goal of our researchgate project

rsmarken · April 3, 2019, 12:21am

[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

···

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:50 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for meÂ toÂ find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):

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):

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) :

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) :

COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P (B:CP)

Â ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Â

RM : Nor did I tryÂ toÂ 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

CONTROL : Keeping of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some Â»controlled variableÂ« in reference state

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« in reference state.

INPUT FUNCTION : produce Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled PerceptionÂ«, the perceptual correlate of Â»controlled q.i.Â«

COMPARATOR : ???

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 wiillingnessÂ toÂ abandon one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

_Boris_Hartman · April 4, 2019, 4:57pm

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.

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 2:22 AM
To: csgnet 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 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 myÂ 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.Â 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 theÂ 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 proposalsÂ for cooperation, but nobody answered, except some proposal about “Researchgate project” forÂ 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 Â Â 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):

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):

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):

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) :

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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

CONTROL : Keeping of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some Â»controlled variableÂ« in reference state

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« in reference state.

INPUT FUNCTION : produce Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled PerceptionÂ«, the perceptual correlate of Â»controlled q.i.Â«

COMPARATOR : ???

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.â€?
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

rsmarken · April 7, 2019, 5:40pm

[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.Â 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 asÂ 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.Â 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 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 Â

BestÂ

Rick

···

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:00 AM “Boris Hartman” 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM : But I think what made it particularly easy for meÂ toÂ find common ground with your dad is that I didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):

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):

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) :

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) :

COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P (B:CP)

Â ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Â

RM : Nor did I tryÂ toÂ 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

CONTROL : Keeping of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some Â»controlled variableÂ« in reference state

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« in reference state.

INPUT FUNCTION : produce Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled PerceptionÂ«, the perceptual correlate of Â»controlled q.i.Â«

COMPARATOR : ???

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 willingnessÂ toÂ abandon one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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 Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

MartinT · April 7, 2019, 6:26pm

[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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM
: But I think what made it
particularly easy for meÂ toÂ find
common ground with your dad is
that I didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT

Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

                                      CONTROL
: Achievement and maintenance
of a preselected state in the
controlling system, through
actions on the environment
that also cancel the effects
of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):

                                    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):

                                    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) :

                                    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) :

                                    COMPARATOR :
The portion of control system
that computes the magnitude and
direction of mismatch between
perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P
(B:CP)

                                      Â ERROR : The
discrepancy between a
perceptual signal and a
reference signal, which drives
a control systemâ€™s output
function. The discrepancy
between a controlled quantity
and itâ€™s present reference
level, which causes observable
behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :

                                      ERROR SIGNAL : A

signal indicating the
magnitude and direction of
error.
Â

Â

RM : Nor did I tryÂ toÂ 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

                                    CONTROL :
Keeping of some Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in reference state,
protected (defended) from
disturbances.
                                      OUTPUT
FUNCTION : controlled effects
(control of behavior) to outer
environment so to keep some
Â»controlled variableÂ« in
reference state
                                    FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of
outer environmentÂ« in reference
state.
                                    INPUT
FUNCTION : produce Â»Controlled
Perceptual VariableÂ« or
Â»Controlled PerceptionÂ«, the
perceptual correlate of
Â»controlled q.i.Â«
                                    COMPARATOR :
???
                                    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
willingnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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 Â
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

bleach · April 7, 2019, 8:02pm

Martin, I think you are missing Rick’s point completely.Â
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.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.

  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

[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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM
: But I think what made it
particularly easy for meÂ toÂ find
common ground with your dad is
that I didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT

Definitions of control loop :

                                    Bill P

(B:CP):

                                        CONTROL
: Achievement and
maintenance of a preselected
state in the controlling
system, through actions on
the environment that also
cancel the effects of
disturbances.
Bill P
(B:CP):

                                      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):

                                      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)
:

                                      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)
:

                                      COMPARATOR
: The portion of control
system that computes the
magnitude and direction of
mismatch between perceptual
and reference signal.
Bill P
(B:CP)

                                        Â ERROR : The
discrepancy between a
perceptual signal and a
reference signal, which
drives a control systemâ€™s
output function. The
discrepancy between a
controlled quantity and itâ€™s
present reference level,
which causes observable
behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :

                                        ERROR SIGNAL :

A signal indicating the
magnitude and direction of
error.
Â

Â

                                      RM : Nor did I
tryÂ toÂ 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

                                      CONTROL :
Keeping of some Â»aspect of
outer environmentÂ« in
reference state, protected
(defended) from disturbances.
                                        OUTPUT
FUNCTION : controlled
effects (control of
behavior) to outer
environment so to keep some
Â»controlled variableÂ« in
reference state
                                      FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of
outer environmentÂ« in
reference state.
                                      INPUT
FUNCTION : produce Â»Controlled
Perceptual VariableÂ« or
Â»Controlled PerceptionÂ«, the
perceptual correlate of
Â»controlled q.i.Â«
                                      COMPARATOR
: ???
                                      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
willingnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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 Â
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

MartinT · April 8, 2019, 3:12am

[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

···

On 2019/04/7 4:02 PM, Bill Leach
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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.Â 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

[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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM
: But I think what made it
particularly easy for meÂ toÂ find
common ground with your dad
is that I didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT

Definitions of control loop
:

                                      Bill P

(B:CP):

                                          CONTROL
: Achievement and
maintenance of a
preselected state in the
controlling system,
through actions on the
environment that also
cancel the effects of
disturbances.
Bill P
(B:CP):

                                        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):

                                        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) :

                                        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) :

                                        COMPARATOR
: The portion of control
system that computes the
magnitude and direction of
mismatch between perceptual
and reference signal.
Bill
P (B:CP)

                                          Â ERROR : The
discrepancy between a
perceptual signal and a
reference signal, which
drives a control systemâ€™s
output function. The
discrepancy between a
controlled quantity and
itâ€™s present reference
level, which causes
observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :

                                          ERROR SIGNAL

: A signal indicating the
magnitude and direction of
error.
Â

Â

                                        RM : Nor did I
tryÂ toÂ 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

                                        CONTROL
: Keeping of some Â»aspect of
outer environmentÂ« in
reference state, protected
(defended) from
disturbances.
                                          OUTPUT
FUNCTION : controlled
effects (control of
behavior) to outer
environment so to keep
some Â»controlled variableÂ«
in reference state
                                        FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of
outer environmentÂ« in
reference state.
                                        INPUT
FUNCTION : produce
Â»Controlled Perceptual
VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled
PerceptionÂ«, the perceptual
correlate of Â»controlled
q.i.Â«
                                        COMPARATOR
: ???
                                        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
willingnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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 Â
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

bleach · April 8, 2019, 8:07am

···

On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â Conflict resolution is
actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT.Â I think the
major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful results
while producing protocols for doing such work.Â CSG benefited from
that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported back and
discussed their work here.Â 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.Â 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

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

[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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM
: But I think what made it
particularly easy for meÂ toÂ find
common ground with your
dad is that I didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT

Definitions of control
loop :

                                        Bill P

(B:CP):

                                            CONTROL
: Achievement and
maintenance of a
preselected state in the
controlling system,
through actions on the
environment that also
cancel the effects of
disturbances.
Bill P
(B:CP):

                                          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):

                                          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) :

                                          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) :

                                          COMPARATOR
: The portion of control
system that computes the
magnitude and direction of
mismatch between
perceptual and reference
signal.
Bill
P (B:CP)

                                            Â ERROR :
The discrepancy between
a perceptual signal and
a reference signal,
which drives a control
systemâ€™s output
function. The
discrepancy between a
controlled quantity and
itâ€™s present reference
level, which causes
observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP)
:

                                            ERROR

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

Â

                                          RM : Nor did
I tryÂ toÂ 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

                                          CONTROL
: Keeping of some Â»aspect
of outer environmentÂ« in
reference state, protected
(defended) from
disturbances.
                                            OUTPUT
FUNCTION : controlled
effects (control of
behavior) to outer
environment so to keep
some Â»controlled
variableÂ« in reference
state
                                          FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect
of outer environmentÂ« in
reference state.
                                          INPUT
FUNCTION : produce
Â»Controlled Perceptual
VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled
PerceptionÂ«, the
perceptual correlate of
Â»controlled q.i.Â«
                                          COMPARATOR
: ???
                                          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
willingnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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
Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

bleach · April 8, 2019, 3:22pm

It just occurred to me that there is yet another way of talking
about what Rick was proposing.Â 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.Â In a sense we all
have the ‘same’ perception.Â 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.Â  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

···

On 4/8/19 2:07 AM, Bill Leach
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

wrleach@cableone.net

    On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor (

via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â Conflict resolution is
actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT.Â I think the
major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful results
while producing protocols for doing such work.Â CSG benefited
from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported
back and discussed their work here.Â 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.Â 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

[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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM : But I think
what made it
particularly easy for meÂ toÂ find
common ground with your
dad is that I didn’t
comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT

Definitions of control
loop :

                                          Bill P

(B:CP):

                                              CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a
preselected state in
the controlling
system, through
actions on the
environment that also
cancel the effects of
disturbances.
Bill P
(B:CP):

                                            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):

                                            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) :

                                            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) :

                                            COMPARATOR
: The portion of control
system that computes the
magnitude and direction
of mismatch between
perceptual and reference
signal.
Bill
P (B:CP)

                                              Â ERROR :
The discrepancy
between a perceptual
signal and a reference
signal, which drives a
control systemâ€™s
output function. The
discrepancy between a
controlled quantity
and itâ€™s present
reference level, which
causes observable
behavior.
Bill P
(B:CP) :

                                              ERROR

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

Â

                                            RM : Nor
did I tryÂ toÂ 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

                                            CONTROL
: Keeping of some
Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in
reference state,
protected (defended)
from disturbances.
                                              OUTPUT
FUNCTION : controlled
effects (control of
behavior) to outer
environment so to keep
some Â»controlled
variableÂ« in reference
state
                                            FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
Â»ControlÂ« of some
Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in
reference state.
                                            INPUT
FUNCTION : produce
Â»Controlled Perceptual
VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled
PerceptionÂ«, the
perceptual correlate of
Â»controlled q.i.Â«
                                            COMPARATOR
: ???
                                            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 willingnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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 Â --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

MartinT · April 8, 2019, 4:48pm

[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

    It just occurred to me that there is yet another way of talking
about what Rick was proposing.Â 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.Â In a sense
we all have the ‘same’ perception.Â 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.Â 
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

      On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor (

via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

          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.Â 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.Â 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.Â
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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â Conflict resolution
is actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT.Â I think
the major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful
results while producing protocols for doing such work.Â CSG
benefited from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and
others reported back and discussed their work here.Â 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.Â 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

[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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM : But I think
what made it
particularly easy for
meÂ toÂ find
common ground with
your dad is that I
didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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
tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT Definitions of control loop :

                                            Bill

P (B:CP):

                                                CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a
preselected state in
the controlling
system, through
actions on the
environment that
also cancel the
effects of
disturbances.
Bill
P (B:CP):

                                              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):

                                              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) :

                                              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) :

                                              COMPARATOR
: The portion of
control system that
computes the magnitude
and direction of
mismatch between
perceptual and
reference signal.
Bill
P (B:CP)

                                                Â ERROR
: The discrepancy
between a perceptual
signal and a
reference signal,
which drives a
control systemâ€™s
output function. The
discrepancy between
a controlled
quantity and itâ€™s
present reference
level, which causes
observable behavior.
Bill P
(B:CP) :

                                                ERROR

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

Â

                                              RM :
Nor did I tryÂ toÂ 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

                                              CONTROL
: Keeping of some
Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in
reference state,
protected (defended)
from disturbances.
                                                OUTPUT
FUNCTION :
controlled effects
(control of
behavior) to outer
environment so to
keep some
Â»controlled
variableÂ« in
reference state
                                              FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
Â»ControlÂ« of some
Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in
reference state.
                                              INPUT
FUNCTION : produce
Â»Controlled Perceptual
VariableÂ« or
Â»Controlled
PerceptionÂ«, the
perceptual correlate
of Â»controlled q.i.Â«
                                              COMPARATOR
: ???
                                              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 willingnnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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 Â --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

bleach · April 8, 2019, 5:34pm

Thank you Martin.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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).Â However, the
more people that are thinking about the problem the more likely we
will see innovative ways to solve it.

bill

···

On 4/8/19 10:48 AM, Martin Taylor
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

      It just occurred to me that there is yet another way of
talking about what Rick was proposing.Â 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.Â In a
sense we all have the ‘same’ perception.Â 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.Â 
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

        On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor

(
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

            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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â Conflict
resolution is actually pretty well understood in terms of
PCT.Â I think the major reasons why is that clinicians
produced successful results while producing protocols for
doing such work.Â CSG benefited from that work because the
Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported back and discussed their
work here.Â 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.Â 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

[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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM : But I think
what made it
particularly easy
for meÂ toÂ find
common ground with
your dad is that I
didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT Definitions of control loop :

                                              Bill

P (B:CP):

                                                  CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a
preselected state
in the controlling
system, through
actions on the
environment that
also cancel the
effects of
disturbances.
Bill
P (B:CP):

                                                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):

                                                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) :

                                                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) :

                                                COMPARATOR
: The portion of
control system that
computes the
magnitude and
direction of
mismatch between
perceptual and
reference signal.
Bill
P (B:CP)

                                                  Â ERROR : The
discrepancy
between a
perceptual signal
and a reference
signal, which
drives a control
systemâ€™s output
function. The
discrepancy
between a
controlled
quantity and itâ€™s
present reference
level, which
causes observable
behavior.
Bill P
(B:CP) :

                                                  ERROR SIGNAL

: A signal
indicating the
magnitude and
direction of
error.
Â

Â

                                                RM :
Nor did I tryÂ toÂ 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

                                                CONTROL
: Keeping of some
Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in
reference state,
protected (defended)
from disturbances.
                                                  OUTPUT
FUNCTION :
controlled effects
(control of
behavior) to outer
environment so to
keep some
Â»controlled
variableÂ« in
reference state
                                                FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
Â»ControlÂ« of some
Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in
reference state.
                                                INPUT
FUNCTION : produce
Â»Controlled
Perceptual VariableÂ«
or Â»Controlled
PerceptionÂ«, the
perceptual correlate
of Â»controlled q.i.Â«
                                                COMPARATOR
: ???
                                                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 willingnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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 Â --Antoine de
Saint-Exupery

rsmarken · April 9, 2019, 4:05am

[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.Â 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.Â 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 > > via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor (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.Â 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.Â 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.Â
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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â Conflict resolution
is actually pretty well understood in terms of PCT.Â I think
the major reasons why is that clinicians produced successful
results while producing protocols for doing such work.Â CSG
benefited from that work because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and
others reported back and discussed their work here.Â 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.Â 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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM : But I think
what made it
particularly easy for
meÂ toÂ find
common ground with
your dad is that I
didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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
tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT Definitions of control loop :

                                            Bill

P (B:CP):

                                                CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a
preselected state in
the controlling
system, through
actions on the
environment that
also cancel the
effects of
disturbances.
Bill
P (B:CP):

                                              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):

                                              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) :

                                              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) :

                                              COMPARATOR
: The portion of
control system that
computes the magnitude
and direction of
mismatch between
perceptual and
reference signal.
Bill
P (B:CP)

                                                Â ERROR
: The discrepancy
between a perceptual
signal and a
reference signal,
which drives a
control systemâ€™s
output function. The
discrepancy between
a controlled
quantity and itâ€™s
present reference
level, which causes
observable behavior.
Bill P
(B:CP) :

                                                ERROR

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

Â

                                              RM :
Nor did I tryÂ toÂ 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

                                              CONTROL
: Keeping of some
Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in
reference state,
protected (defended)
from disturbances.
                                                OUTPUT
FUNCTION :
controlled effects
(control of
behavior) to outer
environment so to
keep some
Â»controlled
variableÂ« in
reference state
                                              FEED-BACK FUNCTION :
Â»ControlÂ« of some
Â»aspect of outer
environmentÂ« in
reference state.
                                              INPUT
FUNCTION : produce
Â»Controlled Perceptual
VariableÂ« or
Â»Controlled
PerceptionÂ«, the
perceptual correlate
of Â»controlled q.i.Â«
                                              COMPARATOR
: ???
                                              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 willingnnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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 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 Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

rsmarken · April 9, 2019, 4:28am

[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

···

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 Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

EetuP · April 9, 2019, 6:44am

[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 â€œReal Realityâ€? (RR). Powers says in the quotation: â€œ* 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. 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 â€œobject of perceptionâ€?) is a useful and necessary concept because without it one must say something like this: â€œThe 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.

···

[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 via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor (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.

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 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):

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):

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):

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) :

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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which
causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

CONTROL : Keeping of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some Â»controlled variableÂ« in reference state

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« in reference state.

INPUT FUNCTION : produce Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled PerceptionÂ«, the perceptual correlate of Â»controlled q.i.Â«

COMPARATOR : ???

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.â€?
                            --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.â€?
                            --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.â€?

                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

MartinT · April 9, 2019, 12:46pm

[Martin Taylor 2019.04.09.08.21]

···

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 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 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.Â  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.Â 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
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

                  On
4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor (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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â Conflict resolution is actually pretty
well understood in terms of PCT.Â I think the
major reasons why is that clinicians produced
successful results while producing protocols for
doing such work.Â CSG benefited from that work
because the Ed Ford’s, Dag, and others reported
back and discussed their work here.Â 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.Â 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 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 Â Â

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best

Â

Rick

Â RM : But I think
what made it
particularly
easy for meÂ toÂ find
common ground
with your dad
is that I
didn’t comeÂ toÂ 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 tryÂ toÂ 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

PCT Definitions of control loop :

                                                      Bill

P (B:CP):

                                                      CONTROL : Achievement
and
maintenance of
a preselected
state in the
controlling
system,
through
actions on the
environment
that also
cancel the
effects of
disturbances.
Bill
P (B:CP):

                                                      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):â€¦** 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):

                                                      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) :

                                                      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) :

                                                      COMPARATOR
: The portion
of control
system that
computes the
magnitude and
direction of
mismatch
between
perceptual and
reference
signal.
Bill P (B:CP)

                                                      Â ERROR : The
discrepancy
between a
perceptual
signal and a
reference
signal, which
drives a
control
systemâ€™s
output
function. The
discrepancy
between a
controlled
quantity and
itâ€™s present
reference
level, which
causes
observable
behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :

                                                      ERROR SIGNAL

: A signal
indicating the
magnitude and
direction of
error.
Â

Â

                                                      RM :
Nor did I tryÂ toÂ 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

                                                      CONTROL

: Keeping of
some Â»aspect
of outer
environmentÂ«
in reference
state,
protected
(defended)
from
disturbances.

                                                      OUTPUT

FUNCTION :
controlled
effects
(control of
behavior) to
outer
environment so
to keep some
Â»controlled
variableÂ« in
reference
state

                                                      FEED-BACK FUNCTION :

Â»ControlÂ« of
some Â»aspect
of outer
environmentÂ«
in reference
state.

                                                      INPUT

FUNCTION :
produce
Â»Controlled
Perceptual
VariableÂ« or
Â»Controlled
PerceptionÂ«,
the perceptual
correlate of
Â»controlled
q.i.Â«

                                                      COMPARATOR

: ???

                                                      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
willingnessÂ toÂ abandon
one’s
attachmentÂ toÂ 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 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
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 Â
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

rsmarken · April 9, 2019, 5:32pm

[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 âReal Realityâ? (RR). Powers says in the quotation: â*When we
apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p.â?*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 perceptionÂ 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 âobject of perceptionâ?) is a useful and necessary concept
because without it one must say something like this: âThe 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.

RM: I consider that a feature, not a bug.Â When an observer has successfully tested to determine the variable the controller is controlling,Â 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.Â 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 Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

_Boris_Hartman · April 9, 2019, 5:40pm

Rick…

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 6:06 AM
To: csgnet 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):

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):

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) :

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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

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) :

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

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
COMPARATOR : ???
ERROR SIGNAL : ???

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 via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

On 4/7/19 9:12 PM, Martin Taylor (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.

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 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):

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):

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):

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) :

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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

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) :

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

CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.

OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.

INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«

COMPARATOR : ???

ERROR SIGNAL : ???

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

_Boris_Hartman · April 9, 2019, 5:51pm

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

CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
COMPARATOR : ???
ERROR SIGNAL : ???

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.