/2018 19:45, Eetu Pikkarainen
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

    Do you really mean that there no (environmental) difference

between honest and dishonest behavior? If so then you are
probably in a danger to become cheated?

Eetu


From: Rupert
Young Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:14:31 PM
Re: environmental correlate

There isn’t one.

eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:
On 09/06/2018 21:53, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN (
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

philip 6/9 12:50

          Suppose someone were controlling a perception of

“honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of
their behavior?

[Martin Taylor 2018.06.10.19.08]

  Rupert, does your "environment" and the properties that can be

perceived in it contain other people and properties of those
people? If “no”, then what environmental properties do you accept
as possibly being perceptible? If “yes” might not honesty as a
property of a person be perceptible from prolonged observation of
that person?

Martin

···

On 2018/06/10 4:18 PM, Rupert Young
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

rupert@perceptualrobots.com

    Yes. Meaning only comes through a perception, which is how I

can tell if I am being cheated. Do you think “honesty” is a
property of the environment (independent of a perceiver) or of a
perceptual system?

Rupert

    On 10/06/2018 19:45, Eetu Pikkarainen

(
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi

      Do you

really mean that there no (environmental) difference between
honest and dishonest behavior? If so then you are probably in
a danger to become cheated?

Eetu


From:
Rupert Young Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:14:31 PM
Re: environmental correlate

There isn’t one.

csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:
On 09/06/2018 21:53, PHILIP
JERAIR YERANOSIAN (
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

pyeranos@ucla.edu

philip 6/9 12:50

            Suppose someone were controlling a perception of

“honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of
their behavior?

Down…

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 4:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: environmental correlate

[Rick Marken 2018-06-09_19:00:21]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

PY: Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

RM: There are not necessarily environmental correlates of controlled perceptions. Environmental (physical) variables are the basis of controlled perceptions;

HB : Which environmental variables ??? Which behavior you have in mind ?

RM : …controlled perceptions (and conntrolled quantities, of course) are ultimately functions of environmental variables.

HB : Rick I know that I told you at least 50 x that you are mistakenly looking on how organisms function. Controlled perceptions are not functions of environmental variables (control is not coming from outside as “stimulus” to organism). Organism is not forming some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” (there is no such thing in PCT). Organisms can’t control already “controlled perception”, because it means that “error” from environment will guide behavior. It’s pure behaviorism ?

Your RCT is wrong :

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

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

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

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

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

  5. COMPARATOR : ???

  6. ERROR SIGNAL : ???

HB : You think that external environment is the “alpha and omega” of all control processes and that only external "environmental variables are the basis for perceptions. You are contradicting yourself :

RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.

HB : …and you are ccontradicting to the PCT definition of control :

Bill P :

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

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.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Rick Marken 2018-06-11_09:40:50]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-06-11_05:46:07 UTC]

Â

EP: If (controlled) perceptions are functions of environmental variables then if you perceive something like honesty there must be a certain combination of those environmental variables which is perceived as honesty. Some other combination of those variables would be perceived as dishonesty. If there is no environmental correlate for honesty and you perceive honesty then you must be hallucinating or dreaming (or imaging or planning)

RM: I agree. I guess I prefer saying that there are environmental bases rather than environmental correlates of controlled variables. I avoid saying that there is an environmental correlate of the controlled variable because it gives the impression that there is some entity in the environment that corresponds to the controlled variable. I think there is always an environmental basis of a controlled variable -- a set of physical variables that go into the function that produces the controlled variable - but there is not really and environmental correlated of a controlled variable because the set of physical variables that is the basis of this variable don't necessarily correspond to (correlate with) some actual entity in the environment.Â

RM: I conceive of it in terms of the "taste of lemonade" example that Bill gives in B:CP (in the discussion of level 2 perceptions). That taste is the state of a variable that varies depending on the relative amount of specific environmental variables -- sugar, acid and oils. These are the basis of the perception of the taste of lemonade, but that combination of environmental variables doesn't correspond to (correlate with) any physical entity.Â
RM: So I agree that there is always a specific combination of physical variables that is the basis of any controlled variable, such as honesty or the taste of lemonade. With the taste of lemonade we know the basis of the variable of which the taste of lemonade is a state: sugar, acid and oils; the taste of lemonade results when these physical variables are combined in the right proportion. So you could think of the proportions of sugar, acid and oils that gives you the taste of lemonade as being the entity in the physical environment to which the taste of lemonade corresponds. But I think it's better to think of these physical variables as the basis of rather than correlates of controlled variables since individuals may differ in how they construct their perceptions. So, for example, the physical variables that are the basis of the taste of lemonade for one person may differ from those that are the basis of this taste for another person; one person's taste of lemonade perception may include physical variables, like salt, that are not included in another's. I don't think these differences reflect differences in the entities perceived but, rather, differences in the functions that create the perceptions that we mistakenly think of as corresponding to the entities perceived.
BestÂ
Rick
Â

···

.

Â

Eetu

- Please, regard all my statements as questions,

   no matter how they are formulated.

Â

Â

From: Richard Marken <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:00 AM
To: <mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: environmental correlate

Â

[Rick Marken 2018-06-09_19:00:21]

Â

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

Â

PY: Suppose someone were controlling a perception of "honesty". What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

RM: There are not necessarily environmental correlates of controlled perceptions. Environmental (physical) variables are the basis of controlled perceptions; controlled perceptions (and controlled quantities, of course) are ultimately functions of environmental variables.Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

--

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

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

philip 6/9 12:50

Philip, you are talking about a perception of honesty. How do you determine that someone is honest? (Either an individual, or yourself, or an institution such as “the government”.) What do you perceive that you construe as evidence of their honesty or dishonesty? What are the environmental correlates of those perceptions? If you can’t identify any environmental correlates, investigate each in turn in the same way. What do you perceive such that you know that aspect of honesty is occurring? How do you know that? As you drill down asking “how”, sooner or later you’ll identify environmental correlates at a level that is less abstract than “honesty”.

As to controlled perceptions for which there is no singular environmental correlate, we sometimes cite Bill’s example of the taste of lemonade. Rick quoted this in the thread “Environmental variables (was: Why we fight…)” in which actually you participated in 2014, Philip, so maybe this time around it will make more sense to you.

Rick Marken (2014.08.22.1940) –

RM: I would rather say that controlling a perceptual variable implies controlling the environmental correlate of the perceptual variable. The reason for this slight change in terminology is to emphasize the fact that there may be no environmental variable that corresponds to the controlled perceptual variable. For example, in B:CP (p. 112 of 2nd edition) Bill gives the example of controlling for the perception of the taste of lemonade. That perception is a construction (by a perceptual function) “…derived from the intensity signals generated by sugar and acid (together with some oil smells)… the mere intermingling of these physical components has no special physical effects on anything else, except the person tasting the mixture.” The same is true of many other perceptions that we control, such as the perception of variability (if we can perceive it). The variability of independent events that happen with different probabilities is an aspect of these events that we can perceive but it has no more physical significance than some other aspect of these events that we can perceive, such Morse code patterns.Â

Another example: There is no environmental correlate of the vowel [u] (as in “food”), but there are environmental correlates (identified in acoustics, a branch of physics) for the neural signals from several regions or bands of the hair cells in the cochlea which are constructed by the nervous system into a singular perception of the vowel [u]. Principally, these are air-pressure variations pulsing two bands of harmonics of the lowest pulse rate (the fundamental frequency), one band called F1 centered at about 320 Hz and the other called F2 centered at about 800 Hz. Here, we’re talking about two levels of perception: the neural signals from the stimulated regions of hair cells, which can with difficulty be experienced as buzzing noises, and their combination into one perceptual signal, which we experience as the vowel [u].Â
At both levels, the neural signals are constructs within the nervous system, and at both levels the association of subjective experience with them is something that we don’t understand and don’t know how to include in the PCT model. But at the lower level, we can identify ‘environmental correlates’ because we have other systems concepts in which we control perceptions of physics, of acoustics, of acoustic phonetics, of harmonics, resonances, damping, formants, etc. These controlled perceptions in a systems concept other than PCT is what we are pleased to call the environmental correlates of the lower-level perception. A specialist in acoustic phonetics perceives an environmental correlate of the vowel [u] (a configuration of formants), but to someone who does not control any of those perceptions of the relevant sciences there is no environmental correlate of the vowel [u].

With this, I am bridging or maybe falling into the ‘agreement to agree, or perhaps to disagree’ that Rick and Martin laid down in 2014 so amicably. (Ah, the good old days!)

···

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

PY: Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

RM: There are not necessarily environmental correlates of controlled perceptions. Environmental (physical) variables are the basis of controlled perceptions; controlled perceptions (and controlled quantities, of course) are ultimately functions of environmental variables.Â

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

philip 6/11 13:00

BN:

sooner or later you’ll identify environmental correlates at a level that is less abstract than “honesty”.

What is the level just below?Â

···

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Bruce Nevin csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

Philip, you are talking about a perception of honesty. How do you determine that someone is honest? (Either an individual, or yourself, or an institution such as “the government”.) What do you perceive that you construe as evidence of their honesty or dishonesty? What are the environmental correlates of those perceptions? If you can’t identify any environmental correlates, investigate each in turn in the same way. What do you perceive such that you know that aspect of honesty is occurring? How do you know that? As you drill down asking “how”, sooner or later you’ll identify environmental correlates at a level that is less abstract than “honesty”.

As to controlled perceptions for which there is no singular environmental correlate, we sometimes cite Bill’s example of the taste of lemonade. Rick quoted this in the thread “Environmental variables (was: Why we fight…)” in which actually you participated in 2014, Philip, so maybe this time around it will make more sense to you.

Rick Marken (2014.08.22.1940) –

RM: I would rather say that controlling a perceptual variable implies controlling the environmental correlate of the perceptual variable. The reason for this slight change in terminology is to emphasize the fact that there may be no environmental variable that corresponds to the controlled perceptual variable. For example, in B:CP (p. 112 of 2nd edition) Bill gives the example of controlling for the perception of the taste of lemonade. That perception is a construction (by a perceptual function) “…derived from the intensity signals generated by sugar and acid (together with some oil smells)… the mere intermingling of these physical components has no special physical effects on anything else, except the person tasting the mixture.” The same is true of many other perceptions that we control, such as the perception of variability (if we can perceive it). The variability of independent events that happen with different probabilities is an aspect of these events that we can perceive but it has no more physical significance than some other aspect of these events that we can perceive, such Morse code patterns.Â

Another example: There is no environmental correlate of the vowel [u] (as in “food”), but there are environmental correlates (identified in acoustics, a branch of physics) for the neural signals from several regions or bands of the hair cells in the cochlea which are constructed by the nervous system into a singular perception of the vowel [u]. Principally, these are air-pressure variations pulsing two bands of harmonics of the lowest pulse rate (the fundamental frequency), one band called F1 centered at about 320 Hz and the other called F2 centered at about 800 Hz. Here, we’re talking about two levels of perception: the neural signals from the stimulated regions of hair cells, which can with difficulty be experienced as buzzing noises, and their combination into one perceptual signal, which we experience as the vowel [u].Â
At both levels, the neural signals are constructs within the nervous system, and at both levels the association of subjective experience with them is something that we don’t understand and don’t know how to include in the PCT model. But at the lower level, we can identify ‘environmental correlates’ because we have other systems concepts in which we control perceptions of physics, of acoustics, of acoustic phonetics, of harmonics, resonances, damping, formants, etc. These controlled perceptions in a systems concept other than PCT is what we are pleased to call the environmental correlates of the lower-level perception. A specialist in acoustic phonetics perceives an environmental correlate of the vowel [u] (a configuration of formants), but to someone who does not control any of those perceptions of the relevant sciences there is no environmental correlate of the vowel [u].

With this, I am bridging or maybe falling into the ‘agreement to agree, or perhaps to disagree’ that Rick and Martin laid down in 2014 so amicably. (Ah, the good old days!)

/Bruce

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:01 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-09_19:00:21]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

PY: Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

RM: There are not necessarily environmental correlates of controlled perceptions. Environmental (physical) variables are the basis of controlled perceptions; controlled perceptions (and controlled quantities, of course) are ultimately functions of environmental variables.Â

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

BN: How do you know when a person is being dishonest or honest?
Accepting Bill's provisional proposal of levels, is honesty a systems
concept or a principle that is tributary to (and part of means of

controlling) a systems concept? If the latter, what systems concept? If the
former,by control of what principles is it controlled? From the Principle
level, how is an identified principle controlled? What strategies, plans,
and the like enable you to control the principle that you have identified?
For each of those perceptions on the Program level, how do you accomplish
that strategy, etc.? Keep asking how you control a perception, always
bearing in mind that the higher purpose is to control a perception of
honesty or dishonesty. Bear in mind also that you may find alternative
means of perception and control, alternative paths back up that mountain to
the perception of honesty and dishonesty.

PY:
I think there is something wrong with the model when you reach levels
higher than those involved in motor control because the reference
signal can no longer function as a continuous range of values. Whereas
limbs can be made to move in proportion to how much current is
injected into the brain, it doesn't make sense to think that a program
can be made to vary in such a manner. Therefore, the notion that an
error signal exists for something like a perception of honesty is not
a good representation.
I think that the best way to understand controlling an abstract
perception is to view it as being in a superposition of states. In the
sense that you can't define an abstract purpose because it can't be
observed. When I think of honesty, I think "In what event is honesty
the best policy". And then I am led to an infinite regression of
events where honesty is varied for a purpose which is also varied and
so on. Thus, we cannot be said to control abstract perception,
because such abstractions are in a superposition of states.

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.13 22.00)]

(Martin Taylor 2018.06.10.19.08]

Rupert, does your "environment" and the properties that can be perceived in it contain other people and properties of those people? If "no", then what environmental properties do you accept as possibly being perceptible? If "yes" might not honesty as a property of a person be perceptible from prolonged observation of that person?

I was answering the question "is there an environmental correlate of honesty," which may have been my misreading of the original point.

Rupert

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.13 22.25)]

(

We are talking about different things here I think, each on
different sides of the perceptual function. The bit in the middle is
a billion years of evolution.
The properties of the environment are entirely raw physical
variables. Perceptions are not properties of the environment, but
are functions of environment properties. Perception is not about properties from the environment, but about creating new
properties; that would not exist without the perceptual functions.
Perceptions are only properties of perceptual systems.
Regards,
Rupert

···

Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-06-13_08:15:24
UTC]

        Rupert, This

is a complicated question. I would answer that “honesty” is
a property (or rather a set of complex combinations of
properties) of the environment ( - more strictly: of one or
more actors in the environment). But it is our (as
perceptual systems) “decision” or construction to call just
these combinations “honesty”. And of course it is also our
decision to approve honesty and disapprove dishonesty.

  • extracting*

Eetu

From: Rupert Young
Sunday, June 10, 2018 11:19 PM
Re: environmental correlate
High

      Yes. Meaning only comes through a perception, which is how I

can tell if I am being cheated. Do you think “honesty” is a
property of the environment (independent of a perceiver) or of
a perceptual system?

Rupert

On 10/06/2018 19:45, Eetu Pikkarainen (eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

            Do you

really mean that there no (environmental) difference
between honest and dishonest behavior? If so then you
are probably in a danger to become cheated?

Eetu


From: Rupert Young
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:14:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: environmental correlate

There isn’t one.

            On 09/06/2018 21:53, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

                Suppose someone were controlling

a perception of “honesty”. What would be the
environmental correlate of their behavior?

csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:
Importance:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-06-14_08:57:24 UTC]

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.13 22.25)]

(Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-06-13_08:15:24 UTC]

···

Rupert, This is a complicated question. I would answer that “honesty” is a property (or rather a set of complex combinations of properties) of the environment ( - more strictly: of one or more actors in the environment). But it
is our (as perceptual systems) “decision” or construction to call just these combinations “honesty”. And of course it is also our decision to approve honesty and disapprove dishonesty.

RY:
We are talking about different things here I think, each on different sides of the perceptual function.

EP: I don’t think so. I tried to talk about both sides and especially the external side.

RY:
The bit in the middle is a billion years of evolution.

EP: Yes, evolution and day to day lifetime reorganization. I think many (radical) constructivists dismiss this mediation. It is there just to warrant
that our perceptions will correspond our environment with sufficient precisions and suitable manner. The reason for this dismissal is that they differentiate the human input (perception, knowledge) and output (action) as independent processes – they are pre-Powersian
open loop theorists. In a realistic epistemology we must see input and output as parts of one and same control process. When we see this we cannot say that humans can construct their perceptual environment in their own whatever ways they happen to do it, but
instead the perceptual environment must be constructed just in such a way that it can be effectively affected by action (behavior) so that these perceptions are controllable. Thus the form of constructivism I accept could be called “control constrained constructivism”.

EP: To explain the effective control we need not only a theory of a control system. In the case of “honesty” we need not only a theory of the hierarchical
control system which constructs the perception of “honesty” from the lowest levels to at least principles. We also need a theory of the environment where the
control of honesty is possible. There must be something in the environment which make it possible, functional and useful for humans to perceive and differentiate honesty and dishonesty. These are perceptions where we can make errors and those errors
can be harmful for the perceiver.

RY: The properties of the environment are entirely raw physical variables.

EP: I agree if you mean that our environment is a physical reality. Here we should beware of the “physics-alism” (by G. Stawson) according to which
the results and variables of physics is the right and only description of physical reality. They are just perceptions like all other perceptions. All what we can show and name as properties of environment are perceptions, not only honesty and democracy but
also speed, forces, distances etc.

EP: So I did not claim that “honesty” situates in the physical environment but I claimed that there must exist some kind of environmental correlate
of it.

RY:
Perceptions are not properties of the environment, but are functions of environment properties.
Perception is not about extracting properties from the environment, but about creating new properties; that would not exist without the perceptual functions. Perceptions are only properties of perceptual systems.

EP: Just so, perceptions are properties of the perceiver. And it is no use to assume any strict isomorphism between perceptions and their environmental
correlates. But if some perception is controllable by affecting the environment then there must be some kind of correlation between the perception (effect of environment in the perceiver) and its object or cause in the environment (which is affected by the
perceiver/controller). That is why I think that “environmental correlate” is a reasonable term.

EP: Without going further to the ontological arguments I utilize this occasion to advertise our brand new publication:

Stables, Andrew & Nöth, Winfried & Olteanu, Alin & Pesce, Sébastien & Pikkarainen, Eetu. (2018).
Semiotic Theory of Learning: New Perspectives in the Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge. -
https://www.routledge.com/Semiotic-Theory-of-Learning-New-Perspectives-in-the-Philosophy-of-Education/Stables-Noth-Olteanu-Pesce-Pikkarainen/p/book/978113874229

My chapters are written from PCT angle!

Eetu

  • Please, regard my statements as questions –
    no matter how they are fomulated.

Regards,
Rupert

Eetu

From: Rupert Young
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 11:19 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: environmental correlate
Importance: High

Yes. Meaning only comes through a perception, which is how I can tell if I am being cheated. Do you think “honesty” is a property of the environment (independent of a perceiver) or of a perceptual system?

Rupert

On 10/06/2018 19:45, Eetu Pikkarainen (eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Do you really mean that there no (environmental) difference between honest and dishonest behavior? If so then you are probably in a danger to become cheated?

Eetu


From: Rupert Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:14:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: environmental correlate

There isn’t one.

On 09/06/2018 21:53, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

Congrats on the new book, Eetu! Looking forward to reading your chapters especially.

Joh

···

Stables, Andrew & Nöth, Winfried & Olteanu, Alin & Pesce, Sébastien & Pikkarainen, Eetu. (2018). Semiotic Theory of Learning: New Perspectives in the Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge. - https://www.routledge.com/Semiotic-Theory-of-Learning-New-Perspectives-in-the-Philosophy-of-Education/Stables-Noth-Olteanu-Pesce-Pikkarainen/p/book/978113874229

My chapters are written from PCT angle!

[Bruce Nevin 2018-06-14_08:19:22 ET]

EP: Without going further to the ontological arguments I utilize this occasion to advertise our brand new publication:

Stables, Andrew & Nöth, Winfried & Olteanu, Alin & Pesce, Sébastien & Pikkarainen, Eetu. (2018). **Semiotic Theory of Learning: New Perspectives in the Philosophy of Education.** London: Routledge. - https://www.routledge.com/Semiotic-Theory-of-Learning-New-Perspectives-in-the-Philosophy-of-Education/Stables-Noth-Olteanu-Pesce-Pikkarainen/p/book/978113874229

My chapters are written from PCT angle!

Congratulations, Eetu – and many happy returns. :slight_smile:

···

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:50 AM Eetu Pikkarainen csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-06-14_08:57:24 UTC]

Â

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.13 22.25)]

(Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-06-13_08:15:24 UTC]

Rupert, This is a complicated question. I would answer that “honesty� is a property (or rather a set of complex combinations of properties) of the environment ( - more strictly: of one or more actors in the environment). But it
is our (as perceptual systems) “decision� or construction to call just these combinations “honesty�. And of course it is also our decision to approve honesty and disapprove dishonesty.

RY:
We are talking about different things here I think, each on different sides of the perceptual function.

Â

EP: I don’t think so. I tried to talk about both sides and especially the external side.

Â

RY:
The bit in the middle is a billion years of evolution.

Â

EP: Yes, evolution and day to day lifetime reorganization. I think many (radical) constructivists dismiss this mediation. It is there just to warrant
that our perceptions will correspond our environment with sufficient precisions and suitable manner. The reason for this dismissal is that they differentiate the human input (perception, knowledge) and output (action) as independent processes – they are pre-Powersian
open loop theorists. In a realistic epistemology we must see input and output as parts of one and same control process. When we see this we cannot say that humans can construct their perceptual environment in their own whatever ways they happen to do it, but
instead the perceptual environment must be constructed just in such a way that it can be effectively affected by action (behavior) so that these perceptions are controllable. Thus the form of constructivism I accept could be called “control constrained constructivism�.

Â

EP: To explain the effective control we need not only a theory of a control system. In the case of “honesty� we need not only a theory of the hierarchical
control system which constructs the perception of “honesty� from the lowest levels to at least principles. We also need a theory of the environment where the
control of honesty is possible. There must be something in the environment which make it possible, functional and useful for humans to perceive and differentiate honesty and dishonesty. These are perceptions where we can make errors and those errors
can be harmful for the perceiver.

RY: The properties of the environment are entirely raw physical variables.

Â

EP: I agree if you mean that our environment is a physical reality. Here we should beware of the “physics-alism� (by G. Stawson) according to which
the results and variables of physics is the right and only description of physical reality. They are just perceptions like all other perceptions. All what we can show and name as properties of environment are perceptions, not only honesty and democracy but
also speed, forces, distances etc.

Â

EP: So I did not claim that “honesty� situates in the physical environment but I claimed that there must exist some kind of environmental correlate
of it.

Â

RY:
Perceptions are not properties of the environment, but are functions of environment properties.
Perception is not about extracting properties from the environment, but about creating new properties; that would not exist without the perceptual functions. Perceptions are only properties of perceptual systems.

Â

EP: Just so, perceptions are properties of the perceiver. And it is no use to assume any strict isomorphism between perceptions and their environmental
 correlates. But if some perception is controllable by affecting the environment then there must be some kind of correlation between the perception (effect of environment in the perceiver) and its object or cause in the environment (which is affected by the
perceiver/controller). That is why I think that “environmental correlate� is a reasonable term.

Â

EP: Without going further to the ontological arguments I utilize this occasion to advertise our brand new publication:

Stables, Andrew & Nöth, Winfried & Olteanu, Alin & Pesce, Sébastien & Pikkarainen, Eetu. (2018).
Semiotic Theory of Learning: New Perspectives in the Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge. -
https://www.routledge.com/Semiotic-Theory-of-Learning-New-Perspectives-in-the-Philosophy-of-Education/Stables-Noth-Olteanu-Pesce-Pikkarainen/p/book/978113874229

My chapters are written from PCT angle!

Â

Eetu

  • Please, regard my statements as questions –

  no matter how they are fomulated.

Â

Â

Â

Regards,

Rupert

Â

Eetu

Â

From: Rupert Young
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 11:19 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: environmental correlate
Importance: High

Â

Yes. Meaning only comes through a perception, which is how I can tell if I am being cheated. Do you think “honesty” is a property of the environment (independent of a perceiver) or of a perceptual system?

Rupert

Â

On 10/06/2018 19:45, Eetu Pikkarainen (eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Do you really mean that there no (environmental) difference between honest and dishonest behavior? If so then you are probably in a danger to become cheated?

Eetu

Â


From: Rupert Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:14:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: environmental correlate

Â

There isn’t one.

On 09/06/2018 21:53, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

philip 6/9 12:50

Â

Suppose someone were controlling a perception of “honesty”. What would be the environmental correlate of their behavior?

Â

Â

Â

[Rick Marken 2018-06-14_12:05:07]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-06-14_08:57:24 UTC]

 Â

EP: ...When we see this we cannot say that humans can construct their perceptual environment in their own whatever ways they happen to do it, but instead the perceptual environment must be constructed just in such a way that it can be effectively affected by action (behavior) so that these perceptions are controllable. Thus the form of constructivism I accept could be called “control constrained constructivismâ€?.

RM: That is an excellent way of describing the PCT view of perception: control constrained constructivism.  An example of control constrained construction of perceptual functions can be found in the "3-D Reorganization" section of LCS II (pp. 116- 126).  Here we see perceptual functions being constructed via reorganization under the constraint that these constructed functions all good control of the resulting perceptual signals. Control constrained constructivism in action.
Best
Rick

···

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