# goal of our researchgate project

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892>\
**Category:** CSG2018\
**Created:** [January 2, 2018, 3:54am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892 "2018-01-02T03:54:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 12:21am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/21 "2019-04-03T00:21:57Z")

</div>

[Rick Marken 2019-04-02\_17:21:41]

> > BH: I don’t how this conversation ended in my “drawer”, but I think you are bullshitting again and again.

> RM: To quote attorney Joseph Welch, who had to deal with an American monster who reminds me of you:Â "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"Â

> Â

> HB : Well Rick “decency” can have many meanings, if you understand PCT. People definitelly don’t perceive and think the same. For example in your case “decency” can mean that you have no decency in respect to PCT, because you don’t want to accept it.

RM: I guess that would be a “no”.Â

RM: I think the comparison of you to Joe McCarthy is apt: you both call people names (“communist”, “bullshitter”) to present them as the enemies of – and yourselves as the protectors of – all that’s right and good. I consider it a monstrous way to behave. I don’t mind it if you disagree with me; but it’s difficult to have a civilized discussion if all you do is call me names and quote from Bill Powers. There is certainly nothing wrong with quoting Bill. But just quoting the same things over and over again doesn’t help me understand what you think is wrong with what I am saying with PCT. How about taking a deep breath and try to explain something to me that I don’t understand without calling me names and/or accusing me of being out to destroy PCT.Â

Best

Rick

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:50 AM “Boris Hartman” [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu) wrote:
> 
> > >  RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for me to find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t come to PCT with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > HB : Of course. How could you come to PCT with an existing agenda if you understand RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > RM : I didn’t try to see how PCT fit in with an existing theoretical framework in which I had a strong intellectual or professional investment.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > HB : That’s self-evident. Existing theoretical framework of PCT is LCS III diagram and definitions of control loop in B:CP Glossary. In this theoretical framework you had no professional investment, because you don’t even recognize it as PCT basics and you don’t want to accept it. But its possible that you had strong professional investment in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) which has no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > PCT Definitions of 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.  
> > > Â
> 
> > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > RM : Nor did I try to find commonality between PCT and other existing theories.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > 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 : ???  
> > > Â
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > RM : The only people with whom I now find myself on common ground regarding PCT are people who approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > HB : The people who approach “PCT” the way you are probably believing that “Behavior is control” which controls some “controlled variable” in external environment and produce some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And if I would guess who these people are it would probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > RM : … with a wiillingness to abandon one’s attachment to or interest in finding commonality with any existing theories of behavior combined with an interest in doing the lab exercises (demos) and homework (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > HB : So why you don’t abandon existing RCT theory of behaviour and do some real PCT with real life experiments like : sleeping, observing, walking, sun shining, sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> –  
> Richard S. MarkenÂ
> 
> "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you  
> have nothing left to take away.�  
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/22 "2019-04-04T16:57:40Z")

</div>

Rick,

I must say that you surprised me. But before I open myself I’d like to make it clear who is talking about civilized conversation ?

We’ll maybe have to ask Martin or Gavin Ritz or all those people you insulted in your RCT carier… on CSGnet… I thithink you should visit CSGnet archives. They don’t lie.

And think Rick who was insulting me, that I don’t understand your RCT, because I don’t understand English or American or whatever ??? Did I start with insults on CSGnet ?

Sometimes you don’t need to use “monstrous” words to hurt people. And beleive me Rick I’m deeply hurt because of all those “monstrous words” and attitude some of you (members and owners) showed to me.

What kind of monster could tell me, that I don’t deserve time of his attention, because he is rather watching football then talk to me. Is this normal ? Do you maybe understand how such person could feel, who has less value than watching American Football ?

Anyway whatever mostrous is happening here on CSGnet, you could think that you could be the starting point…

Let’s go watch football. I’ll watch my Europian football and you probably your American 😊. Just kiding. Hidden camera.

The full answer is bellow.

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> **From:** Richard Marken ([rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) via csgnet Mailing List) [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu)  
> **Sent:** Wednesday, April 3, 2019 2:22 AM  
> **To:** csgnet [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu)  
> **Subject:** Re: goal of our researchgate project
> 
> [Rick Marken 2019-04-02\_17:21:41]
> 
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:50 AM “Boris Hartman” [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu) wrote:
> 
> > > BH: I don’t how this conversation ended in my “drawer”, but I think you are bullshitting again and again.
> 
> > RM: To quote attorney Joseph Welch, who had to deal with an American monster who reminds me of you: “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
> 
> > HB : Well Rick “decency” can have many meanings, if you understand PCT. People definitelly don’t perceive and think the same. For example in your case “decency” can mean that you have no decency in respect to PCT, because you don’t want to accept it.
> 
> RM: I guess that would be a “no”.
> 
> HB : So I can conclude that you don’t accept PCT because you don’t want to accept basic definitions of “control loop” (B:CP) and LCS III diagram. So maybe it’s obviously why I don’t accept you as equal talking partner. In the past you didn’t accept other members like Gavin Ritz, because by your oppinion he didn’t understand PCT. Although I warned that you both have problems. Both were talking about “Perceptually controlled variables” or CPV (Controlled Perceptual Variable).
> 
> RM: I think the comparison of you to Joe McCarthy is apt: you both call people names (“communist”, “bullshitter”) to present them as the enemies
> 
> HB : This is a big lie Rick. You again show your nasty nature. Now who is insulting who ? Whom I ever called “communist” on these forum ? I was in communist party, so what ? And I never presented anybody as enemy using word “communist”… Sorry to say Rick. You are insulting mee with making me equal to whoever is this McCarthy.
> 
> And who called you first a “bullshitter”. Remember ? It was Alex !!! Did you attack him for insulting you ??? You’ll have to visit CSGnet archives and refresh your memory.
> 
> And who was the person to call you “being stupid”. It was you yourself. Remember ?
> 
> RM earlier : In my rush to show that this is not the case I came up with what has to be the dumbest rebuttal of all time – outdoing even myself in stupidity;-)
> 
> HB : I just follow what was happening on CSGnet which is not some exemplary community. But we could become if will want to.
> 
> RM : …of – and yourselves as the protectors of – all that’s right and good. I consider it a monstrous way to behave.
> 
> HB : Well Rick why don’t you tell members who was my teacher in “monstrous” CSGnet behavior ? You Rick. You were the one that was “throwing” Martin of the CSGnet forum, soon after I joined. I was shocked.
> 
> As I said before. You’ll have to visit CSGnet archives to determine who on this forum was for years “protector” of “right and good” ? And who dosen’t respect authors rights on this forum ?
> 
> RM : I don’t mind it if you disagree with me; but it’s difficult to have a civilized discussion if all you do is call me names and quote from Bill Powers.
> 
> HB : I also don’t mind if you disagree with me or with Bill Powers. But problem is when somebody is manipulating with Bill Powers knowledge and show him as presenting something he didn’t present.
> 
> That’s why I’m quoting Bill Powers so that all others could see, that you are telling different story and you show your oppinion being equal to his what is far away from the truth.
> 
> You are not presenting different oppinion, you are lying Rick, that your oppinion is equal to Bill Powers. You could just say that you have different oppinion and I wouldn’t mind. Everybody can have different oppinon but don’t say that your oppinion is the same as Bill Powers as it isn’t.
> 
> Everytime when you’ll write that RCT is the same as Bill’s PCT I’ll call you a liar. And I’ll prove my words with showing clear difference between theories.
> 
> Can you prove your words that your RCT is the same as PCT ???
> 
> RM : There is certainly nothing wrong with quoting Bill. But just quoting the same things over and over again doesn’t help me understand what you think is wrong with what I am saying with PCT.
> 
> HB : Well Rick. These are the first honest words from you to me, after all these years of “war” between us. So I’ll be honest with you.
> 
> You are definitelly right. I know that you don’t understand what Bill really ment with quotes I presented. I doubt that most of members understand. I beleive that only few members on CSGnet understand.
> 
> So I quoted the essence of Bills’ theory all over again which I can definitelly prove with series of Life experiments which could show quite well how nervous system function and why “output is not control”. Just as Bill predicted with his definitions of “control loop” and diagram LCS III. By my oppinion It works perfectly.
> 
> So Bills LCS III diagram and definitions and my experiments seems to be in accordance.
> 
> In these sense that I knew that you don’t understand and that I didn’t tell you my true oppinion, I’m guilty and you can call me a pig, monster, whatever. I deserve it, because I didn’t show you the way to really understand the essence of his definitions and diagrams. I didn’t show you my true knowledge I have.
> 
> Although all my behavior on CSGnet is connected also to yours’ and Bills’ and Barbs’ and Nevin’s behavior to me. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not guilty.
> 
> RM : How about taking a deep breath and try to explain something to me that I don’t understand without calling me names and/or accusing me of being out to destroy PCT.
> 
> HB : This is a very good advice Rick. But there are many problems we have to overcome. Speccially trust.
> 
> I can tell you that I felt very bad in the past because you and some others (including Bill) didn’t accept me as equal co-worker for PCT. Speccially painfull was my experience that Bill didn’t want to accept my cooperation. He clearly showed me that my knowledge about upgrades in PCT theory id obtained with exclusivelly PCT knowledge. I didn’t use for example TCV.
> 
> I felt like a “slave” on CSGnet who will give knowledge and others will have something (whatever) from it. I also realized that Barb is having me for “third order member” as she went directly to you with informations I gave her about organisms functioning. It was a little bit of information, but anyway she exposed our private conversation immediatelly to you.
> 
> How to go on, I don’t know. In these years of our “war”, I shut myself into a shell. Maybe I too could need some psychoterapist help.
> 
> I kept also information from Martin, Fred and many others for whom I assumed they would sooner or later talk to you. I proposed many times that CSGnet should be authors protected. I would cooperate in any real project which could help clarifying PCT to the end. We all know now that it’s not finnished.
> 
> Now that you know the truth, please accept my appology, and I hope also Tim Carey and Warren Mansel and Bruce Nevin will forgive me for deliberate insults I caused just because they were connected somehow with you Rick. It was in the shadow of my affect to you and events that took place on CSGnet in the past. The only releive for me is that I gave proposals for cooperation, but nobody answered, except some proposal about “Researchgate project” for which I don’t know exactly what it is about. I somehow remember that Bruce Nevin and Alison “attacked” me.
> 
> I really don’t know what kind of cooperation we could have that could lead debate on CSGnet to full understanding of PCT. But I assume that your proposal is somehow about turning CSGnet from conflict to cooperation. Do I understand right ? You want progress of PCT ?
> 
> If I would give my full power into cooperation then I’ll have to refresh my physiological and neurophysiological knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> I’m momentally accupied in changing of scholl systems. Beside cooperating in changing our national school system, I also made contact with UN (United Nations). I’m trying to present them general school system in which PCT has significant role. It is meant for all national school systems on the World. It’s UN that we are talking about. It demands a lot of work. I thought of requesting help of some CSGnet members. I thought even on you Rick. On some fields you could be of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> But as the situation on CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it on my own.
> 
> So Rick I’ll take a deep breath (you act like a good psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also expect that from you, Powers ladies and other interested.   Â
> 
> Best,
> 
> Boris
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> > > RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for me to find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t come to PCT with an existing agenda.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > HB : Of course. How could you come to PCT with an existing agenda if you understand RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > >
> 
> > > RM : I didn’t try to see how PCT fit in with an existing theoretical framework in which I had a strong intellectual or professional investment.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > HB : That’s self-evident. Existing theoretical framework of PCT is LCS III diagram and definitions of control loop in B:CP Glossary. In this theoretical framework you had no professional investment, because you don’t even recognize it as PCT basics and you don’t want to accept it. But its possible that you had strong professional investment in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) which has no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > PCT Definitions of 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 outputt 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.
> 
> > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > RM : Nor did I try to find commonality between PCT and other existing theories.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
> 
> > > 1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
> 
> > > 1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
> 
> > > 1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
> 
> > > 1. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
> 
> > > 1. COMPARATOR : ???
> 
> > > 1. ERROR SIGNAL : ???
> 
> > >
> 
> > > RM : The only people with whom I now find myself on common ground regarding PCT are people who approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > >
> 
> > > HB : The people who approach “PCT” the way you are probably believing that “Behavior is control” which controls some “controlled variable” in external environment and produce some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And if I would guess who these people are it would probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > RM : … with a willingness to abandon one’s attachment to or interest in finding commonality with any existing theories of behavior combined with an interest in doing the lab exercises (demos) and homework (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > HB : So why you don’t abandon existing RCT theory of behaviour and do some real PCT with real life experiments like : sleeping, observing, walking, sun shining, sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> –
> 
> 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/23 "2019-04-07T17:40:11Z")

</div>

[Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]

> BH: I really don’t know what kind of cooperation we could have that could lead debate on CSGnet to full understanding of PCT. But I assume that your proposal is somehow about turning CSGnet from conflict to cooperation. Do I understand right ? You want progress of PCT ?

RM: Yes, I would like it if CSGNet turned from conflict to cooperation. But I believe we can only get cooperation when there is agreement about what goal we are working toward. I think CSGNet was implemented with the goal of developing and promulgating Powers’ application of control theory to understanding behavior, first described in the two part Perceptual and Motor Skills papers in 1960, which has come to be called Perceptual Control Theory (PCT). I think if there were more general agreement about what PCT _is_ there would be considerably more cooperation about how to develop and promulgate it. As long as there are disagreements about what PCT is about there will be conflict. Given that this is the case I think CSGNet would function better if we conducted these conflicts without resorting to ad hominum arguments. By ad hominum arguments I mean attacks on one’s character, not on the ideas one is expressing. An ad homium argument is saying that a person has evil motives or is incompetent. Whether or not these things are true is irrelevant to the correctness or incorrectness of their arguments, which are really what we should be focusing on here, I believe.

RM: Conflicts over what constitutes PCT are scientific conflicts and attempts to resolve them should be made using scientific methods – the one’s Bill so often used in his papers and in his discussions on CSGnet: modeling and empirical test. But even when the results of applying these methods are not convincing, I believe the parties to the conflict should try to avoid recourse to ad hominum arguments. I know this is hard to do when one has presented what one thinks is an iron clad proof of their point. PCT actually predicts that this would be the case. But I think we have to try to do it if we are to have any chance of using CSGNet as a forum for what I believe it was designed for; developing and promulgating PCT.Â

RM: So let’s see if you and I (and anyone else on CSGNet who is interested) can start on a better course by dealing with one of our disagreements about PCT in a productive way (at least in a way that avoids ad hominum arguments). In a recent post you expressed dismay that I could think that two or more people could perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science. And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the case. In the basic tracking task, I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled. So it is seems that it is possible, in at least this case, for people to have the same perception – in this case a perception of the changing distance between cursor and target. Does this convince you that it is, indeed, possible for many different people to perceive something in the same way? Â

BestÂ

Rick

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:00 AM “Boris Hartman” [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu) wrote:
> 
> > Â
> 
> > If I would give my full power into cooperation then I’ll have to refresh my physiological and neurophysiological knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > Â
> 
> > I’m momentally accupied in changing of scholl systems. Beside cooperating in changing our national school system, I also made contact with UN (United Nations). I’m trying to present them general school system in which PCT has significant role. It is meant for all national school systems on the World. It’s UN that we are talking about. It demands a lot of work. I thought of requesting help of some CSGnet members. I thought even on you Rick. On some fields you could be of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > Â
> 
> > But as the situation on CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it on my own.
> 
> > Â
> 
> > So Rick I’ll take a deep breath (you act like a good psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also expect that from you, Powers ladies and other interested.   Â
> 
> > Â
> 
> > Best,
> 
> > Â
> 
> > Boris
> 
> > Â
> 
> > Â
> 
> > Best
> 
> > Â
> 
> > Rick
> 
> > > >  RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for me to find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t come to PCT with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > HB : Of course. How could you come to PCT with an existing agenda if you understand RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > RM : I didn’t try to see how PCT fit in with an existing theoretical framework in which I had a strong intellectual or professional investment.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > HB : That’s self-evident. Existing theoretical framework of PCT is LCS III diagram and definitions of control loop in B:CP Glossary. In this theoretical framework you had no professional investment, because you don’t even recognize it as PCT basics and you don’t want to accept it. But its possible that you had strong professional investment in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) which has no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > PCT Definitions of 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 itt’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.  
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > RM : Nor did I try to find commonality between PCT and other existing theories.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > 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 : ???  
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > RM : The only people with whom I now find myself on common ground regarding PCT are people who approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > HB : The people who approach “PCT” the way you are probably believing that “Behavior is control” which controls some “controlled variable” in external environment and produce some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And if I would guess who these people are it would probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > RM : …¦ with a willingness to abandon one’s attachment to or interest in finding commonality with any existing theories of behavior combined with an interest in doing the lab exercises (demos) and homework (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > HB : So why you don’t abandon existing RCT theory of behaviour and do some real PCT with real life experiments like : sleeping, observing, walking, sun shining, sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> > Â
> 
> > –
> 
> > Richard S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you  
> > have nothing left to take away.�  
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --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.�  
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/24 "2019-04-07T18:26:28Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]

> 

> [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> 
> …  
> RM: …I think that it is a fundamental assumption of  
> PCT that people can perceive things in the same way;  
> indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT  
> science.Â

```
I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study you cite

```

as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s (in deed, one  
control loop in one person’s) results with how someone else  
perceives the “changing distance between cursor and target”. There  
are no scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what might  
be the case if different subjects perceived the on-screen distance  
identically or if they all perceived it differently. No “social PCT”  
is even suggested by the experiment, let alone a grand claim that in  
this experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.

> ```
> And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the case.
> 
> ```
> 
> In the basic tracking task, I believe that you (and  
> virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance  
> between the cursor and target is the perception that is  
> being controlled. So it is seems that it is possible, in  
> at least this case, for people to have the same perception  
> – in this case a perception of the changing distance  
> between cursor and target. Does this convince you that it  
> is, indeed, possible for many different people to perceive  
> something in the same way? Â

```
No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual perception, it

```

would be very strange if you could prove that everyone with their  
different screen sizes and contrast levels, and with different  
visual acuities and visual experiences had the same non-linearities  
in their perceptions of the relative locations of target and cursor  
in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT theory tells us is  
nearly immune to non-linearity).

```
At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate student by

```

Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling pygmy’s astonishment  
when he first saw from a hill people fishing from canoes. He  
couldn’t understand how such matchsticks could support actual  
people, who he apparently perceived s person-sized.

```
Since how we determine whether people see "the same thing" similarly

```

is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, I don’t  
think it’s a problem that can be solved by referring to the similar  
(but never identical) results different people produce when they act  
a subjects in a tracking study. As Powers said, all you can  
experiment with is what the experimenter perceives to be in the  
subject’s environment, not what the subject perceives.

```
Martin

```

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> > 
> 
> > BestÂ
> 
> > 
> 
> > Rick
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > If I would give my full
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > power into cooperation then I’ll have to  
> > > refresh my physiological and  
> > > neurophysiological knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > I'm momentally accupied in
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > changing of scholl systems. Beside cooperating  
> > > in changing our national school system, I also  
> > > made contact with UN (United Nations). I’m trying to  
> > > present them general school system in which  
> > > PCT has significant role. It is meant  
> > > for all national school systems on the World.  
> > > It’s UN that we are talking about. It demands  
> > > a lot of work. I thought of requesting help of  
> > > some CSGnet members. I thought even on you  
> > > Rick. On some fields you could be of great  
> > > help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > But as the situation on
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to make  
> > > it on my own.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > So Rick I'll take a deep
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > breath (you act like a good psychoterapist)  
> > > and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also  
> > > expect that from you, Powers ladies and other  
> > > interested.   Â
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Best,
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Boris
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Best
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > Rick
> 
> > > > > Â RM  
> > > > > : But I think what made it  
> > > > > particularly easy for me to find  
> > > > > common ground with your dad is  
> > > > > that I didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > HB : Of course. How
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > could you come to PCT with an  
> > > > > existing agenda if you  
> > > > > understand RCT (Ricks Control  
> > > > > Theory).
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > RM : I didn’t try to see  
> > > > > how PCT fit in with an existing  
> > > > > theoretical framework in which I  
> > > > > had a strong intellectual or  
> > > > > professional investment.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > HB : That's
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > self-evident. Existing  
> > > > > theoretical framework of PCT is  
> > > > > LCS III diagram and definitions  
> > > > > of control loop in B:CP  
> > > > > Glossary. In this theoretical  
> > > > > framework you had no  
> > > > > professional investment, because  
> > > > > you don’t even recognize it as  
> > > > > PCT basics and you don’t want to  
> > > > > accept it. But its possible that  
> > > > > you had strong professional  
> > > > > investment in RCT (Ricks Control  
> > > > > Theory) which has no common  
> > > > > ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > PCT
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > Definitions of 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. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > RM : Nor did I try to find  
> > > > > commonality between PCT and  
> > > > > other existing theories.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > HB : Of course you
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > didn’t. There is no commonality  
> > > > > between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > RCT
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > 1. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > CONTROL :
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > Keeping of some »aspect of outer  
> > > > > environment« in reference state,  
> > > > > protected (defended) from  
> > > > > disturbances.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > FUNCTION : controlled effects  
> > > > > (control of behavior) to outer  
> > > > > environment so to keep some  
> > > > > »controlled variable« in  
> > > > > reference state
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > »Control« of some »aspect of  
> > > > > outer environment« in reference  
> > > > > state.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > INPUT
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > FUNCTION : produce »Controlled  
> > > > > Perceptual Variable« or  
> > > > > »Controlled Perception«, the  
> > > > > perceptual correlate of  
> > > > > »controlled q.i.«
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > COMPARATOR :
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > ???
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > ERROR SIGNAL
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > : ???  
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > RM : The only
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > people with whom I now find  
> > > > > myself on common ground  
> > > > > regarding PCT are people who  
> > > > > approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > HB : The people who
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > approach “PCT” the way you are  
> > > > > probably believing that  
> > > > > “Behavior is control” which  
> > > > > controls some “controlled  
> > > > > variable” in external  
> > > > > environment and produce some  
> > > > > “Controlled Perceptual Variable”  
> > > > > or CPV. And if I would guess who  
> > > > > these people are it would  
> > > > > probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim  
> > > > > Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > RM : … with a
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > willingness to abandon  
> > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > interest in finding commonality  
> > > > > with any existing theories of  
> > > > > behavior combined with an  
> > > > > interest in doing the lab  
> > > > > exercises (demos) and homework  
> > > > > (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > HB : So why you
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > don’t abandon existing RCT  
> > > > > theory of behaviour and do some  
> > > > > real PCT with real life  
> > > > > experiments like : sleeping,  
> > > > > observing, walking, sun shining,  
> > > > > sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> > > Â
> 
> > > –
> 
> > > ```
> > > Richard
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > ```
> > > "Perfection
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > is achieved not when you  
> > > have nothing more to  
> > > add, but when you
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > have nothing left to
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > take away.�
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > Â Â Â Â --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.�  
> > Â Â Â  
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > –Antoine de Saint-Exupery

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bleach](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bleach/32/51_2.png) [@bleach](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bleach)\
**Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/25 "2019-04-07T20:02:03Z")

</div>

Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely.  
Personally I suspect that you are both right but unfortunately I  
can only come to that conclusion based upon the idea that you are  
using different meanings for “…people can perceive things in the  
same way…”

```
  Rick is free to correct me here if I'm wrong of course, but I

```

don’t think he is trying to say that people will generate the same  
perceptual signal or that the signal’s magnitude, response curve,  
etc. will be identical. His statement that “…I believe that you  
(and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance  
between the cursor and target is the perception that is being  
controlled.” is absolutely correct.

```
  I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific details

```

that I take to be about the the exact parameter values is also  
correct but not relevant to Rick’s general statement.

```
  Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature of

```

commonality would, of course be an important part of deeper  
analysis of the idea.

bill

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor  
> ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> > > 
> > > …  
> > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental assumption of  
> > > PCT that people can perceive things in the same way;  
> > > indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing  
> > > PCT science.Â
> 
> > ```
> > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study you
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s (in deed,  
> > one control loop in one person’s) results with how someone else  
> > perceives the “changing distance between cursor and target”. There  
> > are no scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what might  
> > be the case if different subjects perceived the on-screen distance  
> > identically or if they all perceived it differently. No “social  
> > PCT” is even suggested by the experiment, let alone a grand claim  
> > that in this experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > case. In the basic tracking task, I believe that you  
> > > (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the  
> > > distance between the cursor and target is the perception  
> > > that is being controlled. So it is seems that it is  
> > > possible, in at least this case, for people to have the  
> > > same perception – in this case a perception of the  
> > > changing distance between cursor and target. Does this  
> > > convince you that it is, indeed, possible for many  
> > > different people to perceive something in the same  
> > > way? Â
> 
> > ```
> > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual perception, it
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > would be very strange if you could prove that everyone with their  
> > different screen sizes and contrast levels, and with different  
> > visual acuities and visual experiences had the same  
> > non-linearities in their perceptions of the relative locations of  
> > target and cursor in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT  
> > theory tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > 
> > ```
> > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate student
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling pygmy’s  
> > astonishment when he first saw from a hill people fishing from  
> > canoes. He couldn’t understand how such matchsticks could support  
> > actual people, who he apparently perceived s person-sized.
> > 
> > ```
> > Since how we determine whether people see "the same thing"
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for  
> > centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be solved by  
> > referring to the similar (but never identical) results different  
> > people produce when they act a subjects in a tracking study. As  
> > Powers said, all you can experiment with is what the experimenter  
> > perceives to be in the subject’s environment, not what the subject  
> > perceives.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > BestÂ
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Rick
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > If I would give my full
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > power into cooperation then I’ll have to  
> > > > refresh my physiological and  
> > > > neurophysiological knowledge. That needs  
> > > > time.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I'm momentally accupied
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > in changing of scholl systems. Beside  
> > > > cooperating in changing our national school  
> > > > system, I also made contact with UN (United  
> > > > Nations). I’m  
> > > > trying to present them general school  
> > > > system in which PCT has significant role.  
> > > > It is meant for all national school systems  
> > > > on the World. It’s UN that we are talking  
> > > > about. It demands a lot of work. I thought  
> > > > of requesting help of some CSGnet members. I  
> > > > thought even on you Rick. On some fields you  
> > > > could be of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > But as the situation on
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to  
> > > > make it on my own.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So Rick I'll take a deep
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > breath (you act like a good psychoterapist)  
> > > > and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also  
> > > > expect that from you, Powers ladies and  
> > > > other interested.   Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best,
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Boris
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > Â RM  
> > > > > > : But I think what made it  
> > > > > > particularly easy for me to find  
> > > > > > common ground with your dad is  
> > > > > > that I didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > > with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course. How could you come  
> > > > > > to PCT with an existing agenda  
> > > > > > if you understand RCT (Ricks  
> > > > > > Control Theory).
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > RM : I didn’t try to see  
> > > > > > how PCT fit in with an  
> > > > > > existing theoretical framework  
> > > > > > in which I had a strong  
> > > > > > intellectual or professional  
> > > > > > investment.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That’s self-evident. Existing  
> > > > > > theoretical framework of PCT  
> > > > > > is LCS III diagram and  
> > > > > > definitions of control loop in  
> > > > > > B:CP Glossary. In this  
> > > > > > theoretical framework you had  
> > > > > > no professional investment,  
> > > > > > because you don’t even  
> > > > > > recognize it as PCT basics and  
> > > > > > you don’t want to accept it.  
> > > > > > But its possible that you had  
> > > > > > strong professional investment  
> > > > > > in RCT (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > which has no common ground  
> > > > > > with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > PCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Definitions of 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. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : Nor did I
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > try to find  
> > > > > > commonality between PCT and  
> > > > > > other existing theories.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course you didn’t. There is  
> > > > > > no commonality between PCT and  
> > > > > > RCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > CONTROL :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Keeping of some »aspect of  
> > > > > > outer environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state, protected  
> > > > > > (defended) from disturbances.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : controlled  
> > > > > > effects (control of  
> > > > > > behavior) to outer  
> > > > > > environment so to keep some  
> > > > > > »controlled variable« in  
> > > > > > reference state
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > »Control« of some »aspect of  
> > > > > > outer environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > INPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : produce »Controlled  
> > > > > > Perceptual Variable« or  
> > > > > > »Controlled Perception«, the  
> > > > > > perceptual correlate of  
> > > > > > »controlled q.i.«
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > COMPARATOR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : ???
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > ERROR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > SIGNAL : ???  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : The only
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > people with whom I now find  
> > > > > > myself on common ground  
> > > > > > regarding PCT are people who  
> > > > > > approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The people who approach “PCT”  
> > > > > > the way you are probably  
> > > > > > believing that “Behavior is  
> > > > > > control” which controls some  
> > > > > > “controlled variable” in  
> > > > > > external environment and  
> > > > > > produce some “Controlled  
> > > > > > Perceptual Variable” or CPV.  
> > > > > > And if I would guess who these  
> > > > > > people are it would probably  
> > > > > > be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey,  
> > > > > > Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : … with a
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > willingness to abandon  
> > > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > > interest in finding  
> > > > > > commonality with any existing  
> > > > > > theories of behavior combined  
> > > > > > with an interest in doing the  
> > > > > > lab exercises (demos) and  
> > > > > > homework (models). It works  
> > > > > > like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So why you don’t abandon  
> > > > > > existing RCT theory of  
> > > > > > behaviour and do some real PCT  
> > > > > > with real life experiments  
> > > > > > like : sleeping, observing,  
> > > > > > walking, sun shining, sitting  
> > > > > > and thinking etc.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > "Perfection
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > is achieved not when  
> > > > you have nothing more  
> > > > to add, but when you
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > have nothing left to
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > take away.�
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â --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.�  
> > > Â Â  
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > –Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 3:12am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/26 "2019-04-08T03:12:28Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]

```
I wouldn't be surprised, but "perceiving something in the same way"

```

seems to me to be significantly difference from “controlling  
perceptions of the same environmental property”, and I thought that  
Rick was trying to make that distinction very clear. Maybe he  
wasn’t.  
Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not to be  
consistent with the first part of that paragraph: I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that people  
controlling the same environmental variable was intended to mean the  
same as people perceiving the same environmental variable in the  
same way.  
Martin

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach  
> ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > Â His statement that "...I believe that you (and virtually
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor  
> > and target is the perception that is being controlled." is  
> > absolutely correct.
> 
> > ```
> > [RM] In a recent post you expressed dismay
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > that I could think that two or more people could perceive  
> > something in the same way. I think that it is a fundamental  
> > assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way;  
> > indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> > ```
> > I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > details that I take to be about the the exact parameter values  
> > is also correct but not relevant to Rick’s general statement.
> 
> > ```
> > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature of
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > commonality would, of course be an important part of deeper  
> > analysis of the idea.
> 
> > bill
> 
> ```
> On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor (
> 
> ```
> 
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> > > 
> > > …  
> > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental assumption  
> > > of PCT that people can perceive things in the same  
> > > way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to  
> > > doing PCT science.Â
> 
> > ```
> > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study you
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s (in deed,  
> > one control loop in one person’s) results with how someone else  
> > perceives the “changing distance between cursor and target”.  
> > There are no scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest  
> > what might be the case if different subjects perceived the  
> > on-screen distance identically or if they all perceived it  
> > differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by the  
> > experiment, let alone a grand claim that in this experiment,  
> > everyone perceives the display the same.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > case. In the basic tracking task, I believe that you  
> > > (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the  
> > > distance between the cursor and target is the  
> > > perception that is being controlled. So it is seems  
> > > that it is possible, in at least this case, for people  
> > > to have the same perception – in this case a  
> > > perception of the changing distance between cursor and  
> > > target. Does this convince you that it is, indeed,  
> > > possible for many different people to perceive  
> > > something in the same way? Â
> 
> > ```
> > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual perception, it
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > would be very strange if you could prove that everyone with  
> > their different screen sizes and contrast levels, and with  
> > different visual acuities and visual experiences had the same  
> > non-linearities in their perceptions of the relative locations  
> > of target and cursor in even a simple tracking experiment (which  
> > PCT theory tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > 
> > ```
> > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate student
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling pygmy’s  
> > astonishment when he first saw from a hill people fishing from  
> > canoes. He couldn’t understand how such matchsticks could  
> > support actual people, who he apparently perceived s  
> > person-sized.
> > 
> > ```
> > Since how we determine whether people see "the same thing"
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for  
> > centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be solved by  
> > referring to the similar (but never identical) results different  
> > people produce when they act a subjects in a tracking study. As  
> > Powers said, all you can experiment with is what the  
> > experimenter perceives to be in the subject’s environment, not  
> > what the subject perceives.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > BestÂ
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Rick
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > If I would give my full
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > power into cooperation then I’ll have to  
> > > > refresh my physiological and  
> > > > neurophysiological knowledge. That needs  
> > > > time.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I'm momentally accupied
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > in changing of scholl systems. Beside  
> > > > cooperating in changing our national  
> > > > school system, I also made contact with UN  
> > > > (United Nations). I’m trying to  
> > > > present them general school system in  
> > > > which PCT has significant role.  
> > > > It is meant for all national school  
> > > > systems on the World. It’s UN that we are  
> > > > talking about. It demands a lot of work. I  
> > > > thought of requesting help of some CSGnet  
> > > > members. I thought even on you Rick. On  
> > > > some fields you could be of great help in  
> > > > advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > But as the situation on
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to  
> > > > make it on my own.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So Rick I'll take a
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > deep breath (you act like a good  
> > > > psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a  
> > > > solution. But I also expect that from you,  
> > > > Powers ladies and other interested.   Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best,
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Boris
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > Â RM  
> > > > > > : But I think what made it  
> > > > > > particularly easy for me to find  
> > > > > > common ground with your dad  
> > > > > > is that I didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > > with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course. How could you  
> > > > > > come to PCT with an existing  
> > > > > > agenda if you understand RCT  
> > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > RM : I  
> > > > > > didn’t try to see  
> > > > > > how PCT fit in with an  
> > > > > > existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework in which I had a  
> > > > > > strong intellectual or  
> > > > > > professional investment.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That’s self-evident.  
> > > > > > Existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework of PCT is LCS III  
> > > > > > diagram and definitions of  
> > > > > > control loop in B:CP  
> > > > > > Glossary. In this  
> > > > > > theoretical framework you  
> > > > > > had no professional  
> > > > > > investment, because you  
> > > > > > don’t even recognize it as  
> > > > > > PCT basics and you don’t  
> > > > > > want to accept it. But its  
> > > > > > possible that you had strong  
> > > > > > professional investment in  
> > > > > > RCT (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > which has no common ground  
> > > > > > with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > PCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Definitions of 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  
> > > > > > Â 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. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : Nor did I
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > try to find  
> > > > > > commonality between PCT and  
> > > > > > other existing theories.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course you didn’t. There  
> > > > > > is no commonality between  
> > > > > > PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : Keeping of some »aspect of  
> > > > > > outer environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state, protected  
> > > > > > (defended) from  
> > > > > > disturbances.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : controlled  
> > > > > > effects (control of  
> > > > > > behavior) to outer  
> > > > > > environment so to keep  
> > > > > > some »controlled variable«  
> > > > > > in reference state
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > »Control« of some »aspect of  
> > > > > > outer environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > INPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : produce  
> > > > > > »Controlled Perceptual  
> > > > > > Variable« or »Controlled  
> > > > > > Perception«, the perceptual  
> > > > > > correlate of »controlled  
> > > > > > q.i.«
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > COMPARATOR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : ???
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > ERROR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > SIGNAL : ???  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : The only
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > people with whom I now find  
> > > > > > myself on common ground  
> > > > > > regarding PCT are people who  
> > > > > > approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The people who approach  
> > > > > > “PCT” the way you are  
> > > > > > probably believing that  
> > > > > > “Behavior is control” which  
> > > > > > controls some “controlled  
> > > > > > variable” in external  
> > > > > > environment and produce some  
> > > > > > “Controlled Perceptual  
> > > > > > Variable” or CPV. And if I  
> > > > > > would guess who these people  
> > > > > > are it would probably be :  
> > > > > > Warren Mansel, Tim Carey,  
> > > > > > Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : … wwith a
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > willingness to abandon  
> > > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > > interest in finding  
> > > > > > commonality with any  
> > > > > > existing theories of  
> > > > > > behavior combined with an  
> > > > > > interest in doing the lab  
> > > > > > exercises (demos) and  
> > > > > > homework (models). It works  
> > > > > > like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So why you don’t abandon  
> > > > > > existing RCT theory of  
> > > > > > behaviour and do some real  
> > > > > > PCT with real life  
> > > > > > experiments like : sleeping,  
> > > > > > observing, walking, sun  
> > > > > > shining, sitting and  
> > > > > > thinking etc.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > "Perfection
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > is achieved not when  
> > > > you have nothing  
> > > > more to add, but  
> > > > when you
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > have nothing left to
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > take away.�
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > –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.�  
> > > Â  
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > –Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bleach](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bleach/32/51_2.png) [@bleach](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bleach)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 8:07am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/27 "2019-04-08T08:07:05Z")

</div>

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor  
> ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]
> > 
> > ```
> > I wouldn't be surprised, but "perceiving something in the same
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > way" seems to me to be significantly difference from “controlling  
> > perceptions of the same environmental property”, and I thought  
> > that Rick was trying to make that distinction very clear. Maybe he  
> > wasn’t.  
> > [BL]Â Yes, I took that to mean that each person is controlling  
> > based upon the distance between the cursor and the target to  
> > minimize that perception. Where I think I (and maybe Rick) differ  
> > is that I did not interpret that to mean that the perceptual  
> > signals were the same only that whatever perception existed for an  
> > individual for the control error that was perceived was minimized  
> > by that individual. There will of course be a ‘whole host’ of  
> > other perceptions such as how well they are accomplishing that  
> > task that will most assuredly be radically different depending  
> > upon skill, speed of the demo, computer responses to input, etc.
> 
> ```
> It is this difference in my view of what I perceived Rick to be
> 
> ```
> 
> saying that allows me to conclude that you are both right. In the  
> strictest sense, they are not controlling exactly the same  
> perception but rather a large class of perceptions that involve  
> distance between cursor and target. It is likely that if we could  
> (and maybe some day we will) measure and quantify all of these  
> signals in a human control loop set we would see that such a task,  
> when viewed at such a detail level, would be different for every  
> subject.
> 
> ```
> I think of this somewhat along the lines of the hierarchy that
> 
> ```
> 
> Bill proposed. The lower levels are reasonably well understood  
> but the manner and extent of involvement of the higher levels is  
> currently in quite a state of flux, at the detail level.
> 
> ```
> It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking about is indeed
> 
> ```
> 
> important. It takes the conversation to a deeper level than just  
> understanding the 40,000 meter view and might give us a change to  
> produce new understanding (and means of involving others outside  
> PCT) in areas that do not involve conflict.
> 
> ```
> When you think about it, conflict is really just a specific case
> 
> ```
> 
> of what I think Rick was proposing. Conflict resolution is  
> actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT. I think the  
> major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful results  
> while producing protocols for doing such work. CSG benefited from  
> that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported back and  
> discussed their work here. I think it is important to realize it  
> is not just that these people validated the concept of PCT but  
> that they brought new understanding to the field.
> 
> bill
> 
> > ```
> > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not to be
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > consistent with the first part of that paragraph:
> > 
> > > ```
> > > [RM] In a recent post you expressed dismay
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > that I could think that two or more people could perceive  
> > > something in the same way. I think that it is a fundamental  
> > > assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same  
> > > way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT  
> > > science.
> > 
> > ```
> > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that people
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > controlling the same environmental variable was intended to mean  
> > the same as people perceiving the same environmental variable in  
> > the same way.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > > ```
> > > I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > details that I take to be about the the exact parameter values  
> > > is also correct but not relevant to Rick’s general statement.
> 
> > > ```
> > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature of
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > commonality would, of course be an important part of deeper  
> > > analysis of the idea.
> 
> > > bill
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach (
> 
> ```
> 
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > Â His statement that "...I believe that you (and virtually
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > everyone else) would agree that the distance between the  
> > cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled."  
> > is absolutely correct.
> 
> ```
> On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor (
> 
> ```
> 
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> > > 
> > > …  
> > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental  
> > > assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in  
> > > the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is  
> > > essential to doing PCT science.Â
> 
> > ```
> > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s (in  
> > deed, one control loop in one person’s) results with how  
> > someone else perceives the “changing distance between cursor  
> > and target”. There are no scientific predictions based in PCT  
> > that suggest what might be the case if different subjects  
> > perceived the on-screen distance identically or if they all  
> > perceived it differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by  
> > the experiment, let alone a grand claim that in this  
> > experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > case. In the basic tracking task, I believe that you  
> > > (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the  
> > > distance between the cursor and target is the  
> > > perception that is being controlled. So it is seems  
> > > that it is possible, in at least this case, for  
> > > people to have the same perception – in this case a  
> > > perception of the changing distance between cursor  
> > > and target. Does this convince you that it is,  
> > > indeed, possible for many different people to  
> > > perceive something in the same way? Â
> 
> > ```
> > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual perception,
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > it would be very strange if you could prove that everyone with  
> > their different screen sizes and contrast levels, and with  
> > different visual acuities and visual experiences had the same  
> > non-linearities in their perceptions of the relative locations  
> > of target and cursor in even a simple tracking experiment  
> > (which PCT theory tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > 
> > ```
> > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling  
> > pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill people  
> > fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how such  
> > matchsticks could support actual people, who he apparently  
> > perceived s person-sized.
> > 
> > ```
> > Since how we determine whether people see "the same thing"
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for  
> > centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be solved by  
> > referring to the similar (but never identical) results  
> > different people produce when they act a subjects in a  
> > tracking study. As Powers said, all you can experiment with is  
> > what the experimenter perceives to be in the subject’s  
> > environment, not what the subject perceives.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > BestÂ
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Rick
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > If I would give my
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > full power into cooperation then I’ll  
> > > > have to refresh my physiological and  
> > > > neurophysiological knowledge. That needs  
> > > > time.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I'm momentally
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > accupied in changing of scholl systems.  
> > > > Beside cooperating in changing our  
> > > > national school system, I also made  
> > > > contact with UN (United Nations). I’m trying  
> > > > to present them general school system  
> > > > in which PCT has significant role.  
> > > > It is meant for all national school  
> > > > systems on the World. It’s UN that we  
> > > > are talking about. It demands a lot of  
> > > > work. I thought of requesting help of  
> > > > some CSGnet members. I thought even on  
> > > > you Rick. On some fields you could be of  
> > > > great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > But as the situation
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > on CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying  
> > > > to make it on my own.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So Rick I'll take a
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > deep breath (you act like a good  
> > > > psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a  
> > > > solution. But I also expect that from  
> > > > you, Powers ladies and other  
> > > > interested.   Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best,
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Boris
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > Â RM  
> > > > > > : But I think what made it  
> > > > > > particularly easy for me to find  
> > > > > > common ground with your  
> > > > > > dad is that I didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > > with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course. How could you  
> > > > > > come to PCT with an  
> > > > > > existing agenda if you  
> > > > > > understand RCT (Ricks  
> > > > > > Control Theory).
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > RM : I  
> > > > > > didn’t try to see  
> > > > > > how PCT fit in with an  
> > > > > > existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework in which I had a  
> > > > > > strong intellectual or  
> > > > > > professional investment.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That’s self-evident.  
> > > > > > Existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework of PCT is LCS  
> > > > > > III diagram and  
> > > > > > definitions of control  
> > > > > > loop in B:CP Glossary. In  
> > > > > > this theoretical framework  
> > > > > > you had no professional  
> > > > > > investment, because you  
> > > > > > don’t even recognize it as  
> > > > > > PCT basics and you don’t  
> > > > > > want to accept it. But its  
> > > > > > possible that you had  
> > > > > > strong professional  
> > > > > > investment in RCT (Ricks  
> > > > > > Control Theory) which has  
> > > > > > no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > PCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Definitions of 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  
> > > > > > Â 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. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : Nor did
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I try to find  
> > > > > > commonality between PCT  
> > > > > > and other existing  
> > > > > > theories.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course you didn’t.  
> > > > > > There is no commonality  
> > > > > > between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : Keeping of some »aspect  
> > > > > > of outer environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state, protected  
> > > > > > (defended) from  
> > > > > > disturbances.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : controlled  
> > > > > > effects (control of  
> > > > > > behavior) to outer  
> > > > > > environment so to keep  
> > > > > > some »controlled  
> > > > > > variable« in reference  
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > »Control« of some »aspect  
> > > > > > of outer environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > INPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : produce  
> > > > > > »Controlled Perceptual  
> > > > > > Variable« or »Controlled  
> > > > > > Perception«, the  
> > > > > > perceptual correlate of  
> > > > > > »controlled q.i.«
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > COMPARATOR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : ???
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > ERROR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > SIGNAL : ???  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : The only
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > people with whom I now  
> > > > > > find myself on common  
> > > > > > ground regarding PCT are  
> > > > > > people who approach PCT  
> > > > > > the way I do
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The people who approach  
> > > > > > “PCT” the way you are  
> > > > > > probably believing that  
> > > > > > “Behavior is control”  
> > > > > > which controls some  
> > > > > > “controlled variable” in  
> > > > > > external environment and  
> > > > > > produce some “Controlled  
> > > > > > Perceptual Variable” or  
> > > > > > CPV. And if I would guess  
> > > > > > who these people are it  
> > > > > > would probably be : Warren  
> > > > > > Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce  
> > > > > > Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : … with a
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > willingness to abandon  
> > > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > > interest in finding  
> > > > > > commonality with any  
> > > > > > existing theories of  
> > > > > > behavior combined with an  
> > > > > > interest in doing the lab  
> > > > > > exercises (demos) and  
> > > > > > homework (models). It  
> > > > > > works like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So why you don’t abandon  
> > > > > > existing RCT theory of  
> > > > > > behaviour and do some real  
> > > > > > PCT with real life  
> > > > > > experiments like :  
> > > > > > sleeping, observing,  
> > > > > > walking, sun shining,  
> > > > > > sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > "Perfection
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > is achieved not  
> > > > when you have  
> > > > nothing more to  
> > > > add, but when you
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > have nothing left
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > to take away.�
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > –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.�  
> > > Â  
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bleach](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bleach/32/51_2.png) [@bleach](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bleach)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 3:22pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/28 "2019-04-08T15:22:06Z")

</div>

It just occurred to me that there is yet another way of talking  
about what Rick was proposing. When a group of use watch a  
subject do the tracking test, we all conclude that the subject is  
controlling the relationship between the cursor and the target  
with a reference set for 'minimum separation. In a sense we all  
have the ‘same’ perception. Of course in each of us the neural  
signals will be different and we probably will have further  
perceptions about the quality of control being achieved.

```
  However, for us to even talk about what is going on from a PCT

```

standpoint when observing a behavior, we must be able to talk in  
terms that are of a ‘higher level’ than exactly what is going on  
in detail in a particular control loop (or perceptual loop for  
that matter).

```
  It is a case of moving from the minutia to generalizations. When

```

we talk in terms of PCT about how a baseball fielder catches a  
ball this is what we are doing AND in the discussion we are  
absolutely relying on a degree of a match between our perceptions  
and the listeners perceptions.Â

```
  We also know that our explanation is a generalization AND that if

```

we even could present a detailed discussion of exactly what is  
happening (which of course we can not) including all of the  
perceptual signals, reference signals for those perceptions,  
errors signals generated, and outputs our listeners would quickly  
tune out and wonder what was wrong with us!

bill

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> On 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach  
> ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor (
> 
> ```
> 
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]
> > 
> > ```
> > I wouldn't be surprised, but "perceiving something in the same
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > way" seems to me to be significantly difference from  
> > “controlling perceptions of the same environmental property”,  
> > and I thought that Rick was trying to make that distinction very  
> > clear. Maybe he wasn’t.  
> > On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach (  
> > via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > Â His statement that "...I believe that you (and virtually
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > everyone else) would agree that the distance between the  
> > cursor and target is the perception that is being  
> > controlled." is absolutely correct.
> 
> ```
> [BL]Â Yes, I took that to mean that each person is controlling
> 
> ```
> 
> based upon the distance between the cursor and the target to  
> minimize that perception. Where I think I (and maybe Rick)  
> differ is that I did not interpret that to mean that the  
> perceptual signals were the same only that whatever perception  
> existed for an individual for the control error that was  
> perceived was minimized by that individual. There will of  
> course be a ‘whole host’ of other perceptions such as how well  
> they are accomplishing that task that will most assuredly be  
> radically different depending upon skill, speed of the demo,  
> computer responses to input, etc.
> 
> ```
> It is this difference in my view of what I perceived Rick to be
> 
> ```
> 
> saying that allows me to conclude that you are both right. In  
> the strictest sense, they are not controlling exactly the same  
> perception but rather a large class of perceptions that involve  
> distance between cursor and target. It is likely that if we  
> could (and maybe some day we will) measure and quantify all of  
> these signals in a human control loop set we would see that such  
> a task, when viewed at such a detail level, would be different  
> for every subject.
> 
> ```
> I think of this somewhat along the lines of the hierarchy that
> 
> ```
> 
> Bill proposed. The lower levels are reasonably well understood  
> but the manner and extent of involvement of the higher levels is  
> currently in quite a state of flux, at the detail level.
> 
> ```
> It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking about is
> 
> ```
> 
> indeed important. It takes the conversation to a deeper level  
> than just understanding the 40,000 meter view and might give us  
> a change to produce new understanding (and means of involving  
> others outside PCT) in areas that do not involve conflict.
> 
> ```
> When you think about it, conflict is really just a specific
> 
> ```
> 
> case of what I think Rick was proposing. Conflict resolution is  
> actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT. I think the  
> major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful results  
> while producing protocols for doing such work. CSG benefited  
> from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported  
> back and discussed their work here. I think it is important to  
> realize it is not just that these people validated the concept  
> of PCT but that they brought new understanding to the field.
> 
> bill
> 
> > ```
> > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not to
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > be consistent with the first part of that paragraph:
> > 
> > > ```
> > > [RM] In a recent post you expressed
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > dismay that I could think that two or more people could  
> > > perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a  
> > > fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things  
> > > in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential  
> > > to doing PCT science.
> > 
> > ```
> > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that people
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > controlling the same environmental variable was intended to mean  
> > the same as people perceiving the same environmental variable in  
> > the same way.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > > ```
> > > I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > details that I take to be about the the exact parameter  
> > > values is also correct but not relevant to Rick’s general  
> > > statement.
> 
> > > ```
> > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature of
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > commonality would, of course be an important part of deeper  
> > > analysis of the idea.
> 
> > > bill
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor
> 
> ```
> 
> (  
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> > > 
> > > …  
> > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental  
> > > assumption of PCT that people can perceive things  
> > > in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption  
> > > is essential to doing PCT science.Â
> 
> > ```
> > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s  
> > (in deed, one control loop in one person’s) results with how  
> > someone else perceives the “changing distance between cursor  
> > and target”. There are no scientific predictions based in  
> > PCT that suggest what might be the case if different  
> > subjects perceived the on-screen distance identically or if  
> > they all perceived it differently. No “social PCT” is even  
> > suggested by the experiment, let alone a grand claim that in  
> > this experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > the case. In the basic tracking task, I believe  
> > > that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree  
> > > that the distance between the cursor and target is  
> > > the perception that is being controlled. So it is  
> > > seems that it is possible, in at least this case,  
> > > for people to have the same perception – in this  
> > > case a perception of the changing distance between  
> > > cursor and target. Does this convince you that it  
> > > is, indeed, possible for many different people to  
> > > perceive something in the same way? Â
> 
> > ```
> > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > perception, it would be very strange if you could prove that  
> > everyone with their different screen sizes and contrast  
> > levels, and with different visual acuities and visual  
> > experiences had the same non-linearities in their  
> > perceptions of the relative locations of target and cursor  
> > in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT theory tells  
> > us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > 
> > ```
> > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling  
> > pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill people  
> > fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how such  
> > matchsticks could support actual people, who he apparently  
> > perceived s person-sized.
> > 
> > ```
> > Since how we determine whether people see "the same thing"
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for  
> > centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be solved  
> > by referring to the similar (but never identical) results  
> > different people produce when they act a subjects in a  
> > tracking study. As Powers said, all you can experiment with  
> > is what the experimenter perceives to be in the subject’s  
> > environment, not what the subject perceives.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > BestÂ
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Rick
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > If I would give my
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > full power into cooperation then I’ll  
> > > > have to refresh my physiological and  
> > > > neurophysiological knowledge. That  
> > > > needs time.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I'm momentally
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > accupied in changing of scholl  
> > > > systems. Beside cooperating in  
> > > > changing our national school system, I  
> > > > also made contact with UN (United  
> > > > Nations). I’m trying  
> > > > to present them general school  
> > > > system in which PCT has significant  
> > > > role. It is meant for all  
> > > > national school systems on the World.  
> > > > It’s UN that we are talking about. It  
> > > > demands a lot of work. I thought of  
> > > > requesting help of some CSGnet  
> > > > members. I thought even on you Rick.  
> > > > On some fields you could be of great  
> > > > help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > But as the
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > situation on CSGnet became  
> > > > “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it on  
> > > > my own.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So Rick I'll take a
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > deep breath (you act like a good  
> > > > psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a  
> > > > solution. But I also expect that from  
> > > > you, Powers ladies and other  
> > > > interested.   Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best,
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Boris
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > Â RM : But I think  
> > > > > > what made it  
> > > > > > particularly easy for me to find  
> > > > > > common ground with your  
> > > > > > dad is that I didn’t  
> > > > > > come to PCT  
> > > > > > with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course. How could you  
> > > > > > come to PCT with an  
> > > > > > existing agenda if you  
> > > > > > understand RCT (Ricks  
> > > > > > Control Theory).
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > RM : I  
> > > > > > didn’t try to see  
> > > > > > how PCT fit in with an  
> > > > > > existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework in which I had  
> > > > > > a strong intellectual or  
> > > > > > professional investment.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That’s self-evident.  
> > > > > > Existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework of PCT is LCS  
> > > > > > III diagram and  
> > > > > > definitions of control  
> > > > > > loop in B:CP Glossary.  
> > > > > > In this theoretical  
> > > > > > framework you had no  
> > > > > > professional investment,  
> > > > > > because you don’t even  
> > > > > > recognize it as PCT  
> > > > > > basics and you don’t  
> > > > > > want to accept it. But  
> > > > > > its possible that you  
> > > > > > had strong professional  
> > > > > > investment in RCT (Ricks  
> > > > > > Control Theory) which  
> > > > > > has no common ground  
> > > > > > with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > PCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Definitions of 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. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : Nor
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > did I try to find  
> > > > > > commonality between PCT  
> > > > > > and other existing  
> > > > > > theories.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course you didn’t.  
> > > > > > There is no commonality  
> > > > > > between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : Keeping of some  
> > > > > > »aspect of outer  
> > > > > > environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state,  
> > > > > > protected (defended)  
> > > > > > from disturbances.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : controlled  
> > > > > > effects (control of  
> > > > > > behavior) to outer  
> > > > > > environment so to keep  
> > > > > > some »controlled  
> > > > > > variable« in reference  
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > »Control« of some  
> > > > > > »aspect of outer  
> > > > > > environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > INPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : produce  
> > > > > > »Controlled Perceptual  
> > > > > > Variable« or »Controlled  
> > > > > > Perception«, the  
> > > > > > perceptual correlate of  
> > > > > > »controlled q.i.«
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > COMPARATOR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : ???
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > ERROR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > SIGNAL : ???  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : The
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > only people with whom I  
> > > > > > now find myself on  
> > > > > > common ground regarding  
> > > > > > PCT are people who  
> > > > > > approach PCT the way I  
> > > > > > do
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The people who approach  
> > > > > > “PCT” the way you are  
> > > > > > probably believing that  
> > > > > > “Behavior is control”  
> > > > > > which controls some  
> > > > > > “controlled variable” in  
> > > > > > external environment and  
> > > > > > produce some “Controlled  
> > > > > > Perceptual Variable” or  
> > > > > > CPV. And if I would  
> > > > > > guess who these people  
> > > > > > are it would probably be  
> > > > > > : Warren Mansel, Tim  
> > > > > > Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM : … with
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > a willingness to abandon  
> > > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > > interest in finding  
> > > > > > commonality with any  
> > > > > > existing theories of  
> > > > > > behavior combined with  
> > > > > > an interest in doing the  
> > > > > > lab exercises (demos)  
> > > > > > and homework (models).  
> > > > > > It works like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So why you don’t abandon  
> > > > > > existing RCT theory of  
> > > > > > behaviour and do some  
> > > > > > real PCT with real life  
> > > > > > experiments like :  
> > > > > > sleeping, observing,  
> > > > > > walking, sun shining,  
> > > > > > sitting and thinking  
> > > > > > etc.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > "Perfection
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > is achieved not  
> > > > when you have  
> > > > nothing more to  
> > > > add, but when  
> > > > you
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > have nothing
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > left to take  
> > > > away.�
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > –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.�  
> > > Â  
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > Â Â --Antoine de  
> > > Saint-Exupery
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/29 "2019-04-08T16:48:06Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2019.04.08.11.38]

```
I agree with all of this. My original comment was only to Rick's

```

presenting as a logical proof what I thought should more properly be  
considered to be a guide toward a reasonable assumption.  
A quote from a Bill Powers message to CSGnet [Bill Powers  
(961224.1145 MST)] is relevant (emphasis mine): “.”  
I would amend this quote, but only slightly, to be consistent with  
my new understanding of the relationship between the controlled  
perceptual signal. the consciously perceived controlled property in  
its environmental context, which I have called the “CEV”  
(Corresponding Environmental Variable" and whatever in Real Reality  
(RR) a control action might influence that affects the controlled  
perception and its CEV consciously perceived correlate (the RREV).  
My amendment would replace every instance of CV to “RREV as the  
observer perceives it”. Otherwise, I think what Bill said so long  
ago is quite right, and important to keep in mind.  
What I think you are getting at is the result of evolution and  
reorganization. Controlling a variable by acting on RR won’t work  
very well unless the controlled variable corresponds well with  
something in RR that I called the RREV. Accordingly, when the  
observer perceives an observed environmental being controlled very  
well, the observer’s environmental variable must be pretty closely  
related to a true RREV in RR that produces a controlled perception  
in the controller. Evolution and reorganization collaborate in  
tending to bring perceptual functions on average into alignment with  
controllable aspects of RR.  
As Rick has often pointed out, this RREV may not behave as a unitary  
entity in the absence of perceptual control, but might instead be a  
function of other RR variables defined only by the controller’s  
perceptual function. For the observer to observe this control  
happening, the observer must have a perceptual function related to  
the perceptual function used by the controller. It doesn’t have to  
be the same, but the discrepancy cannot be too great, or the  
observer will see poor control when inputs to discrepant parts of  
their perceptual functions change. But one does have to remember  
that what we perceive and what we act on is only what is influenced  
by and sensed at our interface with Real Reality, which is always  
going to remain unknown to us.  
It is this ability to approximate other functions, both in  
non-living RR and in other people (who presumably exist in RR) that  
allows protocol interactions between people to work as well as they  
do, and allows demonstrations such as the coin game to show how an  
experimenter can control for producing a perceptual function that  
generates a perception that is probably similar to a perception in  
another. The General Protocol Grammar displays some of the  
techniques used hierarchically for this kind of perceptual  
approximation to another’s perception in social interactions such as  
conversation, collaboration, enquiry and teaching, or warfare and  
deceit.  
Martin

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> On 2019/04/8 11:22 AM, Bill Leach  
> ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > ```
> > It just occurred to me that there is yet another way of talking
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > about what Rick was proposing. When a group of use watch a  
> > subject do the tracking test, we all conclude that the subject  
> > is controlling the relationship between the cursor and the  
> > target with a reference set for 'minimum separation. In a sense  
> > we all have the ‘same’ perception. Of course in each of us the  
> > neural signals will be different and we probably will have  
> > further perceptions about the quality of control being achieved.
> 
> > ```
> > However, for us to even talk about what is going on from a PCT
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > standpoint when observing a behavior, we must be able to talk in  
> > terms that are of a ‘higher level’ than exactly what is going on  
> > in detail in a particular control loop (or perceptual loop for  
> > that matter).
> 
> > ```
> > It is a case of moving from the minutia to generalizations. 
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > When we talk in terms of PCT about how a baseball fielder  
> > catches a ball this is what we are doing AND in the discussion  
> > we are absolutely relying on a degree of a match between our  
> > perceptions and the listeners perceptions.Â
> 
> > ```
> > We also know that our explanation is a generalization AND that
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > if we even could present a detailed discussion of exactly what  
> > is happening (which of course we can not) including all of the  
> > perceptual signals, reference signals for those perceptions,  
> > errors signals generated, and outputs our listeners would  
> > quickly tune out and wonder what was wrong with us!
> 
> > bill
> 
> _Remember that as far_ _ **as the observer is concerned** _\* ,  
> what is controlled is ONLY the CV. The idea that this CV is  
> represented by a perceptual signal inside the other system is  
> theoretical. We can observe CV, but not p. When we apply a  
> disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. The action that opposes  
> the effect of the disturbance acts on CV, not p. The Test does not  
> involve p at all. It involves only observables – i.e., the  
> observer’s perceptions. The observations have priority; the model  
> comes second, and its only reason for existence is to explain the  
> observations\*
> 
> ```
> On 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach (
> 
> ```
> 
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor (
> 
> ```
> 
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]
> > 
> > ```
> > I wouldn't be surprised, but "perceiving something in the same
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > way" seems to me to be significantly difference from  
> > “controlling perceptions of the same environmental property”,  
> > and I thought that Rick was trying to make that distinction  
> > very clear. Maybe he wasn’t.  
> > On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach  
> > (  
> > via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > ```
> > Martin, I think you are missing Rick's point completely.
> > 
> > ```
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > Â His statement that "...I believe that you (and virtually
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > everyone else) would agree that the distance between the  
> > cursor and target is the perception that is being  
> > controlled." is absolutely correct.
> 
> ```
> [BL]Â Yes, I took that to mean that each person is
> 
> ```
> 
> controlling based upon the distance between the cursor and the  
> target to minimize that perception. Where I think I (and  
> maybe Rick) differ is that I did not interpret that to mean  
> that the perceptual signals were the same only that whatever  
> perception existed for an individual for the control error  
> that was perceived was minimized by that individual. There  
> will of course be a ‘whole host’ of other perceptions such as  
> how well they are accomplishing that task that will most  
> assuredly be radically different depending upon skill, speed  
> of the demo, computer responses to input, etc.
> 
> ```
> It is this difference in my view of what I perceived Rick to
> 
> ```
> 
> be saying that allows me to conclude that you are both right.  
> In the strictest sense, they are not controlling exactly the  
> same perception but rather a large class of perceptions that  
> involve distance between cursor and target. It is likely that  
> if we could (and maybe some day we will) measure and quantify  
> all of these signals in a human control loop set we would see  
> that such a task, when viewed at such a detail level, would be  
> different for every subject.
> 
> ```
> I think of this somewhat along the lines of the hierarchy
> 
> ```
> 
> that Bill proposed. The lower levels are reasonably well  
> understood but the manner and extent of involvement of the  
> higher levels is currently in quite a state of flux, at the  
> detail level.
> 
> ```
> It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking about is
> 
> ```
> 
> indeed important. It takes the conversation to a deeper level  
> than just understanding the 40,000 meter view and might give  
> us a change to produce new understanding (and means of  
> involving others outside PCT) in areas that do not involve  
> conflict.
> 
> ```
> When you think about it, conflict is really just a specific
> 
> ```
> 
> case of what I think Rick was proposing. Conflict resolution  
> is actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT. I think  
> the major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful  
> results while producing protocols for doing such work. CSG  
> benefited from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and  
> others reported back and discussed their work here. I think  
> it is important to realize it is not just that these people  
> validated the concept of PCT but that they brought new  
> understanding to the field.
> 
> bill
> 
> > ```
> > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > to be consistent with the first part of that paragraph:
> > 
> > > ```
> > > [RM] In a recent post you expressed
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > dismay that I could think that two or more people could  
> > > perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a  
> > > fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive  
> > > things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is  
> > > essential to doing PCT science.
> > 
> > ```
> > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that people
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > controlling the same environmental variable was intended to  
> > mean the same as people perceiving the same environmental  
> > variable in the same way.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > > ```
> > > I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > details that I take to be about the the exact parameter  
> > > values is also correct but not relevant to Rick’s general  
> > > statement.
> 
> > > ```
> > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > of commonality would, of course be an important part of  
> > > deeper analysis of the idea.
> 
> > > bill
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin
> 
> ```
> 
> Taylor ( via  
> csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> > > 
> > > …  
> > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental  
> > > assumption of PCT that people can perceive  
> > > things in the same way; indeed, I think this  
> > > assumption is essential to doing PCT science.Â
> 
> > ```
> > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > study you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one  
> > person’s (in deed, one control loop in one person’s)  
> > results with how someone else perceives the “changing  
> > distance between cursor and target”. There are no  
> > scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what  
> > might be the case if different subjects perceived the  
> > on-screen distance identically or if they all perceived it  
> > differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by the  
> > experiment, let alone a grand claim that in this  
> > experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > the case. In the basic tracking task, I believe  
> > > that you (and virtually everyone else) would  
> > > agree that the distance between the cursor and  
> > > target is the perception that is being  
> > > controlled. So it is seems that it is possible,  
> > > in at least this case, for people to have the  
> > > same perception – in this case a perception of  
> > > the changing distance between cursor and target.  
> > > Does this convince you that it is, indeed,  
> > > possible for many different people to perceive  
> > > something in the same way? Â
> 
> > ```
> > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > perception, it would be very strange if you could prove  
> > that everyone with their different screen sizes and  
> > contrast levels, and with different visual acuities and  
> > visual experiences had the same non-linearities in their  
> > perceptions of the relative locations of target and cursor  
> > in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT theory  
> > tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > 
> > ```
> > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling  
> > pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill people  
> > fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how such  
> > matchsticks could support actual people, who he apparently  
> > perceived s person-sized.
> > 
> > ```
> > Since how we determine whether people see "the same thing"
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers  
> > for centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be  
> > solved by referring to the similar (but never identical)  
> > results different people produce when they act a subjects  
> > in a tracking study. As Powers said, all you can  
> > experiment with is what the experimenter perceives to be  
> > in the subject’s environment, not what the subject  
> > perceives.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > BestÂ
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Rick
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > If I would give
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > my full power into cooperation then  
> > > > I’ll have to refresh my  
> > > > physiological and neurophysiological  
> > > > knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I'm momentally
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > accupied in changing of scholl  
> > > > systems. Beside cooperating in  
> > > > changing our national school system,  
> > > > I also made contact with UN (United  
> > > > Nations). I’m  
> > > > trying to present them general  
> > > > school system in which PCT has  
> > > > significant role. It is  
> > > > meant for all national school  
> > > > systems on the World. It’s UN that  
> > > > we are talking about. It demands a  
> > > > lot of work. I thought of requesting  
> > > > help of some CSGnet members. I  
> > > > thought even on you Rick. On some  
> > > > fields you could be of great help in  
> > > > advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > But as the
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > situation on CSGnet became  
> > > > “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it  
> > > > on my own.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So Rick I'll take
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > a deep breath (you act like a good  
> > > > psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find  
> > > > a solution. But I also expect that  
> > > > from you, Powers ladies and other  
> > > > interested.   Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best,
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Boris
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > Â RM : But I think  
> > > > > > what made it  
> > > > > > particularly easy for  
> > > > > > me to find  
> > > > > > common ground with  
> > > > > > your dad is that I  
> > > > > > didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > > with an existing  
> > > > > > agenda.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course. How could  
> > > > > > you come to PCT with  
> > > > > > an existing agenda if  
> > > > > > you understand RCT  
> > > > > > (Ricks Control  
> > > > > > Theory).
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > I didn't
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > try to see  
> > > > > > how PCT fit in with an  
> > > > > > existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework in which I  
> > > > > > had a strong  
> > > > > > intellectual or  
> > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > investment.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That’s self-evident.  
> > > > > > Existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework of PCT is  
> > > > > > LCS III diagram and  
> > > > > > definitions of control  
> > > > > > loop in B:CP Glossary.  
> > > > > > In this theoretical  
> > > > > > framework you had no  
> > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > investment, because  
> > > > > > you don’t even  
> > > > > > recognize it as PCT  
> > > > > > basics and you don’t  
> > > > > > want to accept it. But  
> > > > > > its possible that you  
> > > > > > had strong  
> > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > investment in RCT  
> > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > which has no common  
> > > > > > ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > PCT Definitions of 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. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Nor did I try to find  
> > > > > > commonality between  
> > > > > > PCT and other existing  
> > > > > > theories.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course you didn’t.  
> > > > > > There is no  
> > > > > > commonality between  
> > > > > > PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : Keeping of some  
> > > > > > »aspect of outer  
> > > > > > environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state,  
> > > > > > protected (defended)  
> > > > > > from disturbances.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION :  
> > > > > > controlled effects  
> > > > > > (control of  
> > > > > > behavior) to outer  
> > > > > > environment so to  
> > > > > > keep some  
> > > > > > »controlled  
> > > > > > variable« in  
> > > > > > reference state
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > »Control« of some  
> > > > > > »aspect of outer  
> > > > > > environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > INPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : produce  
> > > > > > »Controlled Perceptual  
> > > > > > Variable« or  
> > > > > > »Controlled  
> > > > > > Perception«, the  
> > > > > > perceptual correlate  
> > > > > > of »controlled q.i.«
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > COMPARATOR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : ???
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > ERROR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > SIGNAL : ???  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The only people with  
> > > > > > whom I now find myself  
> > > > > > on common ground  
> > > > > > regarding PCT are  
> > > > > > people who approach  
> > > > > > PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The people who  
> > > > > > approach “PCT” the way  
> > > > > > you are probably  
> > > > > > believing that  
> > > > > > “Behavior is control”  
> > > > > > which controls some  
> > > > > > “controlled variable”  
> > > > > > in external  
> > > > > > environment and  
> > > > > > produce some  
> > > > > > “Controlled Perceptual  
> > > > > > Variable” or CPV. And  
> > > > > > if I would guess who  
> > > > > > these people are it  
> > > > > > would probably be :  
> > > > > > Warren Mansel, Tim  
> > > > > > Carey, Bruce Nevin  
> > > > > > etc.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > … with a willingnness to abandon  
> > > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > > interest in finding  
> > > > > > commonality with any  
> > > > > > existing theories of  
> > > > > > behavior combined with  
> > > > > > an interest in doing  
> > > > > > the lab exercises  
> > > > > > (demos) and homework  
> > > > > > (models). It works  
> > > > > > like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So why you don’t  
> > > > > > abandon existing RCT  
> > > > > > theory of behaviour  
> > > > > > and do some real PCT  
> > > > > > with real life  
> > > > > > experiments like :  
> > > > > > sleeping, observing,  
> > > > > > walking, sun shining,  
> > > > > > sitting and thinking  
> > > > > > etc.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > "Perfection
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > is achieved  
> > > > not when you  
> > > > have nothing  
> > > > more to add,  
> > > > but when you
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > have nothing
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > left to take  
> > > > away.�
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > Â Â --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.�  
> > > Â  
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > Â Â Â --Antoine de  
> > > Saint-Exupery
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bleach](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bleach/32/51_2.png) [@bleach](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bleach)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/30 "2019-04-08T17:34:57Z")

</div>

Thank you Martin. I’m still not sold on using the CEV and RREV  
terms but they are understandable.

```
  I think that Bill's discussion and even your manner of

```

presentation is important when discussing PCT with 'outsiders.'Â  
Some biologists that have talked about closed loop negative  
feedback control might be quite comfortable with canonical  
description of PCT but others need to see it as an observer so an  
emphasis on the relationship between the observer and the  
subject’s view of what “might be under control” is, I think, very  
important.

```
  I rather go back to the clinical use of PCT where we have had

```

some outstanding people whose names I only sampled in my earlier  
post that had a thorough understanding of the ‘mechanical’ aspect  
of PCT and also understood the very important point that Bill  
brought up about the observer’s perceptions and their relationship  
to the subject’s actions.

```
  In introducing PCT to the uninitiated the general idea of what

```

PCT is, that is the closed loop negative feedback nature of  
control AND the perceptions of both the observer and the subject  
including their relationship is very important. It is so easy ‘in  
the real world’ for “PCT to fail” because a person does not  
recognize that assumptions they make about what actually is being  
controlled can be so wrong.

```
  Performing the TEST in real world situations is quite difficult

```

as we so often can not apply a disturbance and what we see as  
disturbances may either be irrelevant or just a sign of the  
quality of control. Most of the time we no ability to determine  
either the amount of force applied by the disturbance nor even the  
amount of force used by the subject (if any at all). However, the  
more people that are thinking about the problem the more likely we  
will see innovative ways to solve it.

bill

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> On 4/8/19 10:48 AM, Martin Taylor  
> ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.08.11.38]
> > 
> > ```
> > I agree with all of this. My original comment was only to Rick's
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > presenting as a logical proof what I thought should more properly  
> > be considered to be a guide toward a reasonable assumption.  
> > A quote from a Bill Powers message to CSGnet [Bill Powers  
> > (961224.1145 MST)] is relevant (emphasis mine): “.”  
> > I would amend this quote, but only slightly, to be consistent with  
> > my new understanding of the relationship between the controlled  
> > perceptual signal. the consciously perceived controlled property  
> > in its environmental context, which I have called the “CEV”  
> > (Corresponding Environmental Variable" and whatever in Real  
> > Reality (RR) a control action might influence that affects the  
> > controlled perception and its CEV consciously perceived correlate  
> > (the RREV). My amendment would replace every instance of CV to  
> > “RREV as the observer perceives it”. Otherwise, I think what Bill  
> > said so long ago is quite right, and important to keep in mind.  
> > What I think you are getting at is the result of evolution and  
> > reorganization. Controlling a variable by acting on RR won’t work  
> > very well unless the controlled variable corresponds well with  
> > something in RR that I called the RREV. Accordingly, when the  
> > observer perceives an observed environmental being controlled very  
> > well, the observer’s environmental variable must be pretty closely  
> > related to a true RREV in RR that produces a controlled perception  
> > in the controller. Evolution and reorganization collaborate in  
> > tending to bring perceptual functions on average into alignment  
> > with controllable aspects of RR.  
> > As Rick has often pointed out, this RREV may not behave as a  
> > unitary entity in the absence of perceptual control, but might  
> > instead be a function of other RR variables defined only by the  
> > controller’s perceptual function. For the observer to observe this  
> > control happening, the observer must have a perceptual function  
> > related to the perceptual function used by the controller. It  
> > doesn’t have to be the same, but the discrepancy cannot be too  
> > great, or the observer will see poor control when inputs to  
> > discrepant parts of their perceptual functions change. But one  
> > does have to remember that what we perceive and what we act on is  
> > only what is influenced by and sensed at our interface with Real  
> > Reality, which is always going to remain unknown to us.  
> > It is this ability to approximate other functions, both in  
> > non-living RR and in other people (who presumably exist in RR)  
> > that allows protocol interactions between people to work as well  
> > as they do, and allows demonstrations such as the coin game to  
> > show how an experimenter can control for producing a perceptual  
> > function that generates a perception that is probably similar to a  
> > perception in another. The General Protocol Grammar displays some  
> > of the techniques used hierarchically for this kind of perceptual  
> > approximation to another’s perception in social interactions such  
> > as conversation, collaboration, enquiry and teaching, or warfare  
> > and deceit.  
> > Martin  
> > On 2019/04/8 11:22 AM, Bill Leach (  
> > via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > ```
> > It just occurred to me that there is yet another way of
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > talking about what Rick was proposing. When a group of use  
> > watch a subject do the tracking test, we all conclude that the  
> > subject is controlling the relationship between the cursor and  
> > the target with a reference set for 'minimum separation. In a  
> > sense we all have the ‘same’ perception. Of course in each of  
> > us the neural signals will be different and we probably will  
> > have further perceptions about the quality of control being  
> > achieved.
> 
> > ```
> > However, for us to even talk about what is going on from a
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > PCT standpoint when observing a behavior, we must be able to  
> > talk in terms that are of a ‘higher level’ than exactly what  
> > is going on in detail in a particular control loop (or  
> > perceptual loop for that matter).
> 
> > ```
> > It is a case of moving from the minutia to generalizations. 
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > When we talk in terms of PCT about how a baseball fielder  
> > catches a ball this is what we are doing AND in the discussion  
> > we are absolutely relying on a degree of a match between our  
> > perceptions and the listeners perceptions.Â
> 
> > ```
> > We also know that our explanation is a generalization AND
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > that if we even could present a detailed discussion of exactly  
> > what is happening (which of course we can not) including all  
> > of the perceptual signals, reference signals for those  
> > perceptions, errors signals generated, and outputs our  
> > listeners would quickly tune out and wonder what was wrong  
> > with us!
> 
> > bill
> 
> _Remember that as far_ _ **as the observer is concerned** _\* ,  
> what is controlled is ONLY the CV. The idea that this CV is  
> represented by a perceptual signal inside the other system is  
> theoretical. We can observe CV, but not p. When we apply a  
> disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. The action that  
> opposes the effect of the disturbance acts on CV, not p. The  
> Test does not involve p at all. It involves only observables –  
> i.e., the observer’s perceptions. The observations have  
> priority; the model comes second, and its only reason for  
> existence is to explain the observations\*
> 
> ```
> On 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach (
> 
> ```
> 
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor
> 
> ```
> 
> (  
> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]
> > 
> > ```
> > I wouldn't be surprised, but "perceiving something in the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > same way" seems to me to be significantly difference from  
> > “controlling perceptions of the same environmental  
> > property”, and I thought that Rick was trying to make that  
> > distinction very clear. Maybe he wasn’t.  
> > On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill  
> > Leach ( via  
> > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)
> 
> > ```
> > Martin, I think you are missing Rick's point
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > completely.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > Â His statement that "...I believe that you (and
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance  
> > between the cursor and target is the perception that is  
> > being controlled." is absolutely correct.
> 
> ```
> [BL]Â Yes, I took that to mean that each person is
> 
> ```
> 
> controlling based upon the distance between the cursor and  
> the target to minimize that perception. Where I think I  
> (and maybe Rick) differ is that I did not interpret that to  
> mean that the perceptual signals were the same only that  
> whatever perception existed for an individual for the  
> control error that was perceived was minimized by that  
> individual. There will of course be a ‘whole host’ of other  
> perceptions such as how well they are accomplishing that  
> task that will most assuredly be radically different  
> depending upon skill, speed of the demo, computer responses  
> to input, etc.
> 
> ```
> It is this difference in my view of what I perceived Rick
> 
> ```
> 
> to be saying that allows me to conclude that you are both  
> right. In the strictest sense, they are not controlling  
> exactly the same perception but rather a large class of  
> perceptions that involve distance between cursor and  
> target. It is likely that if we could (and maybe some day  
> we will) measure and quantify all of these signals in a  
> human control loop set we would see that such a task, when  
> viewed at such a detail level, would be different for every  
> subject.
> 
> ```
> I think of this somewhat along the lines of the hierarchy
> 
> ```
> 
> that Bill proposed. The lower levels are reasonably well  
> understood but the manner and extent of involvement of the  
> higher levels is currently in quite a state of flux, at the  
> detail level.
> 
> ```
> It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking about is
> 
> ```
> 
> indeed important. It takes the conversation to a deeper  
> level than just understanding the 40,000 meter view and  
> might give us a change to produce new understanding (and  
> means of involving others outside PCT) in areas that do not  
> involve conflict.
> 
> ```
> When you think about it, conflict is really just a specific
> 
> ```
> 
> case of what I think Rick was proposing. Conflict  
> resolution is actually pretty well understood in terms of  
> PCT. I think the major reasons why is that clinicians  
> produced successful results while producing protocols for  
> doing such work. CSG benefited from that work because the  
> Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported back and discussed their  
> work here. I think it is important to realize it is not  
> just that these people validated the concept of PCT but that  
> they brought new understanding to the field.
> 
> bill
> 
> > ```
> > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > to be consistent with the first part of that paragraph:
> > 
> > > ```
> > > [RM] In a recent post you expressed
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > dismay that I could think that two or more people could  
> > > perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a  
> > > fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive  
> > > things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is  
> > > essential to doing PCT science.
> > 
> > ```
> > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > people controlling the same environmental variable was  
> > intended to mean the same as people perceiving the same  
> > environmental variable in the same way.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > > ```
> > > I suggest that you are also correct in that the
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > specific details that I take to be about the the exact  
> > > parameter values is also correct but not relevant to  
> > > Rick’s general statement.
> 
> > > ```
> > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > of commonality would, of course be an important part of  
> > > deeper analysis of the idea.
> 
> > > bill
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin
> 
> ```
> 
> Taylor ( via  
> csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> > > 
> > > …  
> > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental  
> > > assumption of PCT that people can perceive  
> > > things in the same way; indeed, I think this  
> > > assumption is essential to doing PCT science.Â
> 
> > ```
> > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > study you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one  
> > person’s (in deed, one control loop in one person’s)  
> > results with how someone else perceives the “changing  
> > distance between cursor and target”. There are no  
> > scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what  
> > might be the case if different subjects perceived the  
> > on-screen distance identically or if they all perceived  
> > it differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by the  
> > experiment, let alone a grand claim that in this  
> > experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > is the case. In the basic tracking task, I  
> > > believe that you (and virtually everyone else)  
> > > would agree that the distance between the  
> > > cursor and target is the perception that is  
> > > being controlled. So it is seems that it is  
> > > possible, in at least this case, for people to  
> > > have the same perception – in this case a  
> > > perception of the changing distance between  
> > > cursor and target. Does this convince you that  
> > > it is, indeed, possible for many different  
> > > people to perceive something in the same  
> > > way? Â
> 
> > ```
> > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > perception, it would be very strange if you could prove  
> > that everyone with their different screen sizes and  
> > contrast levels, and with different visual acuities and  
> > visual experiences had the same non-linearities in their  
> > perceptions of the relative locations of target and  
> > cursor in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT  
> > theory tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > 
> > ```
> > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling  
> > pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill  
> > people fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how  
> > such matchsticks could support actual people, who he  
> > apparently perceived s person-sized.
> > 
> > ```
> > Since how we determine whether people see "the same
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > thing" similarly is a problem that has bedevilled  
> > philosophers for centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem  
> > that can be solved by referring to the similar (but  
> > never identical) results different people produce when  
> > they act a subjects in a tracking study. As Powers said,  
> > all you can experiment with is what the experimenter  
> > perceives to be in the subject’s environment, not what  
> > the subject perceives.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > BestÂ
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Rick
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > If I would give
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > my full power into cooperation  
> > > > then I’ll have to refresh my  
> > > > physiological and  
> > > > neurophysiological knowledge. That  
> > > > needs time.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I'm momentally
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > accupied in changing of scholl  
> > > > systems. Beside cooperating in  
> > > > changing our national school  
> > > > system, I also made contact with  
> > > > UN (United Nations). I’m  
> > > > trying to present them general  
> > > > school system in which PCT has  
> > > > significant role. It is  
> > > > meant for all national school  
> > > > systems on the World. It’s UN that  
> > > > we are talking about. It demands a  
> > > > lot of work. I thought of  
> > > > requesting help of some CSGnet  
> > > > members. I thought even on you  
> > > > Rick. On some fields you could be  
> > > > of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > But as the
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > situation on CSGnet became  
> > > > “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it  
> > > > on my own.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > So Rick I'll
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > take a deep breath (you act like a  
> > > > good psychoterapist) and I’ll try  
> > > > to find a solution. But I also  
> > > > expect that from you, Powers  
> > > > ladies and other interested.   Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best,
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Boris
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Best
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > Â RM : But I think  
> > > > > > what made it  
> > > > > > particularly easy  
> > > > > > for me to find  
> > > > > > common ground with  
> > > > > > your dad is that I  
> > > > > > didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > > with an existing  
> > > > > > agenda.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course. How could  
> > > > > > you come to PCT with  
> > > > > > an existing agenda  
> > > > > > if you understand  
> > > > > > RCT (Ricks Control  
> > > > > > Theory).
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : I  
> > > > > > didn’t try to see  
> > > > > > how PCT fit in with  
> > > > > > an existing  
> > > > > > theoretical  
> > > > > > framework in which I  
> > > > > > had a strong  
> > > > > > intellectual or  
> > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > investment.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That’s self-evident.  
> > > > > > Existing theoretical  
> > > > > > framework of PCT is  
> > > > > > LCS III diagram and  
> > > > > > definitions of  
> > > > > > control loop in B:CP  
> > > > > > Glossary. In this  
> > > > > > theoretical  
> > > > > > framework you had no  
> > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > investment, because  
> > > > > > you don’t even  
> > > > > > recognize it as PCT  
> > > > > > basics and you don’t  
> > > > > > want to accept it.  
> > > > > > But its possible  
> > > > > > that you had strong  
> > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > investment in RCT  
> > > > > > (Ricks Control  
> > > > > > Theory) which has no  
> > > > > > common ground with  
> > > > > > PCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > PCT Definitions of 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  
> > > > > > Â 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. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Nor did I try to find  
> > > > > > commonality between  
> > > > > > PCT and other  
> > > > > > existing theories.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Of course you  
> > > > > > didn’t. There is no  
> > > > > > commonality between  
> > > > > > PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RCT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (Ricks Control  
> > > > > > Theory) definition  
> > > > > > of control loop
> 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : Keeping of some  
> > > > > > »aspect of outer  
> > > > > > environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state,  
> > > > > > protected (defended)  
> > > > > > from disturbances.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION :  
> > > > > > controlled effects  
> > > > > > (control of  
> > > > > > behavior) to outer  
> > > > > > environment so to  
> > > > > > keep some  
> > > > > > »controlled  
> > > > > > variable« in  
> > > > > > reference state
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > »Control« of some  
> > > > > > »aspect of outer  
> > > > > > environment« in  
> > > > > > reference state.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > INPUT
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FUNCTION : produce  
> > > > > > »Controlled  
> > > > > > Perceptual Variable«  
> > > > > > or »Controlled  
> > > > > > Perception«, the  
> > > > > > perceptual correlate  
> > > > > > of »controlled q.i.«
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > COMPARATOR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > : ???
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > ERROR
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > SIGNAL : ???  
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The only people with  
> > > > > > whom I now find  
> > > > > > myself on common  
> > > > > > ground regarding PCT  
> > > > > > are people who  
> > > > > > approach PCT the way  
> > > > > > I do
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The people who  
> > > > > > approach “PCT” the  
> > > > > > way you are probably  
> > > > > > believing that  
> > > > > > “Behavior is  
> > > > > > control” which  
> > > > > > controls some  
> > > > > > “controlled  
> > > > > > variable” in  
> > > > > > external environment  
> > > > > > and produce some  
> > > > > > “Controlled  
> > > > > > Perceptual Variable”  
> > > > > > or CPV. And if I  
> > > > > > would guess who  
> > > > > > these people are it  
> > > > > > would probably be :  
> > > > > > Warren Mansel, Tim  
> > > > > > Carey, Bruce Nevin  
> > > > > > etc.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > … with a willingness to abandon  
> > > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > > interest in finding  
> > > > > > commonality with any  
> > > > > > existing theories of  
> > > > > > behavior combined  
> > > > > > with an interest in  
> > > > > > doing the lab  
> > > > > > exercises (demos)  
> > > > > > and homework  
> > > > > > (models). It works  
> > > > > > like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So why you don’t  
> > > > > > abandon existing RCT  
> > > > > > theory of behaviour  
> > > > > > and do some real PCT  
> > > > > > with real life  
> > > > > > experiments like :  
> > > > > > sleeping, observing,  
> > > > > > walking, sun  
> > > > > > shining, sitting and  
> > > > > > thinking etc.
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > "Perfection
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > is achieved  
> > > > not when you  
> > > > have nothing  
> > > > more to add,  
> > > > but when you
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > have nothing
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > left to take  
> > > > away.�
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > Â Â --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.�  
> > > Â  
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > Â Â Â Â --Antoine de  
> > > Saint-Exupery
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 4:05am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/31 "2019-04-09T04:05:54Z")

</div>

[Rick Marken 2019-04-08\_21:05:34]

> [Martin Taylor 2019.04.08.11.38]
> 
> ```
> MT: ... My original comment was only to Rick's
> 
> ```
> 
> presenting as a logical proof what I thought should more properly be  
> considered to be a guide toward a reasonable assumption.

 RM: I was not presenting it as a logical proof; I was presenting it as an empirical fact. We can see in the tracking task that the distance between target and cursor is the variable that is being controlled. In this case we can see it with our own eyes and we can also see it in the fact that a model that controls that same perception (target position - cursor position) behaves exactly like the person doing the tracking task.Â

> ```
> MT: A quote from a Bill Powers message to CSGnet [Bill Powers
> 
> ```
> 
> (961224.1145 MST)] is relevant (emphasis mine):
> 
> ```
> "*Remember that as far* ***as the observer is concerned**** ,
> 
> ```
> 
> what is controlled is ONLY the CV. The idea that this CV is  
> represented by a perceptual signal inside the other system is  
> theoretical. We can observe CV, but not p. When we apply a  
> disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. The action that opposes  
> the effect of the disturbance acts on CV, not p. The Test does not  
> involve p at all. It involves only observables – i.e., the  
> observer’s perceptions. The observations have priority; the model  
> comes second, and its only reason for existence is to explain the  
> observations\*."

RM: This is what I’ve been saying all along. The CV is the observation – he most important observation-- that is explained by the theory (PCT) as a perceptual signal, an analog of that CV, that is kept in a reference state by the actions of the negative feedback loop of which it is a component. The goal of the Test is for an observer to perceive the same variable – the CV - that is being controlled by the controller. So the ability to perceive what another organism is perceiving is built into the methodology for studying the behavior of living control systems. This is what is being done in the tracking task; the observer can perceive the same variable (same CV) as the person doing the tracking task.Â

RM: This “perceiving” need not be done using the observer’s perceptual abilities. In many case, the observer doesn’t have the perceptual capabilities of the system under study. For example, human observers can’t perceive with their own perceptual systems what the bat perceives when it navigates in the dark. But human observers can perceive what the bat perceives using ultra high frequency sound detectors.Â

> ```
> MT: I would amend this quote, but only slightly... My amendment would replace every instance of CV to "RREV [Real Reality Environmental Variable] as the
> 
> ```
> 
> observer perceives it". Otherwise, I think what Bill said so long  
> ago is quite right, and important to keep in mind.

RM: I think this concept is unnecessary and confusing. As Bill noted in the quote above, the CV is an observation; it is the observer’s observation of the variable that the controller is controlling. The CV is, thus, a perception in the observer that is presumed to correspond to the perception that the controller is controlling. The concept of a “real reality environmental variable” (RREV) is unnecessary because if there were a RREV that was being perceived differently by the observer and the controller, the observer would see that the controller is not controlling the variable that the observer is perceiving; and the observer would have to change the definition of the controlled variable a definiton of the CV was found that matched what that controller is controlling. So the Test would proceed to determining the controller’s CV(the observer’s perception that is equivalent to the perception the controller is controlling) in the same way as it would without the concept of a RREV. And the concept of an RREV is confusing (from a PCT perspective) because it is based on a model of perception that is quite different from the PCT model of perception. The concept of RREV implies a representational view of perception – perception represents, to some degree of accuracy, what is really “out there”. PCT is based on a constructivist view of perception – perception is a function (construction) based on what is really out there.Â

> ```
> MT: As Rick has often pointed out, this RREV may not behave as a unitary
> 
> ```
> 
> entity in the absence of perceptual control, but might instead be a  
> function of other RR variables defined only by the controller’s  
> perceptual function.

RM: Actually, what I have said is that there are no such thing as RREV’s; there are only CVs that are functions of what PCT assumes (on the basis of the models of physics and chemistry) are the variables of real reality (the variaables Bill symbolized with v’s in the control diagram in his Science paper of 1973, reprinted on p. 66 of LCS I).

RM: I think you can get a sense of how unnecessary the concept of an RREV is by trying to think of what might be the RREV in the compensatory tracking task.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> > ```
> > For the observer to observe this control
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > happening, the observer must have a perceptual function related to  
> > the perceptual function used by the controller. It doesn’t have to  
> > be the same, but the discrepancy cannot be too great, or the  
> > observer will see poor control when inputs to discrepant parts of  
> > their perceptual functions change. But one does have to remember  
> > that what we perceive and what we act on is only what is influenced  
> > by and sensed at our interface with Real Reality, which is always  
> > going to remain unknown to us.
> > 
> > ```
> > It is this ability to approximate other functions, both in
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > non-living RR and in other people (who presumably exist in RR) that  
> > allows protocol interactions between people to work as well as they  
> > do, and allows demonstrations such as the coin game to show how an  
> > experimenter can control for producing a perceptual function that  
> > generates a perception that is probably similar to a perception in  
> > another. The General Protocol Grammar displays some of the  
> > techniques used hierarchically for this kind of perceptual  
> > approximation to another’s perception in social interactions such as  
> > conversation, collaboration, enquiry and teaching, or warfare and  
> > deceit.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> 
> > > On 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) \> \> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) \> \> \> via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach > > > > (wrleach@cableone.net > > > > via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Martin, I think you are missing Rick's point completely.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > I wouldn't be surprised, but "perceiving something in the same
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > way" seems to me to be significantly difference from  
> > > > > “controlling perceptions of the same environmental property”,  
> > > > > and I thought that Rick was trying to make that distinction  
> > > > > very clear. Maybe he wasn’t.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Â His statement that "...I believe that you (and virtually
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > everyone else) would agree that the distance between the  
> > > > > > cursor and target is the perception that is being  
> > > > > > controlled." is absolutely correct.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > [BL]Â Yes, I took that to mean that each person is
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > controlling based upon the distance between the cursor and the  
> > > > target to minimize that perception. Where I think I (and  
> > > > maybe Rick) differ is that I did not interpret that to mean  
> > > > that the perceptual signals were the same only that whatever  
> > > > perception existed for an individual for the control error  
> > > > that was perceived was minimized by that individual. There  
> > > > will of course be a ‘whole host’ of other perceptions such as  
> > > > how well they are accomplishing that task that will most  
> > > > assuredly be radically different depending upon skill, speed  
> > > > of the demo, computer responses to input, etc.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > It is this difference in my view of what I perceived Rick to
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > be saying that allows me to conclude that you are both right.  
> > > > In the strictest sense, they are not controlling exactly the  
> > > > same perception but rather a large class of perceptions that  
> > > > involve distance between cursor and target. It is likely that  
> > > > if we could (and maybe some day we will) measure and quantify  
> > > > all of these signals in a human control loop set we would see  
> > > > that such a task, when viewed at such a detail level, would be  
> > > > different for every subject.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I think of this somewhat along the lines of the hierarchy
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > that Bill proposed. The lower levels are reasonably well  
> > > > understood but the manner and extent of involvement of the  
> > > > higher levels is currently in quite a state of flux, at the  
> > > > detail level.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking about is
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > indeed important. It takes the conversation to a deeper level  
> > > > than just understanding the 40,000 meter view and might give  
> > > > us a change to produce new understanding (and means of  
> > > > involving others outside PCT) in areas that do not involve  
> > > > conflict.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > When you think about it, conflict is really just a specific
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > case of what I think Rick was proposing. Conflict resolution  
> > > > is actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT. I think  
> > > > the major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful  
> > > > results while producing protocols for doing such work. CSG  
> > > > benefited from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and  
> > > > others reported back and discussed their work here. I think  
> > > > it is important to realize it is not just that these people  
> > > > validated the concept of PCT but that they brought new  
> > > > understanding to the field.
> 
> > > > bill
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > to be consistent with the first part of that paragraph:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > [RM] In a recent post you expressed
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > dismay that I could think that two or more people could  
> > > > > > perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a  
> > > > > > fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive  
> > > > > > things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is  
> > > > > > essential to doing PCT science.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that people
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > controlling the same environmental variable was intended to  
> > > > > mean the same as people perceiving the same environmental  
> > > > > variable in the same way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Martin
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > details that I take to be about the the exact parameter  
> > > > > > values is also correct but not relevant to Rick’s general  
> > > > > > statement.
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > of commonality would, of course be an important part of  
> > > > > > deeper analysis of the idea.
> 
> > > > > > bill
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin > > > > > Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via > > > > > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> 
> > > > > > > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > …  
> > > > > > > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental  
> > > > > > > > assumption of PCT that people can perceive  
> > > > > > > > things in the same way; indeed, I think this  
> > > > > > > > assumption is essential to doing PCT science.Â
> 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > study you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one  
> > > > > > > person’s (in deed, one control loop in one person’s)  
> > > > > > > results with how someone else perceives the “changing  
> > > > > > > distance between cursor and target”. There are no  
> > > > > > > scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what  
> > > > > > > might be the case if different subjects perceived the  
> > > > > > > on-screen distance identically or if they all perceived it  
> > > > > > > differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by the  
> > > > > > > experiment, let alone a grand claim that in this  
> > > > > > > experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > the case. In the basic tracking task, I believe  
> > > > > > > > that you (and virtually everyone else) would  
> > > > > > > > agree that the distance between the cursor and  
> > > > > > > > target is the perception that is being  
> > > > > > > > controlled. So it is seems that it is possible,  
> > > > > > > > in at least this case, for people to have the  
> > > > > > > > same perception – in this case a perception of  
> > > > > > > > the changing distance between cursor and target.  
> > > > > > > > Does this convince you that it is, indeed,  
> > > > > > > > possible for many different people to perceive  
> > > > > > > > something in the same way? Â
> 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > perception, it would be very strange if you could prove  
> > > > > > > that everyone with their different screen sizes and  
> > > > > > > contrast levels, and with different visual acuities and  
> > > > > > > visual experiences had the same non-linearities in their  
> > > > > > > perceptions of the relative locations of target and cursor  
> > > > > > > in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT theory  
> > > > > > > tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling  
> > > > > > > pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill people  
> > > > > > > fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how such  
> > > > > > > matchsticks could support actual people, who he apparently  
> > > > > > > perceived s person-sized.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > Since how we determine whether people see "the same thing"
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers  
> > > > > > > for centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be  
> > > > > > > solved by referring to the similar (but never identical)  
> > > > > > > results different people produce when they act a subjects  
> > > > > > > in a tracking study. As Powers said, all you can  
> > > > > > > experiment with is what the experimenter perceives to be  
> > > > > > > in the subject’s environment, not what the subject  
> > > > > > > perceives.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > BestÂ
> 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > If I would give
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > my full power into cooperation then  
> > > > > > > > > I’ll have to refresh my  
> > > > > > > > > physiological and neurophysiological  
> > > > > > > > > knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > I'm momentally
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > accupied in changing of scholl  
> > > > > > > > > systems. Beside cooperating in  
> > > > > > > > > changing our national school system,  
> > > > > > > > > I also made contact with UN (United  
> > > > > > > > > Nations). I’m  
> > > > > > > > > trying to present them general  
> > > > > > > > > school system in which PCT has  
> > > > > > > > > significant role. It is  
> > > > > > > > > meant for all national school  
> > > > > > > > > systems on the World. It’s UN that  
> > > > > > > > > we are talking about. It demands a  
> > > > > > > > > lot of work. I thought of requesting  
> > > > > > > > > help of some CSGnet members. I  
> > > > > > > > > thought even on you Rick. On some  
> > > > > > > > > fields you could be of great help in  
> > > > > > > > > advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > But as the
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > situation on CSGnet became  
> > > > > > > > > “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it  
> > > > > > > > > on my own.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > So Rick I'll take
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > a deep breath (you act like a good  
> > > > > > > > > psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find  
> > > > > > > > > a solution. But I also expect that  
> > > > > > > > > from you, Powers ladies and other  
> > > > > > > > > interested.   Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Boris
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â RM : But I think  
> > > > > > > > > > > what made it  
> > > > > > > > > > > particularly easy for  
> > > > > > > > > > > me to find  
> > > > > > > > > > > common ground with  
> > > > > > > > > > > your dad is that I  
> > > > > > > > > > > didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > with an existing  
> > > > > > > > > > > agenda.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course. How could  
> > > > > > > > > > > you come to PCT with  
> > > > > > > > > > > an existing agenda if  
> > > > > > > > > > > you understand RCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > (Ricks Control  
> > > > > > > > > > > Theory).
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > try to see  
> > > > > > > > > > > how PCT fit in with an  
> > > > > > > > > > > existing theoretical  
> > > > > > > > > > > framework in which I  
> > > > > > > > > > > had a strong  
> > > > > > > > > > > intellectual or  
> > > > > > > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > > > > > > investment.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > That’s self-evident.  
> > > > > > > > > > > Existing theoretical  
> > > > > > > > > > > framework of PCT is  
> > > > > > > > > > > LCS III diagram and  
> > > > > > > > > > > definitions of control  
> > > > > > > > > > > loop in B:CP Glossary.  
> > > > > > > > > > > In this theoretical  
> > > > > > > > > > > framework you had no  
> > > > > > > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > > > > > > investment, because  
> > > > > > > > > > > you don’t even  
> > > > > > > > > > > recognize it as PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > basics and you don’t  
> > > > > > > > > > > want to accept it. But  
> > > > > > > > > > > its possible that you  
> > > > > > > > > > > had strong  
> > > > > > > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > > > > > > investment in RCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > > > > > > which has no common  
> > > > > > > > > > > ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT Definitions of 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. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Nor did I try to find  
> > > > > > > > > > > commonality between  
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT and other existing  
> > > > > > > > > > > theories.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course you didn’t.  
> > > > > > > > > > > There is no  
> > > > > > > > > > > commonality between  
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RCT
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > (Ricks Control Theory)  
> > > > > > > > > > > definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : Keeping of some  
> > > > > > > > > > > »aspect of outer  
> > > > > > > > > > > environment« in  
> > > > > > > > > > > reference state,  
> > > > > > > > > > > protected (defended)  
> > > > > > > > > > > from disturbances.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FUNCTION :  
> > > > > > > > > > > controlled effects  
> > > > > > > > > > > (control of  
> > > > > > > > > > > behavior) to outer  
> > > > > > > > > > > environment so to  
> > > > > > > > > > > keep some  
> > > > > > > > > > > »controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > variable« in  
> > > > > > > > > > > reference state
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > »Control« of some  
> > > > > > > > > > > »aspect of outer  
> > > > > > > > > > > environment« in  
> > > > > > > > > > > reference state.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > INPUT
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FUNCTION : produce  
> > > > > > > > > > > »Controlled Perceptual  
> > > > > > > > > > > Variable« or  
> > > > > > > > > > > »Controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > Perception«, the  
> > > > > > > > > > > perceptual correlate  
> > > > > > > > > > > of »controlled q.i.«
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > COMPARATOR
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : ???
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > ERROR
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > SIGNAL : ???  
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The only people with  
> > > > > > > > > > > whom I now find myself  
> > > > > > > > > > > on common ground  
> > > > > > > > > > > regarding PCT are  
> > > > > > > > > > > people who approach  
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The people who  
> > > > > > > > > > > approach “PCT” the way  
> > > > > > > > > > > you are probably  
> > > > > > > > > > > believing that  
> > > > > > > > > > > “Behavior is control”  
> > > > > > > > > > > which controls some  
> > > > > > > > > > > “controlled variable”  
> > > > > > > > > > > in external  
> > > > > > > > > > > environment and  
> > > > > > > > > > > produce some  
> > > > > > > > > > > “Controlled Perceptual  
> > > > > > > > > > > Variable” or CPV. And  
> > > > > > > > > > > if I would guess who  
> > > > > > > > > > > these people are it  
> > > > > > > > > > > would probably be :  
> > > > > > > > > > > Warren Mansel, Tim  
> > > > > > > > > > > Carey, Bruce Nevin  
> > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > … with a willingnness to abandon  
> > > > > > > > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > > > > > > > interest in finding  
> > > > > > > > > > > commonality with any  
> > > > > > > > > > > existing theories of  
> > > > > > > > > > > behavior combined with  
> > > > > > > > > > > an interest in doing  
> > > > > > > > > > > the lab exercises  
> > > > > > > > > > > (demos) and homework  
> > > > > > > > > > > (models). It works  
> > > > > > > > > > > like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > So why you don’t  
> > > > > > > > > > > abandon existing RCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > theory of behaviour  
> > > > > > > > > > > and do some real PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > with real life  
> > > > > > > > > > > experiments like :  
> > > > > > > > > > > sleeping, observing,  
> > > > > > > > > > > walking, sun shining,  
> > > > > > > > > > > sitting and thinking  
> > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > –
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > "Perfection
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > is achieved  
> > > > > > > > > not when you  
> > > > > > > > > have nothing  
> > > > > > > > > more to add,  
> > > > > > > > > but when you
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > have nothing
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > left to take  
> > > > > > > > > away.�
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > > > > > > Â Â --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.�  
> > > > > > > > Â  
> > > > > > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > > > > > Â Â Â --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.�  
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 4:28am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/32 "2019-04-09T04:28:22Z")

</div>

[Rick Marken 2019-04-08\_21:27:55]

RM: Sorry, by leaving out a word I made a difficult paragraph even more difficult than it needed to be. Here’s a better version.Â

Â

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> Richard S. MarkenÂ
> 
> "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you  
> have nothing left to take away.�  
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/EetuP)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 6:44am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/33 "2019-04-09T06:44:48Z")

</div>

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-04-09\_05:34:30 UTC]

Hmm, just a thought: The control (any control of perception, except temporarily in imagination) is constrained by “Real Reality� (RR). Powers says in the quotation: “\* When  
we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p.�\* This applies also to observer: she has a perception p of the CV. When she applies a disturbance (because of TCV), she applies it to CV not  
to her p. Thus that which is called here CV is outside of both the controller and the observer. Where is it then? I think it is in RR. What the observer infers and claims to be controlled is thus the object of her own perception, something in RR which she  
assumes (because of the empirical findings) to be also the object of the perception of the controller. What are those objects of perceptions in RR? We cannot know (at the moment, at least), we have only perceptions of them which means that we know something  
about their effects on us and we also know something about our own possibilities to affect them by our output. The better we know this the better we can control our perceptions of those objects. Based on this knowledge we could say generally that those objects  
must be some kind of complex variables because they seem to vary in time and place and we can perceive their effects as combinations of functions of some simpler variables.

Thus, I think that RREV (or simply just “object of perception�) is a useful and necessary concept because without it one must say something like this: “The controller is controlling  
the same perception which the observer hasâ€?, which literally means that there is one perception which is common to and shared between controller and observer. Yet we know that those two subjects certainly have both their own perceptions – they have their own  
percceptual signals and those signals are not necessary similar. If the bat perceives a fly using its ultra sounds and sensible ears it must be very different perception compared the visual perception of the bat researcher who sees those ultrasounds from a  
measuring device (or the fly visually). What is common to the perceptions of the bat and the researcher is not the perceptions as such but the object of these perceptions, some RREV, even though this RREV is described in the research report by using the perceptions  
of the researcher (and her assumptions of the possible perceptions of the readers).

Eetu

- Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> [Rick Marken 2019-04-08\_21:05:34]
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.08.11.38]
> > 
> > MT: … My original comment was only to Rick’s presenting as a logical proof what I thought should more properly be considered to be a guide toward a reasonable assumption.
> 
> RM: I was not presenting it as a logical proof; I was presenting it as an empirical fact. We can see in the tracking task that the distance between target and cursor is the variable that is being controlled.  
> In this case we can see it with our own eyes and we can also see it in the fact that a model that controls that same perception (target position - cursor position) behaves exactly like the person doing the tracking task.
> 
> > MT: A quote from a Bill Powers message to CSGnet [Bill Powers (961224.1145 MST)] is relevant (emphasis mine):  
> > “_Remember that as far **as the observer is concerned** , what is controlled is ONLY the CV. The idea that this CV is represented by a perceptual signal inside the other system is theoretical. We can observe CV, but not p. When we apply a disturbance, we  
> > apply it to CV, not to p. The action that opposes the effect of the disturbance acts on CV, not p. The Test does not involve p at all. It involves only observables – i.e., the observer’s perceptions. The observations have priority; the model comes second,  
> > and its only reason for existence is to explain the observations_.”
> 
> RM: This is what I’ve been saying all along. The CV is the observation – he most important observation-- that is explained by the theory (PCT) as a perceptual signal, an analog of that CV, that is kept in a  
> reference state by the actions of the negative feedback loop of which it is a component. The goal of the Test is for an observer to perceive the same variable – the CV - that is being controlled by the controller. So the ability to perceive what another  
> organism is perceiving is built into the methodology for studying the behavior of living control systems. This is what is being done in the tracking task; the observer can perceive the same variable (same CV) as the person doing the tracking task.
> 
> RM: This “perceiving” need not be done using the observer’s perceptual abilities. In many case, the observer doesn’t have the perceptual capabilities of the system under study. For example, human observers can’t  
> perceive with their own perceptual systems what the bat perceives when it navigates in the dark. But human observers can perceive what the bat perceives using ultra high frequency sound detectors.
> 
> > MT: I would amend this quote, but only slightly… My amendment would replace every instance of CV to “RREV [Real Reality Environmental Variable] as the observer perceives it”. Otherwise, I think what Bill said so long ago is quite right, and important to keep  
> > in mind.
> 
> RM: I think this concept is unnecessary and confusing. As Bill noted in the quote above, the CV is an observation; it is the observer’s observation of the variable that the controller is controlling. The CV is,  
> thus, a perception in the observer that is presumed to correspond to the perception that the controller is controlling. The concept of a “real reality environmental variable” (RREV) is unnecessary because if there were a RREV that was being perceived differently  
> by the observer and the controller, the observer would see that the controller is not controlling the variable that the observer is perceiving; and the observer would have to change the definition of the controlled variable a definiton of the CV was found  
> that matched what that controller is controlling. So the Test would proceed to determining the controller’s CV(the observer’s perception that is equivalent to the perception the controller is controlling) in the same way as it would without the concept of  
> a RREV. And the concept of an RREV is confusing (from a PCT perspective) because it is based on a model of perception that is quite different from the PCT model of perception. The concept of RREV implies a representational view of perception – perception  
> represents, to some degree of accuracy, what is really “out there”. PCT is based on a constructivist view of perception – perception is a function (construction) based on what is really out there.
> 
> > MT: As Rick has often pointed out, this RREV may not behave as a unitary entity in the absence of perceptual control, but might instead be a function of other RR variables defined only by the controller’s perceptual  
> > function.
> 
> RM: Actually, what I have said is that there are no such thing as RREV’s; there are only CVs that are functions of what PCT assumes (on the basis of the models of physics and chemistry) are the variables of real  
> reality (the variaables Bill symbolized with v’s in the control diagram in his Science paper of 1973, reprinted on p. 66 of LCS I).
> 
> RM: I think you can get a sense of how unnecessary the concept of an RREV is by trying to think of what might be the RREV in the compensatory tracking task.
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> > For the observer to observe this control happening, the observer must have a perceptual function related to the perceptual function used by the controller. It doesn’t have to be the same, but the discrepancy cannot  
> > be too great, or the observer will see poor control when inputs to discrepant parts of their perceptual functions change. But one does have to remember that what we perceive and what we act on is only what is influenced by and sensed at our interface with  
> > Real Reality, which is always going to remain unknown to us.
> > 
> > It is this ability to approximate other functions, both in non-living RR and in other people (who presumably exist in RR) that allows protocol interactions between people to work as well as they do, and allows demonstrations such as the coin game to show how  
> > an experimenter can control for producing a perceptual function that generates a perception that is probably similar to a perception in another. The General Protocol Grammar displays some of the techniques used hierarchically for this kind of perceptual approximation  
> > to another’s perception in social interactions such as conversation, collaboration, enquiry and teaching, or warfare and deceit.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> > > On 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]
> 
> > > > > On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely.
> 
> > > > > I wouldn’t be surprised, but “perceiving something in the same way” seems to me to be significantly difference from “controlling perceptions of the same environmental property”, and I thought that Rick was trying to make that distinction very clear. Maybe he  
> > > > > wasn’t.
> 
> > > > > > His statement that “…I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled.” is absolutely correct.
> 
> > > > [BL] Yes, I took that to mean that each person is controlling based upon the distance between the cursor and the target to minimize that perception. Where I think I (and maybe Rick) differ is that I did not interpret that to  
> > > > mean that the perceptual signals were the same only that whatever perception existed for an individual for the control error that was perceived was minimized by that individual. There will of course be a ‘whole host’ of other perceptions such as how well  
> > > > they are accomplishing that task that will most assuredly be radically different depending upon skill, speed of the demo, computer responses to input, etc.
> 
> > > > It is this difference in my view of what I perceived Rick to be saying that allows me to conclude that you are both right. In the strictest sense, they are not controlling exactly the same perception but rather a large class of  
> > > > perceptions that involve distance between cursor and target. It is likely that if we could (and maybe some day we will) measure and quantify all of these signals in a human control loop set we would see that such a task, when viewed at such a detail level,  
> > > > would be different for every subject.
> 
> > > > I think of this somewhat along the lines of the hierarchy that Bill proposed. The lower levels are reasonably well understood but the manner and extent of involvement of the higher levels is currently in quite a state of flux,  
> > > > at the detail level.
> 
> > > > It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking about is indeed important. It takes the conversation to a deeper level than just understanding the 40,000 meter view and might give us a change to produce new understanding (and  
> > > > means of involving others outside PCT) in areas that do not involve conflict.
> 
> > > > When you think about it, conflict is really just a specific case of what I think Rick was proposing. Conflict resolution is actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT. I think the major reasons why is that clinicians produced  
> > > > successful results while producing protocols for doing such work. CSG benefited from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported back and discussed their work here. I think it is important to realize it is not just that these people validated  
> > > > the concept of PCT but that they brought new understanding to the field.
> 
> > > > bill
> 
> > > > > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not to be consistent with the first part of that paragraph:
> 
> > > > > > [RM] In a recent post you expressed dismay that I could think that two or more people could perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things  
> > > > > > in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> > > > > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that people controlling the same environmental variable was intended to mean the same as people perceiving the same environmental variable in the same way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Martin
> 
> > > > > > I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific details that I take to be about the the exact parameter values is also correct but not relevant to Rick’s general statement.
> 
> > > > > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature of commonality would, of course be an important part of deeper analysis of the idea.
> 
> > > > > > bill
> 
> > > > > > On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> 
> > > > > > > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> 
> > > > > > > > …
> 
> > > > > > > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> > > > > > > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s (in deed, one control loop in one person’s) results with how someone else perceives the “changing distance between cursor and target”. There  
> > > > > > > are no scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what might be the case if different subjects perceived the on-screen distance identically or if they all perceived it differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by the experiment, let alone a grand  
> > > > > > > claim that in this experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> 
> > > > > > > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the case. In the basic tracking task, I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception  
> > > > > > > > that is being controlled. So it is seems that it is possible, in at least this case, for people to have the same perception – in this case a perception of the changing distance between cursor and target. Does this convince you that it is, indeed, possible  
> > > > > > > > for many different people to perceive something in the same way?
> 
> > > > > > > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual perception, it would be very strange if you could prove that everyone with their different screen sizes and contrast levels, and with different visual acuities and visual experiences had the same non-linearities  
> > > > > > > in their perceptions of the relative locations of target and cursor in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT theory tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill people fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how such matchsticks could support actual  
> > > > > > > people, who he apparently perceived s person-sized.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Since how we determine whether people see “the same thing” similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be solved by referring to the similar (but never identical) results different people produce  
> > > > > > > when they act a subjects in a tracking study. As Powers said, all you can experiment with is what the experimenter perceives to be in the subject’s environment, not what the subject perceives.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Martin
> 
> > > > > > > > Best
> 
> > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > > > If I would give my full power into cooperation then I’ll have to refresh my physiological and neurophysiological knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > > > > > > > > I’m momentally accupied in changing of scholl systems. Beside cooperating in changing our national school system, I also made contact with UN (United Nations).  
> > > > > > > > > I’m trying to present them general school system in which PCT has significant role. It is meant for all national school systems on the World. It’s UN that we are talking about. It demands a lot of work. I thought of requesting  
> > > > > > > > > help of some CSGnet members. I thought even on you Rick. On some fields you could be of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > But as the situation on CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it on my own.
> 
> > > > > > > > > So Rick I’ll take a deep breath (you act like a good psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also expect that from you, Powers ladies and other interested.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> 
> > > > > > > > > Boris
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best
> 
> > > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for me to find  
> > > > > > > > > > > common ground with your dad is that I didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : Of course. How could you come to PCT with an existing agenda if you understand RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : I didn’t try to see  
> > > > > > > > > > > how PCT fit in with an existing theoretical framework in which I had a strong intellectual or professional investment.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : That’s self-evident. Existing theoretical framework of PCT is LCS III diagram and definitions of control loop in B:CP Glossary. In this theoretical framework you had no professional  
> > > > > > > > > > > investment, because you don’t even recognize it as PCT basics and you don’t want to accept it. But its possible that you had strong professional investment in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) which has no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT Definitions of 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 outpput 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.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : Nor did I try to find  
> > > > > > > > > > > commonality between PCT and other existing theories.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control  
> > > > > > > > > > > loop
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > COMPARATOR : ???
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ERROR SIGNAL : ???
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : The only people with whom I now find myself on common ground regarding PCT are people who approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : The people who approach “PCT” the way you are probably believing that “Behavior is control” which controls some “controlled variable” in external environment and produce some “Controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And if I would guess who these people are it would probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : … with a willingness to abandon  
> > > > > > > > > > > one’s attachment to or  
> > > > > > > > > > > interest in finding commonality with any existing theories of behavior combined with an interest in doing the lab exercises (demos) and homework (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : So why you don’t abandon existing RCT theory of behaviour and do some real PCT with real life experiments like : sleeping, observing, walking, sun shining, sitting and thinking  
> > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > –
> 
> > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ```
> 
> –
> 
> 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
> 
> ```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 12:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/34 "2019-04-09T12:46:25Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2019.04.09.08.21]

![kndcljpkohhimpno.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/5/56893745dd5a1ca29945e0ee490d0b67eafd9b4f.png)

> **···**
>
> In response to Rick’s message and its  
> correction I have only questions for him, answers to which might  
> help me understand them a little better.
> 
> ```
> 1. Do you believe there is a Real Reality, or do you take the
> 
> ```
> 
> solipsist position that what you perceive is the totality of what  
> is?
> 
> ```
> Assuming you believe there is a Real Reality ...
> 
> 1a. Do you believe that there is a Real Reality that can be known
> 
> ```
> 
> to us?
> 
> ```
> 1b. do you believe there is a Real Reality that can never be known
> 
> ```
> 
> to us?
> 
> ```
> Assuming the you believe there exists a Real Reality ...
> 
> 2. Where is the CV of which Powers writes?
> 
> 3. If the perception and the CEV are literally the same, at least
> 
> ```
> 
> one of the following must be true. Which one or more?
> 
> ```
> 3a. Solipsism is correct.
> 
> 3b. Real Reality is what we influence and what we sense.
> 
> 3c. Real Reality exists, is knowable, and the CV is in it, while
> 
> ```
> 
> the perception is in the perceiver, which means that the CV and  
> the perception are not the same.
> 
> ```
> 3d. Real Reality exists but is not knowable, and the CV behaves
> 
> ```
> 
> approximately or exactly as does some function of variables that  
> exist in Real Reality.
> 
> ```
> 3e. None of the above.
> 
> I guess that's enough for now, because I'm not looking for further
> 
> ```
> 
> obfuscation. A series of answers (these would be mine) of the  
> form:
> 
> ```
> 1. Real Reality.
> 
> 1a. No
> 
> 1b. Yes
> 
> 2. In the perception of an observer (at least, that's what Powers
> 
> ```
> 
> said).
> 
> ```
> 3b and 3d
> 
> A list like that would be sufficient, without further explanation.
> 
> ```
> 
> Given the set of answers, I might be able to decode today’s  
> messages and put them in context of some of your earlier  
> pronouncements that I thought I had begun to understand, including  
> that the Perception and the CEV are actually the same variable, a  
> variable that relates to, but is not something variable in Real  
> Reality. Then we would be able to move on.
> 
> ```
> Martin
> 
> ```
> 
> > [Rick Marken 2019-04-08\_21:27:55]
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > RM: Sorry, by leaving out a word I made a difficult
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > paragraph even more difficult than it needed to be. Here’s a  
> > better version.Â
> 
> > Â
> 
> > > ```
> > > RM:... The concept of a "real reality environmental
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > variable" (RREV) is unnecessary because if there were  
> > > a RREV that was being perceived differently by the  
> > > observer and the controller, the observer would see  
> > > that the controller is not controlling the variable  
> > > that the observer is perceiving; and the observer  
> > > would have to change the definition of the controlled  
> > > variable until a definition of the CV was found that  
> > > matched what that controller is controlling. So the  
> > > Test would proceed to determining the controller’s CV  
> > > (the observer’s perception that is equivalent to the  
> > > perception the controller is controlling) in the same  
> > > way as it would without the concept of a RREV. Â
> 
> > 
> 
> > –  
> > Richard S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > ```
> > "Perfection
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > is achieved not when you have  
> > nothing more to add, but when you  
> > have  
> > nothing left to take away.�  
> > Â Â Â Â  
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de  
> > Saint-Exupery
> 
> [Rick Marken 2019-04-08\_21:05:34]
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.08.11.38]
> > 
> > ```
> > MT: ... My original comment was only to Rick's
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > presenting as a logical proof what I thought should more  
> > properly be considered to be a guide toward a reasonable  
> > assumption.
> 
> ```
> Â RM: I was not presenting it as a logical proof; I was
> 
> ```
> 
> presenting it as an empirical fact. We can see in the  
> tracking task that the distance between target and cursor  
> is the variable that is being controlled. In this case we  
> can see it with our own eyes and we can also see it in the  
> fact that a model that controls that same perception  
> (target position - cursor position) behaves exactly like  
> the person doing the tracking task.Â
> 
> > ```
> > MT: A quote from a Bill Powers message to CSGnet [Bill
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > Powers (961224.1145 MST)] is relevant (emphasis mine):
> > 
> > ```
> > "*Remember that as far* *** as the observer is
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > concerned\*\*\*\* , what is controlled is ONLY the  
> > CV. The idea that this CV is represented by a  
> > perceptual signal inside the other system is  
> > theoretical. We can observe CV, but not p. When we  
> > apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. The  
> > action that opposes the effect of the disturbance acts  
> > on CV, not p. The Test does not involve p at all. It  
> > involves only observables – i.e., the observer’s  
> > perceptions. The observations have priority; the model  
> > comes second, and its only reason for existence is to  
> > explain the observations\*."
> 
> ```
> RM: This is what I've been saying all along. The CV is
> 
> ```
> 
> the observation – he most important observation-- that is  
> explained by the theory (PCT) as a perceptual signal, an  
> analog of that CV, that is kept in a reference state by  
> the actions of the negative feedback loop of which it is a  
> component. The goal of the Test is for an observer to  
> perceive the same variable – the CV - that is being  
> controlled by the controller. So the ability to perceive  
> what another organism is perceiving is built into the  
> methodology for studying the behavior of living control  
> systems. This is what is being done in the tracking task;  
> the observer can perceive the same variable (same CV) as  
> the person doing the tracking task.Â
> 
> ```
> RM: This "perceiving" need not be done using the
> 
> ```
> 
> observer’s perceptual abilities. In many case, the  
> observer doesn’t have the perceptual capabilities of the  
> system under study. For example, human observers can’t  
> perceive with their own perceptual systems what the bat  
> perceives when it navigates in the dark. But human  
> observers can perceive what the bat perceives using ultra  
> high frequency sound detectors.Â
> 
> > ```
> > MT: I would amend this quote, but only slightly... My
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > amendment would replace every instance of CV to “RREV  
> > [Real Reality Environmental Variable] as the observer  
> > perceives it”. Otherwise, I think what Bill said so long  
> > ago is quite right, and important to keep in mind.
> 
> ```
> RM: I think this concept is unnecessary and confusing.
> 
> ```
> 
> As Bill noted in the quote above, the CV is an  
> observation; it is the observer’s observation of the  
> variable that the controller is controlling. The CV is,  
> thus, a perception in the observer that is presumed to  
> correspond to the perception that the controller is  
> controlling. The concept of a “real reality environmental  
> variable” (RREV) is unnecessary because if there were a  
> RREV that was being perceived differently by the observer  
> and the controller, the observer would see that the  
> controller is not controlling the variable that the  
> observer is perceiving; and the observer would have to  
> change the definition of the controlled variable a  
> definiton of the CV was found that matched what that  
> controller is controlling. So the Test would proceed to  
> determining the controller’s CV(the observer’s perception  
> that is equivalent to the perception the controller is  
> controlling) in the same way as it would without the  
> concept of a RREV. And the concept of an RREV is confusing  
> (from a PCT perspective) because it is based on a model of  
> perception that is quite different from the PCT model of  
> perception. The concept of RREV implies a representational  
> view of perception – perception represents, to some  
> degree of accuracy, what is really “out there”. PCT is  
> based on a constructivist view of perception – perception  
> is a function (construction) based on what is really out  
> there.Â
> 
> > ```
> > MT: As Rick has often pointed out,
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > this RREV may not behave as a unitary entity in the  
> > absence of perceptual control, but might instead be a  
> > function of other RR variables defined only by the  
> > controller’s perceptual function.
> 
> ```
> RM: Actually, what I have said is that there are no
> 
> ```
> 
> such thing as RREV’s; there are only CVs that are  
> functions of what PCT assumes (on the basis of the models  
> of physics and chemistry) are the variables of real  
> reality (the variaables Bill symbolized with v’s in the  
> control diagram in his Science paper of 1973, reprinted on  
> p. 66 of LCS I).
> 
> ```
> RM: I think you can get a sense of how unnecessary the
> 
> ```
> 
> concept of an RREV is by trying to think of what might be  
> the RREV in the compensatory tracking task.Â
> 
> BestÂ
> 
> Rick
> 
> Â
> 
> > ```
> > For the observer to observe this
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > control happening, the observer must have a perceptual  
> > function related to the perceptual function used by the  
> > controller. It doesn’t have to be the same, but the  
> > discrepancy cannot be too great, or the observer will  
> > see poor control when inputs to discrepant parts of  
> > their perceptual functions change. But one does have to  
> > remember that what we perceive and what we act on is  
> > only what is influenced by and sensed at our interface  
> > with Real Reality, which is always going to remain  
> > unknown to us.
> > 
> > ```
> > It is this ability to approximate other functions, both
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > in non-living RR and in other people (who presumably  
> > exist in RR) that allows protocol interactions between  
> > people to work as well as they do, and allows  
> > demonstrations such as the coin game to show how an  
> > experimenter can control for producing a perceptual  
> > function that generates a perception that is probably  
> > similar to a perception in another. The General Protocol  
> > Grammar displays some of the techniques used  
> > hierarchically for this kind of perceptual approximation  
> > to another’s perception in social interactions such as  
> > conversation, collaboration, enquiry and teaching, or  
> > warfare and deceit.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```
> 
> > > ```
> > > On
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net)  
> > > via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > On
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via  
> > > > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > [Martin Taylor
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2019.04.07.23.01]
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > On
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via  
> > > > > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Martin, I think you are missing Rick's point
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > completely.
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > I wouldn't be surprised, but "perceiving something
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > in the same way" seems to me to be significantly  
> > > > > difference from “controlling perceptions of the  
> > > > > same environmental property”, and I thought that  
> > > > > Rick was trying to make that distinction very  
> > > > > clear. Maybe he wasn’t.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Â His statement that "...I believe that you
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (and virtually everyone else) would agree that  
> > > > > > the distance between the cursor and target is  
> > > > > > the perception that is being controlled." is  
> > > > > > absolutely correct.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > [BL]Â Yes, I took that to mean that each person
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > is controlling based upon the distance between the  
> > > > cursor and the target to minimize that  
> > > > perception. Where I think I (and maybe Rick)  
> > > > differ is that I did not interpret that to mean  
> > > > that the perceptual signals were the same only  
> > > > that whatever perception existed for an individual  
> > > > for the control error that was perceived was  
> > > > minimized by that individual. There will of  
> > > > course be a ‘whole host’ of other perceptions such  
> > > > as how well they are accomplishing that task that  
> > > > will most assuredly be radically different  
> > > > depending upon skill, speed of the demo, computer  
> > > > responses to input, etc.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > It is this difference in my view of what I
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > perceived Rick to be saying that allows me to  
> > > > conclude that you are both right. In the  
> > > > strictest sense, they are not controlling exactly  
> > > > the same perception but rather a large class of  
> > > > perceptions that involve distance between cursor  
> > > > and target. It is likely that if we could (and  
> > > > maybe some day we will) measure and quantify all  
> > > > of these signals in a human control loop set we  
> > > > would see that such a task, when viewed at such a  
> > > > detail level, would be different for every  
> > > > subject.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > I think of this somewhat along the lines of the
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > hierarchy that Bill proposed. The lower levels  
> > > > are reasonably well understood but the manner and  
> > > > extent of involvement of the higher levels is  
> > > > currently in quite a state of flux, at the detail  
> > > > level.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > about is indeed important. It takes the  
> > > > conversation to a deeper level than just  
> > > > understanding the 40,000 meter view and might give  
> > > > us a change to produce new understanding (and  
> > > > means of involving others outside PCT) in areas  
> > > > that do not involve conflict.
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > When you think about it, conflict is really just
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > a specific case of what I think Rick was  
> > > > proposing. Conflict resolution is actually pretty  
> > > > well understood in terms of PCT. I think the  
> > > > major reasons why is that clinicians produced  
> > > > successful results while producing protocols for  
> > > > doing such work. CSG benefited from that work  
> > > > because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported  
> > > > back and discussed their work here. I think it is  
> > > > important to realize it is not just that these  
> > > > people validated the concept of PCT but that they  
> > > > brought new understanding to the field.
> 
> > > > bill
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however,
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > seems not to be consistent with the first part of  
> > > > > that paragraph:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > [RM] In a recent post you
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > expressed dismay that I could think that two or  
> > > > > > more people could perceive something in the same  
> > > > > > way. I think that it is a fundamental  
> > > > > > assumption of PCT that people can perceive  
> > > > > > things in the same way; indeed, I think this  
> > > > > > assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > that people controlling the same environmental  
> > > > > variable was intended to mean the same as people  
> > > > > perceiving the same environmental variable in the  
> > > > > same way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Martin
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > I suggest that you are also correct in that
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > the specific details that I take to be about  
> > > > > > the the exact parameter values is also correct  
> > > > > > but not relevant to Rick’s general statement.
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > of nature of commonality would, of course be  
> > > > > > an important part of deeper analysis of the  
> > > > > > idea.
> 
> > > > > > bill
> 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > On
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via  
> > > > > > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > [Martin Taylor
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 2019.04.07.14.07]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > …  
> > > > > > > > RM: …I think that it is a  
> > > > > > > > fundamental assumption of PCT that  
> > > > > > > > people can perceive things in the  
> > > > > > > > same way; indeed, I think this  
> > > > > > > > assumption is essential to doing PCT  
> > > > > > > > science.Â
> 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > tracking study you cite as evidence, nothing  
> > > > > > > at all relates one person’s (in deed, one  
> > > > > > > control loop in one person’s) results with how  
> > > > > > > someone else perceives the “changing distance  
> > > > > > > between cursor and target”. There are no  
> > > > > > > scientific predictions based in PCT that  
> > > > > > > suggest what might be the case if different  
> > > > > > > subjects perceived the on-screen distance  
> > > > > > > identically or if they all perceived it  
> > > > > > > differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested  
> > > > > > > by the experiment, let alone a grand claim  
> > > > > > > that in this experiment, everyone perceives  
> > > > > > > the display the same.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > And I believe I can demonstrate
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > that this is the case. In the basic  
> > > > > > > > tracking task, I believe that you  
> > > > > > > > (and virtually everyone else) would  
> > > > > > > > agree that the distance between the  
> > > > > > > > cursor and target is the perception  
> > > > > > > > that is being controlled. So it is  
> > > > > > > > seems that it is possible, in at  
> > > > > > > > least this case, for people to have  
> > > > > > > > the same perception – in this case  
> > > > > > > > a perception of the changing  
> > > > > > > > distance between cursor and target.  
> > > > > > > > Does this convince you that it is,  
> > > > > > > > indeed, possible for many different  
> > > > > > > > people to perceive something in the  
> > > > > > > > same way? Â
> 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > visual perception, it would be very strange if  
> > > > > > > you could prove that everyone with their  
> > > > > > > different screen sizes and contrast levels,  
> > > > > > > and with different visual acuities and visual  
> > > > > > > experiences had the same non-linearities in  
> > > > > > > their perceptions of the relative locations of  
> > > > > > > target and cursor in even a simple tracking  
> > > > > > > experiment (which PCT theory tells us is  
> > > > > > > nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > a graduate student by Colin Turnbull’s report  
> > > > > > > of a forest-dwelling pygmy’s astonishment when  
> > > > > > > he first saw from a hill people fishing from  
> > > > > > > canoes. He couldn’t understand how such  
> > > > > > > matchsticks could support actual people, who  
> > > > > > > he apparently perceived s person-sized.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > Since how we determine whether people see "the
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > same thing" similarly is a problem that has  
> > > > > > > bedevilled philosophers for centuries, I don’t  
> > > > > > > think it’s a problem that can be solved by  
> > > > > > > referring to the similar (but never identical)  
> > > > > > > results different people produce when they act  
> > > > > > > a subjects in a tracking study. As Powers  
> > > > > > > said, all you can experiment with is what the  
> > > > > > > experimenter perceives to be in the subject’s  
> > > > > > > environment, not what the subject perceives.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > BestÂ
> 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > If I
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > would give my full power  
> > > > > > > > > into cooperation then  
> > > > > > > > > I’ll have to refresh my  
> > > > > > > > > physiological and  
> > > > > > > > > neurophysiological  
> > > > > > > > > knowledge. That needs  
> > > > > > > > > time.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > momentally accupied in  
> > > > > > > > > changing of scholl  
> > > > > > > > > systems. Beside  
> > > > > > > > > cooperating in changing  
> > > > > > > > > our national school  
> > > > > > > > > system, I also made  
> > > > > > > > > contact with UN (United  
> > > > > > > > > Nations). I’m  
> > > > > > > > > trying to present them  
> > > > > > > > > general school system  
> > > > > > > > > in which PCT has  
> > > > > > > > > significant role.  
> > > > > > > > > It is meant for all  
> > > > > > > > > national school systems  
> > > > > > > > > on the World. It’s UN  
> > > > > > > > > that we are talking  
> > > > > > > > > about. It demands a lot  
> > > > > > > > > of work. I thought of  
> > > > > > > > > requesting help of some  
> > > > > > > > > CSGnet members. I  
> > > > > > > > > thought even on you  
> > > > > > > > > Rick. On some fields you  
> > > > > > > > > could be of great help  
> > > > > > > > > in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > as the situation on  
> > > > > > > > > CSGnet became  
> > > > > > > > > “monstrous”, I’m trying  
> > > > > > > > > to make it on my own.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Rick I’ll take a deep  
> > > > > > > > > breath (you act like a  
> > > > > > > > > good psychoterapist) and  
> > > > > > > > > I’ll try to find a  
> > > > > > > > > solution. But I also  
> > > > > > > > > expect that from you,  
> > > > > > > > > Powers ladies and other  
> > > > > > > > > interested.   Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Boris
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â RM : But I think  
> > > > > > > > > > > what made it  
> > > > > > > > > > > particularly  
> > > > > > > > > > > easy for me to find  
> > > > > > > > > > > common ground  
> > > > > > > > > > > with your dad  
> > > > > > > > > > > is that I  
> > > > > > > > > > > didn’t come to PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > with an  
> > > > > > > > > > > existing  
> > > > > > > > > > > agenda.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : Of course.  
> > > > > > > > > > > How could you  
> > > > > > > > > > > come to PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > with an  
> > > > > > > > > > > existing  
> > > > > > > > > > > agenda if you  
> > > > > > > > > > > understand RCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > (Ricks Control  
> > > > > > > > > > > Theory).
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RM
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : I  
> > > > > > > > > > > didn’t try to see  
> > > > > > > > > > > how PCT fit in  
> > > > > > > > > > > with an  
> > > > > > > > > > > existing  
> > > > > > > > > > > theoretical  
> > > > > > > > > > > framework in  
> > > > > > > > > > > which I had a  
> > > > > > > > > > > strong  
> > > > > > > > > > > intellectual  
> > > > > > > > > > > or  
> > > > > > > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > > > > > > investment.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : That’s  
> > > > > > > > > > > self-evident.  
> > > > > > > > > > > Existing  
> > > > > > > > > > > theoretical  
> > > > > > > > > > > framework of  
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT is LCS III  
> > > > > > > > > > > diagram and  
> > > > > > > > > > > definitions of  
> > > > > > > > > > > control loop  
> > > > > > > > > > > in B:CP  
> > > > > > > > > > > Glossary. In  
> > > > > > > > > > > this  
> > > > > > > > > > > theoretical  
> > > > > > > > > > > framework you  
> > > > > > > > > > > had no  
> > > > > > > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > > > > > > investment,  
> > > > > > > > > > > because you  
> > > > > > > > > > > don’t even  
> > > > > > > > > > > recognize it  
> > > > > > > > > > > as PCT basics  
> > > > > > > > > > > and you don’t  
> > > > > > > > > > > want to accept  
> > > > > > > > > > > it. But its  
> > > > > > > > > > > possible that  
> > > > > > > > > > > you had strong  
> > > > > > > > > > > professional  
> > > > > > > > > > > investment in  
> > > > > > > > > > > RCT (Ricks  
> > > > > > > > > > > Control  
> > > > > > > > > > > Theory) which  
> > > > > > > > > > > has no common  
> > > > > > > > > > > ground with  
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT Definitions of 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  
> > > > > > > > > > > Â 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. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > Â 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.  
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Nor did I try to find  
> > > > > > > > > > > commonality  
> > > > > > > > > > > between PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > and other  
> > > > > > > > > > > existing  
> > > > > > > > > > > theories.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : Of course  
> > > > > > > > > > > you didn’t.  
> > > > > > > > > > > There is no  
> > > > > > > > > > > commonality  
> > > > > > > > > > > between PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RCT
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > (Ricks Control  
> > > > > > > > > > > Theory)  
> > > > > > > > > > > definition of  
> > > > > > > > > > > control loop
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : Keeping of  
> > > > > > > > > > > some »aspect  
> > > > > > > > > > > of outer  
> > > > > > > > > > > environment«  
> > > > > > > > > > > in reference  
> > > > > > > > > > > state,  
> > > > > > > > > > > protected  
> > > > > > > > > > > (defended)  
> > > > > > > > > > > from  
> > > > > > > > > > > disturbances.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > OUTPUT
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FUNCTION :  
> > > > > > > > > > > controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > effects  
> > > > > > > > > > > (control of  
> > > > > > > > > > > behavior) to  
> > > > > > > > > > > outer  
> > > > > > > > > > > environment so  
> > > > > > > > > > > to keep some  
> > > > > > > > > > > »controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > variable« in  
> > > > > > > > > > > reference  
> > > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > »Control« of  
> > > > > > > > > > > some »aspect  
> > > > > > > > > > > of outer  
> > > > > > > > > > > environment«  
> > > > > > > > > > > in reference  
> > > > > > > > > > > state.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > INPUT
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FUNCTION :  
> > > > > > > > > > > produce  
> > > > > > > > > > > »Controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > Perceptual  
> > > > > > > > > > > Variable« or  
> > > > > > > > > > > »Controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > Perception«,  
> > > > > > > > > > > the perceptual  
> > > > > > > > > > > correlate of  
> > > > > > > > > > > »controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > q.i.«
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > COMPARATOR
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : ???
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > ERROR
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > SIGNAL : ???  
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The only  
> > > > > > > > > > > people with  
> > > > > > > > > > > whom I now  
> > > > > > > > > > > find myself on  
> > > > > > > > > > > common ground  
> > > > > > > > > > > regarding PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > are people who  
> > > > > > > > > > > approach PCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > the way I do
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : The people  
> > > > > > > > > > > who approach  
> > > > > > > > > > > “PCT” the way  
> > > > > > > > > > > you are  
> > > > > > > > > > > probably  
> > > > > > > > > > > believing that  
> > > > > > > > > > > “Behavior is  
> > > > > > > > > > > control” which  
> > > > > > > > > > > controls some  
> > > > > > > > > > > “controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > variable” in  
> > > > > > > > > > > external  
> > > > > > > > > > > environment  
> > > > > > > > > > > and produce  
> > > > > > > > > > > some  
> > > > > > > > > > > “Controlled  
> > > > > > > > > > > Perceptual  
> > > > > > > > > > > Variable” or  
> > > > > > > > > > > CPV. And if I  
> > > > > > > > > > > would guess  
> > > > > > > > > > > who these  
> > > > > > > > > > > people are it  
> > > > > > > > > > > would probably  
> > > > > > > > > > > be : Warren  
> > > > > > > > > > > Mansel, Tim  
> > > > > > > > > > > Carey, Bruce  
> > > > > > > > > > > Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > RM :
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > … with a  
> > > > > > > > > > > willingness to abandon  
> > > > > > > > > > > one’s  
> > > > > > > > > > > attachment to or  
> > > > > > > > > > > interest in  
> > > > > > > > > > > finding  
> > > > > > > > > > > commonality  
> > > > > > > > > > > with any  
> > > > > > > > > > > existing  
> > > > > > > > > > > theories of  
> > > > > > > > > > > behavior  
> > > > > > > > > > > combined with  
> > > > > > > > > > > an interest in  
> > > > > > > > > > > doing the lab  
> > > > > > > > > > > exercises  
> > > > > > > > > > > (demos) and  
> > > > > > > > > > > homework  
> > > > > > > > > > > (models). It  
> > > > > > > > > > > works like a  
> > > > > > > > > > > charm.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > HB
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > : So why you  
> > > > > > > > > > > don’t abandon  
> > > > > > > > > > > existing RCT  
> > > > > > > > > > > theory of  
> > > > > > > > > > > behaviour and  
> > > > > > > > > > > do some real  
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT with real  
> > > > > > > > > > > life  
> > > > > > > > > > > experiments  
> > > > > > > > > > > like :  
> > > > > > > > > > > sleeping,  
> > > > > > > > > > > observing,  
> > > > > > > > > > > walking, sun  
> > > > > > > > > > > shining,  
> > > > > > > > > > > sitting and  
> > > > > > > > > > > thinking etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Â
> 
> > > > > > > > > –
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > S. MarkenÂ
> 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > "Perfection
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > is achieved  
> > > > > > > > > not when you  
> > > > > > > > > have nothing  
> > > > > > > > > more to add,  
> > > > > > > > > but when you
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > have nothing
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > left to take  
> > > > > > > > > away.�
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > > > > > > Â Â --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.�  
> > > > > > > > Â  
> > > > > > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > > > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> > > > > > > > Â --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.�  
> Â Â Â  
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  
> –Antoine de Saint-Exupery

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/35 "2019-04-09T17:32:52Z")

</div>

[Rick Marken 2019-04-09\_10:25:07]

> [Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-04-09\_05:34:30 UTC]  
> Â  
> EP: Hmm, just a thought:  
> The control (any control of perception, except temporarily in imagination) is  
> constrained by “Real Realityâ€? (RR). Powers says in the quotation: “\*When we  
> apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p.â€?\* This applies also  
> to observer: she has a perception p of the CV. When she applies a disturbance  
> (because of TCV), she applies it to CV not to her p.

RM: I think the problem is in thinking of a CV as something _to be perceived_. In fact, the CV _is a perception_Â for both the observer and the controller. It is an _actual_ perception for the observer;Â the distance between cursor and target, for example, is a perception for me as an observer; it is also a perception _in theory_ for the controller. The theoretical nature of the controller’s perception is indicated by the fact that the CV is represented as the theoretical variable p in the model of the controller.Â

Â

> EP: Thus that which is called  
> here CV is outside of both the controller and the observer.

RM: The CV actually exists only as a perception inside the observer (in fact) and in the controller (in theory). The CV certainly can “look like” it is “outside” of the controller and observer, just as the distance between cursor and target appears to be “outside” both. But according to PCT the CV is inside the brains of both the observer and controller.Â

> EP: Where is it then? I  
> think it is in RR.

RM: According to the PCT model, the CV is a perception (in both the observer and controller) inasmuch as it is a FUNCTION of variables in real reality (RR).Â

Â

> EP: What the observer infers and claims to be controlled is thus  
> the object of her own perception, something in RR which she assumes (because of  
> the empirical findings) to be also the object of the perception of the  
> controller.

RM: The observer doing the TCV does not have to infer anything about the “object of her own perception” that the controller is controlling. The observer doing the TCV simply observes that something she perceives – such as the distance between cursor and target – is being controlled in the sense that it is being protected from disturbance by the actions of the controller. The observer may think of that perception – the CV-- as an objective variable in the outside world; the distance between cursor and target, for example, certainly seems like it is “out there”. But the variable that appears to be “out there” is actually the result of a perceptual computation – a FUNCTION of sensory input – that produces that apparent reality. For example, the distance between cursor and target is the result of a perceptual computation that involves taking the difference between two sensory inputs – one from the cursor and the other from the target. So the FUNCTION that results in the appearance of the CV as the distance between cursor and target is a subtraction.

Â

> EP: Thus, I think that  
> RREV (or simply just “object of perceptionâ€?) is a useful and necessary concept  
> because without it one must say something like this: “The controller is  
> controlling the same perception which the observer has�, which literally means  
> that there is one perception which is common to and shared between controller  
> and observer.

RM: I consider that a feature, not a bug. When an observer has successfully tested to determine the variable the controller is controlling, the observer can be said, for all intents and purposes, to be perceiving what the controller is perceiving – the CV.Â

Â

> EP: Yet we know that those two subjects certainly have both their own  
> perceptions – they have their own perceptual signals and those signnals are not  
> necessary similar.

RM: If the perceptual signal that corresponds to the variable controlled by the controller is not the same as the perceptual signal that corresponds to the variable that the observer thinks is being controlled, the observer will realize this immediately (because the controller will not be systematically resisting disturbances applied to this variable). In this case, the observer will change her hypothesis about the variable that is actually being controlled. The observer will continue to change hypotheses about the CV until she hits on one that is protected from all disturbances. In that case, she has discovered a variable the controller is controlling – the CV – and, for all intents and purposes, is, perceiving what the controller is perceiving.

> EP: If the bat perceives a fly using its ultra sounds and  
> sensible ears it must be very different perception compared the visual  
> perception of the bat researcher who sees those ultrasounds from a measuring  
> device (or the fly visually). What is common to the perceptions of the bat and  
> the researcher is not the perceptions as such but the object of these  
> perceptions, some RREV, even though this RREV is described in the research  
> report by using the perceptions of the researcher (and her assumptions of the  
> possible perceptions of the readers).

RM: The observer doesn’t have to experience the CV in the same way as the controller does in order to successfully determine what perception the controller is controlling. This can be illustrated with the compensatory tracking task. The observer of the behavior in this task doesn’t need to actually see the difference between cursor and target on the screen as the controller does that task. The observer can tell from a plot of the difference between the position of the cursor are target varying over time (along with a plot of the disturbance and the controller’s output) that the perception (cursor - target) is the CV.Â

BestÂ

Rick

> **···**
>
> Richard S. MarkenÂ
> 
> "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you  
> have nothing left to take away.�  
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/36 "2019-04-09T17:40:20Z")

</div>

Rick…

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> **From:** Richard Marken ([rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) via csgnet Mailing List) [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu)  
> **Sent:** Tuesday, April 9, 2019 6:06 AM  
> **To:** csgnet [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu)  
> **Subject:** Re: goal of our researchgate project
> 
> [Rick Marken 2019-04-08\_21:05:34]
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.08.11.38]
> > 
> > MT: … My original comment was only to Rick’s presenting as a logical proof what I thought should more properly be considered to be a guide toward a reasonable assumption.
> 
> RM: I was not presenting it as a logical proof; I was presenting it as an empirical fact. We can see in the tracking task that the distance between target and cursor is the variable that is being controlled. In this case we can see it with our own eyes and we can also see it in the fact that a model that controls that same perception (target position - cursor position) behaves exactly like the person doing the tracking task.
> 
> > MT: A quote from a Bill Powers message to CSGnet [Bill Powers (961224.1145 MST)] is relevant (emphasis mine):  
> > “_Remember that as far **as the observer is concerned** , what is controlled is ONLY the CV. The idea that this CV is represented by a perceptual signal inside the other system is theoretical. We can observe CV, but not p. When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. The action that opposes the effect of the disturbance acts on CV, not p. The Test does not involve p at all. It involves only observables – i.e., the observer’s perceptions. The observations have priority; the model comes second, and its only reason for existence is to explain the observations_.”
> 
> RM: This is what I’ve been saying all along.
> 
> HB : I knew that you will “fuse gas to the fire”. You could be saying this all along, but IT’S WRONG. We know that Bill changed his mind quite some times and this is sure one place which was carefully chossen form his legacy.
> 
> RM : The CV is the observation – he most important observation-- that is explained by the theory (PCT) as a perceptual signal, an analog of that CV, that is kept in a reference state by the actions of the negative feedback loop of which it is a component.
> 
> HB : I mentioned many times that most of **Bills text is showing in another direction**. And so the basic deifinition of control is not about “controlling something” outside with “control of behavior” but it’s about controlling something inside.
> 
> 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.
> 
> HB : But as you are so smart, explain construct you made with PCT diagram in some behaviors like sleeping. Let us see whether your RCT theory with CV in external environment works.
> 
> 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 : Why don’t you explain how your RCT construct with you theory of sleeping works ? If you think that RCT is general theory about how organisms function, it has to work with any behavior. But it does not work. If you try you “construct” of CV in external environment with behaviors like : walking, sunshining, observing… the construct with outside CV look ridiculus. And the last problem you have, your new construct based on Bills mistake don’t match to Bills’ defintion of control loop, but to your RCT loop. Can we say that Bill went into contradiction or you both are contradicting Bills PCT.
> 
> PCT Definitions of control loop :
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 : ???
> 
> HB : If we use both defintions of “Controlled Variable” in environment, definitions without it, than its obvious contradiction. So how to decide which theoretical background is right ???
> 
> RM : The goal of the Test is for an observer to perceive the same variable – the CV - that is being controlled by the controller.
> 
> HB : it might be. But not in the sense that you think…
> 
> Bill P (B:CP) :
> 
> The TCV is method for identifying control organization of nervous system….
> 
> There will be ambiguous cases : the disturbance may be only weakly opposed. That effect could be due not to poor control system but to a definition of actions that are only remotely linked to the actual controlled quantity.
> 
> For example : if when you open the window I sometimes get up and close it, you might conclude that I am controlling the position of the window when in fact I only shut it if the room gets too chilly to suit me. I could be controlling sensed temperature very precisely, when necesarry, but by a variety of means : shutting the window, turning up the termostat, putting on a sweater, or exercising. You are on the track of the right controlled quantity, but haven’t got the right definition yet. It is safest to assume that an ambiguous result from TCV is the fault of the hypotehsis and to continue looking for a better definition of the controlled quantity.
> 
> RM : So the ability to perceive what another organism is perceiving is built into the methodology for studying the behavior of living control systems.
> 
> HB : You are manipulator Rick. So I’ll have to manipulate too. What you are saying is true, but it’s not built for studying “Controlled behavior” with “Controlled Variable” or CV in the external environment as in RCT but it’s “built in” “Perceptual Control Theory”. The other theory for which I think is real PCT.
> 
> RM : This is what is being done in the tracking task; the observer can perceive the same variable (same CV) as the person doing the tracking task.
> 
> HB : This is not what “tracking task” was made for. It’s your imagination again. What observer will observe in tracking task is his buisines if you’ll not give instructions to her/him what he has to do and which levels of control he’ll have to “hold”. See expetimental pages in B:CP. The problem is that you don’t understand what TCV is for and you are making bigger confussion then ever.
> 
> RM: This “perceiving” need not be done using the observer’s perceptual abilities. In many case, the observer doesn’t have the perceptual capabilities of the system under study. For example, human observers can’t perceive with their own perceptual systems what the bat perceives when it navigates in the dark. But human observers can perceive what the bat perceives using ultra high frequency sound detectors.
> 
> HB : Can you translate what you wrote into something usefull ?
> 
> So Rick I want finally that you make RCT explanations of everyday behaviors like : sleeping, walking, observing, sunshining, sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> And than we’ll decide which theory has more value or is right. Theory with “CV” in external environment or theory without it (diagram LCS III and definitions (B:CP)
> 
> Boris
> 
> > MT: I would amend this quote, but only slightly… My amendment would replace every instance of CV to “RREV [Real Reality Environmental Variable] as the observer perceives it”. Otherwise, I think what Bill said so long ago is quite right, and important to keep in mind.
> 
> RM: I think this concept is unnecessary and confusing. As Bill noted in the quote above, the CV is an observation; it is the observer’s observation of the variable that the controller is controlling. The CV is, thus, a perception in the observer that is presumed to correspond to the perception that the controller is controlling. The concept of a “real reality environmental variable” (RREV) is unnecessary because if there were a RREV that was being perceived differently by the observer and the controller, the observer would see that the controller is not controlling the variable that the observer is perceiving; and the observer would have to change the definition of the controlled variable a definiton of the CV was found that matched what that controller is controlling. So the Test would proceed to determining the controller’s CV(the observer’s perception that is equivalent to the perception the controller is controlling) in the same way as it would without the concept of a RREV. And the concept of an RREV is confusing (from a PCT perspective) because it is based on a model of perception that is quite different from the PCT model of perception. The concept of RREV implies a representational view of perception – perception represents, to some degree of accuracy, what is really “out there”. PCT is based on a constructivist view of perception – perception is a function (construction) based on what is really out there.
> 
> > MT: As Rick has often pointed out, this RREV may not behave as a unitary entity in the absence of perceptual control, but might instead be a function of other RR variables defined only by the controller’s perceptual function.
> 
> RM: Actually, what I have said is that there are no such thing as RREV’s; there are only CVs that are functions of what PCT assumes (on the basis of the models of physics and chemistry) are the variables of real reality (the variaables Bill symbolized with v’s in the control diagram in his Science paper of 1973, reprinted on p. 66 of LCS I).
> 
> RM: I think you can get a sense of how unnecessary the concept of an RREV is by trying to think of what might be the RREV in the compensatory tracking task.
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> > For the observer to observe this control happening, the observer must have a perceptual function related to the perceptual function used by the controller. It doesn’t have to be the same, but the discrepancy cannot be too great, or the observer will see poor control when inputs to discrepant parts of their perceptual functions change. But one does have to remember that what we perceive and what we act on is only what is influenced by and sensed at our interface with Real Reality, which is always going to remain unknown to us.
> > 
> > It is this ability to approximate other functions, both in non-living RR and in other people (who presumably exist in RR) that allows protocol interactions between people to work as well as they do, and allows demonstrations such as the coin game to show how an experimenter can control for producing a perceptual function that generates a perception that is probably similar to a perception in another. The General Protocol Grammar displays some of the techniques used hierarchically for this kind of perceptual approximation to another’s perception in social interactions such as conversation, collaboration, enquiry and teaching, or warfare and deceit.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> > > On 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]
> 
> > > > > On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely.
> 
> > > > > I wouldn’t be surprised, but “perceiving something in the same way” seems to me to be significantly difference from “controlling perceptions of the same environmental property”, and I thought that Rick was trying to make that distinction very clear. Maybe he wasn’t.
> 
> > > > > > His statement that “…I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled.” is absolutely correct.
> 
> > > > [BL] Yes, I took that to mean that each person is controlling based upon the distance between the cursor and the target to minimize that perception. Where I think I (and maybe Rick) differ is that I did not interpret that to mean that the perceptual signals were the same only that whatever perception existed for an individual for the control error that was perceived was minimized by that individual. There will of course be a ‘whole host’ of other perceptions such as how well they are accomplishing that task that will most assuredly be radically different depending upon skill, speed of the demo, computer responses to input, etc.
> 
> > > > It is this difference in my view of what I perceived Rick to be saying that allows me to conclude that you are both right. In the strictest sense, they are not controlling exactly the same perception but rather a large class of perceptions that involve distance between cursor and target. It is likely that if we could (and maybe some day we will) measure and quantify all of these signals in a human control loop set we would see that such a task, when viewed at such a detail level, would be different for every subject.
> 
> > > > I think of this somewhat along the lines of the hierarchy that Bill proposed. The lower levels are reasonably well understood but the manner and extent of involvement of the higher levels is currently in quite a state of flux, at the detail level.
> 
> > > > It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking about is indeed important. It takes the conversation to a deeper level than just understanding the 40,000 meter view and might give us a change to produce new understanding (and means of involving others outside PCT) in areas that do not involve conflict.
> 
> > > > When you think about it, conflict is really just a specific case of what I think Rick was proposing. Conflict resolution is actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT. I think the major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful results while producing protocols for doing such work. CSG benefited from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported back and discussed their work here. I think it is important to realize it is not just that these people validated the concept of PCT but that they brought new understanding to the field.
> 
> > > > bill
> 
> > > > > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not to be consistent with the first part of that paragraph:
> 
> > > > > > [RM] In a recent post you expressed dismay that I could think that two or more people could perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> > > > > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that people controlling the same environmental variable was intended to mean the same as people perceiving the same environmental variable in the same way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Martin
> 
> > > > > > I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific details that I take to be about the the exact parameter values is also correct but not relevant to Rick’s general statement.
> 
> > > > > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature of commonality would, of course be an important part of deeper analysis of the idea.
> 
> > > > > > bill
> 
> > > > > > On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> 
> > > > > > > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> 
> > > > > > > > …
> 
> > > > > > > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> > > > > > > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s (in deed, one control loop in one person’s) results with how someone else perceives the “changing distance between cursor and target”. There are no scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what might be the case if different subjects perceived the on-screen distance identically or if they all perceived it differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by the experiment, let alone a grand claim that in this experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> 
> > > > > > > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the case. In the basic tracking task, I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled. So it is seems that it is possible, in at least this case, for people to have the same perception – in this case a perception of the changing distance between cursor and target. Does this convince you that it is, indeed, possible for many different people to perceive something in the same way?
> 
> > > > > > > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual perception, it would be very strange if you could prove that everyone with their different screen sizes and contrast levels, and with different visual acuities and visual experiences had the same non-linearities in their perceptions of the relative locations of target and cursor in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT theory tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill people fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how such matchsticks could support actual people, who he apparently perceived s person-sized.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Since how we determine whether people see “the same thing” similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be solved by referring to the similar (but never identical) results different people produce when they act a subjects in a tracking study. As Powers said, all you can experiment with is what the experimenter perceives to be in the subject’s environment, not what the subject perceives.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Martin
> 
> > > > > > > > Best
> 
> > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > > > If I would give my full power into cooperation then I’ll have to refresh my physiological and neurophysiological knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > > > > > > > > I’m momentally accupied in changing of scholl systems. Beside cooperating in changing our national school system, I also made contact with UN (United Nations). I’m trying to present them general school system in which PCT has significant role. It is meant for all national school systems on the World. It’s UN that we are talking about. It demands a lot of work. I thought of requesting help of some CSGnet members. I thought even on you Rick. On some fields you could be of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > But as the situation on CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it on my own.
> 
> > > > > > > > > So Rick I’ll take a deep breath (you act like a good psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also expect that from you, Powers ladies and other interested.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> 
> > > > > > > > > Boris
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best
> 
> > > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for me to find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t come to PCT with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : Of course. How could you come to PCT with an existing agenda if you understand RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : I didn’t try to see how PCT fit in with an existing theoretical framework in which I had a strong intellectual or professional investment.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : That’s self-evident. Existing theoretical framework of PCT is LCS III diagram and definitions of control loop in B:CP Glossary. In this theoretical framework you had no professional investment, because you don’t even recognize it as PCT basics and you don’t want to accept it. But its possible that you had strong professional investment in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) which has no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT Definitions of 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.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : Nor did I try to find commonality between PCT and other existing theories.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. COMPARATOR : ???
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. ERROR SIGNAL : ???
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : The only people with whom I now find myself on common ground regarding PCT are people who approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : The people who approach “PCT” the way you are probably believing that “Behavior is control” which controls some “controlled variable” in external environment and produce some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And if I would guess who these people are it would probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : … with a willingness to abandon one’s attachment to or interest in finding commonality with any existing theories of behavior combined with an interest in doing the lab exercises (demos) and homework (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : So why you don’t abandon existing RCT theory of behaviour and do some real PCT with real life experiments like : sleeping, observing, walking, sun shining, sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > –
> 
> > > > > > > > > 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
> 
> –
> 
> 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/37 "2019-04-09T17:51:35Z")

</div>

Dear Rick,

You really start to amuse me, he,he… Is there really anybody on CSGnet forum that will beleive you that two perceptions can be the same and control in hierarchy can be the same among milions or maybe bilions of nerv signals. Because that’s what you are trying to do. I can’t beleive that you are trying with one experiment to prove, that people perceive the same. What about other experiments and behaviors that will prove you wrong ?

So my assumpsion is that you want to prove that your RCT is equal to PCT. Well surprise it’s not. Even Bill Leach is not on your side. Considering what you wrote about “people perceiving the same” I can only agree with you :

RM earlier : In my rush to show that this is not the case I came up with what has to be the dumbest rebuttal of all time – outdoing even myself in stupidity;-)

HB: I’ll start at the end.

RM : Does this convince you that it is, indeed, possible for many different people to perceive something in the same way?

HB : I doubt that you convinced anybody on CSGnet that people can perceive something in the same way. First I’ll expose Bruce Nevin’s good description of how perceptual signals are formed and on which basis :

BN ealier : They cannot have the same p because p represents a neural signal within each. Their genetic and personal histories will have endowed them differently. It is vanishingly unlikely that their respective perceptual organs and nervous systems are constructed so as to generate the same rate of firing. Each will have developed appropriate rates of firing for reference values r corresponding to their perceptual signals p so that they control satisfactorily and get along in life. One may be wearing sunglasses so a different quantity of photons reaches a different retina

HB : Beside Bruce Nevins good thought there are quite clear experiments in Maturana’s book which show that people are perceving their own colour space, not “objective” colours in the environment. People don’t perceive “objective World” but construct their own World which is suitable to their structure and functioning. So every “perceptual contruct” is unique in accordance to unique genetic structure and functioning (Maturana)

BN earlier : Yes, every participant in collective control is controlling individually.

HB : Again good Bruce Nevin descriotion how people control in social interactions. It’s unique control (individual). Nobody control in the same “phase”.

And first order signal according to PCT doesn’t have any “whole” content which could show control or anything that could remind of people perceiving the same.

Bill P (B:CP) :

…it si even more apparent that the first order perceptual signal reflects only what happens at the sensory endings : the source of the stimulation is completely indefined and unsensed. If any information exists about the source of the stimulus, it exists only distributed over millions of first order perceptual signals and is explicit in none of them.

HB : People simply do not perceive and control the same. They perceive and control individually in accordance to their maintained determined state in organism.

RM : So it is seems that it is possible, in at least this case, for people to have the same perception – in this case a perception of the changing distance between cursor and target.

HB : The basic problem you have with your statement “that we can perceive the same distance between cursor and target” is that this is not isolated and static perception which can be compared but it is always in the dynamical context with all perceptions in control loops. It’s among many other perceptions including the most important “feedback”. Even if “static distance” could maybe be perceived similary the “dynamics” of the distance surelly is not perceived the same. Let us see differences in perceiving “dynamics of distance” between you and Bill :

Your perception of changing distance between cursor and target is RCT (Ricks Control Theory) and Bills is PCT. First RCT perspective of distance and the way perception of distance is changing.

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 : ???

Problems you have with your view of “control of perception” of the distance between “cursor and target” is that you are controlling perception to different references as Bills did.

Other problems are :

1. You didn’t present any real arguments and scientific evidences that “Control of behavior (output) might work”. And Bill did present that Behavioral actions are blind on the basis of neurophysiological evidences.

2. Your theory includes some “controlled variable” in environment which is generally not existant in PCT. So your perception is tottaly different from Bills as according to diagram LCS III there is no controlled variable in environment (generally speaking).

3. What is “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV ?

4. What is really perceived and controlled ?

HB : Now Bills perceptions of how “distance” between cursor an target" dynamically works :

PCT Definitions of 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.

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

RM : Nor did I try to find commonality between PCT and other existing theories.

HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.

So we see that at least in your case there is nothing that could be the same in perception and control of perception in different people. Every person is genetic original with structure and organization that will produce original perceptual signal and original interpretation of perceptual signals,

If somebody would like to read longer version it’s down.

> **···**
>
> **From:** Richard Marken ([rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) via csgnet Mailing List) [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu)  
> **Sent:** Sunday, April 7, 2019 7:40 PM  
> **To:** csgnet [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu)  
> **Subject:** Re: goal of our researchgate project
> 
> [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> 
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:00 AM “Boris Hartman” [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu) wrote:
> 
> > BH: I really don’t know what kind of cooperation we could have that could lead debate on CSGnet to full understanding of PCT. But I assume that your proposal is somehow about turning CSGnet from conflict to cooperation. Do I understand right ? You want progress of PCT ?
> 
> RM: Yes, I would like it if CSGNet turned from conflict to cooperation. But I believe we can only get cooperation when there is agreement about what goal we are working toward. I think CSGNet was implemented with the goal of developing and promulgating Powers’ application of control theory to understanding behavior, first described in the two part Perceptual and Motor Skills papers in 1960, which has come to be called Perceptual Control Theory (PCT). I think if there were more general agreement about what PCT _is_ there would be considerably more cooperation about how to develop and promulgate it. As long as there are disagreements about what PCT is about there will be conflict.
> 
> HB : Well Rick. Whatever was first described or later described by Powers it has to be in accordance with “nature”, that is final arbiter. That’s Mantra in PCT. So whatever theoretical ground PCT represent it has to be in accordance with life experiments of everyday people behavior. Bill did a great job and put the basic stones into building called PCT, but he didn’t bulit to the end. And he changed his mind couple times. So even he didn’t perceive his PCT always in the same way.
> 
> RM : Given that this is the case I think CSGNet would function better if we conducted these conflicts without resorting to ad hominum arguments. By ad hominum arguments I mean attacks on one’s character, not on the ideas one is expressing. An ad homium argument is saying that a person has evil motives or is incompetent. Whether or not these things are true is irrelevant to the correctness or incorrectness of their arguments, which are really what we should be focusing on here, I believe.
> 
> HB : Well Rick I wish you were talking in that style 10 years ago. Whatever you are describing your way of solving problems on CSGnet in the past. You know archives. So if you changed your mind and you want civilized discussion I’m with you. But that account also respecting authors rights. And not telling lies. Do we understand ? You already used ideas from CSGnet forum and presented them as yours. And you already lyed that your oppinion about PCT is the same as Bills’. It’s not and we’ll never be. You are promoting RCT and Bill was promoting PCT. The differences about ideas are clear.
> 
> RM: Conflicts over what constitutes PCT are scientific conflicts and attempts to resolve them should be made using scientific methods – the one’s Bill so often used in his papers and in his discussions on CSGnet: modeling and empirical test.
> 
> HB : Well Rick I think we’ll never agree what is science in PCT sense. Whatever you are describing is not science although Bill thougt it was until we have conflict about what you were doing with “baseball catch” and some otherof yours “scientific experiments” which has nothing to do with science as they simpy does not work in final arbiter – nature. So Bill came to PCT basic ideas through cybernetics and neurophysiology and math and physics. These are totaly different approaches to understanding nature as your modeling and test are. They are of no use. They are prepresenting your imaginatiuon and results are imagnative and they are not in accordance to Bills LCS III diagram and definitions of PCT. If you think that your experiments are PCFT relevant you just have to explain them with PCT theoretical bases. But till now you didn’t do it because you simply don’t understand PCT basics. You admitted it for yourself.
> 
> RM : But even when the results of applying these methods are not convincing, I believe the parties to the conflict should try to avoid recourse to ad hominum arguments.
> 
> HB : My arguments were just “ad hominum”, my arguments were and are still PCT arguments. You which they are, but you have problem understanding them and I know that. You can get my understanding or may explanation of PCT basic diagrma and definitions only on my terms. That is not negotiable.
> 
> RM : I know this is hard to do when one has presented what one thinks is an iron clad proof of their point. PCT actually predicts that this would be the case.
> 
> HB: PCT predicts cooperation and conflict. And you are obviously choosing conflict because you’d like to do “PCT” in your RCT way. I’ll not allow that. Because you’ll have to lie as you did before.
> 
> RM : But I think we have to try to do it if we are to have any chance of using CSGNet as a forum for what I believe it was designed for; developing and promulgating PCT.
> 
> HB : Right. So do you understand the basics of PCT so that we can say that you’ll develop and promulgate PCT ?
> 
> RM: So let’s see if you and I (and anyone else on CSGNet who is interested) can start on a better course by dealing with one of our disagreements about PCT in a productive way (at least in a way that avoids ad hominum arguments).
> 
> HB : We can if you mean by productive way understanding PCT and not lying about what oppinions are PCT and which are not.
> 
> RM : In a recent post you expressed dismay that I could think that two or more people could perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way;
> 
> HB : Where did you find these assumption in PCT literature. You’ll not find it. Because Bruce Nevin proved with physiological bases (which is by the way PCT scientific bases) that two people can never have the same preceptions and more you go up a hierarchy less perception is equal. Rick I’ll have to describe your thinking as primitive so that members on CSGnet will understand where to put your knowledge. Accoring to physiological evidences you are lying that people perceive something in the same way and that’s true even if so simple experiment like “tracking experiment” is
> 
> RM : …indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> HB : You can think whatever you want Rick. It’s your imagination. It has nothing to do with science. It’s manipulation on your way to your goals. To talk what you want on CSGnet and say that you are talking science. CSGnet is not about you Rick and problems you have. CSGnet is forum for PCT and Powers scientific arguments.
> 
> RM : And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the case.
> 
> HB : You can beleive whatever you want Rick. What we need are scientifc evidences and accordance of your result with PCT theoretical bases. How would we know otherwise that we are talking about PCT and science if not by explaining experiments with PCT means.
> 
> RM : In the basic tracking task, I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled.
> 
> HB : I think Rick that we go again on old conflicted way. Problem here is that you can’t perceive only distance. You’ll always perceive also effects of actions on your own input. So perception of the distance is part of the whole control loop, and you understand it diferently as Bill. By your oppinion “distance” is regulated by “Control of behavior” and there is “Controlled variable” in environment which is controlled by “Control of behavior” and some “Controlled Perceptual variable” is formed. Beside that this is totaly different perspective of perceiving what is happening outisde in comaprison to Bills’ PCT, You can’t explain practically non of normal everyday behaviors that people are producing as sleeping, sunshining, observing, walking…
> 
> Descibe “perception of target and cursor” being controlled thorugh LCS III diagram and definitions of control (B:CP). And to verify that you are right that you are talking about PCT, you’ll have to describe sleeping and walking and sunshining behavior etc. with the same means (LCS III diagram and definitions B:CP).
> 
> If description of “tracking experiment” will match all other explanations (sleeping, walking, sunshining etc.) in accordance to PCT LCS III diagram and definitions (B:CP) then you are on right way to explain PCT as general theory of how organisms function.
> 
> RM : So it is seems that it is possible, in at least this case, for people to have the same perception – in this case a perception of the changing distance between cursor and target.
> 
> HB : No it is not possible. They could see in similar way but not the same.
> 
> RM : Does this convince you that it is, indeed, possible for many different people to perceive something in the same way?
> 
> HB : Well it depends mostly if they’ll be interested in watching whatever you are trying to present. Anyway never two people will be watching and evaluating your experiment in the same way. Not just because Bruce Nevin proved so and Maturana and Bill with his perceptual theory. Not even the first order signal will be the same in every person.
> 
> Tha last problem you have that only few people show imterest in reading your books and experiments. You see it’s good that people are not perceiving and thinking in the same way. And they sure have diffferent oppinion about what you wrote. Nothing can be the same although “tracking experiment” is the case in which you can go as far as it’s possible with possibility of “close” similar perception. But at least 99% of other life experiments will show you discrepancy in perceiving and interpreting whatever people perceive.
> 
> The problem Rick is that you don’t understand PCT. This is simple truth. It’s not “ad hominem” attack. And I’m sorry that you have chosen conflicting way of conversations on CSGnet.
> 
> Boris
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> > If I would give my full power into cooperation then I’ll have to refresh my physiological and neurophysiological knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > I’m momentally accupied in changing of scholl systems. Beside cooperating in changing our national school system, I also made contact with UN (United Nations). I’m trying to present them general school system in which PCT has significant role. It is meant for all national school systems on the World. It’s UN that we are talking about. It demands a lot of work. I thought of requesting help of some CSGnet members. I thought even on you Rick. On some fields you could be of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > But as the situation on CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it on my own.
> 
> > So Rick I’ll take a deep breath (you act like a good psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also expect that from you, Powers ladies and other interested.
> 
> > Best,
> 
> > Boris
> 
> > Best
> 
> > Rick
> 
> > > > RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for me to find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t come to PCT with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > HB : Of course. How could you come to PCT with an existing agenda if you understand RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > RM : I didn’t try to see how PCT fit in with an existing theoretical framework in which I had a strong intellectual or professional investment.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > HB : That’s self-evident. Existing theoretical framework of PCT is LCS III diagram and definitions of control loop in B:CP Glossary. In this theoretical framework you had no professional investment, because you don’t even recognize it as PCT basics and you don’t want to accept it. But its possible that you had strong professional investment in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) which has no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > PCT Definitions of 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.
> 
> > > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > RM : Nor did I try to find commonality between PCT and other existing theories.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
> 
> > > > 1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
> 
> > > > 1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
> 
> > > > 1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
> 
> > > > 1. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
> 
> > > > 1. COMPARATOR : ???
> 
> > > > 1. ERROR SIGNAL : ???
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > RM : The only people with whom I now find myself on common ground regarding PCT are people who approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > HB : The people who approach “PCT” the way you are probably believing that “Behavior is control” which controls some “controlled variable” in external environment and produce some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And if I would guess who these people are it would probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > RM : … with a willingness to abandon one’s attachment to or interest in finding commonality with any existing theories of behavior combined with an interest in doing the lab exercises (demos) and homework (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > HB : So why you don’t abandon existing RCT theory of behaviour and do some real PCT with real life experiments like : sleeping, observing, walking, sun shining, sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> > –
> 
> > 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/38 "2019-04-09T18:12:14Z")

</div>

Bill…

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> **From:** Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu)  
> **Sent:** Monday, April 8, 2019 7:35 PM  
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:** Re: goal of our researchgate project
> 
> Thank you Martin. I’m still not sold on using the CEV and RREV terms but they are understandable.
> 
> I think that Bill’s discussion and even your manner of presentation is important when discussing PCT with ‘outsiders.’ Some biologists that have talked about closed loop negative feedback control might be quite comfortable with canonical description of PCT but others need to see it as an observer so an emphasis on the relationship between the observer and the subject’s view of what “might be under control” is, I think, very important.
> 
> I rather go back to the clinical use of PCT where we have had some outstanding people whose names I only sampled in my earlier post that had a thorough understanding of the ‘mechanical’ aspect of PCT and also understood the very important point that Bill brought up about the observer’s perceptions and their relationship to the subject’s actions.
> 
> In introducing PCT to the uninitiated the general idea of what PCT is, that is the closed loop negative feedback nature of control AND the perceptions of both the observer and the subject including their relationship is very important. It is so easy ‘in the real world’ for “PCT to fail” because a person does not recognize that assumptions they make about what actually is being controlled can be so wrong.
> 
> Performing the TEST in real world situations is quite difficult as we so often can not apply a disturbance and what we see as disturbances may either be irrelevant or just a sign of the quality of control. Most of the time we no ability to determine either the amount of force applied by the disturbance nor even the amount of force used by the subject (if any at all). However, the more people that are thinking about the problem the more likely we will see innovative ways to solve it.
> 
> HB : I agree with most of your statements. Only about the Test I think it’s not just about “applying disturbances” but more about “guessing” what person could be controlling and forming right “picture” of controlled quantity.
> 
> Bill P (B:CP) :
> 
> The TCV is method for identifying control organization of nervous system….
> 
> There will be ambiguous cases : the disturbance may be only weakly opposed. That effect could be due not to poor control system but to a definition of actions that are only remotely linked to the actual controlled quantity.
> 
> For example : if when you open the window I sometimes get up and close it, you might conclude that I am controlling the position of the window when in fact I only shut it if the room gets too chilly to suit me. I could be controlling sensed temperature very precisely, when necesarry, but by a variety of means : shutting the window, turning up the termostat, putting on a sweater, or exercising. You are on the track of the right controlled quantity, but haven’t got the right definition yet. It is safest to assume that an ambiguous result from TCV is the fault of the hypotehsis and to continue looking for a better definition of the controlled quantity.
> 
> HB : … or what is really controlled.
> 
> Boris
> 
> bill
> 
> On 4/8/19 10:48 AM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.08.11.38]
> 
> > On 2019/04/8 11:22 AM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > It just occurred to me that there is yet another way of talking about what Rick was proposing. When a group of use watch a subject do the tracking test, we all conclude that the subject is controlling the relationship between the cursor and the target with a reference set for 'minimum separation. In a sense we all have the ‘same’ perception. Of course in each of us the neural signals will be different and we probably will have further perceptions about the quality of control being achieved.
> 
> > > However, for us to even talk about what is going on from a PCT standpoint when observing a behavior, we must be able to talk in terms that are of a ‘higher level’ than exactly what is going on in detail in a particular control loop (or perceptual loop for that matter).
> 
> > > It is a case of moving from the minutia to generalizations. When we talk in terms of PCT about how a baseball fielder catches a ball this is what we are doing AND in the discussion we are absolutely relying on a degree of a match between our perceptions and the listeners perceptions.
> 
> > > We also know that our explanation is a generalization AND that if we even could present a detailed discussion of exactly what is happening (which of course we can not) including all of the perceptual signals, reference signals for those perceptions, errors signals generated, and outputs our listeners would quickly tune out and wonder what was wrong with us!
> 
> > > bill
> 
> > I agree with all of this. My original comment was only to Rick’s presenting as a logical proof what I thought should more properly be considered to be a guide toward a reasonable assumption.  
> > A quote from a Bill Powers message to CSGnet [Bill Powers (961224.1145 MST)] is relevant (emphasis mine):  
> > “_Remember that as far **as the observer is concerned** , what is controlled is ONLY the CV. The idea that this CV is represented by a perceptual signal inside the other system is theoretical. We can observe CV, but not p. When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. The action that opposes the effect of the disturbance acts on CV, not p. The Test does not involve p at all. It involves only observables – i.e., the observer’s perceptions. The observations have priority; the model comes second, and its only reason for existence is to explain the observations_.”
> > 
> > I would amend this quote, but only slightly, to be consistent with my new understanding of the relationship between the controlled perceptual signal. the consciously perceived controlled property in its environmental context, which I have called the “CEV” (Corresponding Environmental Variable" and whatever in Real Reality (RR) a control action might influence that affects the controlled perception and its CEV consciously perceived correlate (the RREV). My amendment would replace every instance of CV to “RREV as the observer perceives it”. Otherwise, I think what Bill said so long ago is quite right, and important to keep in mind.
> > 
> > What I think you are getting at is the result of evolution and reorganization. Controlling a variable by acting on RR won’t work very well unless the controlled variable corresponds well with something in RR that I called the RREV. Accordingly, when the observer perceives an observed environmental being controlled very well, the observer’s environmental variable must be pretty closely related to a true RREV in RR that produces a controlled perception in the controller. Evolution and reorganization collaborate in tending to bring perceptual functions on average into alignment with controllable aspects of RR.
> > 
> > As Rick has often pointed out, this RREV may not behave as a unitary entity in the absence of perceptual control, but might instead be a function of other RR variables defined only by the controller’s perceptual function. For the observer to observe this control happening, the observer must have a perceptual function related to the perceptual function used by the controller. It doesn’t have to be the same, but the discrepancy cannot be too great, or the observer will see poor control when inputs to discrepant parts of their perceptual functions change. But one does have to remember that what we perceive and what we act on is only what is influenced by and sensed at our interface with Real Reality, which is always going to remain unknown to us.
> > 
> > It is this ability to approximate other functions, both in non-living RR and in other people (who presumably exist in RR) that allows protocol interactions between people to work as well as they do, and allows demonstrations such as the coin game to show how an experimenter can control for producing a perceptual function that generates a perception that is probably similar to a perception in another. The General Protocol Grammar displays some of the techniques used hierarchically for this kind of perceptual approximation to another’s perception in social interactions such as conversation, collaboration, enquiry and teaching, or warfare and deceit.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> > > On 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.23.01]
> 
> > > > > On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely.
> 
> > > > > I wouldn’t be surprised, but “perceiving something in the same way” seems to me to be significantly difference from “controlling perceptions of the same environmental property”, and I thought that Rick was trying to make that distinction very clear. Maybe he wasn’t.
> 
> > > > > > His statement that “…I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled.” is absolutely correct.
> 
> > > > [BL] Yes, I took that to mean that each person is controlling based upon the distance between the cursor and the target to minimize that perception. Where I think I (and maybe Rick) differ is that I did not interpret that to mean that the perceptual signals were the same only that whatever perception existed for an individual for the control error that was perceived was minimized by that individual. There will of course be a ‘whole host’ of other perceptions such as how well they are accomplishing that task that will most assuredly be radically different depending upon skill, speed of the demo, computer responses to input, etc.
> 
> > > > It is this difference in my view of what I perceived Rick to be saying that allows me to conclude that you are both right. In the strictest sense, they are not controlling exactly the same perception but rather a large class of perceptions that involve distance between cursor and target. It is likely that if we could (and maybe some day we will) measure and quantify all of these signals in a human control loop set we would see that such a task, when viewed at such a detail level, would be different for every subject.
> 
> > > > I think of this somewhat along the lines of the hierarchy that Bill proposed. The lower levels are reasonably well understood but the manner and extent of involvement of the higher levels is currently in quite a state of flux, at the detail level.
> 
> > > > It seems to me that use of what Rick was talking about is indeed important. It takes the conversation to a deeper level than just understanding the 40,000 meter view and might give us a change to produce new understanding (and means of involving others outside PCT) in areas that do not involve conflict.
> 
> > > > When you think about it, conflict is really just a specific case of what I think Rick was proposing. Conflict resolution is actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT. I think the major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful results while producing protocols for doing such work. CSG benefited from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported back and discussed their work here. I think it is important to realize it is not just that these people validated the concept of PCT but that they brought new understanding to the field.
> 
> > > > bill
> 
> > > > > Yes, I would agree with that. Its intent, however, seems not to be consistent with the first part of that paragraph:
> 
> > > > > > [RM] In a recent post you expressed dismay that I could think that two or more people could perceive something in the same way. I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> > > > > I am quite willing to accept that I am wrong, and that people controlling the same environmental variable was intended to mean the same as people perceiving the same environmental variable in the same way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Martin
> 
> > > > > > I suggest that you are also correct in that the specific details that I take to be about the the exact parameter values is also correct but not relevant to Rick’s general statement.
> 
> > > > > > Discussions concerning the nature of the idea of nature of commonality would, of course be an important part of deeper analysis of the idea.
> 
> > > > > > bill
> 
> > > > > > On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> 
> > > > > > > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> 
> > > > > > > > …
> 
> > > > > > > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> > > > > > > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s (in deed, one control loop in one person’s) results with how someone else perceives the “changing distance between cursor and target”. There are no scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what might be the case if different subjects perceived the on-screen distance identically or if they all perceived it differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by the experiment, let alone a grand claim that in this experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> 
> > > > > > > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the case. In the basic tracking task, I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled. So it is seems that it is possible, in at least this case, for people to have the same perception – in this case a perception of the changing distance between cursor and target. Does this convince you that it is, indeed, possible for many different people to perceive something in the same way?
> 
> > > > > > > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual perception, it would be very strange if you could prove that everyone with their different screen sizes and contrast levels, and with different visual acuities and visual experiences had the same non-linearities in their perceptions of the relative locations of target and cursor in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT theory tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill people fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how such matchsticks could support actual people, who he apparently perceived s person-sized.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Since how we determine whether people see “the same thing” similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be solved by referring to the similar (but never identical) results different people produce when they act a subjects in a tracking study. As Powers said, all you can experiment with is what the experimenter perceives to be in the subject’s environment, not what the subject perceives.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Martin
> 
> > > > > > > > Best
> 
> > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > > > If I would give my full power into cooperation then I’ll have to refresh my physiological and neurophysiological knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > > > > > > > > I’m momentally accupied in changing of scholl systems. Beside cooperating in changing our national school system, I also made contact with UN (United Nations). I’m trying to present them general school system in which PCT has significant role. It is meant for all national school systems on the World. It’s UN that we are talking about. It demands a lot of work. I thought of requesting help of some CSGnet members. I thought even on you Rick. On some fields you could be of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > But as the situation on CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it on my own.
> 
> > > > > > > > > So Rick I’ll take a deep breath (you act like a good psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also expect that from you, Powers ladies and other interested.
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> 
> > > > > > > > > Boris
> 
> > > > > > > > > Best
> 
> > > > > > > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for me to find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t come to PCT with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : Of course. How could you come to PCT with an existing agenda if you understand RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : I didn’t try to see how PCT fit in with an existing theoretical framework in which I had a strong intellectual or professional investment.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : That’s self-evident. Existing theoretical framework of PCT is LCS III diagram and definitions of control loop in B:CP Glossary. In this theoretical framework you had no professional investment, because you don’t even recognize it as PCT basics and you don’t want to accept it. But its possible that you had strong professional investment in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) which has no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > PCT Definitions of 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 meeans 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.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : Nor did I try to find commonality between PCT and other existing theories.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. COMPARATOR : ???
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. ERROR SIGNAL : ???
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : The only people with whom I now find myself on common ground regarding PCT are people who approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : The people who approach “PCT” the way you are probably believing that “Behavior is control” which controls some “controlled variable” in external environment and produce some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And if I would guess who these people are it would probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > RM : … with a willingness to abandon one’s attachment to or interest in finding commonality with any existing theories of behavior combined with an interest in doing the lab exercises (demos) and homework (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > HB : So why you don’t abandon existing RCT theory of behaviour and do some real PCT with real life experiments like : sleeping, observing, walking, sun shining, sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> > > > > > > > > –
> 
> > > > > > > > > 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/39 "2019-04-09T18:12:27Z")

</div>

Bill…

![image002109.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> **From:** Bill Leach ([wrleach@cableone.net](mailto:wrleach@cableone.net) via csgnet Mailing List) [csgnet@lists.illinois.edu](mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu)  
> **Sent:** Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:02 PM  
> **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> **Subject:** Re: goal of our researchgate project
> 
> Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely. Personally I suspect that you are both right but unfortunately I can only come to that conclusion based upon the idea that you are using different meanings for “…people can perceive things in the same way…”
> 
> Rick is free to correct me here if I’m wrong of course, but I don’t think he is trying to say that people will generate the same perceptual signal or that the signal’s magnitude, response curve, etc. will be identical. His statement that “…I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled.” is absolutely correct.
> 
> HB : I think that the statement that perception is the distance between cursor and target (as somebody perceive it) could be correct relativelly not absolutelly.
> 
> Whether people observe the distance between “cursor” and “target” depends from their understanding what they are looking for. It’s unlikely that they would percive the “distance” which is controlled. I think that most people don’t understand what does this mean.
> 
> I think that most of the people wouldn’t recognize that perception of the distance that is “being controlled”. We can talk about percpetion of the “distance as control” in PCT “circle”, but most humanity of the Earth wouldn’t understand what we are talking about.
> 
> So It hink that “absolutelly correct” can be maybe on CSGnet if all members would see it as “Control of perception”. But even here we can see that members can be found who think that “distance between cursor and target” is not perception that is being controlled but is “controlled variable” in external environment that is being controlled by “Controlled behavior” or output of the system. So people mostly don’t think that “perception is what is being controlled”, but real distance in environment by control of behavior. And Rick is one of them.
> 
> And there are also other limitations of people observing the same thing. For ex. if person is blind or have some other disability, your statement of “absolute correctness” is wrong.
> 
> What is perceived will always depend from the nature of “sensor” apparatus and control hierarchy and that is genetically different in every human (LCS).
> 
> But I think that Rick is not talking about whether “perception of distance is controlled” but whether he can make mess and confussion so that he can prove finally that he thinks the same as Bill Powers did, and that his RCT is the same as PCT. It’s not and will never be.
> 
> Rick is hidding something and manipulating, but he can’t hide from CSGnet archives.
> 
> He was claiming for years that “cursor and target” are outside and are functioning as “outside controlled variable”. And this is wrong from PCT view. But it’s probably right from behavioristic view. Rick is psychologist (behaviorist) and he is trying to present that he is “seeing” control of perception what was not his first conclussion about “tracking experiment”. On the basis of that experiment he build RCT theory with controlled variable in outer environment called RCT.
> 
> He is changing his mind again. If he can’t perceive the distance in the same way how can other people perceive the same thing in the same way.
> 
> So I think that Rick is not talking about whether control of perception of the “target and cursor” is correct, but whether it can be seen the same from all people. This is his insinuation. He is just “hidding” behind that statement what is his great manipulation again. People will never see experiments in the same way. It can be similar but not “the same”. There will be always differences which can be seen in every statistical analysis of any experiment. It’s about differences among people.
> 
> The more experiments become complex the more differences in perceiving and intepretations of what is controlled become different among people. Also simple experiments with colours showed differences in perceiving in the same “coloured” space (Maturana). So generally speaking people do not perceive whatever is out there is the same way.
> 
> So Rick does not and can’t understand PCT in the same way as Bill did. Bill Powers even confirmed that.
> 
> So beleiving that we see everything in the same way will not solve the problem. Other experiments beside “tracking experiments” can prove whether PCT is right about how people perceive and control or how generally organisms function. One experiment can not prove anything.
> 
> There is not “one theory of Universe” present among people in the sense that people perceive Universe in the same way and think about in the same way. There are many theories.
> 
> And I say that diagram LCS III and definitions of control (B:CP) show right how people perceive and control or how organisms function. What do you think ?
> 
> Boris
> 
> On 4/7/19 12:26 PM, Martin Taylor ([mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2019.04.07.14.07]
> 
> > > [Rick Marken 2019-04-07\_10:35:36]
> 
> > > …
> 
> > > RM: …I think that it is a fundamental assumption of PCT that people can perceive things in the same way; indeed, I think this assumption is essential to doing PCT science.
> 
> > I disagree. Why? Because at the level of the tracking study you cite as evidence, nothing at all relates one person’s (in deed, one control loop in one person’s) results with how someone else perceives the “changing distance between cursor and target”. There are no scientific predictions based in PCT that suggest what might be the case if different subjects perceived the on-screen distance identically or if they all perceived it differently. No “social PCT” is even suggested by the experiment, let alone a grand claim that in this experiment, everyone perceives the display the same.
> 
> > > And I believe I can demonstrate that this is the case. In the basic tracking task, I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled. So it is seems that it is possible, in at least this case, for people to have the same perception – in this case a perception of the changing distance between cursor and target. Does this convince you that it is, indeed, possible for many different people to perceive something in the same way?
> 
> > No. From results of non-PCT experiments in visual perception, it would be very strange if you could prove that everyone with their different screen sizes and contrast levels, and with different visual acuities and visual experiences had the same non-linearities in their perceptions of the relative locations of target and cursor in even a simple tracking experiment (which PCT theory tells us is nearly immune to non-linearity).
> > 
> > At a higher level, I was impressed when I was a graduate student by Colin Turnbull’s report of a forest-dwelling pygmy’s astonishment when he first saw from a hill people fishing from canoes. He couldn’t understand how such matchsticks could support actual people, who he apparently perceived s person-sized.
> > 
> > Since how we determine whether people see “the same thing” similarly is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, I don’t think it’s a problem that can be solved by referring to the similar (but never identical) results different people produce when they act a subjects in a tracking study. As Powers said, all you can experiment with is what the experimenter perceives to be in the subject’s environment, not what the subject perceives.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> > > Best
> 
> > > Rick
> 
> > > > If I would give my full power into cooperation then I’ll have to refresh my physiological and neurophysiological knowledge. That needs time.
> 
> > > > I’m momentally accupied in changing of scholl systems. Beside cooperating in changing our national school system, I also made contact with UN (United Nations). I’m trying to present them general school system in which PCT has significant role. It is meant for all national school systems on the World. It’s UN that we are talking about. It demands a lot of work. I thought of requesting help of some CSGnet members. I thought even on you Rick. On some fields you could be of great help in advancing PCT.
> 
> > > > But as the situation on CSGnet became “monstrous”, I’m trying to make it on my own.
> 
> > > > So Rick I’ll take a deep breath (you act like a good psychoterapist) and I’ll try to find a solution. But I also expect that from you, Powers ladies and other interested.
> 
> > > > Best,
> 
> > > > Boris
> 
> > > > Best
> 
> > > > Rick
> 
> > > > > > RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for me to find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t come to PCT with an existing agenda.
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > HB : Of course. How could you come to PCT with an existing agenda if you understand RCT (Ricks Control Theory).
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > RM : I didn’t try to see how PCT fit in with an existing theoretical framework in which I had a strong intellectual or professional investment.
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > HB : That’s self-evident. Existing theoretical framework of PCT is LCS III diagram and definitions of control loop in B:CP Glossary. In this theoretical framework you had no professional investment, because you don’t even recognize it as PCT basics and you don’t want to accept it. But its possible that you had strong professional investment in RCT (Ricks Control Theory) which has no common ground with PCT.
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > PCT Definitions of 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.
> 
> > > > > > ![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > RM : Nor did I try to find commonality between PCT and other existing theories.
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > HB : Of course you didn’t. There is no commonality between PCT and RCT.
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
> 
> > > > > > 1. CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
> 
> > > > > > 1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
> 
> > > > > > 1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
> 
> > > > > > 1. INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
> 
> > > > > > 1. COMPARATOR : ???
> 
> > > > > > 1. ERROR SIGNAL : ???
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > RM : The only people with whom I now find myself on common ground regarding PCT are people who approach PCT the way I do
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > HB : The people who approach “PCT” the way you are probably believing that “Behavior is control” which controls some “controlled variable” in external environment and produce some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And if I would guess who these people are it would probably be : Warren Mansel, Tim Carey, Bruce Nevin etc.
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > RM : … with a willingness to abandon one’s attachment to or interest in finding commonality with any existing theories of behavior combined with an interest in doing the lab exercises (demos) and homework (models). It works like a charm.
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > > > > HB : So why you don’t abandon existing RCT theory of behaviour and do some real PCT with real life experiments like : sleeping, observing, walking, sun shining, sitting and thinking etc.
> 
> > > > –
> 
> > > > 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892/40 "2019-04-09T18:14:41Z")

</div>

[Rick Marken 2019-04-09\_11:09:49]

> [Martin Taylor 2019.04.09.08.21]
> 
> ```
> MT: In response to Rick's message and its
> 
> ```
> 
> correction I have only questions for him, answers to which might  
> help me understand them a little better.
> 
> ```
> MT: 1. Do you believe there is a Real Reality, or do you take the
> 
> ```
> 
> solipsist position that what you perceive is the totality of what  
> is?

RM: I believe there is a Real Reality.Â

> MT: Assuming you believe there is a Real Reality …
> 
> ```
> 1a. Do you believe that there is a Real Reality that can be known
> 
> ```
> 
> to us?

RM: Yes. Â

> ```
> MT: 1b. do you believe there is a Real Reality that can never be known
> 
> ```
> 
> to us?

RM: I don’t really have any beliefs about this one way or another. But I lean toward “No”.Â

> MT: Assuming the you believe there exists a Real Reality …
> 
> ```
> 2. Where is the CV of which Powers writes?
> 
> ```

 RM: In the brain of the observer (in fact) and in the brain of the controller (in theory, as the variable p).Â

> ```
> MT: 3. If the perception and the CEV are literally the same, at least
> 
> ```
> 
> one of the following must be true. Which one or more?
> 
> ```
> 3a. Solipsism is correct.
> 
> 3b. Real Reality is what we influence and what we sense.
> 
> 3c. Real Reality exists, is knowable, and the CV is in it, while
> 
> ```
> 
> the perception is in the perceiver, which means that the CV and  
> the perception are not the same.
> 
> ```
> 3d. Real Reality exists but is not knowable, and the CV behaves
> 
> ```
> 
> approximately or exactly as does some function of variables that  
> exist in Real Reality.
> 
> ```
> 3e. None of the above.
> 
> ```

RM: 3bÂ

> ```
> MT: I guess that's enough for now, because I'm not looking for further
> 
> ```
> 
> obfuscation. A series of answers (these would be mine) of the  
> form:
> 
> ```
> 1. Real Reality.
> 
> 1a. No
> 
> 1b. Yes
> 
> ```

RM: I answered “yes” to 1a because I believe that science (observation, modeling and testing) has been a successful approach to knowing Real Reality. I responded “agnostic” to 1b because I have no idea what science might discover in the future about the limitations of our ability to know Real Reality. But I think that, to date, science has done a startlingly good job of producing what seems like a very close approximation to Real Reality.Â

> ```
> 2. MT:Â In the perception of an observer (at least, that's what Powers
> 
> ```
> 
> said).

RM: This is your answer to “Where is the CV about which Powers writes”. I agree that it is a perception in the observer but it is also a perception (in theory) in the controller. But I think we understand this idea somewhat differently. You seem to think that what Bill meant is that there is a variable “out there” in the environment called the CV (that you call the CEV) that exists as a perception in the observer (and, theoretically, in the controller). I think the CV exists _only_ as a perception in both observer and (in theory) controller. The CV is a perception in the sense that it is a FUNCTION of variables in Real Reality. This FUNCTION _defines_ the aspect of Real Reality that is the CV. But this CV exists only in systems that can compute this function of Real Reality (actually, the sensory effects thereof) , such systems being living organisms and now some AI computer systems.Â

> MT: 3b and 3d

RM: I didn’t include 3d mainly because it started out saying that Real Reality is not knowable, which I think is debatable and not really relevant; I think we know Real Reality well enough to build accurate models of control that include definitions of CVs in terms of variables in Real Reality as defined by the models of physics and chemistry.

> ```
> MT: A list like that would be sufficient, without further explanation.
> 
> ```
> 
> Given the set of answers, I might be able to decode today’s  
> messages and put them in context of some of your earlier  
> pronouncements that I thought I had begun to understand, including  
> that the Perception and the CEV are actually the same variable, a  
> variable that relates to, but is not something variable in Real  
> Reality. Then we would be able to move on.

RM: I hope my answers help. My reply to Eetu might help too.Â

Best

RickÂ

![kndcljpkohhimpno.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/5/56893745dd5a1ca29945e0ee490d0b67eafd9b4f.png)

> **···**
>
> –  
> Richard S. MarkenÂ
> 
> "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you  
> have nothing left to take away.�  
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892.md?page=1)

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/goal-of-our-researchgate-project/13892.md?page=3)