FW: FW: Cooperation

Martin.

I answered below.

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 7:45 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Cooperation

[Martin Taylor 2014.12.08.13.40]

On 2014/12/8 12:42 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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«.

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 ?

Boris, where do you see a contradiction? To me, the two quotes say exactly the same thing: If you want to control a perception of someone’s actions, you disturb a perception they control in such a way that they will oppose your disturbance by using the action you want to see.

Which of the quotes from Rick do you see as contradicting this?

HB :

It’s quite complicated, and I’m not a specialy good reader of American language.

If I read it right in first statemnet Rick is telling that people can be controlled through disturbances to »controlled variable« (whatever controlled variable could mean). But I think it is meant »controlled variable« out of organism.

And in second if I read right he said that »responses to disturbances to controlled perception« can’t be controlled from outside, because people are controlling those perceptions (so they can’t be controlled).

Disturbances to controlled perception don’t mean that we can control responses (behavior) of other people. People decide whether they will control it or not.

I may be wrong. How did you read it…? Maybe Ricck could tell what did he mean by that.

Boris

Martin

[Martin Taylor 2014.12.09,14 39]

I read it as saying that actions occur because people maintain

perceptions near their references, so that if you disturb a variable
they are controlling, by acting on its environmental correlate, they
will act. You choose your disturbance according to your perception
of what they are controlling and how they will counter your
disturbance.
I don’t understand this interpretation at all. Here’s the quote
again: "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.
Maybe he didn’t mean the two quotes the way I read them. But that’s
the way I read them.
No, we can only control our perception of the behaviour of other
people. If Alec is controlling a perception of Beth’s action, and her
current action is not equal to his reference for it, he acts to
disturb a perception Beth is controlling. If Beth actually is
controlling the perception that he disturbs, she will act in some
way to counter the disturbance. If he guessed wrong, and his action
doesn’t in fact disturb any perception Beth is controlling, or if he
guessed wrong, and Beth’s action to counter the disturbance isn’t
what Alec wanted to see, he may try to disturb a different
perception, or the same perception in a different way, until either
she acts so that his perception of her action matches its reference,
or he gives up trying to control his perception of her action.
Martin

···

On 2014/12/9 1:09 PM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

Martin.

Â

        I

answered below.

Â

From:
csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu
[mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu ]
On Behalf Of Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 7:45 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Cooperation

Â

[Martin Taylor 2014.12.08.13.40]

On 2014/12/8 12:42 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Rick,

Â

          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

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.

Â

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.Â

Â

          HB

: How can PCT moderator write  such a contradictions ?

      Boris, where do you see a contradiction? To me, the two quotes

say exactly the same thing: If you want to control a
perception of someone’s actions, you disturb a perception they
control in such a way that they will oppose your disturbance
by using the action you want to see.

      Which of the quotes from Rick do you see as contradicting

this?

Â

        HB

:

        It's

quite complicated, and I’m not a specialy good reader of
American language.

Â

        If

I read it right in first statemnet Rick is telling that
people can be controlled through disturbances to »controlled
variable« (whatever controlled variable could mean). But I
think it is meant »controlled variable« out of organism.

        And

in second if I read right he said that »responses to
disturbances to controlled perception« can’t be controlled
from outside, because people are controlling those
perceptions (so they can’t be controlled).

"

  I interpret this as referring to  "the behavioural illusion". He

is saying that if you know nothing of perceptual control, and you
see someone doing something right after an event has occurred, you
may well think the event caused the action (i.e. an S-R process),
never noticing that the action actually occurred because the event
disturbed some perception and the action was to counter the
disturbance.

Â

      I

may be wrong. How did you read it…? Maybe Rick could telll what
did he mean by that.

        Disturbances

to controlled perception don’t mean that we can control
responses (behavior) of other people. People decide whether
they will control it or not.

[From Rick Marken (2014.12.09.1930)

RM: My copy of Powers’ “Making Sense of Behavior” (note the last word in the title) bears the following hand written inscription:

For Rick Marken
Some day all this will be yours.
Bill Powers

This was written in 1998, at which point CSGNet was already 8 years old and I had been working with Bill on PCT for nearly 20 years. I took Bill’s words to mean that he expected me to carry on his role as a teacher of PCT when he was gone. I was not enthusiastic about having that mantle passed to me. But I do love PCT and I obviously enjoy teaching it. So when Bill passed away (something I think I believed – and hoped – would never happen) I have tried to carry on as a teacher of PCT, not because I felt that doing so was a responsibility but because it is a joy. But after the discussion on CSGNet over the last few weeks I have felt more like Christ at Gethsemene than Mr. Chips (no I don’t think I’m god; just a nice Jewish boy getting a lot of grief from teaching PCT).; like Id like to quit. But I know I can’t (because I like to do it). But I do ask that when people disagree with what I say about PCT they frame their disagreements in terms of equations, working models or demonstrations so that we know what we’re talking about.

RM: I didn’t relate the inscription above to say that I am now the keeper of the infallible truth about PCT. But I do think of it as kind of a diploma from PCT U. As I’ve said before, I think PCT is a discipline, like calculus, that has to be learned. And the best way to learn PCT is by reading the texts, running the models, and doing the demos. Like calculus, I think one has to have a grasp of at least algebra to really understand how the PCT model works. And like calculus, there are right and wrong answers to questions about how the PCT model works and how it applies to behavior.

RM: I think I have a reasonably good grasp of how the PCT model works and how it is applied to actual behavior. So when people say things about PCT I know whether what was said was right or wrong. But like any teacher – like any human being – I sometimes make mistakes and when I do I appreciate being corrected. But these corrections might themselves be wrong. The only way I can be sure that a correction is correct is if it’s done in terms of the model itself, using equations, computer programs or demos.

RM: Of course, we can’t talk only in equations, demos and tests. We can certainly use good old fashioned words to talk about PCT correctly. But when we get into disagreements about PCT I think the only way to resolve them without just yelling louder and louder is using these technical means. I tried to do that in the “Control of behavior” discussion by creating a demo of control of behavior. I think that demo should have cleared things up. The fact that it didn’t suggests that many on CSGNet approach PCT as something like an art form rather than as a scientific discipline. I would like CSGNet to be a forum where we continue Bill Powers’ scientific approach to understanding living control systems – the approach taken so powerfully and elegantly in LCS III – that involves presenting PCT using equations, working models and demonstrations of the phenomena that the models explain.

RM: So with that, let’s get back to talking about the model. Boris asked me what I thought when he said there was a contradiction between these two statement of mine:

RM: 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: 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.

RM: Martin Taylor already answered this correctly. But Boris gave his explanation of why he saw a contradiction and asked me what I meant so I’ll answer him.

HB:If I read it right in first statement Rick is telling that people can be controlled through disturbances to »controlled variable« (whatever controlled variable could mean).

RM: Yes, that’s exactly what I said. The controlled variable is the variable a control system controls. The term refers to both the perceptual variable that is controlled and its environmental correlate. So the controlled variable for a thermostat control system is the perceptual variable (electrical current) that the system controls and the environmental correlate of this perceptual variable (the temperature of the air at the thermostat’s sensor).

HB: But I think it is meant »controlled variable« out of organism.

RM: The controlled variable is affected by the organism’s outputs as well as by environmental disturbances. The controlled variable is also an input perception. So a controlled variable doesn’t really come out of or go into the organism; it is a variable aspect of the environment (so it is already outside of the organism) that is controlled by the organism. The organism’s outputs do come out of the organism; they are produced by the organism in opposition to disturbances to the controlled variable. Therefore, if someone outside the organism can vary disturbances to the controlled variable, they can control the organism’s outputs by varying the disturbances appropriately.

RM: This is what is done in the rubber band demonstration of control of behavior. The controlled variable for S is the position of the knot in the rubber bands. E can disturb this variable by pulling on his end of the rubber bands. S compensates for these disturbances by moving his end of the rubber band appropriately (by moving his finger). Thus E can control the position of S’s finger by disturbing S’s controlled variable (the position of the knot) appropriately. Because S’s finger movements are one of the things S is doing – his behavior – E can control S’s behavior by disturbing the variable – the position of the knot – that S is controlling: S’s controlled variable.

HB: And in second if I read right he said that »responses to disturbances to controlled perception« can’t be controlled from outside, because people are controlling those perceptions (so they can’t be controlled).

RM: This is a misunderstanding of what I said in that second statement. I didn’t say that responses to disturbances can’t be controlled. I said that we often notice responses to disturbances to a controlled perception (controlled variable) and fail to notice the controlled perception that is being protected from the disturbances by the responses. For example, we might notice the eye blink (the response) that follows air puffed into the eye (the disturbance) but fail to notice the controlled perceptual variable (perceived degree of moistness of the cornea) that is being protected from this disturbance. But whether we notice the controlled variable or not, we can control the eye blink response (make it happen or not happen by puffing or not puffing air into the eye), just as we could control the position of S’'s finger in the rubber band demonstration, because the blink is the output of a control system that is protecting the controlled perception (perceived moistness of the cornea) from the drying effect of the air-puff.

RM: So, as Martin put it far more succinctly,

MT: To me, the two quotes say exactly the same thing: If you want to control a perception of some one’s actions, you disturb a perception they control in such a way that they will oppose your disturbance by using the action you want to see.

RM: And just to throw in a little math. Both of my statements are verbal descriptions of the following fact about the operation of control systems:

(1) q.o = r -(1/k.f)*d

where q.o is the system’s output, k.f is the feedback function connecting q.o to the variable being controlled by the system – the controlled variable, r is the system’s reference for the value of the controlled variable and d is a disturbance to the controlled variable. What this equation shows is that you can control q.o, the system’s output, by varying d. It is a control equation showing that you can control the behavior, q.o, of a control system by varying the disturbance to the variable controlled by that control system, a variable protected from the effects of that disturbance by variations in q.o.

RM: But all this talk is really unnecessary once you understand equation 1 above.That equation shows that the behavior of a control system can be controlled.

Best regards

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

Martin,

RM: 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.

HB : If I read it right in first statement Rick is telling that people can be controlled through disturbances to »controlled variable« (whatever controlled variable could mean).

RM: Yes, that’s exactly what I said.

RM :

But all this talk is really unnecessary once you understand equation 1 above.That equation shows that the behavior of a control system can be controlled.

HB :

Behavior can never be controlled from inside LCS as organism can’t survive. And this means that nobody or nothing from outside can »control behavior« if person is unable to do that. Some fundamental knowledge from other sciences would be needed to set defintion by equatations like Rick did. I would suggest finding some proofs that equatation really works in natural environment. Maybe equatation could apply to tennis game to see how it works. It’s not that we put some letters with our meaning and say this has solved the mistery of »controlled behavior«. Also some knowledge has to be in background.

MT : I read it as saying that actions occur because people maintain perceptions near their references, so that if you disturb a variable they are controlling, by acting on its environmental correlate, they will act.

HB : I think Martin that you »arranged« your oppinion so to look like Rick is thinking in »Control perception« terms. But it seems that Rick agree with my oppinion. He admitted that he talked about »control of behavior«. So it seems Martin that our interpretations were quite apart, but everyone judge and treat text according to his knowledge, friendship, emotional inclinations, customaries…, andd so on. So perceptions can be very subjective, specially complex content.

There are quite some things that I don’t clearly understand, as it seems to me that you exposed your oppinion about Rick’s oppinon. Like that you used »determined« logic like »disturb a variable they are controlling, by acting on its environmental correlate, they will act (it doesn’t seem to me that Rick said that, it looks like your oppinion). This seems quite problematic, because you are contraditcitng your example with »Alec and Beth«, where efect of disturbances are relaitve. You were a little bit more cautious than Rick about using term »control of other people«. He used term »mainly«, but you used quite tricky thought »after disturbances to controlled variable they will act«. But In any case I think that we can’t control anything except ourselves. The person you »attempt to control« is already controlling all the time.

HB : I see at least three problems in our discussion :

  1.   The problem is »generalized« Rick's statement (mainly control other people by disturbing »controlled variable«) and »people will act when the correlate is disturbed«. It's not necesary that people will act when somebody disturbed their »controlled variable or correlate« outside (specialy not from output to »controlled variable«).  You showed that in example with Alec and Beth. You can expect other perosn to act but what they will do, you can maybe predict, but it's not necesary that will happen. Specialy if person is  acquanted with possiblity that you want to »control« her. That is usualy the case when the sports games are in question (we saw it in analyzing tennis). If you say that people will always act on disturbances to »controolled variable in environment« or »correlate«, you are saying that when stimulus to »controlled variable« or »correlate is aplyed and person will act in the determined manner, she is controlled. So it will be »stimulus-respons« event as Rick is already using this relation in his sentences, even when he is using »control of perception«. He is using term »respons« what means behavioral terminology. Not action as you are using. Respons and action are quite different terminology.
    
  2.   Another problem I see is that Rick is not using usual PCT wording as you do. You are using »Control of perception« and in the fundaments of his explanation we can find »Control of behavior«. He was quite clear abourt that. But I still don't underst and what you meant with »correlate«. And If »correlate« is already »controlled« from output (behavior) to »controlled variable in environment« why should we need perception ?
    
  3.   The last problem I see is the possible »control of others« so that on certain »disturbance to controll of perception, action will occur«. Control means achieving and maintainance of »preselected perceptual state« in the controlling system« (Bill's definiton), And that can do only person »in control«. Nobody else can do that, as only person can set references for that state. So the only one who is controlling is person herself.  She can't be controlled from outside so to make »preselected state«. Environment can't control system (see Bill's Asymetry of control). But it can make disturbances to that control. What will be done with that disturbances only people can decide for themselves. The vague effect of disturbances on »controlled variable« you showed in case of Alec and Beth.
    

MT : You choose your disturbance according to your perception of what they are controlling and how they will counter your disturbance.

HB : Yes, but if you choose your disturbances, other person can also choose disturbances (counter-disturbances to affect some of yours perceptions). Other person is not a machine (non-lining LCS) which can not »return disturbances« so that we could say that is »controlled«. So I think that we shouldn’t mix »control of machines« with »control of LCS«. »Machines« can’t counter-act disturbances, but LCS can and mostly unpredictable.

Maybe we can talk about »planed disturbances«, but they never go in only one way. Sometimes you don’t know who is »controlling« who. »Choosen disturbances« can go in both ways. Both LCS are quite »equal beings«. They both control. So in my vision both LCS are controlling, They are not »controlling« each other. But they are disturbing each other and compensate disturbances due to »errors« in hierarchy. But »control« is always produced by references inside person. So person chooses which perception will control and which »predefined state in controlling system she will achieve«. You showed that quite well in your example of Beth and Alec.

On the whole I think that your and Rick’s differences in understanding PCT stayed on the same point, as they were in previous discussions in the last few weeks.

MT erlier :

If what I am controlling for is getting the salt, I might ask someone else, or I might just reach across and get it. But if I am really controlling for having the person pass the salt and don’t care about getting the salt, I might ask why he doesn’t want to, or try other means to get him to do it. All of them are attempts at disturbing some perception he controls in such a way as to get the desired perceptual result. It doesn’t always work…

HB :

I think that you are not controlling anybody else but yourself. To get a salt according to your goal. All others are maybe for you »attempts of control«, for you to get a salt, so you are disturbing others perception to »elicitate« wanted behavior. But whoever will control for that it will be person herself. So whether they will control as you want or they don’t, they will still be controlling their perceptions, because »control« is something they are doing continuously. But »disturbed person« can change references and still control in accordance with Bill definiton of »maintaining preselected state in controlling system«. The LCS is the only one that can always set their references and change it. References are always hers. Not from environment. You can ask for a salt, but whether you’ll get it depends from the person you asked, whether she will set suitable references. Person will decide about that not you. In either case : refusal or agreement are equal processes in organisms of »setting or changing references«.

It can’t be that in the case of refusal »person is not controlled« and in case of agreement person is »controlled«. These are not different processes in organism. It’s only control of perception in different ways.

You are talking about »attempts of disturbing«, but Bill talked about this sort of things as »attempts of control«. But I’m more inclined to your term »attempts of disturbing«.

Maybe it could be a useful term »focused disturbance« with unknown effect. I’m experiencing that »behavior« of other persons is more unpredictable than predictable. So if we say that »disturbances to controlled variable or correlate« will made people act is deterministic, »stimulus-respons« no matter how you say it. On certain »influence« from environment, there is certain »observed behavior« or action. There is a »direct link« between these two events. It’s neglecting control inside person. It’s sounds like behaviorism.

MT :

If Alec is controlling a perception of Beth’s action, and her current action is not equal to his reference for it, he acts to disturb a perception Beth is controlling. If Beth actually is controlling the perception that he disturbs, she will act in some way to counter the disturbance….

HB : ….or she can change her mind and control somethhing else even if she already starts counter-controlling perception that Alec disturbed … She can change her mind in any moment. There are quitte complicated systems of heirarchies continuously working in organism so new refererence signals can come from any where… I don’t think that jjust Alec guessed wrong, reference signals of Beth can change in a second. »She can change her mind« in any moment, she can just pretend that she doesn’t perceive distrubances from Alec or she can manipulate in other way with those disturbances. People lie, manipulate, hide their real intentions, do whatever it is necesary to reach their goals.

MT :

If he guessed wrong, and his action doesn’t in fact disturb any perception Beth is controlling, or if he guessed wrong, and Beth’s action to counter the disturbance isn’t what Alec wanted to see, he may try to disturb a different perception, or the same perception in a different way, until either she acts so that his perception of her action matches its reference, or he gives up trying to control his perception of her action.

HB :

Yes. This shows the ambiguity of »control of others« and upredictability of disturbing »controlled perceptions«, because most of the controlling happens inside organisms and I think you properly used only words »disturbing«. In your »protocol« I don’t see word »control« except in »control of perception«. It seems to me right the way you presented it. It’s quite life-working example. It’s only not clear which disturbances you have in mind when you say »disturb any perception Beth is controlling«. Is this »any« meant as any »perception of correlates« in outer environment or something else ?

All we can do to other person is disturb their perception on whatever level of hierrachy, but she decides how disturbances will be controlled as she is setting the references for their »preselected state«. Nobody else can. And until someone proves that refereces can be set from outside into LCS, I’ll confront to any kind of term that involves »control of others«. If in future (as Martin said) will someone prove that is possible, I’ll agree with the term »control of other people«. But till then my oppinion stays at »smart disturbances« as Martin’s example shows. But the references for any perception are set solely in Beth and Alec themselves. And in accordance with references perceptions are treated as they are. There is no control of each other, specially not any »control of behavior« or determined behavior on certain stimuli.

Now let us see how I imagine Rick’s inetrpretation of Alec and Beth »communication«. My text is blue.

If Alec is controlling a perception of Beth’s action, and her current action is not equal to his reference for it, he acts to disturb a perception Beth is controlling and so he starts controlling Beth’s behavior. If Beth actually is controlling the perception that he disturbs, she will act in some way to counter the disturbance…so maybe she will try to control Alec’s behavior with counter disturbanves to Alec’s »controlled variable« or »correlate«. If he guessed wrong, and his action doesn’t in fact disturb any perception Beth is controlling, or if he guessed wrong, and Beth’s action to counter the disturbance isn’t what Alec wanted to see, … he is not controling Beth’s behavior. He may try to disturb a different perception, or the same perception in a different way, until either she acts so that his perception of her action matches its reference …and in that moment he is controlling Beth’s behavior, or he gives up trying to control his perception of her action….so he can’t control Beth’s behavior.

Sorry Martin to »deform« your nice example, but I wanted to show how could look »control« if we use Rick’s understanding. At least I can say it’s odd.

MT earlier :

There is a whole spectrum of levels and kinds of understanding of PCT. One can get a basic understanding without even algebra, a better understanding of at least tracking in a continuum with algebra, and can compute the dynamic tracking behaviour of simple linear complexes of control systems with no more than Laplace Transforms. But, as Bill often said, nobody – not even he – can look at a complicated control structure in a complex environment and say what it will do.

So, yes, I agree with Rick that one should at least work through the equations in their algebraic form, and if possible go further to see how the dynamics of at least linear systems function. One should study all of Bill’s and Rick’s (and anyone else’s) demonstrations. One can get to understand control pretty well without doing those things, I guess, but it’s an easy way to get into a position in which one can reason in one’s own mind about what control might do in different situations.

HB :

You gave a good description of how people can understand PCT, although there are myriad other possible ways. Intuitivelly without algebra many people in history worked by »control« principles only that they were not probably aware of. They were simply forced to do it, as it seems that »control of perception« is natural mechanism. I read in physiology from 1891 how they understand orgaisms »control« because they had to follow natural laws of control… From measurments of temperature, intake of food, and so on… thhey try to conclude how organisms stay alive. It’s interesting description in terms of chemical process which affect instability in organism. They simply had to follow laws of nature if they want to help people »stabilizing« their »preselected state«.

And I was quite surprised by Carver’s new article. He gave a name to the »physiological control mechanism«. He named them »prototype« of control. I think he got an idea to come to »pure« control mechanisms in body and upgrade them to hierarhies. We’ll see how he will continue.

Â

It’s good Martin that you presented example (Alec and Beth), that can be analyzed through it’s course. It’s so realistic and instructive, that I thought we should have more such examples. Some »phylosophy« of PCT (various demos, experiments with machines, algebra…) is good, but can be dangerous because I think theey are simplifying PCT and can be misleading when serious analysis of »human relationship« are in question. And can be confusing when somebody is mixing »machines« with people functioning.

If you Martin enjoy algebra and Rick, it’s good that somebody is doing it. But if you want a wider audience, I think it would be construcitve that you put beside algebraic expressions also qualitative explanations. Because otherwise I think that you are talking to yourself. I don’t know how much of PCT’ers are enthusiastic in »talking in algebra«, but as it’s seen by »resposes« to your converstaion with Rick I think there aren’t many (if any) who join that conversation. But it’s interesting how many PCT’ers respond to other kind of converstaion. It’s just a suggestion. I hope your and Rick’s goal is to popularize PCT.

I think that demos,models, etc. need direct experience with »real reality«, as Bill described (LCS II) :

»Real reality is simply what we experience. That is it, that is all there is to experience. If we can tell our models to shut up for a moment, this will become obvious. Even the physicist has to admitt it. No matter what the model says, the ultimate test of the model is to make it predict something in direct experience that we need no model to observe. …. If the effectts of the model are just as hypothetical as the model, we don’t have a model because we can’t check it against direct experience. The ultimate authority is always direct experience, the real reality we are incapable of doubting, because before we ca neven begin to doubt it, it is there. The only point of a model is to provide a hypothetical link between one direct experience and another.

So maybe you could describe »cooperation« with your analysis tools and other life-examples. Maybe tennis game. Maybe you and Rick could try to »squize it« into algebra form. I don’t beleive it will work, but you can try. It’s difficult to »squize« the reachnes of people’s control into simple form and formulas. Specially human brains. I think that life-examples are too complex for such a »simple analysis«. As I understood Bill said, models and equatations and so on have to work in life (direct experience) with »real reality«. And everybody has »access« to reality with own experiences, so everyone can contribute to an »ordinary« discussion.

Maybe we could analyze more life-examples where everybody can participate with experiences. As that is how I understood Bill : ultimate authority between one direct experience and another.

Staying on the level of demos, models and experiments with machines can be tricky in understanding »real life«. The only examples I saw Rick presenting is »thermostat«, »tracking experiment« and »knot over dot«. And that’s it. As if these examples can explain whole life and how organisms work. The final goal of PCT is to understand organisms if I understood Bill correctly. What are your’s and Rick’s goal ?

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 9:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: FW: Cooperation

[Martin Taylor 2014.12.09,14 39]

On 2014/12/9 1:09 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Martin.

I answered below.

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List)
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 7:45 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Cooperation

[Martin Taylor 2014.12.08.13.40]

On 2014/12/8 12:42 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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«.

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 ?

Boris, where do you see a contradiction? To me, the two quotes say exactly the same thing: If you want to control a perception of someone’s actions, you disturb a perception they control in such a way that they will oppose your disturbance by using the action you want to see.

Which of the quotes from Rick do you see as contradicting this?

HB :

It’s quite complicated, and I’m not a specialy good reader of American language.

If I read it right in first statemnet Rick is telling that people can be controlled through disturbances to »controlled variable« (whatever controlled variable could mean). But I think it is meant »controlled variable« out of organism.

I read it as saying that actions occur because people maintain perceptions near their references, so that if you disturb a variable they are controlling, by acting on its environmental correlate, they will act. You choose your disturbance according to your perception of what they are controlling and how they will counter your disturbance.

And in second if I read right he said that »responses to disturbances to controlled perception« can’t be controlled from outside, because people are controlling those perceptions (so they can’t be controlled).

I don’t understand this interpretation at all. Here’s the quote again:

“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.”

I interpret this as referring to “the behavioural illusion”. He is saying that if you know nothing of perceptual control, and you see someone doing something right after an event has occurred, you may well think the event caused the action (i.e. an S-R process), never noticing that the action actually occurred because the event disturbed some perception and the action was to counter the disturbance.

I may be wrong. How did you read it…? Maybe Rick couuld tell what did he mean by that.

Maybe he didn’t mean the two quotes the way I read them. But that’s the way I read them.

Disturbances to controlled perception don’t mean that we can control responses (behavior) of other people. People decide whether they will control it or not.

No, we can only control our perception of the behaviour of other people.

If Alec is controlling a perception of Beth’s action, and her current action is not equal to his reference for it, he acts to disturb a perception Beth is controlling. If Beth actually is controlling the perception that he disturbs, she will act in some way to counter the disturbance. If he guessed wrong, and his action doesn’t in fact disturb any perception Beth is controlling, or if he guessed wrong, and Beth’s action to counter the disturbance isn’t what Alec wanted to see, he may try to disturb a different perception, or the same perception in a different way, until either she acts so that his perception of her action matches its reference, or he gives up trying to control his perception of her action.

Martin