Hi Alice,
nice to hear from you again. Did we have a quite »wild« problems with transporting Bill’s book to Slovenia ?
APM : I want to stay current with this thread, especially if there is the possibility of consensus among the CSG veterans that an important error needs correcting
HB : I don’t know if I’m sorted into »veterans« to achieve some agreement, but I decided anyway to answer your kind invitation.
The »error« that by my oppinion needs correction is deep in the PCT theory, which as I said before need some upgrades. Functioning in this way PCT doesn’t represent organism but some »half« of the organism. And »modeled organism« 14.1. has no chances of survival in any simulation, even with added »arrows«.
I proposed »arrow« from genetic source control unit to »essential (intrinsic) variables« because of the simple fact that genetic sourcein PCT is »setting« the reference level for »intinsic quantites«. That was necesary to be done, otherwise PCT has no sense, as in previous diagram 14.1., genetic source and »intrinsic quantites« were not directly connected. Connecting »essential (intrinsic) variables« in control loop with genetic source means also accordance with physiological »facts«.
When Bill asked me to explain what are the consequences for putting the »arrow« into diagram (Dag and Martin already explained the basic troubles) I answered him that I want cooperation, not status of some 3rd order member who will give infromations for others to publish it. So the »arrow« stayed unexplained.
I will not explain what I meant with that »arrow« until some serious meassures are taken here on CSGnet.
-
First is sure scientific »equality« of members. There are obviously »privileged« members and deprevileged members. Deprivileged members have to prove everything and for privileged members is enough if they say what they think and it stays as »law«. For example Rick: I proved him 10x that generaly speaking »control system« is not »protected from disturbances«, he continues to mislead whole forum. It's obvious that Bill used many terms, among them is also »protection«. But that was used only in 1%. In 99% of cases he used terms : compensation, oppose, counteract, cancel, adjust, etc. And by Rick's logic it is scientific to use 1% of used terms for generalization of PCT and he is all the time talking what he wants without putting a single scinetific evidence »on the table«. His demos of »baseball catch«failed. His theory of controlling the opponents behavior in sports failed. His demo of »controlling others behavior« failed. His theory of school system failed. His scientific proof to Fred of »driving« a car failed. His attempt to turn PCT into »Perception : Control of behavior« failed (discussion with Martin) etc, etc….. But he is still »messing arround« with his »behaviorism« - »behavior is control«.
-
Authors rights. On CSGnet is possible to take anything somebody wishes and publish it anywhere if he wants.
-
Some arbiter who will decide whether posting of certain people do match Bill's PCT or not.
For example Rick’s last answer to me about interpretation of Bill’s text. You can go and read how Rick read and wrote Bill’s text as he wanted. Bill’s original text has a little to do with what Rick wrote. It’s obviously that he don’t want to understand simple fact, that INPUT DOES NOT DEFINE CONTROLLED ASPECT OF ENVIRONMENT. It’s clearly written in Bill’s text. But Rick don’t want to read it this way, as it seems that he had bulit some »picture« in his head that »input is defining aspect of controled environment« and he is matching his perception with that reference. So he reads what he want to read, and write what he wish to write with no respect to real text. With such a person there is no possible communication. He is probably not aware that he will have to change references.
Bill P : I was aware for a long time that I could not construct a completely correct model, so I aimed instead at a model that would be as complete as possbible, not begging any question and not leaving conceptual gaps which could be used as exuses for failures of the model. The conjectured in the rest of this book will often go beyond what can be defended by experimental proof. The purpose of such conjectures is not to give impression that I have private pipeline to Truth, but to make the model as specific and as complete as can be done. To the extent that a model has been varried to completion, covering all aspects of behavior, subjective experience, and brain function, every yttempt to apply the model will test it and, where it fails, point to what needs modification
HB : So as Rick doesn’t want to accept any modification of his “picture”, I decided that I’ll stop corresponding to such an ignorancy as Rick is demonstrating. From 2007 to 2015 Rick’s credibility for understanding PCT felt from 100% to near 0. In my value system. So I think this is enough. I’m not going that low in discussions any more.
I decided not to participate in discussions with him until he proves that his »ignorancy« is gone. And that will be, when he offers for any of his statement also evidences.
For ex. in the case of his new »invention« to diagram 14.1. somebody could ask Rick how physiologocally works avaraging of »errors« and how »arrow« from the Universe (maybe Mars) ended in »intrinsic quantity«. Somebody could akd Rick where did Bill even point out that »behavioral hierarchy« could DIRECTLY affect »intrinsic variables« or even reduce »errors« in them ? Probably somebody could ask him where are physiological evidences that such an »acrobacy« is possible ? Which are direct connection between »behavioral hierarchy« and essential (intrinsic) variables physiologically speaking ? It’s easy to draw “arrows” from the chair behind computer, but it’s more difficult to prove them. Where in the diagram 14.1. he sees “physiological control system” ???
My question is : does Rick’s »invention« now represent new diagram 14.1. ? Is his changed diagram 14.1. official in PCT ???
It would be at least fine if he could show and citate some physiological evidences and draw them in diagram how these »arrow« really works in organism. Maybe he could even explain to us how »essential (intrinsic) varibles« are continuously kept inside »physiological limits« ?
As Rick made mistakes, I could do them to. I know I’m not some expert reader of American language. But Rick is also awfull reader. He usually reads what he wants.
PCT is about how organisms work not pure »Control Theory« as Rick wants to present it. That could do almost anybody today. But understanding PCT is not so easy.
I think it would be good to introduce some eminent members who could help judging which interpretations of Bill’s PCT are closer to his writings. I think that mechanism for checking members oppinion can be the »CSG Board«. There are quite eminent PCT’ers who can decide what is PCT and what is not.
If I saw right there is some CSG Board which was mentioned in relation to CSG meetings. It would be fine if that »Board« take over also CSGnet and decide on the bases of »evidences« what is supporting PCT and what is supporting other psychological theories in the sense »behavior is control« and »maintainance of a variable in a pre-selected state, protected from disturbances« and so on.
Rick is seriously damaging PCT, with turning it to RTC (Rick Control Theory). And I don’t see anybody who can stop him but you and Barb. Barb already told me, that his privileges are on, as he is old friend of your family. But is there room in science for sentimentality and obvious degradation of PCT ? Can we really reduce PCT to »behavior is control« and »maintainance of variables in preselected state, protected from disturbances« ? In comparison to Rick, Bill was a »knowledge« giant.
Bill P :
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 : We can see that PCT is not only about »manitaining variables in predefined state, protected from disturbances« as Rick thinks… It’s about how generally »control systems« function and how effects of distrubances are also canceled.
Bill P.:
CONTROL SYSTEM :An organization that acts on its environment so as to keep it’s inner perceptual signal matching an inner reference signal or reference condition.
HB :
In both Bill’s “definitions” I see the importance of control inside organism and actions that are in “service” or “means of control” or “executors of control ”causing environmental effects, that are sensed and controlled so to maintain homeostasis (preselected state) in organisms, not some “controlled state of some aspect of environment” or “maintaining some variable in preselected state”.
Bill P. and others (50th Anniversary) :
**1. ** Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms.
**2. ** At the conceptual core of the theory is the observation that living things control the perceived environment by means of behavior
HB : It seems obvious to me what Bill wanted to do. He wanted to make a general theory of how organisms fucntion, not some control theory about » maintaining variables in preselected state, protected from disturbances«. If we try to understand how organisms function than a myriad of control units have to be synchronized to work together. Beside all »non-controlled« processes in organism, which tend to homeostasis too.
And let us remember those days when Rick was normal PCT thinker :
RM (once upon a time) : To understand the behavior of a living control system, the observer must learn what perceptions the system is controlling; what reference images the system is trying to match.
RM (once upon a time) : It takes a while to understand that control system compensate for disturbances rather than respond to stimuli; that stimuli are controlled and not in control ; that living control system control and cannot be controlled.
HB : So I hope Alice I manage to present you a problem about »errors« among the CSG veterans and proposal how they can be corrected…
Best,
Boris
···
From: apmce@benchpress.com (via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 1:45 AM
To: csgnet
Subject: Re: FW: Powers, 2007: I didn’t apply control theory to homeostasis in B:CP
[Martin Taylor 2015.08.01.09.24]
[Alice Powers McELhone 2015.08.01.09.24]
Martin, forgive me for borrowing your sign on...I haven't spent enough time on CSGnet to remember how to participate. But if this post gets through. I want to stay current with this thread, especially if there is the possibility of consensus among the CSG veterans that an important error needs correcting.
Alice [Powers] McElhone
Benchmark Publicationis Inc.
Benchmark@benchpress.com
>
> On 2015/08/1 3:51 AM, "Boris Hartman" (boris.hartman@masicom.net via > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> MT : (1) homeostasis does not imply either control or the existence of
>> reference levels,
>>
>> HB : Sorry Martin. I can not agree. Understanding what is homeostasis
>> and how it is kept in organisms is necessary.
>>
>
> That was actually what I was pointing out. Why don't you agree?
>
> Control is only one form of homeostasis. Just as you can have an animal
> that is a dog but is not a Saint Bernard, so you can have homeostasis
> that is not control. "Understanding what is homeostasis and how it is
> kept in organisms is necessary" is exactly the point. Bill wrongly
> equated homeostasis with control in redeveloping his Figure 14.1.
>
> Martin
>
>
</details>