O.K. I see I made a mistake as I mixed persons and you make a good use of it. But that also shows what kind of person you are. And this is not the first that you are using initials with »double meaning«.
···
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: Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Understanding control of behavior: Why it matters
[From Rick Marken (2014.11.20.1125)]
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:03 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
RM: This is a crucial observation!! It’s important to know what control is in order to understand when control of behavior is happening. Controlling behavior is not the same as influencing or causing behavior.
HB :
As I see it, he wrote that CONTROL SYSTEM CAN »INFLUENCE« OTHER CONTROL SYSTEM, BUT CAN NOT ACTUALLY CONTROL BEHAVIOR OF THAT SYSTEM. Dog can not control sheep behavior, but can influence that behavior via »disturbances«.
RM: If the “he” you are referring to is Bill Powers, I doubt very much that he wrote this. Where did you find this? Please give me the reference (book or article and page number) so I can see for myself.
HB :
I made a mistake as I thought you are citating Bill. Now I understand that you citated Barb. So ii think you showed your mean personality (Mr.Hyde).
But whoever said that »CONTROL SYSTEM CAN »INFLUENCE« OTHER CONTROL SYSTEM, BUT CAN NOT ACTUALLY CONTROL BEHAVIOR OF THAT SYSTEM« was by my oppinion right. LCS can Influence (disturb) control of other LCS, but can not control other LCS, because any LCS can not set reference for controlled perception of other LCS. It’s perception that is controlled not »behavior« in any sense.
RM: I find it difficult to believe that Bill would write this because a control system doesn’t just influence variables (behavioral or otherwise). It controls variables (brings them to reference states) by influencing those variables in just the right way so that they are brought to the reference states and maintained there, protected from disturbance (as best as possible).
HB :
Control system maybe controls it’s variables outside. But LCS control their perceptions, and don’t »control behavor« of other LCS. And sure they don’t protect anything from disturbances. They compensate and counter-act. Do yo want pages and refereces to these terms.
O.K. let’s make a competiton : Find me in Bil’s literature where he used terms »protection from disturbances« and I’ll find for 1 of your findings 20 of my findings with terms compensate or counter-act. For example let us consider main books : LCS I, LCS II, LCS III, Making sense of behavior, B:CP, 2005… If you finnd in any of these books terms Like »protected from disturbances« I’ll find many more right terms… I still think that you are seriously misleading all the CSGnet and making damage. So the ratio is 1:20…
RM : Controlling involves bringing a variable, such as the distance between the sheep and the herd in my demo, to a predetermined state, such as “sheep close to herd”, and keeping it there, protected from disturbances, which include the movements of the herd and of the sheep itself.
HB : Where did Bill wrote this one ?
RM: I understand control theory in terms of models – working computer models -not in terms of quotations. What I say here is based on my understanding of how the control model works.
HB :
Well you are at lest honest. It’s your RCT.
RM :
Bill wrote very similar descriptions of controlling (based on his understanding of control theory which also came from understanding the workings of computer models – and actual control systems) but I don’t remember where I read each one.
HB :
What an convenient excuse. I always citate Bill’s text. O.K. only this one today as I switched the persons. But otherwise I always presented his thoughts against yours. And your words has always »deviated« more or enormously from Bill’s. So please excuse me, I’d really like to see some evidence text that could support your RCT. You never showed me one sentence from Bill that could resemble yours.
But I don’t have to go search for them because I don’t gauge my understanding of control theory in terms of whether I generate sentences that match Bill’s. I gauge it in terms of whether what I say corresponds to how the model actually works.
HB :
So you rather made such a confusion and mess here on CSGnet with contradicting statements : behavioral, self-regulation, and PCT. Do you want me to list all of your contradictions (dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) about PCT, self-regulations and behaviorism again ?
RM :Given this definition of control, the distance of the sheep from the herd can clearly be controlled in my demo. Since the distance between sheep and herd depends at least in part on the movements of the sheep this variable is a behavior of the sheep.
HB :Read once again Bill’s writings. It says : other control system can influence behavior in another control system, but not actually control the behavior of that system.
RM: Again, I would really like to see where he wrote that. Please send me the reference. If Bill wrote that then he would have been wrong and Bill was almost never wrong, certainly never about something as obvious as the fact that a control system controls, it doesn’t just influence.
HB :
O.K. Bravo (applauding). You used my mistake in persons. But still you are wrong in all your behavioral and self-regulation statements, and *barb is right to point you right way to PCT.
Best,
Boris
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble