Alison, it’s nice that you take care of your friends, but as I said many times before sicence and friendship does not go together.
···
From: Alison Powers [mailto:controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 5:01 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: goal of our researchgate project
AP: Bruce - your response to Boris was kind and respectful and I greatly appreciate it.
HB : Please tell me Alison what was kind and respectfull in the Bruce Nevin’s post where were so many lies and manipulations. He »accused« me of having nothing of my own research without any evidence. Just becasue I didn’t post anything on »Researchgate« project, which is even not a PCT project as he was halucinating about some »controlled variable« principles of research. . I proved that he doesn’t agree with Bills’ diagram and definitions and that his »inquisition« reseacrh method with »controlled variable in environment of organism is RCT not PCT tool.
Why didin’t he prove to me that I am wrong ???
I proposed that PCT researches for »Researchgate« can be simply obtained from my disciusions with Bill, Rick and others. Consider them as my gift to you. You just have to go through archives or you can ask Martin to show you my ECACS discussions.
AP : I felt that everything you said graciously allowed for Boris to step in and prove himself without feeling defensive.
HB : Every human will feels differently disturbances. I felt as I did. Maybe my »reaction« was not polite becasue of my previous experiences. And finally it seems that »Reseacrhgate« wants to be a scientific project, but Bruce Nevin choosed to limit research to one (RCT) theory. What kind of gracious approcah is this ?Â
He can deny my accusation if he wants to. From his instructions for »Reseacrhgate project« it’s obviously that he is not agreeing with diagram (LCS III) and definitions (B:CP).
But please answer me : do you agree?
AP : But all you received in his reply to you was defensiveness which I find confounding.
HB : Well if somebody is trying to manipulate with me, I’m not just watching. Bruce Nevin get back proofs that his limiting research method does not lead to confirming GENERAL THEORY OF HOW ORGANISMS FUNCTION. Â
AP: Boris - if you have research of your own or papers that you have written you would have links to them easily accessible since we all keep our own creations close at hand. So, where are they?
HB : Our relationship is not clear Alison, although I got impression that you are very fine lady. I offered Bill cooperation but he didn’t accept, I don’t know what kind of agreement we can achieve ? So I don’t understand what are you demanding from me ? Do I have any obligations ?
As I proposed many times project that I’m interested in and probably all should be on CSGnet, nothing happened. I also clearly wrote my expectations ABOUT »AUTHORS RIGHTS«. Nothing happened.
But I kept balance on CSGnet so that PCT didn’t dissapear. And that’s I think is more than you can expect from me.
But first of all I think that you have to decide what kind of »scientific« research you want in »Researchgate project« ? RCT or PCT ? Becasue Bruce Nevin proposed something that can’t be found in PCT. So even if I wanted to write something on »Researchgate project« I can’t because I don’t agree with RCT approach.
I hope we will manage to agree what are PCT scientific methods« which can confirm PCT ad GENERAL THEORY which can explain every behavior.
AP: Boris - I do not engage with you because my understanding of PCT is more organic. I grew up with it and have lived my life by it. That doesn’t mean my life has been perfect and that I am equipped as I would have wished to argue all of your points as strongly as one who had studied the subjects of behavioral science or psychology. But I can read things people write here and have a reasonably good ability to understand it because I grew up with PCT.
HB : Superb Alison. If you grew up with PCT and you understand what we are writing than I see no problem in seeing differences between RCT and PCT.
So can you please confirm whether you agree with Bills’ diagram (LCS III) and definitions (B:CP).Â
AP: I do not wish to engage with you Boris because you are not kind in your approach and because I am tired of this whole “Rick PCT” thing you go on about. It is not constructive.
HB : Well I’m sorry to hear that Alison. Not »kind approcah« can mean that I don’t answer in the way you want to. You said you understand PCT. If you are tyred of »Rick RCT« approcah than advise Rick to stop with his clearly not PCT approcah.
I hoped as you understand PCT that you’ll realize that RCT approach is wrong. It’s directly in contradiction to PCT.
If somebody says that »behavior is control« and that there is »controlled variable« in enviroment and that there is »Controlled Perceptual Variable« is in direct opposition to PCT directly which confirm that »behavior is not control« (see Mary and Bill Powers thesis) and that there is »no controlled variable« in environment and that there is just »ordinary perceptual signal« than I can conclude that somebody is wrong. I decided to beleive Bill and Mary. And you ?
I proved it so many times with PCT arguments so that I don’t understand why you don’t support Bill and Mary Powers. Why are you protecting Rick again ?
What can be more constructive but to preserve PCT ? Do you want RCT to become main logic for understanding PCT ?
AP: One thing I have thought about as I have read pieces of this whole ongoing attempt on your part is that you care deeply about PCT.
HB : That’s the whole point Alison. I don’t want that PCT dissapear. I understand that it’s difficult to grasp the point of PCT but we have to try until it happens.
I’ve been talking a lot with Bill and maybe my advantage was that I didn’t understand quite well language and I didn’t understand his terminology. So I asked so many detailed questions that sometimes he simply get tired of me. But beleive me Alison that from all those questions and answers I really get to the core of PCT. And I’m really proud of my achievment and of course I’m proud on Bills’ knowledge. So I was realy sorry that our fine cooperation ended with disagreement. But I’m still preserving PCT. I can prove it anytime with Bills literature.
AP : I would love to see some sort of common ground develop upon which everyone agrees.
HB : I think that something is coming out Alison. Rick has advanced. As you see I try to be scientific. If Rick made something good for PCT I’ll suport him. I would just like that you understand that truth about PCT is on first place for and i’ll try to do anything it takes so that I’ll achieve that goal. These are Bills’ words.
I think that Rick after all these years got into something that is really going into core of PCT. We must let him time to adapt on new PCT world. As I see it, it’s not far in the future and we could get more unique PCT agreement if he will continue developing his program level reseacrh. It’s PCT.
By my oppinion he is really on good way. I think that core problem is Bruce Nevin with his rigid intelectuall structures. He adapt very slow on changes in PCT argumentations. Or he even don’t want to »adapt«. He would rather let his fluid of thoughts free of any restraints. Like psychologists and many other scientists who don’t want to accept PCT probably because their »free mind thinking« is more comfortable.
»Free mind thinking« is in the world of living organisms impossible. They control in one way. So I think that only one has correct answers. And that’s by my oppinion Bill Powers.
AP : How ,then, does everyone on this forum go about acheiving that?
HB : That is my idea for years. I’ve been promoting PCT because I beleived one day we can all have some »everyone agree« start point. I’ve made Bills and Marys’ Thesis about PCT. What can be more »everyone agreement« proposition ?
AP: I will write back with my idea since I’ve run out of time for the moment and in the meantime everyone else can think about your own and see if it matches mine in any way.
HB : Nothing can be more welcome but your ideas Alison J
Best regards,
Boris
Respectfully,
Allie
On Jan 8, 2018 12:31 PM, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Bruce
Although our level of communication is quite better I still have impression that we talk one by another maybe because You are so arogant.
BN: I missed that. I do not always read everything on CSGnet carefully; there are many other demands in my life. What project was that?
HB : I proposed a project to finnish diagram on p. 191. Or Bill-Dug version. It’s not important becaue you any way wouldn’t know waht we are talking about because you have so many other demands in your life.
BN advise : Please remind yourself "the only person who can improve the tone of this particular conversation right now is me.
HB : So start working on yourself.
BN: Boris, I conclude from this that you do not have any actual PCT research of your own, or you would have responded with that instead of complaining about being ignored.
HB : Well I see that you are very bad informed about what I have and what I don’t have. I sems that you, Rick and Warren are »human« with »telepatical« abilities to know what other peolle think and have.
The problem is that it seems that you missed all my conversations with Bill and Rick. There are so many of them that I can’t contract them to some short form here. So It’s better that you read them before accusing me what I have or I haven’t. It’s becoming »agressive« conversation, so it can happen that will end where we stopped. With my agression back. Do we understand ?
BN: Please, Boris, be alert to how your way of writing might be perceived by others… The first requisite to being respected is to be respectful…
HB : The same for you Bruce. It would be good if you would analyze your approcah to me in our first conversations. You have to sweep first in front of your door. We can go together through our conversations from the beggining and you will see that I started very respectfully. But you didn’t.
BN : I realize that not everyone here always lives up to that. Please remind yourself “the only person who can improve the tone of this particular conversation right now is me.” You can’t demand that the other person should do it.
HB : Think again what you wrote and to whom this can be usefull. To a person writing these words.
BN: You say that these particular definitions and diagram are not respected. This is not true.
HB : Go through archives And you will see what is true.
How many times i asked people through these years and how many times both theories RCT and PCT were expossed. Nobody »reacted«. But you and Powers ladies took clearly Ricks side.
Before you talk about what is true and what is not true it’s better that you come equiped wth evidences
BN : As I have said before, nobody here disagrees with Bill’s control diagram, nor with the definitions in B:CP.
HB : You are lying Bruce. At least Rick and Powers ladies and Martin didn’t give their agreement. There were also some false agreements.
I want to hear that also from others. Do you read all minds on this forum ? How you do that ? Are you medicval phenomenon…. You are speakinng in the name of all. Are you aware of what you are doing. You and rick even didn’t agree with Bills’ and Marys’ Thesis. And now all agree with my proposal. Stop lying to yourself Bruce Nevin.
Shall we go through archieves ?
BN : Nor is it true that no one has responded to your demands about them. Several people have responded.
HB : Who are they. Most responds were about that »behavior si control«. I’d be glad if you go through archives and show me these responses which you are talking about. Show some evidences when you affirm something.
BN : The most recent response as you are presently reading these words is my response above.
HB : This was the only respons probably because of preasure I made on CSGnet forum. And you are still mumbling about fundamentalism… Don’t try to make it look like all agreed with Bills’ diagram and definitions.I beleive that there are only some of them.
Your respons came now after 4,5 years. I hope you understand that this sounds like picking. Where were you before ? All that you contribute in 4,5, years was your support to Rick’s RCT and your trials to discredit me. Manipulations will not help you to restore our respectfull relationship.
BN : I’ll say it again: I agree with Bill’s proposals as expressed in that diagram and those definitions.
HB : Excvellent. So start using them… I want to see some »empirical testing« about my proposal.
BN : I do not agree with your proposal that no other ways of talking about control are permissible.
HB : What other ways ? BNCT or RCT way ? In how many ways organisms control ??? And I never said that other talking about control are not permissible. I just said that if you talk about other ways as PCT is, than you should call with your name. Talking about other ways of control under PCT umbrella is cynicism and manipulation of worse kind. We can go through archives.
Take time and read archives and Bills literature again. What you are doing is manipulation. You don’t agree with Bills’ Definitions and diagram. You proved it so many times on CSGnet. You beleive that »behavior is control« and consequentially you are promoting wrong loop. Shall we go through archives ?
It’s no use that you are pretending and lying. It’s nothing wrong if you have your oppinion about control. But don’t say it’s PCT, because it’s not.
Go back to my post to Alison and you will see what my proposal is about. I pointed out the problem between me and Rick or between PCT and RCT and I proposed solution :
HB earlier : I propose that diagram and definitions should become main part of presentation in IAPCT. Of course this only my proposal. You can extract from enormous Bills legacy your citations and interpretations, But I choosed these. Diagram (LCS III) and Bills definitions of control loop (B:CP).
So if you’ll use my proposal I want it be noitced that it is mine. Otherwise you can make »other ways of talking about control«. But give it also name. It’s your choice.
HB : I just wanted to make some reference so that we can talk about PCT and find some agreement. Conversation where everybody have own theory leads nowhere. See archives through 4,5 years back. Where did PCT end after all this time. In own theories like yours BNCT (see my remarks) in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) and others who maybe are not expressing it yet but will form their theories.
The problem is that we have to have some common »point of departure« that we can use for conversations about PCT and how organisms function. And that we can improve it if possible. O.K. you say it betterment.
Or make researches which results can prove whether »point of departure« is valid or not. And than (if it wasn’t done in research) everything has to be matched to how organisms really function or as Bill used to say ithas to be i accordance to real reality.
I understand you Bruce. You are free mind. And you like phylosophy. But show me researches of your own you made or one »project« that involve physiological evidences so that we can say that you proposed the way organisms function. So show that what you are phylosophing is true also in nature. Wherever PCT will be introduced it will have to be in accordance with real organisms functioning and physiological facts.
If you’ll go through archives you’ll see that I supported every my discourse about PCT with examples. So I suppose you are not the one who ca talk to me about what I have or what I haven’t done on the field of PCT or what I heva or what I haven’t.
-
First example (research) was my conversation with Bill about table tennis. Also Martin was involved. And he expressed positive oppinion about my knowledge. You must not forget that I'm educated professional on the field of sports and that I played some sports in National Ligue among them also table-tennis. And I was a trainer in table-tennis, volley-ball….. And not to mentione how many studies of sports experiiments I made (probably more than 100 about muscle force, precision; running times on different distances….). They all can be treted as you nonnsence »controled variables« in environment. AndYou can treat them all as »empirical tests«.
-
It's useless to mention baseball example. In endless converstaions with Bill and Rick, I didn't only back up my conversation with expert oppinion about possible training, but I also offered video examples which can be treated as scientific approcah. Obviously you didn't follow those conversations. And I doubt that you know waht is scientific evidence.
-
Very profound were our discussion with Bill and sometimes with Rick about school system, although I have posted very long discourses on ECACS forum (Martin). They are all on the PCT bases. Numerous studies about teaching and learning are behind me. What you have ?
-
If you'll go back through archives you'll see very precise analyses of tennis game speccially when Barb and Rick were invloved. And also with David. He can be treated as expert in tennis game. Would you get his oppinion about what I have or have not about tennis game ? I again offered video example with PCT analyses.
-
Long dicsussions about »sheepdog« equiped with videos of all kinds. Bob Hintz was gratefull for new experiences about relationship among LCS.
-
My PCT analyses of walking based on physiological facts in discussion between Rick and Eetu.
-
My PCT analyses of »thinker« and cannonical principle
-
My PCT analyses of »tracking experiment«.It was PCT critics of Ricks' description of »tracking experiment«. I don't need to make »empirical test« results made with spreadshits and I don't have to polish my josystick. It's like in Kindergarten with »Kindergarten« mathematics as Martin described it.
HB : Now show at least one PCT analyses of your own. Or one »empirical test« you made ???
You just have to go through archives and you’ll see quite some of my results which can be treated as research if I’ll add sources. What do you think is treated as scientific research ? We have here on CSGnet forum many PhD members. They can help explaining what is scientif research and what forms can it take ?
I hope that you’ll ask for permission if you’ll want to use any of my discussions for your research purposes or your »Researchgate project«.
Some researches can’t be done directly to organism, so it has to be done via available literature. In science it is also treated as »scientific research«.
So now it’s your turn. Present what you have done on the field of PCT. Any reseacrh project ?. Any expert oppinion ? Only phylosophy ?
From your »conditions« about how research work should look in »Researchgate« project I doubt that PCT will advance anywhere. My oppinion is that it will stuck on one place, circuling arround. And beside that I think it’s RCT
BN: What controlled variables have you identified?
HB : What »controlled variables« in PCT reaseacrh project ? You mean of course outside organism if it’s obervable ? Do you want to say that only expriments with »controlled outside« outside organisms are alowed ??? What’s wrong with you. You are limiting researching on RCT (Ricks’ Contl Theory) level ? Is this a joke ???
BN : How did you test and verify that those variables are in fact perceived, and then that they are actually controlled?
HB : And with what »controlled variables« outside organism actually should be controlled ? With »control of behavior« or Telekinses ? Is this Parapsychological »Resaearchgate« project ?
BN : What disturbanced did you apply?
HB . Disturbances to what ? To «controlled variable« in outside environment ? You are even more limiting researching of RCT, ? Did it ever occured to you that disturbances don’t heva effect only on sensors but to whole orgsniam. I hope that you understand that you are not talking about PCT.
BN : What consequences did you expect to result from disturbing those variables if they were not controlled?
HB : Consequences from uncontrolled variable outside orgsnism ? Can you give one example ?
BN : Did you observe different consequences instead of the expected consequences?
HB : So everything has to be concluded from observation of outside »controlled variables« ? No »controlled variables« are allowed to be observed inside organism ? So Ricks real good example of »sleeping behavior« can’f be presented in »Researchgate project« ?
RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.
HB : So Rick your realy good PCT example is not wellcome in »Researchgate project« because you’ll have to prove it with physiological and neurophysological means. Which are not allowed. Only direct researching of »controlled variable« outside organism are allowed.
Most of behaviors which occur in everyday life will not be »empirically« trearted as they don’t have obervable »controlled variable« in nevironment. So these behaviors will not be included in »Researchgate project« and will not serve as confirmation of PCT theory. Only obervable behaviorwith »controlled variable« in environment will be included ao that RCT will be confirmed. We know that controlled behavior with »controlled varible« in outer environment doesn’ not exist in PCT.
BN : Were you able to infer a reference value from these results?
HB : Hipotetically they could say that if they »recognized« them. But that was also Bills hypotheisis. In that case you can’t use »controlled variables« but »stabilized variables« which can be »recognized«. Conrtrol is done in organism.
Bill P (B:CP) :
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances
BN : In what ways did you try different hypotheses as to the controlled variable and its reference value?
HB : Yes in what ways could it be ? In »Controlled behavior way« or »telekinetical way« ? It’s very important decision.
BN : To understand what I am driving at here, please study Phil Runkel’s summary statement in People as living things (2003:77-79), where he collected and synthesized (with Bill’s full approval and endorsement) Powers (1973:232-246; 2005:233-248; 1979:110, 112), and conversations with Bill including but not limited to the correspondence reprinted in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Approaches to a Science of Life—Word Pictures and Correlations versus Working Models (Powers &; Runkel 2011).
Phillip Runkel (Amazon 2003)
Though this book is not academic in the usual sense of repeating what most academic psychologists have believed during the past several decades, I do claim it to be scientific in the sense that a good many of the claims I make about human functioning can be put to experimental test–can be tried out in tangible, physically demonstrabble ways that can be reproduced or extended by anyone who takes the trouble.
HB : I must say that I never spoke to Phill Runkel so I don’t know him. I’ll try to conclude from his Foreword. I underdstand from what he wrote that book is not academic, and that it is »scientific in the sense that a good many of the claims I make about human functioning can be put to experimental test…«. A good manyy things can mean that Phill wasn’t in full perusaded in »empirical inquisition testing«. So it’s opened space for any kind of »scientific research« which is not given in »Reseacrhgate project«. In »Researchgate project« is according to Bruce Nevin fundamentalism of worse kind and he was obviously lying that sources he mentioned support his inquisition demands.
Phillip Runkel (Amazon 2003)
The theory I offer here is Perceptual Control Theory, or PCT for short. Its core postulates have indeed been tested, the results of the tests have been published in the scientific literature, and the core assumptions are being extended in the designs of further experimental tests. Furthermore, the experimental tests have been far more demanding than the experimentation in the mainstream psychology books, as you will see. I am not saying that everything I say here has been tested empirically, but I do make that claim about the fundamental postulates and about a good many derivations from them.
HB : I don’t have a filling that Phil is talking about empiric »inquisition methods« but is well recognizing that not »everything I say here has been tested empirically«. And we know that Bill built up his theory from many other sources.
But as I see it Phil left again opened space as many things in Bills literature has been taken also from other literature (see sources) so that we can’t talk about theory that raised on empirical testing and was proven with empirical testing.
And Phill is talking about »core postulates« and further »experimental tests«. It’s not only empirical testing of »controlled variables« as Bruce Nevin wanted to manipulate. »Experimental tests can be of many kind«.
Bills’ core postulates have been proved also with anathomical and neurophysilogical means where we can see that Bill couldn’t have done his theory only with »empirical testing«. Experimental tests he used from other sciences don’t involve always »empirical testing«.
For example his theory of »muscle contraction« was not tested but »pumped« from literature and filled with his theoretical assumptions.
From Phil’s argumentation I concluded that some tests were made but many oppened question let for next generations stayed. Philip Runkel is by my oppinion talking in normal scientific language in which nothing is perfectly clear. It seems to me that he is opened for all kinds of »experiments«. At least that’s how I understood Phil.
Specially we don’t know how organisms function as the whole diagram on p. 191 is not finnished. And Philip put it in relative way.
As the main problem of PCT I see finnishing diagram on p. 191 as cornerstone for understanding PCT on which bases can be experimented. And with that problem it goes also the problem which theory is taken for bases of experiments PCT or RCT.
When Bill and me were having long talk (couple months) about possible solutions for the diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) we were talking mostly in physilogical and neurophysiological language. But we know that physiological and neurophsiological tests can’t be done just like that, so it’s beter to use literrature. And we did. He also noted that literature he was reding back in 60th offers quite past knowledge.
Anyway I don’t beleive that Bill would limit researching on observed »controlled variables« outside organism because in most of his literature is obvious that such thing does not exist in PCT
There si no »control of behavior«, no »controlled variable«, no »controlled perception« in PCT. They simply don’t exist in PCT. So researching done with »controlled variables« in environment of organism is contrary to PCT. It’s contradicting PCT
I can conclude that research terms in »Reserchgate project« does not match PCT so they are probbaly following RCT logic :
RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
-
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
-
OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
-
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
-
COMPARATOR : ????
-
ERROR SIGNAL : ???
So it’s not in accordance with diagram (LCS III) and definitions (B:CP). You were lying Bruce that you agree with diagram and definitions. You don’t. You agree with RCT.
HB : Bill was »pumping« so much knowledge from anathomical and neurophysiological books (including Ashby) and from his practice in hospitals and from his »physiological« friend. There were also included many everyday experiences with real functioning of organisms.
HB : The main question is what you think it is »scientific research« ? And be aware. Many PhD members are observing these discussions ?
HB : I must say Bruce that you still have no idea how organisms function, because you’ll be always observing »controlled behavior« outside organism and it is catastrophy for PCT if such limitations in scientific research« will be applyed to »Researchgate project«. It’s RCT project. And if IAPCT is supporting this, it’s IARCT.
Such »conditions« for researhes are by my oppinion »RCT« centered, or »joystick and kindergarten« oriented. And my oppinion is that this is not the way you’ll get closer to understanding how orgsnims function. But it’s up to you and Powers ladies.
Well now I’m leaving you for a while. I have to write my book.
Boris
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 2:23 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.06.20:15 ET)]
Boris Hartman (Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 1:57 PM) –
HB: you’ll have no problems confirming that you agree with my proposal about definitions of PCT and diagram.
BN: I agree with Bill’s proposals as expressed in that diagram and those definitions. I do not agree with your apparent proposal that no other ways of talking about control are permissible.
HB: Can you let us see »research products« which were posted on »Researchgate«. I suppose you are interested what others have to say about them
BN: Researchgate is in the public domain and the publications and other research products posted there under the PCT project are accessible by anyone by going to researchgate.com and looking. Gathering them in one place builds public visibility of the scope and power of PCT in I think an impressive way, such as is intended also by LCS IV when it is published, hopefully later this year.
BN : A simple statement of purpose in a few sentences can’t include extended quotations and illustrations.
HB: Then why not making make wider simple statement of purpose so that will include extended quotations and illustrations and will clearly present what project is about.
BN: The fill-in-the-blank form presented on Researchgate calls for a simple statement of the purpose of the project. The publications and other research products that are posted there contain illustrations and extended discussions, including quotations. The statement of purpose is not misleading. Anyone who actually looks at researchgate will readily understand this.
HB: And now if I understood right you say you started a »challenging project on which we have barely begun a beginning. A goal statement is for stating goals.
So if I understand right you have no researches yet done. No extended quotations and iluustrations. You are on the beggining ?
BN: No, I did not say or imply that I have posted no research products of my own on researchgate. Some items of mine are posted there. I suppose I should also post the video of my Stanford presentation there, if that is possible, but I haven’t yet tried. PCT is a new science that is just beginning, so inevitably yes my work in linguistics, language as collective control of perceptions, is just beginning. Researchgate is for researchers to post publications and work in progress. A project on researchgate is for collaborators in the same area of research to do so.
BN : It would be helpful to see some research products from Boris. Or maybe some applications of PCT to the improvement of social relations.
HB : This is very kind invitation. Thank you. But we all know how much energy I lost persuading Rick, you …. and Powers ladiess that Rick has to be stopped. It’s now almost 4,5 years. So I concluded that you, Powers ladies agreed with Ricks RCT not with PCT which I was proposing,
BN: Boris, I conclude from this that you do not have any actual PCT research of your own, or you would have responded with that instead of complaining about being ignored. If you do have some PCT research of your own, please post something about it. I would be very happy to see something constructive from you rather than complaints.
HB: If your invitation is really serious then I’m really thankfull for your good will and trust. I really hope that something has changed.
BN: Boris, the ball is in your court. Present some actual contribution to PCT research. What controlled variables have you identified? How did you test and verify that those variables are in fact perceived, and then that they are actually controlled? What disturbanced did you apply? What consequences did you expect to result from disturbing those variables if they were not controlled? Did you observe different consequences instead of the expected consequences? Were you able to infer a reference value from these results? In what ways did you try different hypotheses as to the controlled variable and its reference value? To understand what I am driving at here, please study Phil Runkel’s summary statement in People as living things (2003:77-79), where he collected and synthesized (with Bill’s full approval and endorsement) Powers (1973:232-246; 2005:233-248; 1979:110, 112), and conversations with Bill including but not limited to the correspondence reprinted in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Approaches to a Science of Life—Word Picttures and Correlations versus Working Models (Powers & Runkel 2011).
HB: I hope we understand that I was calling for you attention to the fact that PCT definitions and diagram are not respected enough and that I offered for who knows how many times diagram and definitions to be accepted. Nobody answered.
BN: You say that these particular definitions and diagram are not respected. This is not true. As I have said before, nobody here disagrees with Bill’s control diagram, nor with the definitions in B:CP. Nor is it true that no one has responded to your demands about them. Several people have responded.
The most recent response as you are presently reading these words is my response above.
I’ll say it again: I agree with Bill’s proposals as expressed in that diagram and those definitions. I do not agree with your proposal that no other ways of talking about control are permissible. If you look in his other writings and in his correspondence on CSGnet beginning about 1991 you will find many diagrams of control and many ways of stating definitions in PCT. Sometimes it just takes a different way of saying things for someone to ‘get’ it.
BN: But definitions, diagrams, and particular ways of using words are worse than useless to one who fails to grasp the actual phenomena of control to which they point. Producing examples of your own PCT research would help to show that you have this grasp. Evidence that you know how to apply an understanding of PCT to your interactions with other human living control systems would also help to show that you actually understand what the words and the diagram refer to. So far you have made a lot of assertions about what other people are doing without much evidence of testing to identify what variables are actually being controlled.
BN: Please, Boris, be alert to how your way of writing might be perceived by others. What you have been saying sometimes bears a strong resemblance to the way that ‘trolls’ write on reddit, twitter, and internet message boards. Be careful. The first requisite to being respected is to be respectful. I realize that not everyone here always lives up to that. Please remind yourself “the only person who can improve the tone of this particular conversation right now is me.” You can’t demand that the other person should do it.
HB: as there were no respons to my requests of common project
BN: I missed that. I do not always read everything on CSGnet carefully; there are many other demands in my life. What project was that?
HB: I decided to write my book about PCT. So I have my obligations.now.
BN: Excellent!
HB: it seems to me that you initiated a project about real substance of PCT. I hope I understand right. It’s increadible task you made. I think I’m slowly beggining to understand what happened.
BN: The researchgate project is part of the overall work by the IAPCT board of directors and several others of us to build IAPCT as a professional research organization. The current list of tasks is at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13NAF2k-1jEQLELM79FQZXbqhuTOw68braT4ldRTNgSc/edit?usp=sharing
HB: I think now and I still can’t beleive it, but »Researchgate« project seems to be amazing and I really wish you success. If you’ll need any of my help or comments I’ll take time. That’s for now. We never know how life can turn.
BN: That’s right. For success and happiness in our lives, as I understand it, we need to be steadfast in long-term control of high-level perceptions that we most value and be always alert to perceptions that we can control in service to those ends.
/Bruce
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Bruce at all….
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 9:57 PM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.03.15:57 ET)]
BN : I confess that I don’t have much patience with fundamentalism, whatever the subject matter.
HB : I hope it’s not that critical Bruce. As you started to think about »learning exchange« between us, allow me to say a word or two about fundamentalism or determinism in the area of organisms functioning.
My standpoint is that Fundamentalism in PCT is not deriving from »fairy tails« and mathematical or »joystick« playground but it derives from serious facts about how organisms function in Earth conditions. And there has to be some fundamentalism if we want to understand that organisms have to survive and if we want to understand that medicine is saving lives.
Circumstances on Earth are everything but pleasant for survivale. Not mentioning Universe circumstances. So some level of fundamentalism is necessary in organisms organization at least on the level of »homeostatical functioning«. You can’t survive just with phylosophy or playing with joystick.
BN : The goal statement for our Researchgate project does not contradict the definitions in B:CP or the diagram in LCS II.
HB : If it’s true that »Reseacrhgate« project does not contradict PCT definitions or diagram , you’ll have no problems confirming that you agree with my proposal about definitions of PCT and diagram. And I suppose nither would Powers ladies. I didn’t get their confirmation too. But I beleive that deep in their hearts they know that my proposal is fair enough for preservation of PCT.
BN : Nor, so far as I can tell, do any of the PCT research products which are posted on Researchgate.
HB : Oh fine. Can you let us see »research products« which were posted on »Researchgate«. I suppose you are interested what others have to say about them. . .
BN : A simple statement of purpose in a few sentences can’t include extended quotations and illustrations.
HB : Then why not making make wider simple statement of purpose so that will include extended quotations and illustrations and will clearly present what project is about.
BN : And yes, developing applications of PCT that will support individuals and ameliorate social arrangements is a very large and challenging project on which we have barely begun a beginning. A goal statement is for stating goals.
HB : Sorry Bruce. I think I don’t understand. Above you wrote :
BN (above): A simple statement of purpose in a few sentences can’t include extended quotations and illustrations.
HB : And now if I understood right you say you started a »challenging project on which we have barely begun a beginning. A goal statement is for stating goals.
So if I understand right you have no researches yet done. No extended quotations and iluustrations. You are on the beggining ?
BN : It would be helpful to see some research products from Boris. Or maybe some applications of PCT to the improvement of social relations.
HB : This is very kind invitation. Thank you. But we all know how much energy I lost persuading Rick, you …. and Powers ladies that Rick has to be stopped. It’s now almost 4,5 years. So I concluded that you, Powers ladies agreed with Ricks RCT not with PCT which I was proposing,
I hope we understand that I was calling for you attention to the fact that PCT definitions and diagram are not respected enough and that I offered for who knows how many times diagram and definitions to be accepted. Nobody answered.
I just hope that you are not trying to make idiot of me for who knows which time.
Sorry to say but I have really bad experiences. I really don’t remeber for a long time somebody saying some good word for me, except Richard Pfau. All other remaks were mostly insults and trails of discreditation as Rick and Warren are trying to do.
If your invitation is really serious then I’m really thankfull for your good will and trust. I really hope that something has changed.
But I’m sorry to say that after so long time of no support or any signs that anything will change about Ricks private theory and as there were no respons to my requests of common project I decided to write my book about PCT. So I have my obligations.now.
I hope you understand that everytime as I sit behind computer and start writing, I said to myself, this is really the last time. I lost any hope that something will go on better. And I see now if I understand right you did it. It seems to me that you initiated a project about real substance of PCT. I hope I understand right. It’s increadible task you made. I think I’m slowly beggining to understand what happened.
I think now and I still can’t beleive it, but »Researchgate« project seems to be amazing and I really wish you success. If you’ll need any of my help or comments I’ll take time. That’s for now. We never know how life can turn.
Boris
/Bruce
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, now I get where Boris is coming from. It appears that he wants to use what Bill has already produced in terms of theory and evidence and nothing more. To be honest, I agree with him in the sense that this is all I personally need to support those research aims in my mind. But at the same time that approach is completely at odds with the academic enterprise of research and the cultural process of dissemination. We at least have to sign up to these principles of empiricism and wider dissemination to be part of Research Gate in the first place?
Warren
On 3 Jan 2018, at 09:02, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Bruce
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:55 AM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
[From Bruce Nevin (2018.01.01.22:52 ET)]
BN : On the principle that no response means I have introduced no disturbance that would cause error in anyone’s control,
HB : What can I say. Wrong principle. Change it. No respons colud mean also that somebody didn’t read yet whatever you think was disturbance. It was New Year. Some of us obviously enjoyed our vacations.
BN : I assume that for each person receiving this either this text is OK or they are not controlling (with any effective gain) a perception of how we represent the goal of our Researchgate project,
HB : What is »Researchgate project«. Something apart from PCT ?
BN : ….and I will replace the existing text withh the below:
Goal: To (1) investigate the purposeful behavior (“controlling”) done by living systems, particularly humans, (2) develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling and (3) develop applications of the PCT model for the betterment of individual humans in particular and human societies in general.
HB : I don’t understand why one should investigate what you mentioned if we already have PCT which is answering on your »3 point« proposal.
I’ve been proposing for years what you are trying to propose here. And I didn’t only propose. I gave solutions. To all your »points« already exist answers. Why should you investigate again and again and discover again and again »hot water« ?
Everything is clear at least in PCT. So I don’t understand what project »Researchgate« is for ?
Most of the work about how »organisms function« from the view of PCT was done by Bill. You just have to agree with him. It’s interesting that nobody want to give agreement to his »definitions« (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III). I didn’t see any critics. It seems that nobody agree with PCT, except Richard Pfau who agreed that Behavior can be »consequence of control of perception«.
You don’t need any »…gate« project if you understand PCT. But I could already conclude that most here on CSGnet don’t understand PCT because of confussion which was created by Rick and supported by you and Fred and some others.
PCT already offers answers to your »3-point« investigations.:
-
investigate the purposeful behavior ("controlling") done by living systems, particularly humans
HB : On CSGnet were already many investigations of purposefull behavior. But I agree that it should be continued. Bill already investigated purposefull behavior and the conclussons are clear. It’s just have to applyed to everyday life examples so that we all can see that they work.
-
develop tests and demonstrations of the perceptual control theory (PCT) model of controlling
HB : Which model of perceptual control theory (PCT) is that, PCT or RCT ? I don’t understand which »controlling« model of PCT you want to develope by tests and demonstrations ? We already have a model of PCT and there were given many life-examples that demonstrates PCT model like :
Why »developing« something what already exists ?
Any behavior should fit into PCT model if it is GENERAL THEORY about behavior of living beings.
So I ask you again and all others in »Researchgate« project including Powers Ladies : do you agree with my proposal of PCT diagram (LCS II) and definitions of control loop (B:CP) to be »cornerstones« of PCT conversations and all projects about PCT including »Researchgate« project ??? <image001.jpg>
It seems to me that diagram above (LCS III) is the result of Bills’ 50 years work on PCT.
Definitions of PCT control loop :
Bill P (B:CP):
-
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
…
