From: Warren Mansell (firstname.lastname@example.org via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Powers, 2007: I didn’t apply control theory to homeostasis in B:CP
WM: Maybe the only reason experimenters can test PCT is that they tend to derive similar perceptual variables from the environment as the participants. This helps the experimenter set up hypotheses for what the CV might be. The experimenter is not necessarily measuring the environment directly.
HB : I I understand you right, you are talking that everyone has it’s own perceptual world and on that bases everyone is able to conclude or at least try to conclude what other people are controlling or thinking. It’s of course difficult to »see« into others head but beside introspection there are interviews as scientific method, qualitative researches, etc. So there are quite number of scinetific methods with which we can try to conclude what people really control inside or think. As this is what is important. People are very different. Some are very oppened and we can make fast conclussions about his personality. Some are very closed and it’s hard to get a single clue what he is thinking about. And one day he »explode« and kill half of the school. It’s difficult to predict amd research what people really think. They can lie, manipulate, and so on.
WM : I really like Rick’s explanation of what aspects of environment contribute to a perception, but I really like
HB : Sorry to disapoint you Warren but I can’t any argument or support for Rick in later books, shall we say from 1998. I can’t find »controlled aspect of environment« in his generic diagrams nor in his text. I can’t find any citation that could support what Rick is talking about. As I see it Bill’s literature is talking something else. There was quite the same situation with Martin and Rick, when Riick was promoting »Perception : control of behavior« or some »stimulus-respons theory«. I found imidiatelly a dozen of thougts from Bill’s literature that were supporting Martin view : »Behavior : Control of perception«. But I couldn’t find any argumetn in Bill’s book that could support Rick’s view. So maybe we can repeat the whole procedure.
RM : Rupert’s insistence that the aspects of the environment that are affected by behaviour as part of the closed loop are not controlled, but manipulated.
HB : I think there is no doubt that Rupert is absoutely right. I can find thousands of citations from Bill’s literature which are suporting Ruperts view, including all Bill generic diagrams, which show »Control of perception«.
If you want, we can make a competition. Let us try to read B:CP, 2005 and LCS III and compare for whom we will find more Bill’s arguments, including diagrams and so on. I invite all the members to help in this judgement. This is the only way I see we can once for all solve the problem, whether Bill talked about »Control of perception« or »Control of behavior« or »controlled aspect of environment«.
I’ll start with »feed-back« function. Feed-back function is the only thing I see in Bill’s diagram in outer environment and it is as Rupert discribe it. It says :
FFEDBACK FUNCTION (LCS III, p. 28) : Physical properties that convert action or behavior into effect on input quantity.
That’s all what Bill is saying about events in external environment. I’m sorry Warren but I can’t find any comparator, reference or »error« signal that Bill would indicate that there is control process going on in environment and that Rick could be right. He is obviously wrong and he is using some RCT diagram with »controlled aspect of environment«, which is in Bill’s diagram non existant. It seems that he is imagining things that are not present.
And I hope Warren we agree that Bill is reference for who is talking PCT and who is not.
We see that only thing Bill told about anything happening in environment of organism is »feed-back« function or effect that output has on input. He is simply talking about effect, not controlled effect or »control of behavior«, simply effect. And I hope we agree that this is »GENERAL DIAGRAM«, not some »SPECIAL«. It’s modeling every behavior, not just some specific ones.
So he is not talking about »controlled aspect of environment« or »Control of behavior« or else. Just effect of output on input. That’s it. We don’t need to make »Control behavior« disertation.
And beside that he is also saying : »Notice that we clarify the controlled variable as an input variable, not an output variable« (LCS III, p. 32).
If »output variable« is not controlled, what is making then »controlled aspect of environment« ? What is controlling outside in environment ???
WM : They seem to disagree with one another, but I just see enormous value from both perspectives.
HB : Yes they seem to disagree, but the only arbiter here I see is Bill’s work. We are here to promote his work, to upgrade, to make interperetations and so on. Everything is suppose to be about Bill and his PCT theory. Not some personal propmotions in the sense RCT (Rick’s control theory) and his perosonal diagrams. Everything has to be argumented with Bill’s work or any other evidence from the final arbiter : nature.
On 6 Aug 2015, at 20:54, Richard Marken (firstname.lastname@example.org via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@li sts.illinois.edu> wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2015.08.06.1255)]
Rupert Young (2015.08.06 20.00)–
RM: When you make lemonade – control for the perception of the taste of lemonade – you are manipulating variables in the environment – the amount of lemon juice (x.1), water (x.2) and sugar (x.3) that you put in the pitcher – in such a way that they can be constructed into a perception of the taste of lemonade. So you are controlling an aspect of the environment – the relative proportion of different chemicals in the pitcher – when you control for the perception of “the taste of lemonade”. This is why I say that when you control a perception you are also controlling an aspect of the environment – the aspect of the environment from which that perception is constructed.
RY: Yes, you manipulate variables in the environment, but I don’t think that is the same as controlling an aspect of the environment. To control the perception of the sweetness of your lemonade you vary the amount of sugar until the desired sweetness is realised.
RM: Well I’m clearly not going to bring you to my point of view. And you are clearly not going to bring me to yours. The main reason is that I couldn’t do my work in PCT if I adopted your point of view. None of the research described in Mind Readings, More Mind Readings_ and Doing Research on Purpose could (or would) have been done if it were true that people are not controlling an aspect of the environment when they control a perception. I couldn’t have done any testing for controlled variables – or build models of people controlling those variables – if people were not controlling aspects of the environment when they were controlling perceptions.
RM: The whole point of The Test for Controlled Variables(TCV) is to figure out what aspect of the environment a person is controlling. If, as you and others say, no aspects of the environment are being controlled when people ar e controlling their perceptions then it would be impossible to scientifically study control of perceptions. The perceptions people control would be completely private and there could be no science of living control systems because you could never figure out what they are controlling. But we are able to determine what perceptions people are controlling using the TCV because when people are controlling perceptions that are controlling aspects of the the environment occupied by the person doing the TCV.
RM: If you interpret PCT to mean that all that is controlled are perceptual variables that don’t correspond to variable aspects of the environment then you are taking PCT to be theory that denies the possibility of being tested. Not very scientific. So this interpretation of PCT seems to me to be not only patently ridiculous but flatly contradicted by all the PCT research I’ve done and all the demonstrations of PCT principles I have developed.
RM: So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Richard S. Marken
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble