FW: According to PCT

Martin, Rick


From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 5:23 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: According to PCT

[Martin Taylor 2018.]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-21_15:52:54]

RM: In theory, imagining involves replaying a reference signal back into a perceptual function so that you perceive exactly what you want to perceive. There is no controlling involved. So your question should be “I am replaying a perception in imagination mode. What is the aspect of the environment that is being controlled? Can you, an external observer, observe it?” To which the answer is "Since the perceptual signal is not being controlled there is no aspect of the environment that is being controlled. So there is no aspect of the environment that corresponds to it. And an external observer can’t observe it because there is nothing to be observed.

HB : Nobody said that. Bill and Kent are talking about stability in environment. And “effects” on environment. But it’s true they don’t talk about “controlled effects” or “Behavior is control”. Just effects.

RM : According to PCT, a perceptual signal § corresponds to the aspect of the environment that is being controlled (q.i) when an aspect of the environment is being controlled.

HB : Where exactly did you find this construct in PCT ? Can you prove this statment ? If I understand right that to the extend “p” is controlled also “q.i.” is controlled. So when perceptual signal is being controlled in the same time also aspect of environment is being controlled ? And of course vica verse. To the extend “q.i.” is controlled also “p” is controlled" ???

HB : I assume that you’ll prove all this “facts” with your version of RCT (Ricks Control Theory) in which “control loop” consist of : “Behavior is control”, “aspect of environment is controlled”, there is “Controlled Perceptual Variable” ? What a construct. We are waiting now 5 years for you to show any proof but there isn’t any. What a waste you are Rick.

MT : So, according to PCT, when we perceive ourselves to be planning, and to be imagining that we are varying our influence on imagined variables to bring them to reference values, we aren’t. It’s all an illusion, and we are not doing that at all?

HB : Bruce some time thinks the same.

BA : Of course, we humans can know only what our sensors tell us. We have no direct access to the outside reality, whatever that may be. One can even adopt the position that such a reality does not exist.

HB : It seems that PCT is meant to stimulate changes of oppinion very fast.

But Martin (when you changed you mind again) you wrote in almost the same words as Bill wrote it how you affect environment with behavior.

MT earlier : Causality flows one way around a control loop. The difference between reference and perception causes the error, and the error causes the output that causes influence upon the thing being perceived

HB : So can we conclude that effects of internal control are seen in environment via output ?

Output comes after “control of perception”. Effects of internal control are seen in environment, but observer could have a lot difficulties recognizing what person is controlling. If controlled effects could be seen in environment then there would probably be no problem recognizing what people feel and think ? But can we recognize exactly what people feel and think ? Does behavior show control or just “effects” of control ? It’s very hard to “see” what people control when they lie, manipulate, cheat,…

Even Rick admitted it himself :

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

HB : So there is not garantee that we could “read” what people think and feel, specially when they are not honest, they lie, trcik us, manipulate… If controlled effects would be in environment so clear why don’t we know immediatelly when people manipulate, lie, are corrupted…. Because organisms don’t function in the way that they control environment with behavior. They rather affect environment or “influence” it as Martin wrote. But I think that we all agree that there is no “controlled effects” and there is no “controlled influences”. I know that Rick and me caan’t agree because he thinks that “Behavior is control”.

MT: I wonder what version of PCT disallows the one thing that Powers argued was the only incontrovertible truth – our own perceptions. “According to PCT” is a very powerful all-encompassing truth, since it can over-ride even that!

HB : I don’t know anything about that what “Powers argued was the only incontrovertible truth – our own perceptions”. Where did he do that ? But I know that he argued theory so well that nobody can’t “beated” him till now. Try it Martin. Show exactly where he was wrong and make your better suggestions. Dont’ just talk ? You are becoming like a Rick.

Rick we are waiting for your proofs that “Behavior is control” and how “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or PCV is formed ?