Rick,
I think it’s no use if you don’t analyse your own text and what others wanted to say to you. I’ll put just some examples of your »confusion« and than you can judge for yourself. Although I’m sure most of people here understood what you were writing about. I think It would be better if you and others direct conversations into improving PCT. But if you want converstaion about you and your possible »mistakes« what can I do ? I don’t know, It sometimes seems to me that you are promoting to much yourself. Was this »ad hominum attack« ? I apologize in advance if you feel it as an »attack«. Â
RM earlier :
Control theory doesn’t say that organisms (particularly humans) can’t be controlled; indeed, it shows that they can be controlled, mainly by disturbance to a controlled variable.
RM earlier :
What we often notice about behavior are responses to disturbances to controlled perceptions and fail to notice that the responses only occur because people are controlling those perception.
HB : How can PCT moderator write  such a contradictions ?
RM earlier : Control of behavior is an illusion in the same sense that stimulus-response behavior is an illusion.
MT earlier :
I disagree, and I don’t need to analyze your equations to say why.
Effective “Perceptual Control” means that a perceptual variable stays on average nearer the value of a possibly variable reference value than it would in the absence of control.
What the perceptual variable might correspond to in the environment doesn’t matter in the slightest. If the actions caused by the output of the control unit influence the perception to be nearer the reference than it would be without those actions, control is effective.
Whether the perception being controlled corresponds to some facet of the behaviour of another control system is irrelevant to whether the perception is being controlled. Control is no illusion if it is happening.
The only time there is a potential problem of wording is if the output of the control unit causes actions that do not actually influence the perceptual variable to stay closer to the reference variable than it would if the unit produced no output. I would call that “ineffective control”. Some would call it the “absence of control”, but I would say that the “absence of control” indicates zero output from the control unit for that perception, if indeed a control unit exists with that perceptual variable being compared to a reference variable.
So, there is no “illusion of control of behaviour” if a perception of a behaviour is kept closer to its reference value by the actions caused by the output of a control unit controlling that perception. There is only “control of perception of behaviour”.
An “illusion of control of behaviour” is possible, though; you may think you control someone’s behaviour if you want them to, say, raise their right foot, and they do it while you silently say to yourself “Jim, raise your right foot”. That would be an illusion of control of Jim’s behaviour.
On the other hand, “control” of any environmental variable whatever may well be an illusion.
HB : Superb oppinion. And your answer…
<
RM:earlier :
I’m not so sure anymore. I do think I agree with two points I made in my original (long) post: 1. What has been called “the illusion of control” is not an illusion at all but a misconception and 2) the difference between control of the behavior of a causal and a control system is in the nature of the feedback function connecting output to input. I’m much less confident about my conclusion that we can therefore call control of the behavior of a control system an illusion on the basis of this difference in feedback functions.
RM earlier :
I think the “behavioral illusion” is a true illusion because we do see a person’s response to a disturbance to a controlled variable as a stimulus causing a response via the person when, in fact, the causal path from disturbance to response runs through the person’s environment. But I don’t think people necessarily see control of behavior in quite the same way. That is, my argument for control of behavior being an illusion is based on the assumption that people see this control as being exerted via the person being controlled (as in the upper part of my diagram showing control of a causal system). I don’t think people necessarily see control of behavior that way.
HB :
And you still didn’t offer any model how »Control of behavior« could work in controllee ?
RM: I think the problem might be that I understand PCT in terms of models and you understand it in terms of words.
HB :
I don’t think that could be the only problem. I think that problem is in deeper understanding of how organisms work.
As Bill said models or demos are quite low on the »scale of arbiters« of what can be judged as »truth« if they are not compared to »experience with reality«. If you think I’m thinking only in words, you should visit a doctor and make a prevention medical examination. You’ll get the list of »critical variables« of your organism. Than try to explain to a doctor how everything what he examinated are just words, but you can offer a »real« understanding of how organisms work (PCT is a theory about how organisms work) with your demos and models.
Rick, I’m not only at the stage of the words as physiology is really working, helping people and milions are working with organisms every day contributing knowledge about how organisms work. And you will show them with demos and models (which are your construction) that you observe facts (reality just as it is) and that demos and models are »real« representative of »reality«. I can say only that your sources of knowledge are unreliable. Bill was quite acquanted with all these stuff but you are not enough to judge what are words and what are »observable facts« with models. And quite some times conversation between me and bill went into »physiological wording« about organisms structure and functioning. Why do you think that was so ? Just because we had nothing else to talk or that nobody else on CSGnet was acquanted with physiology.
RM: What did I do as moderator that was not right?
HB :
As you said you »attacked« Martin »ad hominum«. You made jokes of serious oppinion of acknowledged scientist. You are confusing CSGnet with »Control of behavior« (you said that you are probably only one who beleive in this)… and I’ll not go bback into the history because such things happened many times…
<
HB :
Here is part of  dialog between you and Kent :
KM: Amy and Bob are mother and small child. They are walking down the street hand in hand.
RM: Then I sure hope the tripping was accidental! 
KM: Amy is hurrying to get home, but Bob is resisting every step of the way, pulling back as hard as his little body can pull in the opposite direction. Amy drags Bob along, so that his body moves down the street in the direction of their house. Is Amy controlling the position of Bob’s body?
RM: Yes. This is control by coercion.
KM: Amy locks Bob in a small dark room with no windows.
RM: Amy is one bad Mom:-)
(Bob is now a grownup, so we don’t need to accuse Amy of child abuse.)
RM: Ah, that’s moderately reassuring. So Amy just abuses adults;-)
HB :
Is this on the level of serious moderator ? Although Kent specially asked for you serious approach you’ve been making fun of his oppinion.
RM :
I have a reference for a certain level of civility of discussions on CSGNet. Ad hominum attacks are a disturbance to that perception. I happen to be in the position of having the ability to delete people from CSGNet. So I am trying to get Boris to stop the ad hominum attacks (on me, but I would feel the same if they were directed at anyone)…… So I now have to choose between continuing to to control for a civil CSGNet by deleting Boris if he continues his ad hominum attacks, ….
HB :
Well I don’t see anything civilized in making fun of scientist. Do you ? Maybe it wouldn’t be based if you adjust »reference for a certain level of civility of discussions on CSGNet«.Did you threaten yourself that you’ll »delete« yourself out of CSGnet if you’ll continue with your »ad hominum« attacks like that on Martin ? It seems to me that old story stays. There are not the same criterium for »Powers friends« which seem to be in priviliged position to others. And until this is so, I’ll not make full conversations here about PCT.  Just necessary to try to stop »Control of behavior« as substitute for »Control of perception«.
Best,
Boris
···
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 12:20 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Cooperation
[From Rick Marken (2014.12.07.1520)]
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:30 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
HB : Maybe until Kent will find time to »work on it«, you could read his article : The collective control of perceptions: constructing order from conflict (2004)
RM: Yes, that paper is a good start. It certainly shows how two control systems can work together to control the same variable. But I don’t think we have to wait for Kent on this; he’s described his model very clearly. So now you should be able to use Kent’s model as the basis for modeling the situation I described; cooperatively lifting a couch.
HB : No you should be able to use Kent’s model as the basis for modeling the situation you described. I think I’m not blind yet. You were asking for the model not I.
RM: I’m asking people to try to develop a PCT model of cooperation. I want to teach people what is involved in developing a control model – a working control system model – of some behavior, in this case cooperation. No one is compelled to do this. If you don’t want to do it that’s perfectly alright. But I think you are passing up a learning opportunity.
HB : I’m telling you all the time that you are a great PCT thinker. Maybe also behavioristic. But you have to decide what is your priority.
RM: What makes you think I’m also a behaviorist?
HB: Most of the statements about »Contol of perception« which I presented from your writings (once upon a time) date mostly from the period you mentioned. I know that you can contribute a lot to PCT. I hope you will continue your good work. I also experienced your knowledge when we talked and I’m aware of your capacity. But I’m asking myself where did that Rick dissapeare ? I’d be the first who would gladly say : »Welcome back Rick«.
RM: I think the problem might be that I understand PCT in terms of models and you understand it in terms of words. So when I talk about the PCT model with what you consider to be the wrong words you think I am a behaviorist. But I’m not.
HB: And I hope for some respect for great scientist as Kent is. What you did as a moderator is not right ?
RM: What did I do as moderator that was not right?
HB: His whole work is inestimable souce of great PCT thoughts. So is Martin’s. And if you apologized to him and show him respect which he undoubtedly deserves, I think you should do it also in Kent case.
RM: I don’t know what I should apologize to Kent for. I do disagree with Kent about the “behavior” thing and maybe about the nature of cooperation. But I don’t think I have attacked him personally. I apologized to Martin because I made an ad hominum remark. But I don’t think I or anyone has to apologize for disagreeing with anyone else about substantive issues related to PCT.
HB: And maybe it would be good if you know what all the PCT-ers published. You are moderator afterall. And that means huge responsability.
RM: Actually, I do try to keep up with what PCTer’s publish. What makes you think I don’t.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
In nature there’s no blemish but the mind
None can be called deformed but the unkind.
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
