[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.Â
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 :
-
People are HPCT
-
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 :
-
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