extern conflict, what is that?

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.06,13:00 EST)]

Basis
1.

Conflict occurs when two control systems try to
bring the same (or a similar) perceptual variable to different reference
levels. When the two control systems are in two different people we have an interpersonal
conflict; when the two control systems are in the same person we have an intra
personal conflict.

Basis 2.

PCT sees
human behavior as the process of controlling representations of things out
there.

What I know
about the world out there is my consciousness perception.

I have theories about
the way things out there work.

Basis 1 and
Basis 2.

My wife and I will invite some friends Saturday
night. We disagree about inviting the “Petersons”. I will invite the
“Petersons” and my wife will not. We call this an interpersonal conflict.

I have a reference, something like “I wish to
invite Petersons”.

I am not
absolutely sure that my wife has a corresponding reference like “The Petersons
should not be invited”. But I have tested the perceptions she controls and I have
the theory that she controls the named perceptions.

Problem

I control my perceptions as regards “Petersons
shall be invited”. I also have the
experience/reference that my wife wishes “not to invite the Petersons”. It is
my experience/reference.

Is it correct to say that
interpersonal conflicts are intra personal conflicts?

bjorn

···

[Martin_Taylor2]

Re: extern conflict, what is
that?
[Marin Taylor 2005.09.06.10.10]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.06,13:00
EST)]

Basis 1.

Conflict occurs when two control systems try to bring the same (or a
similar) perceptual variable to different reference levels. When the
two control systems are in two different people we have an
interpersonal conflict; when the two control systems are in the same
person we have an intra personal conflict.

That’s not a precise definition, and the imprecision may be
causing your question. More precisely (but not definitively!),
conflict occurs when two control systems in controlling their
perceptions use the same external variable(s) in their feedback path
in such a way that it is not possible for both controlled perceptions
to attain their reference values at the same time.

It isn’t sufficient that the two systems use some of the same
external variables in their feedback paths, because each may have
other external variables that would serve to bring their controlled
perceptions to their reference values. For example, if control system
1 is controlling P1=A+B+C and control system 2 is
controlling P2=A+X+Y, the fact that they both may attempt to change A
in opposite directions may cause each to disturb the other’s
perception, but control system 1 can resist the disturbance without
conflict by altering B and C, while control system 2 alters X and
Y.

Basis 1 and Basis 2.
My wife and I will invite some friends Saturday night.
We disagree about inviting the “Petersons”. I will invite the
“Petersons” and my wife will not. We call this an interpersonal
conflict.
I have a reference, something like “I wish to invite
Petersons”.
I am not absolutely sure that my wife has a
corresponding reference like “The Petersons should not be
invited”. But I have tested the perceptions she controls and I have
the theory that she controls the named
perceptions.

Problem
I control my perceptions as regards “Petersons shall
be invited”. I also have the experience/reference that my
wife wishes “not to invite the Petersons”. It is my
experience/reference.

Is it correct to say that interpersonal conflicts are
intra personal conflicts?

Not as so
far described. The conflict you have described so far is that both are
controlling for perceiving the external variable “Perterons are
invited”, but their reference levels are different, and the
perceptions cannot both come to their reference levels at the same
time.

You would
have an intrapersonal conflict if you were also controlling fora
perception of your wife’s satisfaction with the state of the
invitation to the Petersons, and your reference level for that
perception was that she be happy about it. Then, if you succeeded in
inviting the Petersons, she would be unhappy, and if you didn’t invite
them she would be happy. You could bring only one of your two
controlled perceptions to the reference value at the same
time.

Now, if
you were really controlling a perception of meeting the Petersons, but
that meeting didn’t have to be over dinner, there would be no conflict
if you could arrange to see them in the afternoon or at a Pub after
dinner, since you could bring the perception of meeting them to its
reference value while also perceiving your wife to be happy that they
were not invitied to dinner.

Martin

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.09.06.0900)]

Marin Taylor 2005.09.06.10.10]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.06,13:00 EST)]

Basis 1.
Conflict occurs when two control systems try to bring the same (or a similar)
perceptual variable to different reference levels. When the two control
systems are in two different people we have an interpersonal conflict; when
the two control systems are in the same person we have an intra personal
conflict.

That's not a precise definition

Actually, it's quite precise. And, coincidentally, it's mine;-)

More precisely (but not definitively!), conflict occurs when two
control systems in controlling their perceptions use the same external
variable(s) in their feedback path in such a way that it is not possible for
both controlled perceptions to attain their reference values at the same time.

This is just a more clunky way of saying that conflict exists when two
systems control the same (or a similar) perceptual variable. A perceptual
variable is defined by it's functional relationship to the external
(physical) variables on which it is ultimately based. So two perceptual
variables are the same only of they are a function of the same physical
variables. You say exactly this in your next paragraph:

For example, if control system 1 is controlling P1=A+B+C and
control system 2 is controlling P2=A+X+Y ...[there is no conflict]

And that's because P1 is not the same perceptual variable as P2. In this
case it's because the arguments to the perceptual function (which is the
same in both cases: multiply 1 times each input argument) are not the same
(A,B and C in one case and A, X, X in the other).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2005.09.06.17.22]

[From Rick Marken (2005.09.06.0900)]

Marin Taylor 2005.09.06.10.10]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.06,13:00 EST)]

Basis 1.
Conflict occurs when two control systems try to bring the same (or a similar)
perceptual variable to different reference levels. When the two control
systems are in two different people we have an interpersonal conflict; when
the two control systems are in the same person we have an intra personal
conflict.

That's not a precise definition

Actually, it's quite precise. And, coincidentally, it's mine;-)

I guess that's why you can't see its imprecision? Imagination and memory perhaps being merged into direct perception?

More precisely (but not definitively!), conflict occurs when two
control systems in controlling their perceptions use the same external
variable(s) in their feedback path in such a way that it is not possible for
both controlled perceptions to attain their reference values at the same time.

This is just a more clunky way of saying that conflict exists when two
systems control the same (or a similar) perceptual variable.

No, it's more general than that. Which is why I said the original definition was imprecise.

A perceptual
variable is defined by it's functional relationship to the external
(physical) variables on which it is ultimately based.

They may be quite different and yet be functions of the same variables. For example, P3 = A + B, P4 = A^2 + B^2.

I guess you meant to say something like: "So two perceptual variables are the same only IF AND ONLY IF they are THE SAME function of the same physical variables."

You say exactly this in your next paragraph:

In fact, I said something different ...

For example, if control system 1 is controlling P1=A+B+C and
control system 2 is controlling P2=A+X+Y ...[there is no conflict]

And that's because P1 is not the same perceptual variable as P2.

No it's not for that reason.

P3 and P4 above are not the same perceptual variable, but two control systems that have those as their controlled perceptions are likely (not guaranteed) to be in conflict. They are likely to be in conflict because they use the same external variables and the reference values may not permit them both to be satisfied simultaneously (e.g. P3 = 4, P4 = 1).

However, P3 and P4 may not be in conflict, if the two references can be satisfied at the same time (e.g. P3 = 2, P4 = 2), despite using the same external variables in their feedback path. The functions are different, but whether they are in conflict or not depends on the specific reference values for the two perceptions.

···

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

Maybe it's appropriate at this point to repeat what I point out every year or two. The definition of "conflict" as all or none may be satisfactory for a static analysis, since one can indeed determine whether the references for two independent control systems can be simultaneously satisfied. But an all-or-none definition isn't really very useful when dealing with the dynamic situation in which almost all control occurs.

What's more important in a dynamic situation is how the action of one control system affects the ability of the other to control. If the action of one disturbs the perception of the other, each is likely to reduce the precision or speed of control by the other. But the action of one might not disturb the other. Instead, it might affect the other's feedback path. Example: John is trying to tune his guitar, and Jane is listening to loud music in the same room. Jane is controlling for perceiving the music to be loud, and John's feedback path is very low gain. His output (changing the tuning pins onthe guitar) affect his perception of the pitch in an erratic way. Now Jane changes her reference value for the loudness of the music to "off". Suddenly, John can control the pitch of the guitar very quickly and precisely, that being one side-effect of Jane's action in switching off the music.

So, actions of one control system need not behave as disturbances in the loop of another control system. In my "Mutuality" pages, I argue that all multicellular organisms and all societies exist because of the possibility for feedback loops being favourably affected by the side-effects of actions performed by other control loops.

More commonly, actions by one system that affect the feedback loop of another do so by introducing disturbances, affecting some argument of the perceptual function (some lower-level perception, possibly a controlled one). In this case, the degree of interference can range from virtually zero to making control impossible ("static" conflict with overwhelming force). One measure of the degree of interference (should we call it "level of conflict"?) might be the angle between two vectors in the space described by the variables acted upon by the two control systems (this is explained more fully in the Mutuality pages <http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/index.html>.

There are probably better indices of the level of conflict between two control systems, but I haven't explored the problem, and won't try to do so here.

Martin

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.09.06.1540)]

Martin Taylor (2005.09.06.17.22) --

Rick Marken (2005.09.06.0900)--

Actually, it's quite precise. And, coincidentally, it's mine;-)

I guess that's why you can't see its imprecision? Imagination and
memory perhaps being merged into direct perception?

No. The perceived precision is all imaginary;-)

A perceptual
variable is defined by it's functional relationship to the external
(physical) variables on which it is ultimately based.

They may be quite different and yet be functions of the same
variables. For example, P3 = A + B, P4 = A^2 + B^2.

Right. Those are two different perceptual variables because they are
different functions of the same variables. But I think you may be right; my
definition is not sufficiently correct. Even if a system is controlling
different perceptual variables -- in the sense that they are different
functions of the same external variables -- there may be conflict if the
functions are not sufficiently independent. In fact, the outputs of A+B and
A^2+B^2 are highly correlated (based on computation; I'm sure there's an
easy way to should this analytically) so it would be impossible for two
systems to control these two perceptions without getting into conflict.

So, you're right, Martin, my definition of conflict is not precise enough.
Instead of:

Conflict occurs when two control systems try to bring the same (or a similar)
perceptual variable to different reference levels.

How about:

Conflict occurs when two control systems try to bring the non-orthogonal
perceptual variables to different reference levels, where a perceptual
variable is a function of sensory and/or perceptual input variables

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

[From Bjorn Simonsen
(2005.09.07,15:28 EST)]

Marin Taylor 2005.09.06.10.10

This thread may have gone a wrong way because of bad linguistics from
my part. I will try to do it better here, but I am afraid it will be many
words.

Yes I did use Richard’s definition for conflict and I still think it is
good enough. In this mail I have also used your figures, Martin and a quotation
from Bill.

Basis

Conflict occurs when two control systems try to bring the same (or a
similar) >>perceptual variable to different reference levels. When the
two control systems are in >>two different people we have an
interpersonal conflict; when the two control systems >>are in the same
person we have an intra personal conflict.

That’s not a precise definition, and the imprecision may be causing

your question. More precisely (but not definitively!), conflict occurs

when two control systems in controlling their perceptions use the

same external variable(s) in their feedback path in such a way that it

is not possible for both controlled perceptions to attain their reference

values at the same time.

I appreciate precise definitions. Thank you.

But let me dwell on your last sentence.

Remember, when you wrote the sentence; you controlled your perceptions.
When I read the sentence I control my perceptions. Let us say you sit beside me and we both read your sentence at
the same time.

We have different references. The sentence is the disturbance. The
disturbance is the same (I hope). Let us assume the physical effect from the sentence is the same for both of
us. Let us assume there is no feedback variable (just when we start looking at
the sentence). Then the input quantity, qi (s on your figure (I prefer qi))
should be about the same for
both you and me.

I am quite sure that the constants in your input function are different
from mine. But let us assume that they are the same. Then p = kiqi (your
figure p = kis). Now p is the same in you and in me.

The reference signals are different. The error becomes different. I get
an error and your error is zero. You relax and love the world.

My error results in an output signal and actions. I put your sentence
away and start controlling another perception, -writing this mail. Periodical I
read your sentence again and I get my error.

I guess you get your error when you read this.

This was an experiment being funny. Back to real work.

your question. More precisely (but not definitively!), conflict
occurs

when two control systems in controlling their perceptions use the

same external variable(s) in their feedback path in such a way that it

is not possible for both controlled perceptions to attain their reference

values at the same time.

You say “when two control systems use the same external variable in
their feedback path in such a way that ….”

I think it is wrong to say that the control systems use …. (of course this may be a linguistic
misunderstanding).

Let me explain why I think it is wrong. Perceptions (perceptual
signals) are often created by the effect of physical effect from the
environment (your sentence). Copies of perceptual signals (a huge quantity of
them) pass to higher levels. When they meet reference signals less than the
perceptual signal, no signals continue because errors can’t be negative.

When perceptual signals meet reference signals with a greater value,
errors are formed. Output signals become reference signals at lower levels.
Some of these reference signals meet perceptual signals with a greater value
than the reference signal and the signals die out. Errors can’t be negative.

The signals that continue form a control system and the output signals
at the lowest levels induce actions that may influence the disturbances. This
continues until the disturbances stimulates to a perceptual signal like the
reference signal at the level where perceptions are controlled.

Please concentrate now, and look at your sentence above. The control
systems are not able to “use or not use” external variables in their feedback
path. The feedback variable becomes a value dependent on the body’s actions.
And afterwards the perceptual signals change and so also the feedback signals.

It isn’t sufficient that the two systems use some of the same
external

variables in their feedback paths, because each may have other

external variables that would serve to bring their controlled perceptions

to their reference values. For example, if control system 1 is controlling

P1=A+B+C and control system 2 is controlling P2=A+X+Y, the

fact that they both may attempt to change A in opposite directions may

cause each to disturb the other’s perception, but control system 1 can

resist the disturbance without conflict by altering B and C, while

control system 2 alters X and Y.

Why are you so preoccupied with the same external variables in the
feedback paths? In two different persons I guess they are different even though
the disturbance is the same and the reference value is the same. Different
people have different gains and different slowing factors in their output
functions.

And in my argumentation above, the extern variable in your system was
zero (near zero) and the variables in my feedback system have still great
values because I am still arguing with you.

I read your use of symbols in P1=A+B+C and P2=A+X+Y as P1 = f(A+B+C) and P2=g(A+X+Y). But then I
get a problem when A changes in opposite directions. If so happen, the two
different functions may suspend the effects you name.

I also have problems with B, C, X and Y in your equations. Are one of
them memory? J

Go to the figure above and tell me where I can find them. Do you think
upon the many variables in the environment on your own figure below? I think
your figure is correct, but I can’t understand the effect. The feedback signal
work against the disturbance till the perception is like the reference signal.
The number of feedback signals doesn’t matter objectively in a conflict
situation.

I control my perceptions as regards “Petersons
shall be invited”.

I also have the experience/reference
that my wife wishes "not

to invite the Petersons". It is my experience/reference.

Is it correct to say that interpersonal conflicts
are intra personal conflicts?

Not
as so far described. The conflict you have described so far is that

both are controlling for perceiving the external variable "Petersons
are

invited", but their reference levels are different, and the
perceptions

cannot both come to their reference levels at the same time.

I am
sorry. I think you misunderstand me. I told a story:

Basis 1
and Basis 2.

My wife and I will invite some friends Saturday night. We
disagree

about inviting the “Petersons”. I will invite the “Petersons” and my

wife will not. We call this an interpersonal conflict.

I have a reference, something like “I wish to invite
Petersons”.

I am not
absolutely sure that my wife has a corresponding

reference like “The Petersons should not be invited”. But I have

tested the perceptions she controls and I have the theory that she

controls the named perceptions.

And this story is in harmony with your comment:

Not
as so far described. The conflict you have described so far is that

both are controlling for perceiving the external variable "Petersons
are

invited", but their reference levels are different, and the
perceptions

cannot both come to their reference levels at the same time.

Then
I expressed my

Problem

I control my perceptions as regards “Petersons shall be
invited”.

I also have the
experience/reference that my wife wishes "not

to invite the Petersons". It is my experience/reference.

Is
it correct to say that interpersonal conflicts are intra personal conflicts?

Let
me be more detailed.

So because I am not sure if my wife exists, I ask the question: “Is
it correct to say that what normally is called inter personal conflicts are
intra personal conflicts?

You would have an intra
personal conflict if you were also controlling for

a perception of your wife’s satisfaction with the state of the invitation
to the

Petersons, and your reference level for that perception was that she be

happy about it.

I read this as I have an intra
personal conflict because I am sure I wish to allow for my wife’s wish to not
invite the Petersons at the same time I wish to invite the Petersons every time
I invite guests.

I am not sure if there is any inter personal conflict
because I can never be sure about my wife’s existence. Well she exists, but the world I experience is a function of the world that
exists outside me, but is by no means isomorphic to it – that is, we can’t
know whether she (my wife) is or not, and the probabilities are (it seems to
me) that she isn’t. (Bill).

Is it
correct to say that inter personal conflicts are just some theories (thoughts)
we have? Is it correct to say that counter control also is some theories
(thoughts) we have? If I am person A it is just a theory that person B exists.

bjorn

oledata7.mso (36.8 KB)

[Bill_Powers1]

Let me explain why I think it is
wrong. Perceptions (perceptual signals) are often created by the effect
of physical effect from the environment (your sentence). Copies of
perceptual signals (a huge quantity of them) pass to higher levels. When
they meet reference signals less than the perceptual signal, no signals
continue because errors can�t be negative.
[From Bill Powers (20056.09.07.08903 MDT)]
Bjorn Simonsen
(2005.09.07,15:28 EST) –
However, it is possible for a pair of control systems to exist such that
a given variable is controlled both ways from zero. Consider an archer
aiming at a target. If the aim is too far right, the archer uses muscles
that pull to the left. If the aim is too far left, the archer uses
(different) muscles that pull to the right. The “error to the
left” can be indicated by a positive signal, and so can the
“error to the right” (a different signal).
Furthermore, it is possible to have a comparator in which the reference
signal is inhibitory and the perceptual signal is excitatory. In this
case, the error signal will indicate that the perceptual signal is
greater than the reference signal, and perceptual signals smaller than
the reference signal will be ignored.
If you combine these effects, you can have two comparators, positive
outputs from one indicating positive errors and positive outputs from the
other indicating negative errors, as well as two output functions, one
acting in one direction and the other acting in the opposite direction.
It is also possible for the negative error to inhibit the output
function to which the positive error goes, and for the positive error to
inhibit the output function to which the negative error goes. This
actually happens in the spinal “reflexes.” And of course you
can have two input functions, one detecting one direction of change of
the controlled variable, and the other detecting the opposite change. So
even though all neural signals are positive only, neurons can still be
used to construct bidirectional control systems.

In the above you have to read “negative” to mean “a
positive signal that has an effect in the negative direction, or that
represents a variable value in the negative direction.”

Since bidirectional control systems must really be composed of multiple
unidirectional control systems, it might be possible to measure
differences in the control system parameters for positive-going and
negative-going disturbances.

Best,

Bill P.

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

[Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.08,10:20 EST)]

From Bill Powers (20056.09.07.08903 MDT)

However, it is possible for a pair of control systems to exist such
that a

given variable is controlled both ways from zero. Consider an archer

aiming at a target. If the aim is too far right, the archer uses muscles

that pull to the left. If the aim is too far left, the archer uses
(different)

muscles that pull to the right. The “error to the left” can be
indicated

by a positive signal, and so can the “error to the right” (a
different signal).

If I don’t misunderstand what you are thinking of, this may be a
control at the Relationship level. One system has a reference if he will aim to
the right of the center. This system has output signals/references going to
intensity level governing the Biceps Bracjii (and other muscles)(if he holds
the bow in his left hand). Another system has a reference if he will aim to the
left of the center. This system has output signals/references going via
different levels to the intensity level governing the Triceps Brachii.

Dependent on where he shall aim, he controls the one or the other
perception.

Do you think differently?

Furthermore, it is possible to have a comparator in which the
reference

signal is inhibitory and the perceptual signal is excitatory. In this case,

the error signal will indicate that the perceptual signal is greater than
the

reference signal, and perceptual signals smaller than the reference signal

will be ignored.

This is first time I have thought upon the comparator this way. You
reveal new knowledge to me constantly. Thank you.

I am a bit annoyed because I have not thought upon this earlier myself.
The comparator is a neuron as other neurons and some of them are Renshaw cells.
I think the concept “neuromodulation” explain the Renshaw cells (?).

You are a fountain. Thank you.

You didn’t comment my question:

Is it correct to say that inter personal
conflicts are intra personal conflicts?

The background for my question
is partly your earlier comment [From
Bill Powers (2005.04.01.1204 MST)]:

The world
we experience is a function of the

world
that exists outside us, but is by no means isomorphic to it – that

is,
we can’t know whether it is or not, and the probabilities are (it seems

to
me) that it isn’t.

bjorn

···

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

Rick

A perceptual

variable
is defined by it’s functional relationship to the external

(physical)
variables on which it is ultimately based.

Martin

They
may be quite different and yet be functions of the same

variables.
For example, P3 = A + B, P4 = A^2 + B^2.

I
guess you meant to say something like: "So two perceptual variables

are
the same only IF AND ONLY IF they are THE SAME function of the

same
physical variables."

Don’t
both Rick and you say perceptual variable where you should say perception or
perceptual signal. I thought we agreed about calling quantities outside the
system for variables and quantities inside the system for signals.

For me
it’s OK that the perceptions in two control systems are different even if the
input quantities have the same value. The input functions make them different.
No conflict.

Can we in
a colloquial say :

The same
environment/physical variables, the same input function design and different
references give conflict.

The same
environment/physical variables, different input function designs and different
references give no conflict.

Different
environments/physical variables, very different input functions and different
references may also result in conflict. Example: P1 =f( x^2 + x) and P2 = g(x +
y) and x=y=1 (maybe I misunderstand
your equations?

However,
P3 and P4 may not be in conflict, if the two references can

be
satisfied at the same time (e.g. P3 = 2, P4 = 2), despite using

the
same external variables in their feedback path. The functions are

different,
but whether they are in conflict or not depends on the

specific
reference values for the two perceptions.

Do I
understand you correct if I read:

The same
environment/physical variables, different input function designs give the same
perceptions and different references may not result in conflict because both
references also are less or like 2?

Maybe
it’s appropriate at this point to repeat what I point out every

year
or two. The definition of “conflict” as all or none may be

satisfactory
for a static analysis, since one can indeed determine

whether
the references for two independent control systems can be

simultaneously
satisfied. But an all-or-none definition isn’t really

very
useful when dealing with the dynamic situation in which almost

all
control occurs.

I can’t
remember this argument a year or two ago. I think it is nice to have an
all-or-none definition when I start studying PCT. I find it normal that such definitions
don’t work in complex dynamic situations.

What’s more important in a dynamic situation is how the action of one

control
system affects the ability of the other to control.

OK

I read
your “Mutuality” pages (again). They are nice. I understand your world of ideas
is in social behavior (?) (among other worlds).

bjorn

···

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.08, 12:20 EST)]

[From
Rick Marken (2005.09.06.1540)]

Rick

A perceptual

variable is defined by it’s functional relationship to the external

(physical) variables on which it is ultimately based.

Maybe I don’t understand your mode of expression. But
I read your definition in this way:

A Perception (Perceptual signal) is defined by a conversion of the input quantity by an
input function. The input quantity is a representation for all environmental
variables. (The different variables are converted by different constants (or
functions). All control loops have their input functions and they are very often different.

Martin

They may be quite different and yet be functions of the same

variables. For example, P3 = A + B, P4 = A^2 + B^2.

Rick

Right.
Those are two different perceptual variables because they are

different
functions of the same variables. But I think you may be right; my

definition
is not sufficiently correct.

When you
say that a Perceptual signal is defined by it’s
functional relationship to the external variable, you don’t say the functional
relationships are the same. I read it as if they are different.

………………………
Even if a system is controlling

different
perceptual variables – in the sense that they are different

functions
of the same external variables – there
may be conflict if the

functions are not sufficiently independent.

I am sorry. I must be late in my head. I don’t
understand when you say: “Even if a system is controlling ………”

You are talking about a conflict. Then there must be
two systems (?).

Is it possible to point out a conflict if r1 =5, r2
=7, p1 = 3, p2 = 1, qi1 = 200, qi2 = 200, f() is an input function for one loop
that you must find and g() is an input function for the other loop that you
must find.

Maybe you will use other numbers.

bjorn

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2005.09.08.0857 MDT)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.08,10:20 EST) --

If I don't misunderstand what you are thinking of, this may be a control at the Relationship level. One system has a reference if he will aim to the right of the center. This system has output signals/references going to intensity level governing the Biceps Bracjii (and other muscles)(if he holds the bow in his left hand). Another system has a reference if he will aim to the left of the center. This system has output signals/references going via different levels to the intensity level governing the Triceps Brachii.
Dependent on where he shall aim, he controls the one or the other perception.

That's about it, except that I was thinking of horizontal movements, whereas biceps and triceps move the arm vertically.

What we see from outside is that there is a single controlled variable, the horizontal direction of aiming, which can be adjusted smoothly in either direction from zero. We can model this composite control system as a single bi-directional position-control system, as we usually do in modeling tracking behavior.

It is likely that the two systems involved have somewhat different parameters. If we used a pair of one-way systems in the model, we could adjust parameters for the two systems independently, and perhaps get a slightly better fit to the data. I haven't tried that.

I am a bit annoyed because I have not thought upon this earlier myself. The comparator is a neuron as other neurons and some of them are Renshaw cells. I think the concept "neuromodulation" explain the Renshaw cells (?).

I don't know that term. I think Renshaw cells are simply short interneurons that emit an inhibitory neurotransmitter instead of an excitatory one. But I agree with you that Renshaw cells would probably be involved in an "inverted" comparator, being inserted in the reference signal path instead of the perceptual signal path.

In the spinal control systems, there are perceptual signals that cross over into the contralateral systems, where they have effects opposite to their effects in the ispsilateral ones. If there is a Renshaw cell in the ipsilateral path, there is none in the contralateral path, and vice versa, so the overall feedback effect remains negative. There are definite signs that these opposing control systems are really organized into a single bidirectional control system, as in a push-pull audio amplifier (which I'm sure that very few people reading this have ever heard of).

For a fully worked-out example of three one-way control systems being used to control force both ways around zero in two independent dimensions, see the third Byte article. It shows how a mucle-tone system is needed to keep the net force from falling to zero at some places within the control region.

You didn't comment my question:

>>Is it correct to say that inter personal conflicts are intra personal conflicts?

The short answer is no. Interpersonal conflicts are conflicts between different people, in which the people try to make some aspect of the shared physical world be in two different states at the same time. You want the television in the living room and your wife wants it in the kitchen. It can't be in both places at once. You grab it and pull it toward the living room, your wife grabs it and pulls it toward the kitchen, and it hardly moves while you both become exhausted.

However, you may also be in an internal conflict. You want the television in the living room, but you also don't want to fight with your wife. Those are two incompatible goals inside one person, an intrapersonal conflict. If you cancel out your own efforts because of this internal conflict, you will have nothing left over to oppose external disturbances. Assuming that your wife has no similar internal conflict, we can predict that the television will end up in the kitchen.

Best,

Bill P.

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin_Taylor2]

Re: extern conflict, what is
that?
[Martin Taylor 2005.09.08.10.38] to Bjørn Simonsen

1. Words

Rick
A
perceptual

variable is
defined by it’s functional relationship to the
external

(physical)
variables on which it is ultimately based.

Martin
They may be
quite different and yet be functions of the same
variables. For
example, P3 = A + B, P4 = A^2 + B^2.

I guess you
meant to say something like: “So two perceptual
variables
are the same
only IF AND ONLY IF they are THE SAME function of
the
same physical
variables.”

Don’t both Rick
and you say perceptual variable where you should say perception or
perceptual signal. I thought we agreed about calling quantities
outside the system for variables and quantities inside the system for
signals.

I don’t remember any discussion on this point, so I use the words
as seems natural to me within the framework of whichever variant of
PCT I am discussing. At the moment I’m discussing classical
HPCT.

To me, “variable” signifies a quantity that might
change over time or under varied conditions.

The word “signal” implies some kind of transmission,
and the word can be used in a variety of ways. A variable can convey a
signal, if the value of the variable is created somewhere and used
somewhere else. Often, the woed “signal” is used to indicate
a link that could convey such a variable from its source to its
destination. So we talk about “perceptual signals” when we
mean either the connection between the output of the perceptual input
function and (for example) one of the inputs to a higher level
perceptual function. We also use the same words when we mean the
time-varying sequence of values of the perceptual variable.

The word “perception” in PCT means the value of the
perceptual variable (the “perceptual signal” in that sense)
at any given moment. It also can mean the output of a perceptual input
function, which is operationally the same thing if you consider only a
single moment. Quite often, “perception” is used as a short
form for “perceptual signal”

For me it’s OK
that the perceptions in two control systems are different even if the
input quantities have the same value.

There are an infinite number of possible functions of even a
single argument (an argument is a variable that affects the value of a
function). Most (all?) perceptual input functions have more than one
argument, usually many more than one. The perception is defined by the
function for which the output is the perceptual signal.

As for “different”, two signals are obviously different
if they exist in different places, even if they always have the same
value. However, I know you mean that the values of the perceptual
variables are different.

···

---

Functions and conflict

The input
functions make them different. No conflict.

No. Contradicting this claim was the whole point of my message to
Rick.

Can we in a
colloquial say :

The same
environment/physical variables, the same input function design and
different references give conflict.

OK.

The same
environment/physical variables, different input function designs and
different references give no conflict.

Wrong as a general statement. I provided an example.

Different
environments/physical variables, very different input functions and
different references may also result in conflict. Example: P1 =f( x^2

• x) and P2 = g(x + y) and x=y=1 (maybe I misunderstand your
  equations?

You do. My example functions were P3= x^2 + y^2 (not f(x^2 + x)
or even f(x^2 + y^2)) and P4 = x + y (not g(x + y). (Actually, they
were the other way round in the earlier message, but that doesn’t
matter).

However, P3 and
P4 may not be in conflict, if the two references
can
be satisfied at
the same time (e.g. P3 = 2, P4 = 2), despite using
the same
external variables in their feedback path.

They are not in conflict in this situation because if x = 1 and y
= 1, both references are satisfied. The other example, where the
references for P3 and P4 were respectively 1 and 4 cannot be
satisfied, because there are no real-valued numbers x and y that allow
this combination to happen. If x+y = 4, the lowest possible value for
the sum of the squares of x and y is 8. So, if the reference value for
P4 is 4, there is conflict whenever the reference value for P3 is less
than 8.

The functions
are

different, but
whether they are in conflict or not depends on the
specific
reference values for the two perceptions.

Do I understand you
correct if I read:

The same
environment/physical variables, different input function designs give
the same perceptions and different references may not result in
conflict because both references also are less or like
2?

I don’t understand what you mean to say, but it doesn’t sound as
though it means the same as what I said.

---

From here, the quoted parts refer to [From
Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.08, 12:20 EST)]

[From Rick Marken
(2005.09.06.1540)]

Rick

A
perceptual

variable is defined by it’s functional relationship to the
external

(physical) variables on which it is ultimately
based.

Maybe I don’t
understand your mode of expression. But I read your definition in this
way:
A Perception
(Perceptual signal) is defined by a conversion of the input
quantity by an input function. The input quantity is a representation
for all environmental variables. (The different variables are
converted by different constants (or functions). All control loops
have their input functions and they are very often
different.

That is a misreading (or at least it differs from my reading of
what Rick said), because it converts the multiple inputs to a
perceptual control function into a single input. Rick’s words clearly
refer to the multiple inputs, or rather, to the multiple external
variables that give rise to those inputs.

Perhaps it’s a question of English, but it may be a question of
misreading the conventional picture of the control loop, which shows
only a single line representing the connection between the control
system’s output and its input. A single line like that is often used
in engineering drawings to represent several lines in parallel, and
that’s what it means in the control loop drawing. I know that to use a
single line where several are meant is confusing and misleading, but
it saves a lot of graphical clutter. In more serious drawings, lines
that represent multiple parallel paths are usually shown differently
from lines that mean a single path, perhaps by using ======== instead
of ------. We don’t usually do that, though we should. We take the
multiplicity of feedback paths for granted and draw them as though the
path was single.

When you use the words “the input quantity” it sounds
as if you think the perceptual intput function has only a single input
value. Almost all (absolutely all?) have several different inputs,
each corresponding to a different variable in the environment of the
control system for that perception.

“The input quantity is a representation for all
environmental variables” should be rewritten as “Each input
quantity is derived from one of the environmental
variables.”

Maybe it’s superfluous to point out that the environment of a
control system at one level includes all the lower-level control
systems to which it sends output and from which it receives input, not
things outside a person’s skin. (Its environment also includes all the
control systems at higher levels with which it communicates, but
that’s of no importance to the present discussion).

[Philip_J_Runkel]

This is Phil Runkel responding (so to speak) to Bill P and Bjorn S:

I would like to believe that interpersonal conflict always generates internal conflict, that we get into conflict with others BECAUSE the situation generates internal conflict. But I cannot yet feel confident in making that claim.

Suppose you go to open a door and discover that it won't open; suppose, in fact, that it is locked. Are you having an interpersonal conflict?

Suppose the door is locked because someone did not want you to go through that door and locked it to prevent you from doing so, but you did not know that. Are you in an interpersonal conflict?

Suppose you DID know that?

Suppose there is a pot of soup in that room that the other person wants to eat, and so do you, and that is the other person's reason for locking you out. But suppose you did not know that the other person hungers for the soup. Are you in an interpersonal conflict?

Supposed you did know?

Suppose the door is not locked, but the other person is holding tight to the knob with his foot against the casing. And suppose you do not know that somebody is holding the door shut. Are you in interpersonal conflict?

Suppose you do know?

Suppose you know that the soup is there, that he wants it, and that he is holding the door shut. Then are you in interpersonal conflict?

I wish somebody would sort this out for me.

--Phil R

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

[From Bjorn Simonsen
(2005.09.09, 12:00 EST)]

From
Fhil Runcel 2005.09.08

I
wish somebody would sort this out for me.

I think
Bill will do this better, but here are my comments.

I will
refer to the figure below, which is a system in one person (the model
representing a huge number of loops). When we talk about conflict you must
imagine another corresponding figure. I will call me 1 and the other person 2.

Suppose
you go to open a door and discover that it won’t open; suppose,

in
fact, that it is locked. Are you having
an interpersonal conflict?

No. Here
is just one person, me. I have a reference, r1 expressing “I wish to open the
door”.

My
immediate perception, p1 is “a locked door”. An error, e1 arises and also an
output, qo1. Maybe I get a sledgehammer and crushes the door. This is my
action. M actions counteract the
disturbance, the locked door, till I can walk through it. I can’t forecast that these actions are
correct. Maybe I instead go and get a key.
My actions depend on the output quantity, qo.

An inter
personal conflict need two (or more) persons. When I don’t know who to blame,
the other person doesn’t exist. But somebody must have closed the door. I can
imagine that one person has closed the door and I can develop a conflict with
the imagined person.

Because I
know the other person is imagined I will not say that this conflict is
interpersonal.

Other
people that hallucinate, they are not able to say that they imagine the other
person, will experience an interpersonal conflict.

Suppose the door is locked because someone did not want you to go

through that door and locked it to prevent you from doing so, but you

did
not know that. Are you in an
interpersonal conflict?

No. I
handle this example as above.

Suppose
you DID know that?

Now there
may be a conflict. I will handle this example as if there arises a conflict.

I will
open the door, r1. I perceive a locked door, p1. An error, e1 arises and also
an output variable, qo1.

At the
same time I imagine that another person don’t want me to go through. And I
imagine he is the one who locked the door.

My
actions are marked by an argument from Bill

The world we experience is a function of the

world that exists
outside us, but is by no means isomorphic to it – that

is, we can’t know
whether it is or not, and the probabilities are (it seems

to me) that it isn’t.

The
other person is the other world in this example. I have a knowledge/an
imagination that the other person exists, but I am not sure. Maybe my knowledge
and my imaginations are most a result of my own control systems. If he doesn’t
exist, I will not care about him. But if he exists, there is a chance for he to
have the same knowledge and imaginations that I have (that I exist). This
knowledge/imaginations are represented in my systems with a reference or goal
at the Relationship level that can be expressed as “I wish to respect other
people”.

I don’t think upon a high or special regard, I don’t
ink upon the quality of being esteemed. With respect I think upon an act of
giving particular attention.

Because I give the other person this particular
attention, I think he controls his perceptions.

His actions have resulted in the locked door. Maybe he
has brought his perceptions back to his reference level. He perceives p2. He
has a reference r2, an error e2 and an output quantity qo2.

My p1 is copied and directed upward to other reference
values. The output signal from these systems result in an action “Go to the
other person and negotiate”.

I will not predict any result of the negotiation.

Suppose
there is a pot of soup in that room that the other person wants

to
eat, and so do you, and that is the other person’s reason for locking

you
out. But suppose you did not know that
the other person hungers for

the
soup. Are you in an interpersonal
conflict?

Because I
don’t know that he wishes the soup, this example is almost the same as my last
account above. The only difference is my reference or goal. It is now “I will
open the door to eat the soup”.

Supposed
you did know?

This is
not much different than my account above.

This
example is more specific. Our references are quite like. We both “wish to eat
the soup”. But we talk about two different control systems. One is mine and the
other is his. I am also sure that there are nuances between our reference
values. They are different.

In this
example I will bring our both wishes for the soup into the negotiations.

Suppose
the door is not locked, but the other person is holding tight to

the
knob with his foot against the casing.
And suppose you do not know

that
somebody is holding the door shut. Are
you in interpersonal

conflict?

If I
don’t know that somebody is holding the door shut, there is no interpersonal
conflict. We are back to the first example.

Suppose
you do know?

Now we
are back to the example accounted for above, except for the soup. I will
negotiate how to handle our wishes for the soup. I will not predict the result
of the negotiations.

Suppose
you know that the soup is there, that he wants it, and that he

is
holding the door shut. Then are you in
interpersonal conflict?

Yes. This
is almost the same example I have accounted for above. The only difference is
that this time I don’t need to look the other person up. I will negotiate
through the door.

Well
Phil. These are my comments. The main reason for following up your request is
my knowledge/thoughts and references about the extern world, the other person
in the conflict. I am not sure that he exists, but he may exist and I am sure
that something exists in my
environments.

I wish the extern world, other persons to respect my existence and this
wish gives me no other choices than that will I respect the extern world, the
other person. With respect I think upon an act of giving particular attention
(the opposite of saying I am alone, I don’t think the extern world exists.)

bjorn

oledata8.mso (6.07 KB)

···

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.09, 16:20 EST)]

Martin Taylor 2005.09.08.10.38]

Bjorn

Don’t both Rick and you say perceptual variable where you

should say perception or perceptual signal. I thought we

agreed about calling quantities outside the system for variables

and quantities inside the system for signals.

Martin

I don’t remember any discussion on this point, so I use the words

as seems natural to me within the framework of whichever variant

of PCT I am discussing. At the moment I’m discussing classical HPCT.

To me, “variable” signifies a quantity that might change
over time

or under varied conditions.

OK for me. We all
control our perceptions. I know you are discussing classical HPCT because you
say it. Of course you must use the words that seems natural to you. That’s the
way you bring your perceptions back to your references. I experienced a small
conflict when I perceived the words that seems natural to you and that I think
is not PCT nomenclature. Now when I know it, I think I understand your detailed
statements.

But now when you have
BPC, look at BPC page 273 and 274.

If you go to Rick’s
“Spreadsheet analysis of hierarchical control system model of behavior” in
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, you find in page 349
(Note: Signals are quantities that vary inside the control system; variables
are quantities that vary outside control system.).

I think I will say what
Rick said in another connexion: “I think it’s always understood
(certainly by people who understand PCT) that we are talking about …………” Maybe somebody become confused, but does it
matter? Although I care for precise definitions.

As regards variables and signals I stop here.

………

The input functions make them different. No conflict.

No. Contradicting this claim was the whole point of my message
to Rick.

I am sorry. I had to read your message to Rick once again and what you
call “the whole point in your message to him” I hope I have picked out below.

Martin

For example, if control system 1 is controlling
P1=A+B+C and

control system 2 is controlling P2=A+X+Y
…[there is no conflict]

Rick

And
that’s because P1 is not the same perceptual variable as P2.

Martin

No
it’s not for that reason.

For
example, P3 = A + B, P4 = A^2 + B^2.

P3
and P4 above are not the same perceptual variable, but two control

systems
that have those as their controlled perceptions are likely

(not guaranteed) to be in conflict. They are likely to be in conflict

because they use the same external variables and the reference values

may
not permit them both to be satisfied simultaneously (e.g. P3 = 4,

P4 = 1).

P3 and P4
are not the same perceptions (perceptual signals), they are different. They
exist in two control systems. And those two systems are likely (not guaranteed)
to be in conflict because 1) they use the same external variables and 2) the
reference values may not permit them both to be satisfied simultaneously.

Is it
possible to understand what you write to be:
r3 =4, r4 =1, p3= A + B and p4 = A^2 + B^2? Maybe the input quantity
qi=A + B.

The input function in the one system is p3=f(A+B) = A+B and the input
function in the other system is p4 =g(A+B) = A^2 + B^2. These signals go to the
comparator where they meet the reference signals. And the error in the two
systems become e3 = 4 – (A+B) and e4 = 1- (A^2 +B^2)

These two errors can never be zero because the two equations

A + B = 4

A^2 + B^2 = 1

have no solutions.

In your account it is impossible for the control systems with different
references to achieve the wished values in the perceptions despite using
the same external variables.

bjorn

···

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2005.09.09.09.50]

This is Phil Runkel responding (so to speak) to Bill P and Bjorn S:

I would like to believe that interpersonal conflict always generates internal conflict, that we get into conflict with others BECAUSE the situation generates internal conflict. But I cannot yet feel confident in making that claim.

Suppose you go to open a door and discover that it won't open; suppose, in fact, that it is locked. Are you having an interpersonal conflict?

...

No control system can perceive a conflict involving the perception it is controlling, since "conflict" is not the perception its PIF is tuned to detect. It takes two control systems to create a conflict. Neither of them can perceive the conflict. It follows that "conflict" is a perception created somewhere outside the two control systems that are conflicted. That perception may or may not be controlled; either way, it's independent of the systems that are conflicted.

An intrapersonal conflict involves two control systems within one skin bag, and may exist with no manifestation observable to another person, whereas an interpersonal conflict is between a control system in one person and another control system in another person. Interpersonal conflict therefore must involve some action by each person on something in the environment outside the people concerned. That action is potentially observable by a third person (or by a separate perceptual function in either of the persons involved in the conflict).

The answers to your questions seem to hinge on who is looking and what they see. The control system with a reference for perceiving itself outside the room "knows" only that the perception is not at its reference value. It doesn't perceive conflict of any kind. A separate perceiving entity (in that person or another) may perceive (perhaps imagine) that a different person locked the door so as to frustrate the control system with the reference to perceive itself outside the room. That separate perceiving entity would perceive interpersonal conflict.

In the same situation, the separate perceiving entity (SPE) might perceive that someone locked the door, but might also perceive (imagine) that the locking was done without the knowledge that someone was in the locked room. Then the SPE would not perceive interpersonal conflict, or indeed, any conflict. The physical situation doesn't change, but the SPE's perception of what the locker was controlling for does change.

If the SPE is inside the person who is locked in the room, and they perceive that the locker intended for them to be locked in when they wanted out, the locked-in person would probably act differently than if the SPE perceived that locking them in was just a side-effect. In the latter case, the locked in person would probably just call and ask to be let out, whereas in the former, perceiving conflict, the person would presumably use some other means to get out.

Incidentally, this last paragraph points up the role of multiple reference signals in affecting overt action, since the output actions from the "see myself outside the room" control systems differ dramatically depending on the state of the perception "the other person wants me to stay in the room".

To make the story short, all the questions "Are you in interpersonal conflict" were cast as though there was a "real world" truth to be discovered, whereas in each case the answer has to be cast in terms of a perception in a perceiving apparatus not involved in the possible conflict. And the creation of that perception may well involve imagining what is being controlled by one or both parties to the possible conflict. One SPE may see conflict where another SPE sees only an easily corrected disturbance of one perception by the side-effect of the actions of a controller of another perception.

Martin

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2005.09.09.11.39]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.09.09, 16:20 EST)]

But now when you have BPC, look at BPC page 273 and 274.

I'm not clear how those pages relate to the present discussion. Maybe the new edition has different pagination, but in my copy, those pages are about trying to control another person.

If you go to Rick's "Spreadsheet analysis of hierarchical control system model of behavior" in Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, you find in page 349 (Note: Signals are quantities that vary inside the control system; variables are quantities that vary outside control system.).

I know that PCT does demand that we use some words, such as "perception" in uncoventional ways, but control is not one of them, and discussions of control systems as such is not such an occasion. A "variable" is something that varies, and there's absolutely no reason to restrict the usage to particular instances of things that vary. Likewise, a "signal" is something that originates in one place and is received at another. Signals necessarily involve variables, but not all variables come from signals. You can't usefully change the meaning of "signal" to make it mean "variable in a place where we aren't allowed to call it a variable".

If we want to talk about a variable in some specific place, we should qualify it by saying something like "perceptual variable" or "error variable" or "external variable".

As regards variables and signals I stop here.

Me too. My rant is more about the unwarranted alteration of commonly understood words for jargon purposes than it is about the specific words.

···

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

>For example, P3 = A + B, P4 = A^2 + B^2.
>P3 and P4 above are not the same perceptual variable, but two control
>systems that have those as their controlled perceptions are likely

(not guaranteed) to be in conflict. They are likely to be in conflict
because they use the same external variables and the reference values

>may not permit them both to be satisfied simultaneously (e.g. P3 = 4,

P4 = 1).

P3 and P4 are not the same perceptions (perceptual signals), they are different. They exist in two control systems. And those two systems are likely (not guaranteed) to be in conflict because 1) they use the same external variables and 2) the reference values may not permit them both to be satisfied simultaneously.

Is it possible to understand what you write to be: r3 =4, r4 =1, p3= A + B and p4 = A^2 + B^2? Maybe the input quantity qi=A + B.

Almost right. The point I tried to get across, is that just as we draw a single line from the output of a control system to its input, so too we write qi sometimes as if it were a scalar. But qi is almost always a vector, and should be written qi = {A, B}. It is the perceptual functions's output that is A+B. You already wrote that when you said p3 = A+B. Here, q3 and q4 both are the vector {A, B}.

The input function in the one system is p3=f(A+B) = A+B and the input function in the other system is p4 =g(A+B) = A^2 + B^2.

Better: p3 = f{A,B} = A + B, p4 = g{A,B} = A^2 + B^2.

These signals go to the comparator where they meet the reference signals. And the error in the two systems become e3 = 4 - (A+B) and e4 = 1- (A^2 +B^2)
These two errors can never be zero because the two equations
A + B = 4
A^2 + B^2 = 1
have no solutions.

Correct, and it's good that you moved the equations to the error variable.

In your account it is impossible for the control systems with different references to achieve the wished values in the perceptions despite using the same external variables.

Not despite using the same external variables, but despite being different functions. Rick's original statement of the conditions for conflict was that it happened when the two perceptions were the same function of the same variables. My statement is that static conflict happens when the error values for the two perceptions cannot simultaneously be zero.

-------------

Adding to the example, you can get static conflict even when the perceptions are different functions and the functions include different variables.

Let's say now that P3 = f(A,B} = A + B and P5 = g{A,B,X} = A^2 + B^2 + X^2.

Again, let's say that r3 = 4 and r5 = 1. e3 (the error in the P3 control system) and e5 cannot simultaneously be zero, so there is conflict. However, if r3 = 2 and r5 = 2, there is no conflict if (and only if) the output of the P5 control system can drive the value of X to zero and keep it there.

So, the existence of static conflict doesn't even depend on the two perceptual functions having the same arguments.

One can even go further, and show that they don't even have to have arguments in common, if the external variables have some linkage not perceived by either control system.

Suppose A + X = 0, B + Y = 0 (for example, A and B are kids on one see-saw, which B and Y are kids on another). The father of A and B can't see the seesaw (maybe he's blind), and the father of X and Y can't see it either. Each father wants his kids to be lifted high in the air. (P6 = A + B, r6 = 5, P7 = X + Y, r7 = 5). There is no way that E6 and E7 can both be zero at the same time, so there is conflict despite the perceptions being functions of non-overlapping sets of variables. It's only in the non-perceived "real real" world that the linkage occurs that creates the conflict, but the conflict exists, nevertheless.

So, again, I say that static conflict happens when the error values for the two perceptions cannot simultaneously be zero, whatever the perceptual functions.

Martin

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2005.09.09.1039 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2005.09.09.11.39 --

I know that PCT does demand that we use some words, such as "perception" in uncoventional ways, but control is not one of them, and discussions of control systems as such is not such an occasion. A "variable" is something that varies, and there's absolutely no reason to restrict the usage to particular instances of things that vary. Likewise, a "signal" is something that originates in one place and is received at another. Signals necessarily involve variables, but not all variables come from signals. You can't usefully change the meaning of "signal" to make it mean "variable in a place where we aren't allowed to call it a variable".

Thanks for this post and your previous one that covers the subject of inter- and intra-personal conflict definitively.

I use variable as the most general term, as you do -- it's anything that can vary, as distinguished from "constant" -- something that remains the same for at least some time. The other distinction I make is between "signal" (a variable inside the nervous system that indicates the states of perceptions, errors, etc.) and "quantity" (a variable outside the "skin bag", measurable in its environment). I got the term signal from electronics and the term quantity from physics. A signal provides a remote indication of the state of a variable; a quantity just sits there and gets measured.

Best,

Bill P.

···

If we want to talk about a variable in some specific place, we should qualify it by saying something like "perceptual variable" or "error variable" or "external variable".

As regards variables and signals I stop here.

Me too. My rant is more about the unwarranted alteration of commonly understood words for jargon purposes than it is about the specific words.

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

>For example, P3 = A + B, P4 = A^2 + B^2.
>P3 and P4 above are not the same perceptual variable, but two control
>systems that have those as their controlled perceptions are likely

(not guaranteed) to be in conflict. They are likely to be in conflict
because they use the same external variables and the reference values

>may not permit them both to be satisfied simultaneously (e.g. P3 = 4,

P4 = 1).

P3 and P4 are not the same perceptions (perceptual signals), they are different. They exist in two control systems. And those two systems are likely (not guaranteed) to be in conflict because 1) they use the same external variables and 2) the reference values may not permit them both to be satisfied simultaneously.

Is it possible to understand what you write to be: r3 =4, r4 =1, p3= A + B and p4 = A^2 + B^2? Maybe the input quantity qi=A + B.

Almost right. The point I tried to get across, is that just as we draw a single line from the output of a control system to its input, so too we write qi sometimes as if it were a scalar. But qi is almost always a vector, and should be written qi = {A, B}. It is the perceptual functions's output that is A+B. You already wrote that when you said p3 = A+B. Here, q3 and q4 both are the vector {A, B}.

The input function in the one system is p3=f(A+B) = A+B and the input function in the other system is p4 =g(A+B) = A^2 + B^2.

Better: p3 = f{A,B} = A + B, p4 = g{A,B} = A^2 + B^2.

These signals go to the comparator where they meet the reference signals. And the error in the two systems become e3 = 4 - (A+B) and e4 = 1- (A^2 +B^2)
These two errors can never be zero because the two equations
A + B = 4
A^2 + B^2 = 1
have no solutions.

Correct, and it's good that you moved the equations to the error variable.

In your account it is impossible for the control systems with different references to achieve the wished values in the perceptions despite using the same external variables.

Not despite using the same external variables, but despite being different functions. Rick's original statement of the conditions for conflict was that it happened when the two perceptions were the same function of the same variables. My statement is that static conflict happens when the error values for the two perceptions cannot simultaneously be zero.

-------------

Adding to the example, you can get static conflict even when the perceptions are different functions and the functions include different variables.

Let's say now that P3 = f(A,B} = A + B and P5 = g{A,B,X} = A^2 + B^2 + X^2.

Again, let's say that r3 = 4 and r5 = 1. e3 (the error in the P3 control system) and e5 cannot simultaneously be zero, so there is conflict. However, if r3 = 2 and r5 = 2, there is no conflict if (and only if) the output of the P5 control system can drive the value of X to zero and keep it there.

So, the existence of static conflict doesn't even depend on the two perceptual functions having the same arguments.

One can even go further, and show that they don't even have to have arguments in common, if the external variables have some linkage not perceived by either control system.

Suppose A + X = 0, B + Y = 0 (for example, A and B are kids on one see-saw, which B and Y are kids on another). The father of A and B can't see the seesaw (maybe he's blind), and the father of X and Y can't see it either. Each father wants his kids to be lifted high in the air. (P6 = A + B, r6 = 5, P7 = X + Y, r7 = 5). There is no way that E6 and E7 can both be zero at the same time, so there is conflict despite the perceptions being functions of non-overlapping sets of variables. It's only in the non-perceived "real real" world that the linkage occurs that creates the conflict, but the conflict exists, nevertheless.

So, again, I say that static conflict happens when the error values for the two perceptions cannot simultaneously be zero, whatever the perceptual functions.

Martin

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2005.09.09.1345)]

Martin Taylor (2005.09.09.11.39) --

... Rick's original statement of the conditions for
conflict was that it happened when the two perceptions were the same

Or similar! The degree of conflict depends on how similar (non-orthogonal)
the perceptions are.

function of the same variables. My statement is that static conflict
happens when the error values for the two perceptions cannot
simultaneously be zero.

That's a good description of what the consequences of a conflict are: when
there is a conflict between control systems the error values in the two
systems cannot simultaneously be zero. But this doesn't explain why the
conflict occurs; that is, it doesn't say why the errors can't be
simultaneously zero. I think my original statement is a reasonably accurate
description of why conflict between control systems occurs: it occurs when
two or more systems try to bring the same or a similar perception (a
function of sensory or perceptual inputs) to different reference states.

Adding to the example, you can get static conflict even when the
perceptions are different functions and the functions include
different variables.

I suppose that's possible. Again, all that has to be true is that the
outputs of the perceptual functions -- the perceptual signals or simply
"perceptions" in PCT -- be correlated in the sense that the outputs of all
systems involved in the coflict lead to correlated changes in the two
perceptions.

Let's say now that P3 = f(A,B} = A + B and P5 = g{A,B,X} = A^2 + B^2 + X^2.

Again, let's say that r3 = 4 and r5 = 1. e3 (the error in the P3
control system) and e5 cannot simultaneously be zero, so there is
conflict. However, if r3 = 2 and r5 = 2, there is no conflict if (and
only if) the output of the P5 control system can drive the value of X
to zero and keep it there.

I would say that the two perceptions, P3 and P5, are similar because the
values of P3 and P5 are correlated when A, B and X are varied by the outputs
of the systems. That is, there is no way for the systems to vary A, B and/or
X so that changes in P3 are unrelated to changes in P5. For example, changes
in A,B or X that lead to an increase in P3 also lead to an increase in P5.
Because P3 and P5 are similar in this way, the system controlling P3 is very
likely to get into a conflict with the system controlling P5.

It's always possible to pick references for the same or similar perceptions
that would avoid a conflict, the easiest being to have systems pick the same
reference for the perceptions. This would be like being in a tug of war
where both team A and team B had the same reference for the location of the
flag, say "on team B's side". Now there is no conflict because both
systems, A and B, are trying to get the same perception (of the location of
the flag) to the same reference (on B's side).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.