FW: Watching your p's and q.i's (was Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control)

Rick,

RM: Please describe the real life experiments you have done and explain how they show that it is better to use the word “stability” rather than “control”.

HB :Well Rick I must say that you surprised me with your »new« attitude.to me. Well if we’ll continue in this tone, we could maybe reach our pleasant conversation level from 2007 where our first question was : which perception do we have to control, not which behavior we have to control.

I already gave you my »perceptual decriptions« of walking, driving a car, »tracking experiment«…. They all have integrated above mentioned PCT principle. Which perceptions do we have to control. Specailly in car driving you have to be carefull which perception do you control so not cause accident. Behavior is just means of perceptual control.

All my other experiments which I’ve done from my primary field of occupation and my other life observations are hidden in this sinple PCT logic. I’m sure you will enjoy doing them if we’ll come to that point. They can be done as »laboratory experiments« or PCT analyses of real life situations.

But before we start with other experiments, you first have to answer my question. Pleasant and constructive conversation can not be accomplished if answer on question is given with question.

And there is also one other limitation which we have to solve with Powers ladies. I’ve mentioned my request quite some times.

So I finally want to know whether you agree with Bills’ diagram (LCS III) and Bills’ definitions (B:CP) :

Â

image001185.jpg

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

  1.  CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
    

Bill P (B:CP):

  1.  OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
    

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box reepresents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

  1.   FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
    

Bill P (B:CP)

  1.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
    

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 7:48 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Watching your p’s and q.i’s (was Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control)

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.26.1045)]

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM …here’s what Bill said in his letter to Phil Runkel: <

WTP: I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally.

RM: In this sentence, “stabilize” means to keep a variable (an external variable in this case) from varying, which is one feature of control; the other feature of control is acting against the effects of disturbances to this variable – disturbances that would result in the variable being unstable if the system did not act against them.

HB : In the case of keeping »external variable« recognizably near reference conditions you are showing so many problems and confusion, that is better to use word »stability« as Bill did.

RM : But by acting against these disturbances, the variable is maintained in reference states that can be identified experimentally.

HB : You are making again confussion. It’s not maintained in reference state but near recognizible reference state. It’s not objectivelly near reference state as you try to show. …

HB: Start using real life experments not just »kinder joystick experimental« and you will understand why is better to use word stability. .

RM: Please describe the real life experiments you have done and explain how they show that it is better to use the word “stability” rather than “control”.

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2018.01.03.1050)]

image001185.jpg

···

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Â

RM:Â Please describe the real life experiments you have done and explain how they show that it is better to use the word “stability” rather than “control”.Â

Â

HB :Well Rick I must say that you surprised me with your »new« attitude.to me. Well if we’ll continue in this tone, we could maybe reach our pleasant conversation level from 2007 where our first question was : which perception do we have to control, not which behavior we have to control.

RM: We had pleasant interchanges back then because I thought you were actually interested in the science of PCT. Â

Â

HB: I already gave you my »perceptual decriptions« of walking, driving a car, »tracking experiment«…. They all have integrated above mentioned PCT principle. Which perceptions do we have to control. Specailly in car driving you have to be carefull which perception do you control so not cause accident. Behavior is just means of perceptual control.

RM: These are not descriptions of experiments. Feel free to try again or, better yet, don’t.

Rick

Â

Â

All my other experiments which I’ve done from my primary field of occupation and my other life observations are hidden in this sinple PCT logic. I’m sure you will enjoy doing them if we’ll come to that point. They can be done as »laboratory experiments« or PCT analyses of real life situations.

Â

But before we start with other experiments, you first have to answer my question. Pleasant and constructive conversation can not be accomplished if answer on question is given with question.

Â

And there is also one other limitation which we have to solve with Powers ladies. I’ve mentioned my request quite some times.

Â

So I finally want to know whether you agree with Bills’ diagram (LCS III) and Bills’ definitions (B:CP) :

Â

Â

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Â

Bill P (B:CP):

1.     CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Â

Bill P (B:CP):

2.     OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function sshown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Â

Bill P (LCS III):

3.      FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Â

Bill P (B:CP) :

4.     INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Â

Bill P (B:CP) :

5.     COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

6.      : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

7.     ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 7:48 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Watching your p’s and q.i’s (was Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control)

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.26.1045)]

Â

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Â

RM …here&'s what Bill said in his letter to Phil Runkel:Â

WTP: I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally.Â

RM: In this sentence, “stabilize” means to keep a variable (an external variable in this case) from varying, which is one feature of control; the other feature of control is acting against the effects of disturbances to this variable – disturbances that would result in the variable being unstable if the system did not act against them.

Â

HB : In the case of keeping »external variable« recognizably near reference conditions you are showing so many problems and confusion, that is better to use word »stability« as Bill did.

Â

RM : But by acting against these disturbances, the variable is maintained in reference states that can be identified experimentally

Â

HB : You are making again confussion. It’s not maintained in reference state but near recognizible reference state. It’s not objectivelly near reference state as you try to show. …

Â

HB: Start using real life experments  not just »kinder joystick experimental« and you will understand why is better to use word stability. .

Â

RM:Â Please describe the real life experiments you have done and explain how they show that it is better to use the word “stability” rather than “control”.Â

Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Down

image001185.jpg

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 7:49 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Watching your p’s and q.i’s (was Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control)

[From Rick Marken (2018.01.03.1050)]

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: Please describe the real life experiments you have done and explain how they show that it is better to use the word “stability” rather than “control”.

HB :Well Rick I must say that you surprised me with your »new« attitude.to me. Well if we’ll continue in this tone, we could maybe reach our pleasant conversation level from 2007 where our first question was : which perception do we have to control, not which behavior we have to control.

RM: We had pleasant interchanges back then because I thought you were actually interested in the science of PCT.

HB : What do you think why I stayed in PCT and talked to Bill so long time, and with others, reading literature and so on… Just for fun ?.

Well. As I didn’t get your confirmation abiut diagram (LCS IIII) and definitions (B:CP) I’ll have to conclude that you don’t agree with PCT. But why should you. You have your RCT.

HB: I already gave you my »perceptual decriptions« of walking, driving a car, »tracking experiment«…. They all have integrrated above mentioned PCT principle. Which perceptions do we have to control. Specailly in car driving you have to be carefull which perception do you control so not cause accident. Behavior is just means of perceptual control.

RM: These are not descriptions of experiments.

HB : They are descriptions of how oranisms fucntion on many more experiments as you can think. On the bases of those experiments and knowledge you gave a good description of sleeping. It perfectly matches PCT. But it’s not matching RCT where »behavior is control« and there is some CPV (Controlled perceptual Variable).

Every walking can be tretaed as experiment. Every driving a car can be treated as experiment as by your oppinion your »tracking task« can be treated as experiment. The problem is that wrong theoretical bases for experiment can give you wrong results.

RM : Feel free to try again or, better yet, don’t.

HB : You don’t know what you are missing… J

Boris

Rick

All my other experiments which I’ve done from my primary field of occupation and my other life observations are hidden in this sinple PCT logic. I’m sure you will enjoy doing them if we’ll come to that point. They can be done as »laboratory experiments« or PCT analyses of real life situations.

But before we start with other experiments, you first have to answer my question. Pleasant and constructive conversation can not be accomplished if answer on question is given with question.

And there is also one other limitation which we have to solve with Powers ladies. I’ve mentioned my request quite some times.

So I finally want to know whether you agree with Bills’ diagram (LCS III) and Bills’ definitions (B:CP) :

cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

  1.  CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
    

Bill P (B:CP):

  1.  OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
    

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

  1.   FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
    

Bill P (B:CP)

  1.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
    

Boris

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 7:48 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Watching your p’s and q.i’s (was Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control)

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.26.1045)]

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM …here’s what Bill said in his letter to Phil Runnkel:

WTP: I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally.

RM: In this sentence, “stabilize” means to keep a variable (an external variable in this case) from varying, which is one feature of control; the other feature of control is acting against the effects of disturbances to this variable – disturbances that would result in the variable being unstable if the system did not act against them.

HB : In the case of keeping »external variable« recognizably near reference conditions you are showing so many problems and confusion, that is better to use word »stability« as Bill did.

RM : But by acting against these disturbances, the variable is maintained in reference states that can be identified experimentally.

HB : You are making again confussion. It’s not maintained in reference state but near recognizible reference state. It’s not objectivelly near reference state as you try to show. …

HB: Start using real life experments not just »kinder joystick experimental« and you will understand why is better to use word stability. .

RM: Please describe the real life experiments you have done and explain how they show that it is better to use the word “stability” rather than “control”.

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

(Rick Marken (2017.12.20.1830)]

RM: … just about everyone else on CSGNet) seems to think that it’s only perception that is controlled and that variable aspects of the environment are only controlled as a side effect of controlling perception.

HB : Definition of control in PCT is clear :

Bill P :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances

HB : The variable aspect of the environment are is not controlled as side effect of controlling perception. They are not controlled at all. But they are stabilized to the extend that they can enable control in organism.

RM: This discussion of the relationship between the fact of control – the fact that organisms actually do stabilize external variables (q.i’s) of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally

HB : Which experiments you have in mind ? Playing with joystick ?

– and the theory that explains this fact (control theory), which says that the observed control of q.i is accomplished by controlling an internal “model” of q.i in the form of an afferent neural signal

HB : Let me guess. The theory that explains the »fact« (!!!???) is probbaly RCT (Ricks Control Theory) ? Did I missed ? He,he

RM : , ….is fundamental to an understanding of how to do the science of PCT – how to study and understand the behavior (controlling) done by living organisms.

HB : Fundamental to understanding controlling done by living organism in science of PCT is PCT itself. It’s enough to see diagram LCS III and definitions of control loop (B:CP). There is no need for RCT Phylosophy.

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

  1.  CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
    

Bill P (B:CP):

  1.  OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
    

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

  1.   FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
    

Bill P (B:CP)

  1.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
    

image001185.jpg
Boris

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.21.1700)]

image001185.jpg

···

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: This discussion of the relationship between the fact of control – the fact that organisms actually do stabilize external variables (q.i’s) of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally

HB : Which experiments you have in mind ? Playing with joystick ?

RM: Yes, I imagine some of those kinds of experiments are what Bill had in mind when he made that statement. In case you didn’t catch it, here’s what Bill said in his letter to Phil Runkel:Â

I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally. – William T. Powers.

RM: I presume you are equally as condescending about the experiments Galileo did that involved playing with balls and slides. Â

Best

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

RM …here’s what Bill said in his letter to Phil Runkel:

I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally. – William T. Powers

HB : Well then stick to term »stabilize« as Bill and Kent suggested you and you will have no problems with me. I didn’t see for years that you would use this term. And you conflicted with Kent when he explained to you why »stability«. I hope that from now on you’ll be using term stability for outside events not control.

But Rick I still want you to confirm or reject Bills’ definitions (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III) for references to IAPCT program if you still think that you want to promote PCT. Well I beleive that PCT is still Bills’ theory Â

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

  1.  CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
    

Bill P (B:CP):

  1.  OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
    

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function sshown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

  1.   FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
    

Bill P (B:CP)

  1.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
    

Bill P (B:CP) :

  1.  ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
    

image001185.jpg
Boris

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 2:03 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Watching your p’s and q.i’s (was Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control)

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.21.1700)]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: This discussion of the relationship between the fact of control – the fact that organisms actually do stabilize external variables (q.i’s) of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally

HB : Which experiments you have in mind ? Playing with joystick ?

RM: Yes, I imagine some of those kinds of experiments are what Bill had in mind when he made that statement. In case you didn’t catch it, here’s what Bill said in his letter to Phil Runkel:

I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally. – William T. Powers.

RM: I presume you are equally as condescending about the experiments Galileo did that involved playing with balls and slides.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.22.1005)]

···

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

 RM …here’s what Bill said in his lletter to Phil Runkel:Â

I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally. – William T. Powers

HB : Well then stick to term »stabilize« as Bill and Kent suggested you and you will have no problems with me.

 RM: You forgot to highlight the complete statement so I’ll do it for you: We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally.

RM: In this sentence, “stabilize” means to keep a variable (an external variable in this case) from varying, which is one feature of control; the other feature of control is acting against the effects of disturbances to this variable – disturbances that would result in the variable being unstable if the system did not act against them. But by acting against these disturbances, the variable is maintained in reference states that can be identified experimentally. So the word “stabilize” is used here as part of a description of the objective (experimentally identifiable) phenomenon of control

RM: Kent did suggest that I use the word “stabilize” rather than “control” but Bill certainly never did. One reason for this is that the word “stabilize” has come to refer to the behavior of “equilibrium” systems, like a pendulum or mass on a spring, that return to a “stable state” after removal of a disturbance (such as release of the pendulum bob after it have been pulled from plumb). So I’ll stick with calling control “control”.Â

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Down…

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 7:08 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Watching your p’s and q.i’s (was Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control)

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.22.1005)]

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM …here’s what Bill said in his letter to Phil Runkel:&

I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally. – William T. Powers

HB : Well then stick to term »stabilize« as Bill and Kent suggested you and you will have no problems with me.

RM: You forgot to highlight the complete statement so I’ll do it for you: We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally.

HB : I didn’t forget. I just wanted to point on the term it was used by Bill. But we can discuss it all.

RM: In this sentence, “stabilize” means to keep a variable (an external variable in this case) from varying, which is one feature of control; the other feature of control is acting against the effects of disturbances to this variable – disturbances that would result in the variable being unstable if the system did not act against them.

HB : In the case of keeping »external variable« recognizably near reference conditions you are showing so many problems and confusion, that is better to use word »stability« as Bill did. Problems and confussion that you show are :

  1.   You are trying to prove that »Behavior is control«what is impossible becasue of physiological evidences
    
  2.   You are trying to prove that there is some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« which Bill never mentioned
    
  3.   You think that disturbances are applyed only to »external variable«
    
  4.   You think that external variables can be always maintained near experimentally recognizible reference states.
    
  5.   You think that stabilizing external variable is happening in the same time as control inside orgasnism
    
  6.   The main problem is, that you are generalizing maintainance of »external variables« near recognizable reference conditions to all behaviors.
    
  7.   You are making wrong cannonical conclusion that to the extend variables are controlled inside they are also controlled inside and vica verse. It's totaly wrong.
    
  8.   You are forming wrong general control loop for organisms control.
    

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

  1.   CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
    
  2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

  3.  FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
    
  4.  INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
    
  5.  COMPARATOR : ????
    
  6.  ERROR SIGNAL : ???
    

Maybe there are more problems. I’ll let you know. But the confussion you are making is so big that I’d advise you to stick to the word »stability« as Bill and Kemt propose.

RM : But by acting against these disturbances, the variable is maintained in reference states that can be identified experimentally.

HB : You are making again confussion. It’s not maintained in reference state but near recognizible reference state. It’s not obhectivelly near reference state as you try to show. Stick to Bills’ terminology. He knew why he wrote it. And you don’t know what you are talking about when you are using his understanding.

Start using real life experments  not just »kinder joystick experimental« and you will understand why is better to use word stability. .

RM : So the word “stabilize” is used here as part of a description of the objective (experimentally identifiable) phenomenon of control.

HB : No experiment is objective. It always wears characteristic of experimetnal person. That knew also Ashby. So it’s recognozible by people who understand control.

RM: Kent did suggest that I use the word “stabilize” rather than “control” but Bill certainly never did.

HB : As we know Bill protected you all the time. So you can’t say what he was really thinking whatever he was saying to you. You were his friend. I say it’s never good that science and friendship are mixed. The same it seems that happened to Martin. Because of your friendly talkings on CSG meetings he is maybe to much on your side because he might be perceiving you as friendly guy. I don’t know. Maybe…

RM : One reason for this is that the word “stabilize” has come to refer to the behavior of “equilibrium” systems, like a pendulum or mass on a spring, that return to a “stable state” after removal of a disturbance (such as release of the pendulum bob after it have been pulled from plumb). So I’ll stick with calling control “control”.

HB : Ashby used it in many senses. For example for »ultrastable system« where Bill took reorganization. Stability can be used succesfully in general meaning. Control of »external varable« can’t.

In PCT only organisms controll inside. Outside world is stabilized to the extend that enable control in organism and is probably impossible to achive »control« to the extent that is controlled in organism. And beside that Behavior is not control and there is no »Controled Perceptual Variable« in PCT.

Whatever you mean woth control of external variables is so cinfussiong that I’D advise you to start using term »stability« as Bill and Kent are proposing, because In PCT »Behavior is not control« and there is no »Controlled Perceptual Variable« and you froming wrong and not general »control loop«. You are just confussing people arround.

Boris

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.26.1045)]

···

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Â

RM …here’s what Bill said in his letter to Phil Runkel:Â

WTP: I think it is essential to follow the course that Marken set. First we must establish control as a phenomenon. This is not a theoretical matter. We have to show that organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally.Â

RM: In this sentence, “stabilize” means to keep a variable (an external variable in this case) from varying, which is one feature of control; the other feature of control is acting against the effects of disturbances to this variable – disturbances that would result in the variable being unstable if the system did not act against them.

Â

HB : In the case of keeping »external variable« recognizably near reference conditions you are showing so many problems and confusion, that is better to use word »stability« as Bill did.

RM : But by acting against these disturbances, the variable is maintained in reference states that can be identified experimentally

Â

HB : You are making again confussion. It’s not maintained in reference state but near recognizible reference state. It’s not obhectivelly near reference state as you try to show. …

Â

HB: Start using real life experments  not just »kinder joystick experimental« and you will understand why is better to use word stability. .

RM:Â Please describe the real life experiments you have done and explain how they show that it is better to use the word “stability” rather than “control”.Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery