Sorry I forgot something
···
From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 9:34 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
[Rick Marken 2019-04-15_12:33:30]
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:38 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Rick
He, he as usually you are manipulating with words, taking text out of context and so on just to prove that his nonsense RCT theory is usufull. Well it’s not.
Your theory RCT felt on the first test you produced. You can’t explaon “sleeping” behavior with your RCT ? And you can’t explain all those beaviors which I proposed. And you can’t explain many more other behaviors. Your RCT theory is wrong…
RCT :
“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”
HB :You just have to say that you changed your mind, and continue with PCT :
PCT :
“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).
HB : I told you Rick many times that If you want to continue conversations about your RCT, you should give real scientific experiments and PCT and RCT analysis of everyday behavior. So where are the analysis ?
Instead you are trying with childish game to prove what ?
RM: I tried being nice and I know I should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.
HB : You are trying to be nice with “ugly thoughts” in background with your manipulative wording ? Idiotic theory RCT is for idiots, and that I’m trying to porve that idiot made it.
RM earlier :
So the environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and inside the skin but outside the nervous system
HB : Your statement above is showing “nice manipulation” which you even didn’t backup with evidences. So I have to give evidences that you are manipulating and lying. So where in LCS III diagram you see that PCT is about “environment” of nervous system. Every live controlling system is controlling for homeostasis as the whole not just in nervous system so control happens in organisms (inside) the whole controlling system not just part of it, like you tryed to present**.**
PCT :
“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).
And here is evidence how PCT as whole theory should look like. It’s the whole organism that is contrrolling not just nervous system. Bill Leach mentioned lately genetic control system that is also included in “big picture of control in organism”.
HB : You see where is the border ? It’s clear. You see genetic control system ? All controlling system in organism are included in homestasis. Not just nervous system.
RM: I may have told you nothing. But I told those who are capable of understanding what I said something very important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.
HB : Can you translate what you wrote ? Did you explain your “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or Bills ordinary perceptual signal ? And what this has to do with comparison and differences between two models of behavior that Richard was aksing for ?
RCT :
“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”
PCT :
“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).
RM: Everything. The definition of control in B:CP is:“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”
HB : Yes we know that for a long time. How did you find out ?
And where is the difference between your RCT and PCT that was the question ? You didn’t give it. Ohhh. Are you hiding something Rick ? You are manipulating again ? So what is the difference between PCT and RCT definition of control *
RCT :
“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”
RM : Since a perceptual state is a value of the perceptual signal; and since the perceptual signal is an analog of an aspect of the environment,
HB : You are explaning what now ? PCT or RCT theory ? So what is the “perceptual state of controlled perceptual variable” that is “analog” of control in external environment ?
RM : …a percceptual state corresponds to the state (value) of an analog of some aspect of the environment.
HB : It seems that you are repeating yourself ? You are a World top bluffer Rick.
RM : So the definition of control can be written as “Achievement and maintenance of a pre- selected state of an analog of some aspect of the environment by the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”
HB : Again your are repeating yourself ? But Richard didnt’ ask you just about PCT definition but about differences between RCT and PCT. So where is interpretation of your RCT in comparison to PCT ?
RM : This is something that would obvious to you if you actually tried to build some control models of behavior rather than just understanding PCT in terms of definitions and diagrams.
HB : Do you understand what you wrote ? You citated definition of PCT control (2x) , which I’m citating all the time and you are accusing me of using PCT in terms of defintions and diagrams ???
So if I understand right PCT definitnions of control and diagrams are disturbance to your understanding of how organisms function with your RCT (Ricks Contro Theory)… Is that thhe problem ?
Boris
From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 9:34 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
[Rick Marken 2019-04-15_12:33:30]
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:38 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Richard Pfau to RM: Am I mistaken or in your e-mail did you define Control as “CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”
RM : So the environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and inside the skin but outside the nervous system.
HB : What a nonsense is this. …Are you having us who read your nonsense for idiots ?
RM: I tried being nice and I know I should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.
RP: If so, Boris is correct in saying that you are interpreting PCT differently than Bill Powers who defines Control as “CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).
RM: A perceptual state is a state of a perceptual signal.
HB : What’s wrong with you Rick ? What a tautology. You told exactly nothing.
RM: I may have told you nothing. But I told those who are capable of understanding what I said something very important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.
RM : A perceptual signal is “an internal analog of some ASPECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT” (Powers, B:CP, 1973, p. 286).
HB : So what. What this has to do with definition of control ?
HB :
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery