FW: Coffee in the Cup and more

Warren.

If somebody makes his own theory which doesn’t fit into majoriti of Bills work it has to get special name.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:45 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Subject: Re: Coffee in the Cup and more

Boris, no one else on CSGNet uses the term RCT. It’s embarrassing.

On 24 May 2018, at 19:12, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Fred it seems that you’ll not stop thinking in Ricks’ way. He poisoned CSGnet with his RCT.

From: “Fred Nickols” (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 2:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Coffee in the Cup and more

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.23.0848)]

I think I should clarify the last sentence in the post below.

FN : I wrote “Perhaps it’s equally true that perception controls behavior.� I should have written, “Perhaps it’s equally true that perception, in relation to reference, controls behavior.� (At least in a start-stop sense.)

HB : It’s neither the first one nor the second statement right. I advised you many time that you should turn to Bill not to Rick. There is no “Control of behavior” in PCT definitions and diagram. And thus “Behavior can’t control perception”. You are not manipulating with your hands “cup of coffee” in environment. At least in PCT you are not “controlling behavior”. But you just affect immediate environment with “output”.

Bill P (B:CP)

  1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
  1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
  1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

HB : It’s just effects to environment that affect input. There is no “controlled effects” so that you could control “aspect of environment” or “perception” with behavior. Can you read it and remember it if you are talking about PCT ? If you talk about RCT where you control with behavior “aspect of environment” and perception there is no problem. You can use whatever you want. It’s anarchy.

Boris

Fred Nickols

From: “Fred Nickols” (fred@nickols.us via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:29 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Coffee in the Cup and more

[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.23.0826)]

I’m still working my way through this q.i. and control thing so once again bear with me. If you make it to the end of this post you will see what I think has been a breakthrough in my understanding.

I want a cup of fresh coffee. So I make a fresh pot and when it’s finished I pour some into my cup. I fill the cup to about three-quarters of an inch short of its lip.

Two variables are of interest here: (1) the freshness of the coffee and (2) the amount of coffee in the cup.

Two patterned actions on my part are apparent: (1) making a pot of coffee and (2) pouring coffee into the cup.

I start pouring coffee into the cup because it’s empty. I stop when it reaches my desired level of fullness indicating the desired amount of coffee in the cup.

I have a reference for the amount of coffee in the cup: about three-quarters of an inch short of its lip. I perceive the level or amount of coffee rise as I pour. I stop when the level of coffee reaches the reference level.

Were you to ask me after filling my coffee cup “How much coffee is in the cup?� I could only reply, “I don’t know the exact amount in terms of ounces or whatever, but I do know it (the level of coffee in the cup) is where I want it.� So I guess I’m actually controlling for the level of coffee in the cup, not some exact amount of coffee.

“Out thereâ€? – in the world outside me – i“ is a cup with some coffee in it. I have a perception of the level of the coffee in the cup. I compare that perception with my desired level of coffee and when it reaches that level I stop pouring coffee into the cup. The difference or gap between my perceived level of coffee in the cup and my desired level of coffee in the cup has been closed.

As I understand PCT, my perception of the level of coffee in the cup is represented by p. It is a perceptual signal that corresponds to the actual level of coffee in the cup. In PCT, the actual level of the coffee in the cup is represented as q.i. My desired level of coffee in the cup is the reference signal or r. Any gap or difference between p and r produces an error signal, represented in PCT as e. The error signal is an input to the output function which results in an output quantity represented as q.o. (the act of pouring coffee). Presumably, the feedback function has to do with things like the position of the coffee pot in relation to the coffee cup, the rate of pouring, and the path the stream of coffee follows in entering the cup. Through this feedback function, the level of coffee in the cup (q.i.) rises. As it rises, p, my perception of the level of coffee in the cup changes. When p = r, I stop pouring.

To continue some PCT parlance, I would be inclined to say with respect to p that I am controlling for my perceived level of coffee in the cup (p). I cannot imagine anyone would take issue with the statement that my act of pouring coffee into the cup affects the level of coffee in the cup. I would also be inclined to say that my pouring behavior actually controls the level of coffee in the cup (q.i.). Yet, that latter statement seems capable of stirring up quite a controversy. Why is that?

Whoa there! I just had a flash of insight in relation to a sentence in the paragraph above. I stand by the assertion that my act of pouring coffee into the cup affects the level of coffee in the cup. But I think I just realized something about the next sentence. My pouring behavior does indeed affect the level of coffee in the cup, but it does not control the level of coffee in the cup. My behavior controls my perception of the level of coffee in the cup. In turn, that perception in relation to my reference for the level of coffee in the cup controls my behavior. As Bill said, behavior is the control of perception. Perhaps it’s equally true that perception controls behavior.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“Assistance at a Distance�

[Bruce Abbott (2018.05.28.0905 EDT)]

[Rick Marken 2018-05-27_22:19:53]

RM: This is pretty good except for one crucial error: according to PCT it’s the perceptual function, not q.i, that determines the value of p. This perceptual function also defines the controlled input quantity, q.i

“Actually,� it’s both. Given a perceptual input function, the values of the environmental variables on the input side of that function determine the value of p. For example, if p = X + Y, then the value if p depends on the values of X and Y.

Bruce