[Martin Taylor 2017.06.16.14.24]
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.16.1000)]
I don't, as I will explain below. Whether it does or doesn't, an
appeal to Bill rather than to Nature is not a scientific argument
that follows reasoning from an agreed starting point. The question
at issue is whether while a variable is being controlled, it is
possible to see, rather than to infer, its reference value. Since
the quote from Bill, in its context, refers only to “final
condition”, not to the variable while control is active, the quote
is irrelevant to the issue in question. Furthermore, even in the
“final condition”, an observer can see only the variable, and must
infer that because control has ceased altering it, it must therefore
be at its reference value.
No. What you see in the environment is the state of the variable as
it was when the controller ceased acting on it. Maybe the person got
called to the phone before the variable reached its reference state.
You still see the state of the variable, but you must infer that
there is a reference state.
That also is irrelevant. I'm asking you whether you can see the
reference state in the same way you can see the environmental
variable. That is your claim, is it not? I’m pointing out that you
are not able to see the reference state in the environment, and that
it is you, not I, who is privileging theory over observation. I say
that the theory is that control is occurring. We seem to agree (I’m
never sure when I say that we agree on anything) that control
requires that there be a reference state – a theoretical position
in itself. You say that independent of theory, you can see where the
reference value for the location of the “o” is in my first diagram.
I say you can’t. I say you must infer it from several independent
observations of the environmental variable (the location of the “o”
on the scale).
`----|----|----|----|----|
o
----|----|----|----|----|
5 10 15 20 25`
That's a rather imprecise use of language isn't it? A "state" is an
“observation”, and the observation is of a process, not of a value
or of a state. Would you agree to the paraphrase “The reference
state is a value to which the variable tends to return when
disturbed away from that value”?
Well, at least we agree on something (I think).
That's weird. I thought you were arguing that the reference state
was where the controller wanted the variable to be, an observable
state of the environment. Now you are saying it can’t be that,
because control isn’t perfect. I am lost in Wonderland.
I would call that evidence of control, not a definition of a
reference state
.
Yes.
No.
Now my interpretation of Bill’s quote.
1. "* Reference state refers to the final condition to which the
variable is brought despite variable disturbances*."
He assumes here that there is some variable, which we can assume is
observable, for the sake of argument though the assumption is not
necessary, that has been controlled but is no longer being
controlled because it has reached its reference value. Note that he
is not saying that the reference state can be observed. It is the
variable that is observed, and the reference state inferred from the
fact that control has ceased with the controller “satisfied”.
2. "* The existence of these states is not conjectural; once
behavior has been defined in terms of an appropriate variable,
such reference states always exist*."
It's hard to interpret this sentence other than in the context
surrounding the paragraph, which is that the “appropriate variable”
has been controlled.
3. "* They can be discovered experimentally, and defined in terms
of observable relationships*."
This is the key sentence. The reference states cannot be observed
directly, but must be “* defined in terms of observable
relationships.”* As I read that proviso, Bill explicitly says
that reference states are not directly observable, but must be
inferred from observable relationships.
4. "*Whether or not they* should * exist according to
anyone’s theory, they* do exist."
It's difficult to justify statements like this, which encompass all
theories past, present, and future, other than as a statement of
faith. Within a smaller range of possibilities that include everyday
common sense, the sentence plants a flag on the territory: “Here I
stand.”
I would have no problem with this paragraph at all, were it not for
the fact that you interpret it differently.
Martin
···
Martin Taylor (2017.06.15.13.29)–
EP: What
you see in the environment is not any
reference value/state but rather some
value/state which you infer (possibly by
using some kind of TCV) to be constrained by
a subject who is controlling its/his/her
perceptions.
RM: See, this is what irritates me. Instead of
asking me to clarify the concept of reference state
you are telling me something about it as though you
are the expert in PCT and I am the student. And what
you are telling me is wrong, “plain and simple”.
MT: Since there are those of us who think Eetu is
correct “plain and simple”, perhaps some reasoning to
support it rather than bald statements such as " * In
fact, what you see in the environment is the reference
state of the CV* ." are not reasoned argument. The
following quote from Bill is unproblematic and is
precise, but it doesn’t say anything to support your
claim.
RM: I don't see the "following quote" that you refer
to. But perhaps it is this one:
RM: Assuming this is the quote to
which you refer, I think it supports my claim rather well.
The term "variable" in this
definition of reference state refers to a variable aspect of
the environment, such as the angle of the car door relative
to the car frame when a person is doing the behavior called
“opening the door”, which is the example Bill here. The
final condition to which this variable – the controlled
variable – is brought despite disturbance is 80 degrees.
This is the reference state of the controlled variable. So
the reference state is the state (80 degrees) of a
controlled variable (“angle of the door relative to the car
frame”) that is seen as being in the environment. So my
“bald statement” that "* what you see in the environment is
the reference state of the CV* " is perfectly consistent
with Powers’ definition of a reference state.
MT: Knowing that the perceived
location of the “o” is being controlled, I can now infer
that if the reference value has been the same through
all the frames, its value must be somewhere near 9. But
I still can’t see it directly, as you say you can. Maybe
I need special perception training to see it?
RM: No, I think your problem is that
you privilege theory over observation. Seeing that the
position of “o” is controlled is equivalent to seeing that
the position of “o” is being kept in a reference state.
The reference state is the
observation that a variable is being kept in a some state,
not at some exact value, protected from disturbance.
Although Bill gave the example of the
reference state of a car door being 80 degrees, he certainly
didn’t mean to imply that the door was brought to and
maintained at exactly 80 degrees. People can’t do
that any more than they can keep the position of a cursor
(your “o”) exactly at some particular value.
RM: The notion that the concept of
reference state applies to an exact value of a controlled
variable is an example of privileging theory over
observation.
"Reference state" refers to an
observation – the observation that some variables in an
organism’s environment can be seen to be controlled inasmuch
as they are maintained in reference states, where “states”
implies a range of values that is much narrower than the
range that would be expected to be seen if there were no
control.
The theory that explains this
phenomenon posits that controllers have reference signals in
their brains that specify the reference state of the
controlled variable as a specific value. So given this
theoretical explanation of the existence of the reference
state you say that they the reference state is actually a
specific value that cannot be seen.
RM: That is, you are using the theory
(PCT) that was designed to explain an observation (reference
states) to deny the existence of that observation. This is
what comes from privileging theory over observation.
MT: "According to PCT", that something is the
reference value of a controlled perception, but (as your
Bill quote says), you don’t have to believe PCT to infer
that something that we can call a “reference state” or
simply “reference” must exist in the subject and is
projected by the subject into the environment.
RM: That's not what Bill's quote says at all. Bill's quote
says rather clearly that the reference state is the state of a
variable that we see as being in the environment of the
control system. And you certainly do have to “believe” PCT to
infer that what determines the reference state exists inside
the subject.
