Hi Warren,
It’s quite nice chat…J
WM:
I have been more aware of the parallels between reorganisation and
Ashby’s work until now, as Bill makes explicit reference to this influence from
Ashby. one way we could address this for good would be if you were to write an
article that spells out the relationship between Ashby’s work and PCT in the
past, and for the future. I am happy to discuss with Alice to see if this might
be a potential chapter for LCS-IV. What do you think? This would make the links
public so people don’t diss-associate the two theories in the same way (but
also certain important distinctions could be clarified of course!) in
future…
HB :
Well I don’t think it’s only
re-organization that put together Bill and Ashby. In his book “Making sense
of behavior”, 1998, Bill wrote on p. 50…“These wrongness
signals are called in PCT “intrinsic error signals”, because they
refer to basic physical conditions that are essential for survival and are
inside, intinsic to the body. We don’t need to know how many of them exist or
what conditions might be represented, that’s the matter for many years of
researches to determine. All that matters now is that such a set of signals
must exist, and that when some or many of these error signals are not zero, the
body is equiped to do something that will restore them to zero. When the
intrinsic error signals are restored to zero, all the associated critical
variables are once again near built-in reference states and the body should
then be functioning normally, or as normally as can be defined by a limited set
of signals. I took this idea, incidentally, from the cyberneticist W.Ross Ashby
because I thought he was right, though I couldn’t prove it.”
WM :
Yes, that is the bit I meant. As I am sure you know, the intrinsic
signals are what drive reorganisation in PCT.
HB :
This is correct, but I think it’s not right. I think it’s more Bill’s
assumption and once I tried to tell him that it doesn’t match some
physiological “facts”. Beside that, reorganization in the picture on
p. 191. (B:CP, 2005) is presented as mostly genetically driven proces
(intrinsic reference signal) which can be regulated also through changes in
“intrinsic variables”. But I couldn’t find any physiological proof
that could confirm this assumption. Of course I could be wrong, but
physiological “facts” are quite important source of informations
about how organism works.
And beside that I think that there should be some feed-back to
stabilize “intrinsic variables” not only with behavior. At least my
proposal was in that direction. But as I already told, it was not accepted. So
I don’t think that only reorganization is in question that Bill was influenced
by Ashby, but also the basic idea about “intrinsic error” and
elimination of it. As Bill wrote he was extending Ashby’s concept of
ultrastability, although I think that Bill’s original work strongly upgraded
Ashby’s basic idea. Ashby presented the main concept of how organisms work
(ultrastability) and Bill by my oppinion elaborate concept into a great HPCT
structure, which exceeds Ashby’s concept enormously. But by my oppinion can still
be improved.
I must admitt that I really never understood and probably I never will,
why Bill introduced reorganizing principle on such a general level, if he had
so powerfull tool as coordinated work of control units. I think it’s O.K. when
using the idea of reorganization with-in nervous system (varying connections
between neurons), but introducing it as genetically driven proces was out of my
range.
WM :
Thinking about it now, the ’ Law of Requisite Variety ’ surely has some
connection with the variation in control parameters during reorganisation that
is described by Bill, but this is not a direct match, I don’t think.
HB :
I don’t know how “Law of Requisite
Variety” – LRV, can be included in driving
“reorganization”, except that in evolution the mechanism of
reorganization could be formed through principles of LRV. Maybe LRV could be
some helpful issue. But LRV (Wikipedia) was probably meant for other use
(information theory), and I think Bruce or Martin could gave better answer than
I do.
My comment is that LRV with meaning
“…if a system is to be stable the number of states of
its control mechanism must be greater than or equal to the number of states in
the system being controlled”, could be used through evolution perspective.
It could mean that organisms with control mechanisms that assure stability
(greater or equal number of stable states then environment could disturb),
could survive through evolution and other don’t. Well it’s just my guess.
Best,
Boris
···
From: Control Systems Group
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014
1:47 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience article
Hi Boris…
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Warren,
I must say that you seem to be quite construcitve… I’ll try
the same way…J
WM :
Hi Boris, I agree
with everything you have said, and it is a shame that this quote from Ashby
became apparent in such a timely way for the article. Most of that section is
based on what Bill wrote about cybernetics as a whole, and Wiener’s model of
negative feedback, of which he was genuinely critical in the article I cited
from LCS. My error appears to be that this view applies to Ashby too.
HB :
Well I can’t judge your “error” from the aspect of what
you wrote, because I’m not familiar with it. I judged it from the aspect of
Ashby’s work and relations that were told by Bill on CSGnet, and of course what
was written in Ashby’s and Bill’s books.
WM :
I have been more
aware of the parallels between reorganisation and Ashby’s work until now, as
Bill makes explicit reference to this influence from Ashby. one way we could
address this for good would be if you were to write an article that spells out
the relationship between Ashby’s work and PCT in the past, and for the future.
I am happy to discuss with Alice to see if this might be a potential chapter
for LCS-IV. What do you think? This would make the links public so people don’t
diss-associate the two theories in the same way (but also certain important
distinctions could be clarified of course!) in future…
HB :
Well I don’t think it’s only re-organization that put together Bill
and Ashby. In his book “Making sense of behavior”, 1998, Bill wrote
on p. 50…“These wrongness signals are called in PCT “intrinsic
error signals”, because they refer to basic physical conditions that are
essential for survival and are inside, intinsic to the body. We don’t need to
know how many of them exist or what conditions might be represented, that’s the
matter for many years of researches to determine. All that matters now is that
such a set of signals must exist, and that when some or many of these error
signals are not zero, the body is equiped to do something that will restore
them to zero. When the intrinsic error signals are restored to zero, all the
associated critical variables are once again near built-in reference states and
the body should then be functioning normally, or as normally as can be defined
by a limited set of signals. I took this idea, incidentally, from the
cyberneticist W.Ross Ashby because I thought he was right, though I couldn’t
prove it.”
Yes, that is the bit I meant. As I am sure you know, the intrinsic
signals are what drive reorganisation in PCT. Thinking about it now, the ‘Law
of Requisite Variety’ surely has some connection with the variation in control
parameters during reorganisation that is described by Bill, but this is not a
direct match, I don’t think.
I think that Bill could prove it, if he would take some years to
research the structure of “essential variables” (as Ashby called
them) and control mechanisms that are “keeping” the essential
variables in physiological limits. By my oppinion this is the starting point of
Ashby’s and PCT model for studying human behavior. Maybe I’m wrong, but
this was the point where I started to understand how organisms might work.
Later I read ashby, and it seemed to me, that heuristics for control is quite
similar. Of course I think that Bill upgraded Ashby’s theory very much with his
original contributions and a lot of new ideas which could be the starting point
for “new model of real organisms”. I tried once to start the
discussion about those “many years of researches”, but I didint get
through. So PCT stayed as it was from the beggining. I think that some friends
of Bill persuaded him, that actual theory is “closing the loop”.
So Warren I think that Bill and Ashby are much more intertwinned as
it seems to be. Speccialy model on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) made me think about paralelity
between them as basic starting point concept, when control in organisms is
concerned.
I really aprecciate your offer, I know you want the best for PCT
and it’s promotion. I’m with you, but I can’t accept your offer for some
reasons. One is that Bill never accepted me and my proposal, so I think I’m not
a good co-writer for the LCS IV book. I think that Bruce is much, much better
choice. His knowledege is hugh also on the field of Ashby and he was co-worker
for the LCS III. If you ask me, I would point finger at him as a right person
for the chapter you are proposing. Please no offence.
No worries. As you know, Bruce is doing some fantastic spadework on the
comparative motor control models for his chapter. Actually Alice Powers and I
do have some lee-way which we can discuss offline.
What a sunny days…!!! Living and controlling is a real
pleasure J
I agree!
Best,
Boris
From: Control Systems Group
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU]
On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014
7:18 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience article
Hi Boris, I agree
with everything you have said, and it is a shame that this quote from Ashby
became apparent in such a timely way for the article. Most of that section is
based on what Bill wrote about cybernetics as a whole, and Wiener’s model of
negative feedback, of which he was genuinely critical in the article I cited
from LCS. My error appears to be that this view applies to Ashby too.
I have been more
aware of the parallels between reorganisation and Ashby’s work until now, as
Bill makes explicit reference to this influence from Ashby.
one way we could
address this for good would be if you were to write an article that spells out
the relationship between Ashby’s work and PCT in the past, and for the future.
I am happy to discuss with Alice to see if this might be a potential chapter
for LCS-IV. What do you think? This would make the links public so people don’t
diss-associate the two theories in the same way (but also certain important
distinctions could be clarified of course!) in future…
Warren
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Mar 2014, at 03:19, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET > wrote:
Hi Warren,
I’m sorry for the
delay.
WM :
Hi Boris, I would
certainly not want to discredit Ashby …
HB :
I’m glad for that.
WM :
….and I can
imagine writing a whole article on the relationship between Ashby’s work and
Bill’s theory.
HB :
Please do it and
“wash” Ashby’s name J
WM :
I am genuinely
sorry if it appears that way to readers.
HB :
Apologie
accepted…J
WM :
This small section
of the paper was added merely to address a reviewer’s comment that many people
would argue that the scientific community already recognise the importance of
negative feedback and we are stating what people already know.
These quotes show
that even the greatest cyberneticists may have downplayed its importance.
HB :
I’m sure you that for
your reason, you could use some person less important for PCT. Ashby’s work is
intertwined with PCT and it really sounds “ugly” to me in the context
you presented. And maybe it “throws bad light” om PCT too. The main
problem I see, is not presenting Ashby’s work properly and in whole, when
mentioning him. Or as I see it, it would be better not to mention him at all as
it goes just for a “small section of the paper”. Small section
– huge mistake. J
WM :
This has nothing
to do with what could be said at length about influences on Bill’s work,
nor does it question Ashby’s brilliance.
HB:
I’m not sure about
this one. Maybe we could call this “perceptual illusion”. You said it
for yourself : “….genuinely sorry if it appears that way to
readers.” So putting such a crtitical sentences into articles could
“disturb” different states in people, and different responses
(output, behavior) in different people. Ashby would say that people from
infinite variables in “machine” choose those they prefer to form their
personal “abstract” system of variables or in PCT set of controlled
variables. We could also say that they form their own “implicit
theories” about what they perceive. And I as a reader perceived very
partial and »carefully« selected »arrow« into a great
scientist. People usualy do perceive what they want to perceive, not what is
supposed to be “objectively percieved”. Well at least PCT shows also
some of these characteristics.
WM:
Don’t let this bit
of the paper steer you away from the shared vision we all have to disseminate
PCT.
HB :
Far from that. I’m
intensivelly working on PCT, because I think it’s the best way for analyzing
organisms, but it’s also quite far form being finished yet. By my oppinion
there are quite some things to be done, to make model of PCT
“operational” in the sense that simulation of working organism and
speccially nervous system will be possible. By my oppinion it will not be
possible without Ashby’s work which is by my oppinion the bases for the diagram
on p. 191.(B:CP, 2005), which also presents PCT’s “double feed-back”
in organism, Ashby’s “diagram of immediate effects” shows the same
idea.
And there is also
a “homeostat”, Ashby’s “live” demonstration of feed-back
principles in maintainig ultra-stability, that could be present in organisms. I
don’t recall that PCT has any such things. But with Bill’s knowledge I think it
could be possible to make much more improved “homeostat”. Bill’s
method for “observing” the control activity in organisms is for me the
best way to analyze “ultrastability” or maintainance of
“essential variables” inside physiological limits (controlling
“intrinsic-error”) through coordination of multiple control units or
hierarchies in organism. But not only abstractly and with mathematical
approach. I think that combined approcah should be introduced more
precisely. “Joining” Ashby’s theory and PCT and many other researches
is not easy task. But I’m trying, and I’m really said when I see such arguments
about any of them.
So my main
reproach to your writing is, that you presented the person as “not knowing
what is feed-back”, but in the matter of fact, he was a cornner stone for
general model of PCT shown on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) with full knowledge of
multiple feed-back.
Do we understand
where I see the problem ?
Best, Boris
From: Control Systems Group
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU]
On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 5:50
PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience article
Hi Boris, I would
certainly not want to discredit Ashby and I can imagine writing a whole article
on the relationship between Ashby’s work and Bill’s theory. I am genuinely
sorry if it appears that way to readers.
This small section
of the paper was added merely to address a reviewer’s comment that many people
would argue that the scientific community already recognise the importance of
negative feedback and we are stating what people already know.
These quotes show
that even the greatest cyberneticists may have downplayed its importance.
This has nothing
to do with what could be said at length about influences on Bill’s work,
nor does it question Ashby’s brilliance.
Don’t let this bit
of the paper steer you away from the shared vision we all have to disseminate
PCT.
Warren
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Mar 2014, at 16:18, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET > > wrote:
Sorry to see this article so late.
Hi all,
well I agree that article is good, but I don’t agree that Ashby’s roll
in history of feed-back was properly presented. Why to submiss his work. It
simply doesn’t represent his whole work and contribution he gave to Bil’s
theory . We can see it almost in every of his books. Ashby’s influence can be
seen in many other theories.
And I remember that Bill once wrote, that he has studied Ashby for
a long time. That could mean he learned much from him. Ashby’s quotes simply
don’t feet in article. Did you think that with discrediting Ashby you will make
Bill “bigger”… Sorry for you. I thought you were both wise
guys. I was obviously wrong. I’m disapointed.
Best,
Boris
From: Control Systems Group
Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU]
On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014
11:57 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience article
Dear Colleagues,
I thought you might
be interested in the attached article which has just been published as Open
Access in a special issue on embodied cognition. The link to the full pdf is
below…
Warren
Forwarded message ----------
From: Science Production Office science.production.office@frontiersin.org
Date: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Frontiers: Article Published
To: wmansell@gmail.com
Dear Warren Mansell,
We are pleased to congratulate you on the publication of your article: A
Biopsychosocial Model Based on Negative Feedback and Control, by Timothy Andrew
Carey, Warren Mansell,
Sara Jane Tai, published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
To view the online publication, please click here:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/Abstract.aspx?s=537&name=human_neuroscience&ART_DOI=10.3389/fnhum.2014.00094&utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&journalName=Frontiers_in_Human_Neuroscience&id=78689
This article is an open access publication, which means that it is freely
accessible to any reader anywhere in the world. We encourage you to share the
article link with your co-authors and colleagues who may be interested in your
work or in this type of research.
–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England
The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.
Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3705/7132 - Release Date: 02/28/14
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3722/7165 - Release Date: 03/07/14
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3722/7183 - Release Date:
03/12/14
–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
See teamstrial.net for
further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England
The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is
available now.
Check www.pctweb.org for
further information on Perceptual Control Theory
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4336 / Virus Database: 3722/7208 - Release Date: 03/17/14