FW: Protect vs Cancel, etc

RM: I see no way to insert a “not” into the statement above to make it right. But here’s is the statement again:

HB :In »real driving« you perceive your driving through the windshield and you try to »keep« or »adjust« actual perception with references (which are not physically availabel) NOT like your »target and cursor«.

RM: Feel free to show me how you can insert a “not” into it to make it correct. Good luck!

HB :

Driving example is »Control of perception« and I dont’ know what is yours with »Target and cursor« ? But it’s sure not the same. Could you explain to me how »control of distance between target and cursor« works ? With »Control of behavior ?

But As I said I’m waitning on your questions in conversation between Fred, you and me, where you gave »scientific« proof. Good luck !

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:11 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.28.0910)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:47 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB :In »real driving« you perceive your driving through the windshield and you try to »keep« or »adjust« actual perception with references (which are not physically availabel) like your »target and cursor«.

RM: References are never physically available. The target in a tracking task is not the reference for the position of the cursor. The fact that you think so demonstrates a startling lack of understanding of PCT and how it relates to actual behavior.

HB : I wouldn’t push it who understand and who don’t understand PCT. You demosntrated your »not understanding« PCT when you gave the »scientific« explanation to Fred. How would we call that »PCT disaster«. As the text above is concerned I accedentally left out »NOT«. So it’s not like your »target and cursor«, which you most of the time »measure« in distance between them as something happening outside.

RM: I see no way to insert a “not” into the statement above to make it right. But here’s is the statement again:

HB :In »real driving« you perceive your driving through the windshield and you try to »keep« or »adjust« actual perception with references (which are not physically availabel) like your »target and cursor«.

RM: Feel free to show me how you can insert a “not” into it to make it correct. Good luck!

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.30.0830)]

···

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:56 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM: I see no way to insert a “not” into the statement above to make it right. But here’s is the statement again:

HB :In »real driving« you perceive your driving through the windshield and you try to »keep« or »adjust« actual perception with references (which are not physically availabel) NOT like your »target and cursor«.

RM: Feel free to show me how you can insert a “not” into it to make it correct. Good luck!

HB : Driving example is »Control of perception« and I dont’ know what is yours with »Target and cursor« ? But it’s sure not the same. Could you explain to me how »control of distance between target and cursor« works ? With »Control of behavior ?

RM: This is not an answer to my question. It suggests that you don’t know what is wrong with your statement above. But maybe it is a language problem so let me try to paraphrase what you seem to be saying in that statement and you can correct me if I’m wrong.

RM: What you seem to be saying is that “real driving” differs from the “target and cursor” tracking task in that in “real driving” the reference for the controlled perception is not physically available while in the “target and cursor” tracking task itis (presumably in the form of the target). Is that what you meant to say?

HB: But As I said I’m waitning on your questions in conversation between Fred, you and me, where you gave »scientific« proof. Good luck !

RM: I think we should first work out why you think the controlling going on in “real driving” differs from the controlling going on in the “target and cursor” tracking task before we we go any further. You think there is a difference; I think there is not. I’d like to know why we have such different views about this if we are both analyzing these behaviors from a PCT perspective.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.30.0830)]

RM: I see no way to insert a “not” into the statement above to make it right. But here’s is the statement again:

HB :In »real driving« you perceive your driving through the windshield and you try to »keep« or »adjust« actual perception with references (which are not physically availabel) NOT like your »target and cursor«.

RM: Feel free to show me how you can insert a “not” into it to make it correct. Good luck!

HB : Driving example is »Control of perception« and I dont’ know what is yours with »Target and cursor« ? But it’s sure not the same. Could you explain to me how »control of distance between target and cursor« works ? With »Control of behavior ?

RM: This is not an answer to my question. It suggests that you don’t know what is wrong with your statement above. But maybe it is a language problem so let me try to paraphrase what you seem to be saying in that statement and you can correct me if I’m wrong.

RM: What you seem to be saying is that “real driving” differs from the “target and cursor” tracking task in that in “real driving” the reference for the controlled perception is not physically available while in the “target and cursor” tracking task itis (presumably in the form of the target). Is that what you meant to say?

HB: But As I said I’m waitning on your questions in conversation between Fred, you and me, where you gave »scientific« proof. Good luck !

RM: I think we should first work out why you think the controlling going on in “real driving” differs from the controlling going on in the “target and cursor” tracking task before we we go any further. You think there is a difference; I think there is not. I’d like to know why we have such different views about this if we are both analyzing these behaviors from a PCT perspective.

HB :

This is a very good start for further discussion. I thought I’ll never hear it from you. I’m a little surprised over you quite soothing and optimistic tone. If you could be always like this, I think that CSGnet forum could attract much more members. Sorry to judge you. And please accept my appologie if I offended you.

You are right. I didn’t answer you on many questions, as you didn’t. I also didn’t get an answer to whole posts as you didn’t. But I’m not complaining. I know that you can’t answer all. And I hope that we understand each other that either I can’t answer all. Maybe even less than you. Even Bill could not. Â He used to answer I don’t know or I’ve changed my mind. Even by his huge knowledge. So it’s quite sure that we can’t answer it either. Â

I’m specialist for some »field« of PCT, speccialy those that are »grounded« with anatomy and physiology. But I admitt sometimes I need quite some time to understand Martin. But I think he is also specialist for some parts of PCT as Bruce is and you Rick, and others. I think we are all specialist in some parts but we all understand the basics of PCT. In our own way. I think that anybody on this forum understand his own part, but the basic idea I think is present in every member of this forum. So I think that efforts should be directed into more conversation between members and improving their part of knowledge and trying to spread it if they are interested for. Of course I hope that everybody will try to »absorb« all PCT knowledge through years of reading and conversation.

So to speak this is somehow connected to my real goal on CSGnet. As I said before my real goal was hidden. Or I was hiding what I’m really »controlling for…«. Maybe my further explanatioon will give you some answers also to other posts.

I thought it was so obviuos what I was controlling for, when I took part in certian themes. But it was obviously not so, as Rick (sorry to say) you didn’t manage to find out what I was really controlling for.

It was not that »I see you not being an expert in PCT« and »try to see others see you as not being an expert for PCT« nor any other goal that could be connected in classifying members by »intensity« of understanding of PCT.

As I said before for me nobody is expert for PCT, except Bill. It’s his theory.  We could more or less understand him. And I think that everyone of us understand some part of it and that we are specialist for some »themes« inside PCT, that maybe also attract more of our attention. So I think that everyone could progress with right approach of moderator and owners.

I assumed that nobody can see directly into head of others and it’s sometimes really difficult to see what people are really thinking of or controlling for. So I tried with different means (reorganizing) to persuade you Rick, that maybe you could try  to treat members and maybe new members more friendly with more pedadgogics or andragogigs approach. I hope that we are talking about common goal : how to make PCT worldwide known theory. And please take this as my proposal for work on discussions on CSGnet, not as »something that should be done«. You were teacher afterall. Use your teacher knowledge to explain your point and help other’s to find the way how to upgrade their PCT knowledge. Try to encourage them for understanding PCT not to thinking  that their knowledge is useless or worthless »behavioristic« and so on. I hope you know what I mean.

I beleive that everyone here on forum understand PCT to some extent. It’s just that maybe all others could help each other to upgrade knowledge at least to Bill’s level if not further.

So I was persuing a simple goal : cooperation among us (members) and mutual understanding with at least little respect. More respect more success. It was not whether you or me is right about our interpretations of PCT. I just went into your »game«. Sooner or later our understanding should be »equal« as Bill’s literature is the same all the time. More reading of Bill’s books more »equal« oppinions. So I tried with different Bill’s discourses. But I will not say that I know what I achieved. Maybe nothing. As I can’t see what you are thinking as you can’t see what I’m.

If I was trying to explain you directly or indirectly this simple intentions, your answers were mostly hostile, with »defending« your way of thinking.  So I was trying to find the way how to present to you that you could act differently and make CSGnet forum firendly and more  wellcoming for people, so that mass would increase. I was asking myself  why such a strong theory as PCT, can not find the way into public as for example the »daughters« »Glasser’s Control theory« and »Carver’s self-regulation« did. What’s wrong that all of us can not make PCT a world wide known theory ? What we should do together that it would be ?

I just wanted to say that I really wish that CSGnet forum become a free and unburdened forum for all kinds of oppinions that wouldn’t be »prosecuted« with »behavioral illusions« and »not understanding PCT«. I think this sort of approcah divert people from discussing. Â

I tried to explain some terminology which I thought I can.  And some theems. Maybe others can also do it, if they will not fear of being called »ignorants« or »behavioral illusionists« and so on.

I think that it would be better if our discussions are more inclusive. I’m very sorry for Fred. He gave so much effort for some agreement in »car drivng« and he really (by my oppinion) produce post with respectfull content what also *barb noticed. Why to »push« him down with proofs that he is wrong and that he »doesn’t understand« PCT as he is »provisionaly« explainig »behavioral illusion«.  What’s the point of this sort of treating members ? Or explaining *brab that she doesn’t understand tennis from PCFT point of view as it was obvious she does. And I think that *barb should participate more on CSGnet without fear that she is maybe not a »specialist« or that she maybe doesn’t understand »anything near the depth to which most of…«.  How could she get such a feeling on her own site ? People develope mostly with their experiences. So I say we should all try to make »comfortable feeling« for all members on CSgnet and those who try to discuss here in cultural way.

I think that Fred  didn’t missed much and that his contribution was more than welcome. I want to thank Fred for his great effort.  So maybe it would be better if he was shown where others think he was maybe »deviating« from Bill’s knowledge. In which part. Inventing arguments to prove how his thinking was »totaly« wrong is useless. It doesn’t prove anything and it doesn’t help getting PCT becoming world known theoy.

Or Warren sorry. I find you as  a very fine guy, but I think that »classifications« who is on the top of understanding PCT and whose knowledge should be »respected« is not inclusive. It’s competitive. At least for me. And competition always produce »low kicks« and reorganization of all kinds including »negative« and destructive actions. Although many of your »behaviors« show that you are very inclusive and tolerant person.  I wanted to say that more attention to incliusive relationship between members should be dedicated not to competitive.

All this are my suggestions for promoting PCT. That’s my »top« goal. Through that also individuals can be promoted. And I still think that efforts should be put into incorporating PCT into »psychology dictionary«. Maybe we should try to achieve that PCT as itself is included as original psychological theory not part of »Control theory«, but as own, unique psychological theory that every psychologist should be acquainted with. I admitt I have stollen this quote. It’s form Carl Rogers and I like to quote him whenever I’m talking or presenting PCT. Carl R. Rogers :

»Here is a profound and original book with which every psychologist-indeed every behavioral scientist-should be acquinated«.

So what are we going to do, to achieve this ?

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Protect vs Cancel, etc

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:56 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.05.01.1150)]

···

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:36 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

BH: As I said before for me nobody is expert for PCT, except Bill. It’s his theory.

RM: This is like saying that no one is expert in Newtonian physics except Newton. PCT is Bill’s theory but he developed it as an explanation of the behavior of living systems. So he expected people to test his theory and make changes and imporvements as necessary. He expected the testing to be done by comparing the behavior of the theory (as implemented in computer models) to actual behavior that is observed in carefully controlled experimental situations. I think his vision was most clearly described in part 4 of his BYTE series http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/enclosures/byte_sep_1979.pdf). In the research program that Bill envisioned questions about what PCT “really” says or who is really an “expert” in PCT are answered by looking at the computer implementations of the model and how the model is tested. Bill’s hope was that many people – mainly psychologists but scientists of all kinds – would get involved in doing PCT research so that they would all know what PCT “really” says (they would have to in order to develop the working models to test) and, therefore, all be experts in PCT.

HB: I hope that we are talking about common goal : how to make PCT worldwide known theory.

RM: That is not quite my goal. It sounds a little too evangelical for me. My goal is the same as Bill’s was: to get scientists to start testing the PCT model of the behavior of living systems. I would hope that once PCT becomes the basis of the science of living systems the basic ideas of PCT will become part of the “worldwide” default understanding of “how people work” just as the heliocentric model of the solar system has become part of the “worldwide” default understanding of how the solar system works.

HB: So I was persuing a simple goal : cooperation among us (members) and mutual understanding with at least little respect.

RM: I think that’s a lovely goal in most human social interactions. But it’s difficult in scientific interactions where there are right and wrong answers. As I’ve said before, there are bound to be conflicts in science so there are bound to be conflicts over PCT. I think the only way to resolve such conflicts is to approach PCT as Bill hoped we would: as a theory of behavior to be tested by comparing the behavior of the model to that of actual living systems.

HB: More respect more success. It was not whether you or me is right about our interpretations of PCT. I just went into your »game«. Sooner or later our understanding should be »equal« as Bill’s literature is the same all the time.

RM: I don’t think a firm understanding PCT is a matter of textual analysis. You have to do the modeling and testing.

HB: More reading of Bill’s books more »equal« oppinions. So I tried with different Bill’s discourses. But I will not say that I know what I achieved. Maybe nothing. As I can’t see what you are thinking as you can’t see what I’m.

RM: Right. That’s why you have to run the demos, observe the results of the testing the behavior of the model against real behavior. You’ve really got to do what Dag Forssell has always said people have to do to understand PCT: you have to “look under the hood” to see how the mechanism actually works; how it produces the behavior it does and how that behavior corresponds to what we actually see organisms doing.

HB: I just wanted to say that I really wish that CSGnet forum become a free and unburdened forum for all kinds of oppinions that wouldn’t be »prosecuted« with »behavioral illusions« and »not understanding PCT«. I think this sort of approcah divert people from discussing.

RM: It seems that you want me to have the same attitude as the Mikado: “I am right and you are right and everything is quite correct”. But you don’t even practice what you preach. You say you would like CSGNet to be a forum where people are not “prosecuted” for their opinions and yet you prosecute me for my opinions in nearly every paragraph you write (like the one above where you prosecute me for “prosecuting” you – and others, I presume – with “behavioral illusions”, etc).

HB: All this are my suggestions for promoting PCT. That’s my »top« goal.

RM: Again, this is not quite my goal. It is my goal as long as long as PCT is understood to be a testable model; it is not my goal if PCT is understood to be “the writings of William T. Powers”. Bill wouldn’t want PCT defined that way either. Bill was a scientist who developed a scientific model of behavior that can be implemented as a computer simulation and whose behavior can be tested by comparison to the actual behavior of living systems.

HB: So what are we going to do, to achieve this ?

RM: I’ve been doing it for the last 30+ years: I’m doing just what Bill hoped many others would also start doing to promote his theory of behavior: I’m “Doing Research on Purpose”,which is exactly what Bill described in the BYTE paper back in 1979 (s http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/enclosures/byte_sep_1979.pdf). If you (or anyone else) reads it, I’d like to hear what you think of it.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.05.01.1150)]

BH: As I said before for me nobody is expert for PCT, except Bill. It’s his theory.

RM: This is like saying that no one is expert in Newtonian physics except Newton. PCT is Bill’s theory but he developed it as an explanation of the behavior of living systems.

HB : There are myriad of other explanations of »behavior of living system«, but have different names and different »phylosophy«. But PCT is only one and unique approach to understanding LCS. It’s his. And as we can see nobody of us yet understand it in whole (speccialy anatomy and physiological part). I can’t yet talk about experts. When somebody will be found who could give me whole explaination what is written in Bill’s books, than I’ll call him an expert. So till than I think that nobody of us is an expert.

When somebody (including you) show me how he understands all aspects of PCT I’ll gladly call him an expert. Please show me your whole knowledge of PCT. By my oppinion you are specialist for »Models and demos«. This is O.K. But don’t demand from others being your copies. There are many other aspects of PCT that can’t be treated with models and demos.

RM earlier : I’d like to know why we have such different views about this if we are both analyzing these behaviors from a PCT perspective.

HB : So you see. You already agreed that PCT is the reference to our discussions. So we have Bill’s books and we just have to understand what he wrote. For the beggining.

RM : So he expected people to test his theory and make changes and imporvements as necessary. He expected the testing to be done by comparing the behavior of the theory (as implemented in computer models) to actual behavior that is observed in carefully controlled experimental situations. I think his vision was most clearly described in part 4 of his BYTE…

HB : What you are saying is partly true. But he also gave other advices how to improve knowledge about PCT. Testing is O.K., and I’m gÄ?lad that somebody is doing it. But as I mentioned before it’s »3. class order experimenting« and can be manipulated. Nature can’t be manipulated. Could we »jump« over this duscusion. We’ve done it several times and we can see also how Bill treated this question of improving knowledge.

Bill P : »If the effects 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…« (LCS II, p.185)

RM : ….series http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/enclosures/byte_sep_1979.pdf). In the research program that Bill envisioned questions about what PCT “really” says or who is really an “expert” in PCT are answered by looking at the computer implementations of the model and how the model is tested. Bill’s hope was that many people – mainly psychologists but scientists of all kinds – would get involved in doing PCT research so that they would all know what PCT “really” says (they would have to in order to develop the working models to test) and, therefore, all be experts in PCT.

HB : As I said before Rick. He’s notes are different, and so I hope we understand that models are not the only source of knowledge. It can simplify understanding of science but it can’t give final understadning of how organisms work. Experimenting with nature can.

            Â

HB: I hope that we are talking about common goal : how to make PCT worldwide known theory.

RM: That is not quite my goal. It sounds a little too evangelical for me. My goal is the same as Bill’s was: to get scientists to start testing the PCT model of the behavior of living systems.

HB : What you goal is I can check with your confirmation about »goals« in PCT. I don’t know if I’m reading wrong but in article »50 Anniversary« of PCT« your goals aligned with others,  showing your agreement to »starting-points« of PCT.

So I assume that primary interest of PCT is to understand how organisms function, not to start testing »the model«. Understanding how Living beings function is at least for me one of the main and most important goals in PCT. And it seems that goes also for you and some eminent PCT’ers that are »signed« under article at 50th Aniversary besdie W.T. Powers : B. Abbott, T. Carry, D.M. Goldstein, W. Mansell, R.S. Marken, B. Nevin, R. Robertson, M. Taylor. So I suppose it’s relevant document upon which we can built our discussion about possible models or better simulations and experimenting for better understanding PCT (how organisms function). I think that the primary purposes of PCT are : Â

BP 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 : I concluded from your statements that primary interest is to understand how live organisms function with the core concept of perceptual control by means of behavior and in other plan is special use of it (models and demos). So I beleive that first we have to understand clearly how »real« organisms function (not just main principles) also with models, demos and robots. But clear understanding of how organisms function is also supported with some other sciences beside biology, chemistry and physics.

But everyone is free to choose his own way of dealing with PCT and understanding it. I respect any approach that help individual to understand it. But I’m not supporting that somebody wants to control everybody here on CSGnet how should they think and what strategy should they use to understand PCT

I beleive that understanding of PCT, in the direction how organisms work, could help sciencies (ex. physiology, biology, psychology, …) and to those who need that knowledge to help people (for ex. medicine, etc.).

Demos, models and robots are O.K. as I’m concerned. But working only on them seems to »narrow« to understand PCT. I think that working on better understanding about how »real« organisms function has priority at least in my work. And to understand just demos, PCT models and robots at least for me isn’t enough. I think Bill was aware of this too.

Bill made a huge work. Enormous, genious. He opened all doors and he showed us a totaly new look upon world and humanity. He was a patient teacher, and I personaly am greatfull for all his hours, days, weeks we spent talking. I perosnaly learned great things which made my life richer. So I’ll always help and »stand up« when his good name and work is not respected.

But I think that PCT hasn’t reach it end yet. There is quite some way to cross to achieve one goal : the simulation of whole organism working with control units.

RM : I would hope that once PCT becomes the basis of the science of living systems the basic ideas of PCT will become part of the “worldwide” default understanding of “how people work” just as the heliocentric model of the solar system has become part of the “worldwide” default understanding of how the solar system works.

HB : Chears. We agree again. And you confirmed what I said above.

Before PCT becomes basis of other science, it has to be »worldwide known« and accepted from scientist. How else could it become basis for other sciences if nobody knows for it.  But »heliocentric« model is improving with new informations from »space reality«. So we have 8 or 9 planets ? Models are changing with improving. And source of improving are »nature« and »Universe« not mamipulations with models and demos.Â

HB: So I was persuing a simple goal : cooperation among us (members) and mutual understanding with at least little respect.

RM: I think that’s a lovely goal in most human social interactions. But it’s difficult in scientific interactions where there are right and wrong answers.

HB : Rick science as every other activity of people is »variable« which has many values not just »black and white«. I think also scientific interactions and knowledge is relative.

And I think there are not only »right« and »wrong« answers as Newtonian physics was maybe right in his time, but later it was proved to be insufficient. As also many other »scientific« knowledge was. So »wrong« or »right« answers are also relative, subject to mistakes speccialy in time dimension. The principle of relativity was introcued also to physics which was »known« as the most »objective« science. Do we know how atom is constructed ? Or »electron« ? There are many theories. Do we know exactly right whether Universe is expanding into infinity or is »shrinking« into »Big-bang« or is balanced ?

So what is perfectly »right« or »wrong« ? Everything is subject to discussions which can show also no »right« or » wrong » sides. It’s decission of people what they will choose. But discussions can be done in inclusive manner, with friendly advices, not proving who is »right« or »wrong« and in the same moment not knowing whether the person who judge has firm proof that she is right. You were not alwyas right when you judged other people that they were wrong.

Could we say that your changing of mind is scientific and it was »right« or »wrong« when you judged other oppinon being »right« or »wrong« ? In one »time dimenssion« you were thinking in »one way« and in another »other way«, so can others. And people can help each other understanding with presenting them subject in many ways not just »right« and »wrong«. O.K. tell me how can we judge your »right« and »wrong« , when you changed your oppinion ?

In 2007 when we were talking privately, we were asking ourself (I hope you remember) which perceptions do we have to control to improve playing of »rocket-ball«. if I remember right the name of the game. And we were talking about school system where questions were about how teachers and students control their perceptions and which perceptions they control. We weren’t talking about which »control variables« have to be »controlled« in outer environment to win the game or even how to control »opponents behavior« or how to »control strokes« (behavior) to win the game. We were talking about how and which »perceptions« players have to control. And we didn’t talk about how teachers and students are controlling »variables« in outer environment or even each other. We talked which perceptions they control, what is at least mfor me right PCT analysis.  Because the theory is about perception.

And I hope you’ll remeber that you started PCT analysis (in 2007) with :

  1.   People are HPCT
    
  2.   They »control perception«
    

In 2014 and 2015 we were discussing whether »control of behavior« and »control of some variables in external environement« is going on. And I’m glad you are making a progress again to »control of percepton«. As I said, you are chaniging your mind but I’d be glad if you choose one side. What is »wrong« and »right« in this cases ?

Your anaylysis in 2015 started with :

  1.   Behavior is control
    

I think you just have to check again what Bill mostly wrote about and you’ll be on the »road« again. I posted an enormous material from Bill’s books, and I think I’ll keep doing it, until we get to some »agreement« in PCT. But doing this we can use friendly means of conversation. Why compatitive and insulting ? You want to prove something to youself ? How better you are from others, winning the discussions or you want that we all understand PCT ?

RM : As I’ve said before, there are bound to be conflicts in science so there are bound to be conflicts over PCT. I think the only way to resolve such conflicts is to approach PCT as Bill hoped we would: as a theory of behavior to be tested by comparing the behavior of the model to that of actual living systems.

HB : Good. So start doing so. Compare models to »actual living systems« and tell me about.

HB: More respect more success. It was not whether you or me is right about our interpretations of PCT. I just went into your »game«. Sooner or later our understanding should be »equal« as Bill’s literature is the same all the time.

RM: I don’t think a firm understanding PCT is a matter of textual analysis. You have to do the modeling and testing.

HB : …and experimenting with nature and read about results others get while »experimenting« with nature, what can you read in books, see videos…. Or you go and do it for yourself (experimenting in nature). Foor PCT and LCS you can get good readings in anatomical and physiological books, biochemistry, micro-biology, »quantum physics«, and so on… Or you can go to Anatomical Institute and disect or anatomize LCS. I’ve been doing that during my study. Beleive me it’s better looking that in book. It’s quite the same, specially with photography or video.

HB: More reading of Bill’s books more »equal« oppinions. So I tried with different Bill’s discourses. But I will not say that I know what I achieved. Maybe nothing. As I can’t see what you are thinking as you can’t see what I’m.

RM: Right. That’s why you have to run the demos, observe the results of the testing the behavior of the model against real behavior.

HB : And manipulate if it’s possible ? I’ve checked it in »driving experiment«. Did you ? Was only I who was »stupid« enough to go on the road on windy day when wind was blowing with »gusts of 120km/h«, trying to get scientific proof. You can’t model »driving car« without having any experiences. And your models and demos proved many times insufficient and wrong. You didn’t test them »against« nature and find out what is wrong. You just keep repeating that observing of test results is the only solution of PCT research. It’s not that Rick. Listen to Bill.

Bill P : »If the effects 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…« (LCS II, p.185)

RM: What you seem to be saying is that “real driving” differs from the “target and cursor” tracking task in that in “real driving” the reference for the controlled perception is not physically available while in the “target and cursor” tracking task itis (presumably in the form of the target). Is that what you meant to say?

HB : Not only this difference. There are two very important other differences, and you’ll find out if you’ll sit in the car and drive on windy day. Do it, and stop just talking and »waving« with demos and models, which can’t prove everything. Go do it as you said : »…observe the results of the testing the behavior of the model against real behavior« or »by comparing the behavior of the model to that of actual living systems«.

RM : You’ve really got to do what Dag Forssell has always said people have to do to understand PCT: you have to “look under the hood” to see how the mechanism actually works; how it produces the behavior it does and how that behavior corresponds to what we actually see organisms doing.

HB : So what are you waiting for : go and check what you actually see your organism will do while you are »driving«.

It’s good advice from Dag. But how can you know »what actualy« organisms are doing. Testing of models don’t give that answer. You have to observe real organisms and do other researching or you can relly on other experiments done by other people what you can usualy find in »scientific« books, videos, and so on…

I’ve presented you all of this ways of getting knowledge. And you offered me only models and demos. Which as I said can be manipulated. Bill used all three sources of knowledge. So I think he created so »wide« knowledge.

HB: I just wanted to say that I really wish that CSGnet forum become a free and unburdened forum for all kinds of oppinions that wouldn’t be »prosecuted« with »behavioral illusions« and »not understanding PCT«. I think this sort of approcah divert people from discussing.

RM: It seems that you want me to have the same attitude as the Mikado: “I am right and you are right and everything is quite correct”. But you don’t even practice what you preach. You say you would like CSGNet to be a forum where people are not “prosecuted” for their opinions and yet you prosecute me for my opinions in nearly every paragraph you write (like the one above where you prosecute me for “prosecuting” you – and others, I presume – with “behavioral illusions”, etc).

HB : You’ll have to turn in histrory Rick. When I’ve come on CSGnet, where you already »chased« Martin, wanting him to leave CSGnet. We can go back and see this sort of discussions. I will stop procescuting you if you’ll stop procescuting me and others. You started first. I’ve came later on CSGnet then you. And you already practiced »procecutions«.

*barb can you say something about further communications on CSGnet ? What would you say about continuing »prosecution story« on CSGnet ? You want that sort of communication with continuity of disqualifying or you want a friendely advice CSGnet ?

And it seems that you are again »reading what you want to read«. I’ve clearly written what kind of conversation I expect.Â

HB: All this are my suggestions for promoting PCT. That’s my »top« goal.

RM: Again, this is not quite my goal. It is my goal as long as long as PCT is understood to be a testable model; it is not my goal if PCT is understood to be “the writings of William T. Powers”. Bill wouldn’t want PCT defined that way either. Bill was a scientist who developed a scientific model of behavior that can be implemented as a computer simulation and whose behavior can be tested by comparison to the actual behavior of living systems.

HB : O.K. Rick. It’s nice that we have somebody who will do testing. And it’s fine that we have somebody doing »robotics«. And I hope you agree that it’s good that somebody is doing »anatomy and physiology«…. And wwe all should test »by comparison to the actual behavior of living systems«.Everyone of us is specailist for some aspect of scientific research. But we have to unite our knowledge, not demanding from others to be like us. Because you are a moderator, we all have to do research with »models« and »demos« ? When did you last time do any experiment in »nature« ?

*barb do you agree with Rick, that we all have to do »models« and » »demos« ?Â

HB: So what are we going to do, to achieve this ?

RM: I’ve been doing it for the last 30+ years: I’m doing just what Bill hoped many others would also start doing to promote his theory of behavior: I’m “Doing Research on Purpose”,which is exactly what Bill described in the BYTE paper back in 1979 (s http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/enclosures/byte_sep_1979.pdf). If you (or anyone else) reads it, I’d like to hear what you think of it.

HB : I’d rather say his theory of »perceptual control«. Behavior is just means of control what you can see from artcile »50 Anniversary«. Control is inside organisms not outside.

Whatever I’m doing is for good of PCT. And it seems that we agree in one point :

RM : I would hope that once PCT becomes the basis of the science of living systems the basic ideas of PCT will become part of the “worldwide” default understanding of “how people work”…

HB : I hope that we are talking about common goal : how to make PCT worldwide known theory.

Is this so different ? But if you want to hear O.K. Your goal is better than mine. And from now on I agree to follow your »top« goal. So when we are going to make a procedure to put the »Perceptual Control Theory« into »Psychological dictionary« as its own original psychological theory ?

Maybe others, oppinion ?

I hope that someday I’ll see much more conversations here on CSGnet. Not just two or three, sometimes four and periods of »nothing«…. With over 100 members ?

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 8:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Protect vs Cancel, etc

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:36 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.05.05.1330)]

···

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

BH: When somebody (including you) show me how he understands all aspects of PCT I’ll gladly call him an expert.

RM: Before one can aspire to expertise one must develop competence. Competence in PCT requires an understanding of the basic concepts of the theory and how to apply them to actual behavior. I’m afraid that much of what you post reflects a lack of such competence. I ordinarily wouldn’t point this out but you have been so adamant in your criticisms of my own PCT competence – criticisms that are all based on egregious misunderstandings of the most basic concepts in PCT and how to apply them – that I feel compelled to reply (in order to protect my controlled variables from the disturbances that are your posts;-).Actually, the list of what you criticize me for makes an excellent list of the basic things one should know about control theory and how to apply it.

  1. You criticize me for saying that “Behavior is control”.

In fact behavior – purposeful behavior – is control and that’s why control theory is used to explain it. This is the most important thing to know about PCT; it’s what connects it to the “real world”. Control is the phenomenon that control theory explains. Control theory is used to explain behavior because behavior is demonstrably a process of control.

  1. You criticize me for saying that actions protect controlled variables from the effects of disturbance.

In fact, that’s exactly what actions do; they are continuously varying so as to protect a controlled variable from the net effect of all disturbances to that variable.

  1. You criticize me for saying that perceptual input functions define the aspects of the environment that are controlled by a control system.

But this is precisely what the perceptual input functions do. Look at any PCT diagram and you will see that the input function transforms environmental variables into the perceptual signal that is controlled. When the perceptual signal is controlled, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perceptual signal is also controlled. That is why an observer is able to tell what perception a person is controlling using the test for the controlled variable; the observer is able to perceive the same as aspect of the enviroment as the one perceived by the controller.

  1. You criticize my computer based tracking research saying it is not as good as going out into “nature” and seeing how people actually do things, like reacting to the gust disturbances that affect the position of a car while driving.

The reaction to a sudden disturbance to a controlled variable simply emphasizes the illusion that stimuli (disturbances) cause responses. In fact, the actions that protect controlled variables like the position of the car on the road from disturbances such as wind gusts are continuously and simultaneously countering the net effect of many continuously varying disturbances such as the resistance of the road surface. The controlling seen with abrupt disturbances is actually a less “natural” case of controlling than is that which is occurring all the time when we are going about our daily activities, including the time when we are controlling the position of a cursor on a computer screen. We are always varying actions to protect the variables we are controlling from disturbances.You only notice that this is occurring when the disturbances are abrupt, but it’s occurring all the time whether the disturbances are abrupt or or not.

  1. You criticize me for saying that behavior can be controlled.

But behavior (both as actions and controlled variables) can demonstrably be controlled via disturbance to a controlled variable (as in reflexes) or by varying the feedback connection to a controlled variable (as in control using rewards and punishments). PCT explains these observations, all of which can be made out there in “nature”, like in a park with your pet dog.

These are basic concepts of control theory as applied to the behavior of living systems: that is, PCT. These are not just statements of belief. There is considerable public, repeatable evidence, based on modeling and testing, that every one of these statements is true. If you reject these statements then you are rejecting PCT and the evidence that has been presented to support it. You are, of course, free to carry on as though you were the arbiter to the “truth” about PCT. But forgive me if from now on I ignore what you say along those lines.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Well I’ve been thinking quite long whether shoud I answer your provokative post, as all issues had been discussed so many times, that it’s incredible that there is no effect on your point of view. From your 5. basic points about »PCT«. I see that you don’t quite understand it. It’s really amazing. So many hours of previous discussions. But what I see, it seems that you don’t even understand some things what Bill wrote.

RM : These are basic concepts of control theory as applied to the behavior of living systems: that is, PCT. These are not just statements of belief. There is considerable public, repeatable evidence, based on modeling and testing, that every one of these statements is true. If you reject these statements then you are rejecting PCT and the evidence that has been presented to support it. You are, of course, free to carry on as though you were the arbiter to the “truth” about PCT. But forgive me if from now on I ignore what you say along those lines.

HB : I see some new »reorganizations« in your thinking. Interesting startegy of interpersonal control. You left out arguments and evidence and you started with »threats«. If we don’t beleive Rick (who think that he is probably reference for PCT) then we reject PCT. I thought all the time that Bill and his work is reference of PCT. Not you. Well *barb, Ally could you be so kind and say something ? Is Rick really a reference for PCT ?

And who is this »considerable public« ? Let them speak here.

I’m not the arbiter for PCT. Bill’s work and now his daughters are. So it’s quite irrelevant if you ignore what I’m saying. Most important is that you don’t ignore what Bill or his work says.

Whatever you were writing, it is really a good strategy for »defending« your BCT (Behavioral Control Theory). “Disturbances” are obviuosly hardly affecting it. So it seems that you are also succesfully »defending« your theory from Bill’s work and scientific proofs.

I’m concerned about other members on CSGnet that you will mislead them with your “self-regulation” theory of behavior. But probably my concerns are unjustifyed, because most of the members on CSGnet understand PCT and they will sooner or later help you understand. But it will obviously take time.Â

RM: Before one can aspire to expertise one must develop competence.

HB : I agree J

RM : Competence in PCT requires an understanding of the basic concepts of the theory and how to apply them to actual behavior.

HB : PCT means understandong of the basic concepts of control theory and how to apply it to actual and wanted perception. It’s »Perceptual Control Theory«, so everything is about perception, not about behavior. Behavior is probably just synonim for activated effector that is »means« of control. There are also other effectors that »mediate« control via »feed-back« (Control of Perception). Giving credit only to behavior shows that you understand self-regulation of behavior. It seems that you made your own RCT theory as »Behavioral Control Theory« ? But you agreed in “50 Aniversary” article that the basic concept for PCT is not “behavior”. It’s just means of control. The basic concept is :

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 : So if I see right the basic concept and the main point of PCT is how “organisms function”. So it’s mostly about how “internal control” in organisms works (hierarchy) as that is what made organisms survive in evolution. “Behavior” (motor output) is of secondary importance (supporting role) and not all LCS have it, but still they survive (plants for example). LCS control inside and that is most important control. Animals (LCS with behavior) would had not survive without plants (LCS without behavior as muscle contraction) who has other means of control (at least on Earth). Behavior is just one mean of control, and there are also other means which enable control in organisms. So your “behavioral view” is very narrow and inadequate in analysing “how organisms function”, how control works in organisms.Â

RM : I’m afraid that much of what your post reflects a lack of such competence.

HB : Sure. My posts reflects some competence in PCT, while your’s BCT is about self-regulation of behavior or »Control of behavior«, although you decided to partcipate in general theory about “how organisns function”. I’ve proved PCT knowledge with »experiments in nature«, and with other evidences amd Bill’s citations. Where are yours »experiments in nature«, evidences and Bill citations.

RM : I ordinarily wouldn’t point this out but you have been so adamant in your criticisms of my own PCT competence….

HB : You have some PCT competence ? I didn’t notice it in last years. Sorry. But I noticed it arround 2007. You were very competent in PCT. I’ll try harder to notice it in future texts J.

RM : ….-- criticisms that are all based on egregious misunderstaandings of the most basic concepts in PCT and how to apply them …

HB : You didn’t show any proof (evidence) that you understand PCT in 2014 and 2015. Just some talkings and beleives. No experiences with »nature«. I think that you even don’t understand everything what Bill wrote in his books. How can I not criticise you. But you agreed that PCT (Bill’s) is the reference for our talkings.

RM earlier : I’d like to know why we have such different views about this if we are both analyzing these behaviors from a PCT perspective.

HB : So we just have to “match our understanding with Bill’s”. It’s his PCT. If you are an “expert” for PCT and moderator on CSGnet at least what you can be capable of, is »interpretation« of Bill’s work. I think that would be your primary job as moderator. To answer questions concerning Bill’s work not create (in imagination) your theory BCT which has no evidence or at least I didn’t notice that you showed any.

RM : …-- that I feel compelled to reply (iin order to protect my controlled variables from the disturbances that are your posts;-).

HB :

Any of your replies is welcome as long as it is not manipulation, where you proved to be an expert (post to Fred). But if you’ll keep on »defending« your self-regulation »controlled variables« from changes, you will continue misleading the whole CSGnet.

But I see the main problem that you say that you are »protecting« YOUR CONTROLLED VARIABLES not Bill’s, what is I suppose the primary goal of CSGnet. If I understand right, you are promoting yourself. That was clearly seen when you wrote to APA Dictionary. You even said that your expanation is “better” than Bill’s. How can that be, if you even don’t understand clearly what Bill wrote about his theory. And I understand now why on APA refused your contribution. It’s the same as what they published. It’s self-regulation in both cases.

RM : Actually, the list of what you criticize me for makes an excellent list of the basic things one should know about control theory and how to apply it.

HB : Well. The list you made and explanations are excelent proof that you don’t understand PCT. I’m also a little surprised because I thought that you understand more. At least you did in 2007. Maybe you are talking actually about some kind of “Control Theory”, but it’s sure not PCT. Maybe some “Behavioral Control Theory”.

Now again here is text what Bill wrote about 1.level »input function« and perceptual signal.

Bill P :

Any one first-order perceptual signal can vary only along one dimension frequency… This mmeans that however the associated input function is stimulated, only one dimension of that stimulation can affect the perceptual signal : the intensity of stimulation, without distinction as to the cause or kind of stimulation. The perceptual signal from a touch receptor does not reflect whether the cause is an electrical current, a touch, or a chemical poisoning, or whether a touch occurs to the left or right of the exact receptor location.

If this is true it is even more apparent, that a first order perceptual signal reflects only what happens at the sensory ending : the source of the stimulation is completely undefined and unsensed. If any infromation exists about the source of the stimulus, it exists only distributed over milions of first-order perceptual signal and is explicit in none of them.

All information contained in first-order perceptual signals is therefore information about what is happening to the associated input function and about nothing else.

HB :

Explain to me what he wrote and then we can talk about what is defining »controlled aspect of environemnt« or better »controlled perceptions«. As Martin mentioned once there are »controlled and uncontrolled perceptions«. But your hypothesis says that »all perceptions are controlled«.

With analysing Bill’s text you will get also answers on most of your 5. iluusionary starting-points. Other answers you can get from conversation with Fred.

Then we can go on 2. level.

Best,

Boris

[From Rick Marken (2015.05.15.00940)]

···

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:35 PM, "Boris Hartman"Â

csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

BH: Well I’ve been thinking quite long whether shoud I answer your provokative post, as all issues had been discussed so many times, that it’s incredible that there is no effect on your point of view.

RM: And vice versa; it’s “incredible” that these discussions have had no effect on your point of view either. Actually, if you understood control theory you would see that it’s not incredible at all. What is unexpected is when people do change their point of view. And people do. But they have to do it on their own, through reorganization, or the change is not real. We know this from PCT as well as from the homily on the wall at Bill’s aunt’s house in Oregon: “A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still”.Â

HB: Now again here is text what Bill wrote about 1.level »input function« and perceptual signal.

Â

Bill P :

Any one first-order perceptual signal can vary only along one dimension frequency… This means that however the associated input ffunction is stimulated, only one dimension of that stimulation can affect the perceptual signal : the intensity of stimulation, without distinction as to the cause or kind of stimulation. The perceptual signal from a touch receptor does not reflect whether the cause is an electrical current, a touch, or a chemical poisoning, or whether a touch occurs to the left or right of the exact receptor location.

Â

If this is true it is even more apparent, that a first order perceptual signal reflects only what happens at the sensory ending : **the source of the stimulation is completely undefined and unsensed.**Â If any infromation exists about the source of the stimulus, it exists only distributed over milions of first-order perceptual signal and is explicit in none of them.

Â

All information contained in first-order perceptual signals is therefore information about what is happening to the associated input function and about nothing else.

Â

HB :

Explain to me what he wrote and then we can talk about what is defining »controlled aspect of environemnt« or better »controlled perceptions«.

RM: For the sake of others who might be interested I will explain what Bill was saying here. He was saying that at the sensory receptor level the world is just a set of varying intensities – intensity represented neurally as the rate (frequency) of neural firing at the output of the sensor. So the only aspect of the outside world represented at level 1 of the control hierarchy is the amplitude of stimulation at the sensor, whether the environmental (stimulus) source of that stimulation is electromagnetic, acoustic, chemical, etc.

RM: Â The last sentence of the quote is a lead-in to the next level of perception, which Bill called the “sensation level”. the perceptual functions at level 2 take the information distributed over the millions of first order perceptual intensity signals and produce perceptual signals that represent the aspect of the environment that corresponds to what we experience as different kinds of sensations: light, sound, taste, etc.

RM: The perceptual functions at different levels of the control hierarchy produce perceptual signals that vary along with variations in different dimensions or aspects of environmental stimulation. Level 1 perceptual signals (the one’s discussed in the quoted paragraph) vary only in terms of the intensity of stimulation at the sensor (producing variations in perceptions of brightness, loudness,etc); Level 2 perceptual signals vary in terms of sensation (producing variations in perceptions of color, pitch, etc). Level 3 perceptual signals vary in terms of configuration (producing variations in perceptions of shape, timbre, etc). And so in up the levels.Â

RM: The levels of perception defined in B:CP are hypotheses about the aspects (or dimensions) of the environment that we perceive. We experience all of these aspects of the environment simultaneously but we can guide our awareness to the different levels voluntarily, which is how Bill came up with these hypotheses. But they are just hypotheses that should be tested further by research.

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble