goal of our researchgate project

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2019-04-09_11:27:39]

HB : I knew that you will “fuse gas to the fire”.

Â

       HB : But as you are so smart…

HB : You are manipulator Rick. So I’ll have to manipulate too.Â

Â

HB : This is not what “tracking task” was made for. It’s your imagination again…The problem is that you don’t understand what TCV is for and you are making bigger confussion then ever.

HB : Can you translate what you wrote into something usefull ?

Â

HB: So Rick I want finally that you make RCT explanations of everyday behaviors like : sleeping, walking, observing, sunshining, sitting and thinking etc.Â

Â

       HB: 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)

RM: I’ll pass. Â

···

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Well Rick I knew that you’ll pass.

And you know why, because you can’t explain behvaiors like : sleeping, sunshining, walking, oberving with your nonsense RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory), You just have to prove that your RCT works in real life.

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

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

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

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

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

5. COMPARATOR : ???

6. ERROR SIGNAL : ???

So where is your courage to explain members how your RCT is right. Is that so hard. Ups maybe for you and your imagination it is. I wish you sweat dreaming ? But sooner or later I expect that you’ll step out of your “dreams” and appologize to members of CSGnet for confusing and misleading them for so long time.

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 8:29 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[Rick Marken 2019-04-09_11:27:39]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:40 AM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB : I knew that you will “fuse gas to the fire”.

HB : But as you are so smart…

HB : You are manipulator Rick. So I’ll have to manipulate too.

HB : This is not what “tracking task” was made for. It’s your imagination again…The problem is that you don’t understand what TCV is for and you are making bigger confussion then ever.

HB : Can you translate what you wrote into something usefull ?

HB: So Rick I want finally that you make RCT explanations of everyday behaviors like : sleeping, walking, observing, sunshining, sitting and thinking etc.

HB: 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)

RM: I’ll pass.

–

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

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-04-10_08:31:21 UTC]

Rick, I think I can understand the way how you think. I try explicate it here:

1. RR consists of physical (and chemical?) variables i.e. variables which physics (and chemistry) can perceive. So, when a physician (or chemist) perceives something as a researcher
   i.e. via their research instruments etc. she perceives something which exists in RR.

2. All the other perceptions like perceptions of say biology, psychology, economy, astronomy etc. and our everyday perceptions are (only) functions of those previously mentioned physical
   (or chemical) variables. These functions are (solely) defined by the perceivers perceptual functions and thus there does not exist in RR anything which corresponds these perceptions and thus the perceiver does not perceive anything in the RR. Instead the perceptual
   functions of the perceiver constructs their perceptions and what they construct depends solely on the character or structure of those functions themselves.

3. In a TCV situation the controller, subject A, is (according to the theory) controlling one of A’s perceptions i.e. a perceptual signal inside A by affecting some of the physical variables
   the function of which the perception is. The observer, subject B, is trying to find out which one of her i.e. B’s perceptions behaves so that she can decide that it is
   this perceptions which A is controlling.

Before I say anything more, I would like to hear whether this explication is even bit of it.

Eetu

···

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

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

EP: Hmm, just a thought: The control (any control of perception, except temporarily in imagination) is constrained by “Real Reality� (RR). Powers says in the quotation: “When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p.� This applies also to
observer: she has a perception p of the CV. When she applies a disturbance (because of TCV), she applies it to CV not to her p.

RM: I think the problem is in thinking of a CV as something
to be perceived. In fact, the CV is a perception for both the observer and the controller. It is an
actual perception for the observer; 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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best

Rick

---

Eetu

• Please, regard all my statements as questions,

  no matter how they are formulated.

–

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]

Sorry Eetu that I jumped in…
/o:p>

There is no “CV” in external environment as you can’t explain too many behaviors with such an approcah. But you can cause deeper misunderstandng of PCT and you can cause that PCT will has less and less value showing where Bill was contradicting himself. Anyway Rick, I think that you give a dame about PCT. But you are taking care of your ass and nonsesne RCT.

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:33 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: goal of our researchgate project

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

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

EP: Hmm, just a thought: The control (any control of perception, except temporarily in imagination) is constrained by “Real Reality� (RR). Powers says in the quotation: “When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p.� This applies also to observer: she has a perception p of the CV. When she applies a disturbance (because of TCV), she applies it to CV not to her p.

RM: I think the problem is in thinking of a CV as something to be perceived. In fact, the CV is a perception for both the observer and the controller. It is an actual perception for the observer; 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.

HB : Observer will perceive whatever is outside in his way and controller in his way. What observer will perceive and control is question for TCV. But I’m sure that most people will not perceive “CV”. And I’m sure you wouldn’t be one of them.

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.

HB : How would you know that “CV” is inside observer ? In theory ? Or in practice.

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).

HB : According to PCT “CV” is not a perception. You are lying Rick. There is no “Controlled Variable” in external environment and no “Controlled Perceptual Variable” in observer according to PCT.

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.

HB : So observer doing TCV is some expert for TCV ?

RM : 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.

HB : You are breaking World Record in talking nonsense. And how controller is “protecting distance between cursor and target”. With Telekinesis ? Or with yome “magnetic field” ? Or maybe he is protecting socket that somebody wouldn’t pull out electrical cable and cause the end of “experiment”. I must say that I 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;-)

RM : 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.

HB : Sorry Rick PCT is not working in this way. How do you imagine that “two sensory inputs” look like. X and Y axis like in your Toy Helicopter experiment with Schaffer ? Target through left and cursor through right eye ???

RM : So the FUNCTION that results in the appearance of the CV as the distance between cursor and target is a subtraction.

HB : So you perceived subtraction ?

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

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

HB : Did you try this with anybody or you are just imagining and dreaming ?

EP: Yet we know that those two subjects certainly have both their own perceptions – they have their own perceptual signals and thosee signals 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.

HB : Are there also bullit disturbances ? Describe to us hypothesis about CV being “protected” from all disturbances ??? Which are all these disturbances that you should protect “distance” from ? He,he. What an imagination ?

RM : 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.

HB : So controlled and observer are perceiving the same “CV” ?

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.

HB : So now you are saying that observer and controller do not perceive CV in the same way ?

RM : 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.

HB : So observer has covered eyes with yomething so that he doesn’t perceive the same “CV” as controller ??? He,he. What an imagination.

RM : 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.

HB : Controller must be a good “teacher” to explain to observer what she/he is perceiving ?

Boris

Be

Rick

---

Eetu

• Please, regard all my statements as questions,

  no matter how they are formulated.

–

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

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-04-10_13:17:31 UTC]

Boris,

I think that Rick did not claim that CV is in external environment. Instead he claims that it is inside the observer as the observer’s perception of what the controller is controlling
(or rather what the controller is doing when she is controlling her perception). I agree that this way of thinking can be somewhat narrow and problematic, but I believe it fits perfectly well to Rick’s way of doing empirical research, when he is trying to
prove PCT (as empirical phenomenon) by his studies.

What I suggested was that there is (or can be) something in the real reality (not necessarily outside the controller, it can be also in her like in the case of hunger or itch), which
is perceived when the controller has a perception which she tries to control. And I also suggested that that something could be called RREV or just “object of perception�. This RREV, or whatever you want to call it, is what is affected by the controller’s
output if the control is successful.

···

Eetu

From: “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: keskiviikko 10. huhtikuuta 2019 16.10

Sorry Eetu that I jumped in…<

There is no “CV” in external environment as you can’t explain too many behaviors with such an approcah. But you can cause deeper misunderstandng of PCT and you
can cause that PCT will has less and less value showing where Bill was contradicting himself. Anyway Rick, I think that you give a dame about PCT. But you are taking care of your ass and nonsesne RCT.

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:33 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: goal of our researchgate project

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

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

EP: Hmm, just a thought: The control (any control of perception, except temporarily in imagination) is constrained by “Real Reality� (RR). Powers says in the quotation: “When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p.� This applies also to
observer: she has a perception p of the CV. When she applies a disturbance (because of TCV), she applies it to CV not to her p.

RM: I think the problem is in thinking of a CV as something
to be perceived. In fact, the CV is a perception for both the observer and the controller. It is an
actual perception for the observer; 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.

HB : Observer will perceive whatever is outside in his way and controller in his way. What observer will perceive and control is question for TCV.
But I’m sure that most people will not perceive “CV”. And I’m sure you wouldn’t be one of them.

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.

HB : How would you know that “CV” is inside observer ? In theory ? Or in practice.

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).

HB : According to PCT “CV” is not a perception. You are lying Rick.
There is no “Controlled Variable” in external environment and no “Controlled Perceptual Variable” in observer according to PCT.

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.

HB : So observer doing TCV is some expert for TCV ?

RM : 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.

HB : You are breaking World Record in talking nonsense. And how controller is “protecting distance between cursor and target”.
With Telekinesis ? Or with yome “magnetic field” ? Or maybe he is protecting socket that somebody wouldn’t pull out electrical cable and cause the end of “experiment”. I must say that I 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;-)

RM : 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.

HB : Sorry Rick PCT is not working in this way. How do you imagine that “two sensory inputs” look like. X and Y axis like in your Toy Helicopter
experiment with Schaffer ? Target through left and cursor through right eye ???

RM : So the FUNCTION that results in the appearance of the CV as the distance between cursor and target is a subtraction.

HB : So you perceived subtraction ?

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

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

HB : Did you try this with anybody or you are just imagining and dreaming ?

EP: Yet we know that those two subjects certainly have both their own perceptions – they have their own perceptual signals and those signals 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.

HB : Are there also bullit disturbances ? Describe to us hypothesis about CV being “protected” from all disturbances ??? Which are all these disturbances
that you should protect “distance” from ? He,he. What an imagination ?

RM : 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.

HB : So controlled and observer are perceiving the same “CV” ?

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.

HB : So now you are saying that observer and controller do not perceive CV in the same way ?

RM : 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.

HB : So observer has covered eyes with yomething so that he doesn’t perceive the same “CV” as controller ??? He,he. What an imagination.

RM : 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.

HB : Controller must be a good “teacher” to explain to observer what she/he is perceiving ?

Boris

Be

Rick

---

Eetu

• Please, regard all my statements as questions,

  no matter how they are formulated.

–

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]

Eetu

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen (eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 3:38 PM
To: ‘csgnet@lists.illinois.edu’ csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: goal of our researchgate project

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-04-10_13:17:31 UTC]

Boris,

EP : I think that Rick did not claim that CV is in external environment.

HB : He does not claim now. But go and look in CSGnet archives. I know exactly what Rick is aiming at.

EP : : Instead he claims that it is inside the observer as the observer’s perception of what the controller is controlling (or rather what the controller is doing when she is controlling her perception).

HB : Even this statement is wrong. Observer can’t have inside “perception of CV”. What is that ? Perception is the only “controlled variable” in environment. Perception is CV !!!

You can’t perceive “controlled variable” from outer environment. You can’t perceive that something is controlled outside. Perceptual signal is one-dimensional at least first order.

EP : I agree that this way of thinking can be somewhat narrow and problematic,

HB : You can bet it is…

EP : …but I believe it fits perfectly well to Rick’s way of doing empirical research,

HB : Of course it does as it’s wrong way. His linear thinking is clear RCT.

1. Behavior is control – that’s how difference between cursor and target vary (CV in outer environment)

2. The product is some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” which carry’s control into organism where “CPV” is again controlled in comparator. Why do you think Rick is explaining just outside control. Because he can’t explain what is happening inside organism with his RCT.

How CV is present in perception ?

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

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

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

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

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

5. COMPARATOR : ???

6. ERROR SIGNAL : ???

This is Ricks Control Theory which he exposed through last 5 or 6 years on CSGnet.

EP : ….when he is trying to prove PCT (as empirical phenomenon) by his studies.

HB : He is traying to prove his RCT. If he wanted to prove PCT he would analyse other behaviors like he did sleeping.

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 : This about PCT and how control works in PCT. Control is not happening outside but inside.

HB : The main question is : How did CV came into the controllers and observers perception and later into hierarchy ? Was it already there ? Rick’s many years correspondence show that he is transferring control from environment (CV) into organism through “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. And that Control is being produced with “Control of behavior”. There is no canonical principle in PCT so that something that is controlled in Perceptual hierarchy is “canonically controlled” also in external environment. This was expressed man times from many members :

“To the extend that something is controlled inside is also controlled outside”. Now we know that this is not true, because I offered analysis of other everyday behaviors which show no such thing as “canonical control”.

EP : What I suggested was that there is (or can be) something in the real reality (not necessarily outside the controller, it can be also in her like in the case of hunger or itch), which is perceived when the controller has a perception which she tries to control. And I also suggested that that something could be called RREV or just “object of perception”.

HB :And in Ricks case is "something in the real reality, which is perceived as CV or distance between “cursor and target” ? Is this what you wanted to say ? I also don’t understand what could be “object of perception” ?

EP : This RREV, or whatever you want to call it, is what is affected by the controller’s output if the control is successful.

HB : I’m sorry I don’t understand this either. “RREV” exist in outer environment only if effects of controllers output are successful ?

HB : Well it’s everything to abstract. Could you give some real life example how this works, beside Ricks “chewing” laboratory experiment" which has no use in explaining other behaviors.

Boris

Eetu

From: “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: keskiviikko 10. huhtikuuta 2019 16.10

Sorry Eetu that I jumped in…

There is no “CV” in external environment as you can’t explain too many behaviors with such an approcah. But you can cause deeper misunderstandng of PCT and you can cause that PCT will has less and less value showing where Bill was contradicting himself. Anyway Rick, I think that you give a dame about PCT. But you are taking care of your ass and nonsesne RCT.

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:33 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: goal of our researchgate project

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

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

EP: Hmm, just a thought: The control (any control of perception, except temporarily in imagination) is constrained by “Real Reality” (RR). Powers says in the quotation: “When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p.” This applies also to observer: she has a perception p of the CV. When she applies a disturbance (because of TCV), she applies it to CV not to her p.

RM: I think the problem is in thinking of a CV as something to be perceived. In fact, the CV is a perception for both the observer and the controller. It is an actual perception for the observer; 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.

HB : Observer will perceive whatever is outside in his way and controller in his way. What observer will perceive and control is question for TCV. But I’m sure that most people will not perceive “CV”. And I’m sure you wouldn’t be one of them.

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.

HB : How would you know that “CV” is inside observer ? In theory ? Or in practice.

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).

HB : According to PCT “CV” is not a perception. You are lying Rick. There is no “Controlled Variable” in external environment and no “Controlled Perceptual Variable” in observer according to PCT.

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.

HB : So observer doing TCV is some expert for TCV ?

RM : 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.

HB : You are breaking World Record in talking nonsense. And how controller is “protecting distance between cursor and target”. With Telekinesis ? Or with yome “magnetic field” ? Or maybe he is protecting socket that somebody wouldn’t pull out electrical cable and cause the end of “experiment”. I must say that I 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;-)

RM : 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.

HB : Sorry Rick PCT is not working in this way. How do you imagine that “two sensory inputs” look like. X and Y axis like in your Toy Helicopter experiment with Schaffer ? Target through left and cursor through right eye ???

RM : So the FUNCTION that results in the appearance of the CV as the distance between cursor and target is a subtraction.

HB : So you perceived subtraction ?

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

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

HB : Did you try this with anybody or you are just imagining and dreaming ?

EP: Yet we know that those two subjects certainly have both their own perceptions – they have their own perceptual signals and those signals 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.

HB : Are there also bullit disturbances ? Describe to us hypothesis about CV being “protected” from all disturbances ??? Which are all these disturbances that you should protect “distance” from ? He,he. What an imagination ?

RM : 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.

HB : So controlled and observer are perceiving the same “CV” ?

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.

HB : So now you are saying that observer and controller do not perceive CV in the same way ?

RM : 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.

HB : So observer has covered eyes with yomething so that he doesn’t perceive the same “CV” as controller ??? He,he. What an imagination.

RM : 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.

HB : Controller must be a good “teacher” to explain to observer what she/he is perceiving ?

Boris

Be

Rick

---

Eetu

• Please, regard all my statements as questions,

  no matter how they are formulated.

–

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

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2019-04-10_12:08:57]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-04-10_08:31:21 UTC]

Â

EP: Rick, I think I can understand the way how you think. I try explicate it here:

Â

EP: 1. RR consists of physical (and chemical?) variables i.e. variables which physics (and chemistry) can perceive. So, when a physician (or chemist) perceives  something as a researcher
i.e. via their research instruments etc. she perceives something which exists in RR.

RM: I don’t think physicists and chemists have any better perceptual access to RR than anyone else. What these scientists have is MODELS of what exists in RR that accounts for what they (and we) perceive. So in PCT, RR (which is the “environment” side of the control diagram) is made up of the variables and entities in the MODELS of physics and chemistry.Â

Â

EP: 2. All the other perceptions like perceptions of say biology, psychology, economy, astronomy etc. and our everyday perceptions are (only) functions of those previously mentioned physical
(or chemical) variables.

RM: All perceptions, including those of physicists and chemists, are presumed, by PCT, to be functions of the sensory effects of the environment (RR) as described by the MODELS of physics and chemistry.Â

EP: These functions are (solely) defined by the perceivers perceptual functions and thus there does not exist in RR anything which corresponds these perceptions and thus the perceiver does not perceive anything in the RR. Instead the perceptual functions of the perceiver constructs their perceptions and what they construct depends solely on the character or structure of those functions themselves.

RM: I agree up to the point where you say that what we perceive depends solely on the character or structure of our perceptual functions. Actually, what we perceive depends on the nature of the perceptual functions as well as on the properties of the RR from which the perceptual functions construct our perceptions. So the BASIS of our perceptions is out there in RR; the perceptions themselves – the FUNCTIONS of the sensory effects of RR – exist only in systems that have these FUNCTIONS.Â

EP: 3. In a TCV situation the controller, subject A, is (according to the theory) controlling one of A’s perceptions i.e. a perceptual signal inside A by affecting some of the physical variables
the function of which the perception is. The observer, subject B, is trying to find out which one of her i.e. B’s perceptions behaves so that she can decide that it is
this perceptions which A is controlling.

RM: Perfect. But that is not just the situation in the TCV. It is the situation in much of education. In the education situation subject A is the teacher and subject B is the student. The teacher is trying to teach the student how to carry out some task, such as tying shoe laces. The student watches to see what perceptions the teacher controls in order to get the laces tied: first produce a perception of the laces knotted: then produce a perception of a loop in the lace on one side of the knot, etc. Learning a skill like that is largely about learning what perceptions to produce (control); and the perceptions the student wants to produce are the same ones being produced by the teacher.Â

EP: Before I say anything more, I would like to hear whether this explication is even bit of it.

 RM: I hope this helps.Â

BestÂ

Rick

···

Â

Eetu

Â

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

Â

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

Â

RM: I think the problem is in thinking of a CV as something
to be perceived. In fact, the CV is a perception 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.

Â

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

Â

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

Â

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.

Â

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

Â

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

Â

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

Â

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

Â

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.

Â

Â

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).

Â

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

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

---

Â

Eetu

• Please, regard all my statements as questions,

   no matter how they are formulated.

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.�

                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2019-04-10_13:38:12]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-04-10_13:17:31 UTC]

 Â

EP: I think that Rick did not claim that CV is in external environment. Instead he claims that it is inside the observer as the observer’s perception of what the controller is controlling
(or rather what the controller is doing when she is controlling her perception).

RM: A CV is a perceptual variable, which means it exists only inside a perceiving system, such as a person or an appropriately programmed computer. A CV is a function of the sensory effect of variables in the world of RR, which is outside the perceiving system.Â

Â

EP: I agree that this way of thinking can be somewhat narrow and problematic,

RM: I hope you’ll explain why.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

···

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Eetu, don’t beleive Rick a word. He is manipualting with you. .

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:39 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[Rick Marken 2019-04-10_13:38:12]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-04-10_13:17:31 UTC]

EP: I think that Rick did not claim that CV is in external environment. Instead he claims that it is inside the observer as the observer’s perception of what the controller is controlling (or rather what the controller is doing when she is controlling her perception).

RM: A CV is a perceptual variable, which means it exists only inside a perceiving system,

HB : Stop bullshitting Rick. You proved through years that “CV” is something that exists in external environment (controlled by behavior) and is transffered as “Control Perceptual Variable” in organism. Go refresh you memory.

RM : ….such as a persson or an appropriately programmed computer. A CV is a function of the sensory effect of variables in the world of RR, which is outside the perceiving system.

HB : So you see. CV for you is something that “correspond” to “CV” in external environment (distance between cursor and target). You were always talking about “cannonical principle” which is unexistant in PCT. What is controlled inside is cotnrolled also outside. CV is controlled outside so exist also inside as CV. That’s for you means “corresponding”. And it has nothing to do with PCT.

Whatever you are trying to give impression what CV is, we know from your previous understanding that CV is “controlled variable” in environment (distance between cursor and target), which is “canonically” transffered into internal structure as “Controled Perceptual Variable” which is in PCT non existant. You can’t save your nonsense RCT.

EP: I agree that this way of thinking can be somewhat narrow and problematic,

RM: I hope you’ll explain why.

HB : Because in PCT there is no “Control of output” and there is no “Controlled Variable” or CV in external environment which “corresponds” to “CV” inside the control system, and there is no “Perceptual Controlled Variable” in afferent nerv.

You are World Class Manipulator Rick. Mysery.Â

Do you agree with Bills diagram LCS III and definitions of control loop in B:CP.

Boris

Best

Rick

but I believe it fits perfectly well to Rick’s way of doing empirical research, when he is trying to prove PCT (as empirical phenomenon) by his studies.

What I suggested was that there is (or can be) something in the real reality (not necessarily outside the controller, it can be also in her like in the case of hunger or itch), which is perceived when the controller has a perception which she tries to control. And I also suggested that that something could be called RREV or just “object of perception�. This RREV, or whatever you want to call it, is what is affected by the controller’s output if the control is successful.

Eetu

From: “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: keskiviikko 10. huhtikuuta 2019 16.10

Sorry Eetu that I jumped in…

There is no “CV” in external environment as you can’t explain too many behaviors with such an approcah. But you can cause deeper misunderstandng of PCT and you can cause that PCT will has less and less value showing where Bill was contradicting himself. Anyway Rick, I think that you give a dame about PCT. But you are taking care of your ass and nonsesne RCT.

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:33 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: goal of our researchgate project

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

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

EP: Hmm, just a thought: The control (any control of perception, except temporarily in imagination) is constrained by “Real Reality� (RR). Powers says in the quotation: “When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p.� This applies also to observer: she has a perception p of the CV. When she applies a disturbance (because of TCV), she applies it to CV not to her p.

RM: I think the problem is in thinking of a CV as something to be perceived. In fact, the CV is a perception for both the observer and the controller. It is an actual perception for the observer; 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.

HB : Observer will perceive whatever is outside in his way and controller in his way. What observer will perceive and control is question for TCV. But I’m sure that most people will not perceive “CV”. And I’m sure you wouldn’t be one of them.

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.

HB : How would you know that “CV” is inside observer ? In theory ? Or in practice.

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).

HB : According to PCT “CV” is not a perception. You are lying Rick. There is no “Controlled Variable” in external environment and no “Controlled Perceptual Variable” in observer according to PCT.

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.

HB : So observer doing TCV is some expert for TCV ?

RM : 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.

HB : You are breaking World Record in talking nonsense. And how controller is “protecting distance between cursor and target”. With Telekinesis ? Or with yome “magnetic field” ? Or maybe he is protecting socket that somebody wouldn’t pull out electrical cable and cause the end of “experiment”. I must say that I 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;-)

RM : 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.

HB : Sorry Rick PCT is not working in this way. How do you imagine that “two sensory inputs” look like. X and Y axis like in your Toy Helicopter experiment with Schaffer ? Target through left and cursor through right eye ???

RM : So the FUNCTION that results in the appearance of the CV as the distance between cursor and target is a subtraction.

HB : So you perceived subtraction ?

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

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

HB : Did you try this with anybody or you are just imagining and dreaming ?

EP: Yet we know that those two subjects certainly have both their own perceptions – they have their own perceptual signals and those signals arre 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.

HB : Are there also bullit disturbances ? Describe to us hypothesis about CV being “protected” from all disturbances ??? Which are all these disturbances that you should protect “distance” from ? He,he. What an imagination ?

RM : 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.

HB : So controlled and observer are perceiving the same “CV” ?

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.

HB : So now you are saying that observer and controller do not perceive CV in the same way ?

RM : 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.

HB : So observer has covered eyes with yomething so that he doesn’t perceive the same “CV” as controller ??? He,he. What an imagination.

RM : 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.

HB : Controller must be a good “teacher” to explain to observer what she/he is perceiving ?

Boris

Be

Rick

---

Eetu

• Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

–

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

[bleach]

I’m not speaking for Rick of course, but I think your summary is
great. Remember though, the “physical (and chemical?) variables”
are themselves constructs of the researchers. Probably rather
accurate since essentially their results are and have been
repeated by thousands of researchers from all over the world with
at least similar if not identical results. As a note, I do
believe that you recognize that just from what you did say (but
did not emphasize).

···

On 4/10/19 3:06 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi

        [Eetu

Pikkarainen 2019-04-10_08:31:21 UTC]

Â

        Rick, I think I can understand the way how you

think. I try explicate it here:

Â

        1. RR consists of physical (and chemical?)

variables i.e. variables which physics (and chemistry) can
perceive. So, when a physician (or chemist) perceives
 something as a researcher i.e. via their research
instruments etc. she perceives something which exists in RR.

Â

        2. All the other perceptions like perceptions

of say biology, psychology, economy, astronomy etc. and our
everyday perceptions are (only) functions of those
previously mentioned physical (or chemical) variables. These
functions are (solely) defined by the perceivers perceptual
functions and thus there does not exist in RR anything which
corresponds these perceptions and thus the perceiver does
not perceive anything in the RR. Instead the perceptual
functions of the perceiver constructs their perceptions and
what they construct depends solely on the character or
structure of those functions themselves.

Â

        3. In a TCV situation the controller, subject

A, is (according to the theory) controlling one of A’s
perceptions i.e. a perceptual signal inside A by affecting
some of the physical variables the function of which the
perception is. The observer, subject B, is trying to find
out which one of her i.e. B’s perceptions behaves so that
she can decide that it is
this perceptions which A is controlling.

Â

        Before I say anything more, I would like to

hear whether this explication is even bit of it.

Â

Eetu

Â

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

Â

            [Eetu

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

Â

          RM: I think

the problem is in thinking of a CV as something
to be perceived. In fact, the CV is a perception  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.

Â

          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

Â

            EP:

Where is it then? I think it is in RR.

Â

          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.

Â

          RM: The

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

Â

            EP:

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

Â

          RM: I

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

Â

            EP: Yet

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

Â

          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.

Â

Â

            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).

Â

          RM: The

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

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

---

Â

Eetu

          - Please,

regard all my statements as questions,

          Â Â Â  no

matter how they are formulated.

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 

–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2019.04.10.09.41]

Thanks for these answers. They really do help me to understand where

you are coming from that differs from where I do. When we start from
different assumptions, we are unlikely to agree on all the
conclusions from those assumptions. Here’s one foundational difference between us. It’s largely a matter
of faith, as posed here, but maybe the answer depends on what you
mean by “know”. So let’s see whether that difference helps in
understanding other disputes.
At this point RM is the observer, here being observed by me, so at
this moment are not all these perceptions equally theoretical? I
wonder whether “in fact” might not profitably be replaced by “by
assumption”.
Interesting. I likewise “” and I also “”. Not only that, but also “.” And yet we answer both parts of question 1 quite
differently. Why might that be? Quite possibly the core of our
frequent disagreements might be exposed by exploring that question
in some depth.
You have offered your reasons for your answers, but because I agree
with your statements of your reasons without accepting that they are
reasons, I will give my reasons, which amount to a single one for
both answers to 1a and 1b. My reason is that I can think of three quite different versions of
“Possibly Real Realities” that would be indistinguishable using any
conceivable means from the one toward which we both we think science
is progressing. Starting with the basic assumption that everything
we think we know (apart from the perceptions themselves) is built
from our perceptions, my three methods simply are ways of producing
our lifetime of perceptions, not only of the outside world, but also
of our interior world including our memories and imaginings.
Method 1. We were created entire and complete one microsecond ago.
Method 2. There is one or more (possibly many quintillions more) of
beings working in an undetectable office who examine all our
apparent influences on the interior and exterior world, compute the
effects those influences ought to have on our sensors and working
components, and tickle them to produce a more or less consistent
result. (Maybe they get the consistency thing wrong, and that is why
we cannot reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Chromodynamics
– see the end of this message).
Method 3. The entire Universe including ourselves is a simulation in
some Real Reality version of a kid’s toy computer.
I’m sure you can think of many other possibilities, all equally
implausible but consistent with every datum we have ever got or will
ever get. They are implausible only on faith, and we know that
worldwide there are probably more people who believe at least part
of “Method 2” than disbelieve it entirely – at least in the world I
theorize to exist, based on my perceptions, though perhaps it does
not exist in Real Reality.
One of my three methods might actually true, by some chance that
seems to me less probable than that of Hubble monitoring a specific
star continuously for the weeks before it goes supernova, and then
switching away exactly an hour before the star blows. If it is, I
could never know that it is, so I have to answer that we can never
know Real Reality or what is in it.
Well, there we do disagree. We can’t ask Bill what he meant, but my
interpretation is that the perception in the observer is of
something in Real Reality on which the controller can act that I
recently called the RREV. The observer obtains data that would be
obtained if the controller were controlling a perception of the same
RREV, and theorizes that this is actually the case, even though
there are other ways that the observer’s perceptions would be as
they are. For example, suppose the observer manipulates X+Y in a version of
the Test for the controlled variable, and the controller acts as
though it was controlling X+Y very well, when in fact it was
controlling X+Y-Z but not X+Y, and Z happened not to change during
the short period of the test. For example, Z might be a variable
whose value was imposed upon the controller, such as a tax that
affected the total amount of money available to spend on a quantity
of X and a quantity of Y. The magnitude of Z is would not be
something the observer could influence, and probably could not
perceive (legally).
There you do mistake (the current) me. I do not call Bill’s CV a
CEV, as I explained a couple of weeks ago. (I used to, before I
realized you had been correct all along, that the value of the CEV
is that of the perception projected into the perceived environment).
Bill’s CV is more like what I called the RREV, though it is not the
same thing. It’s whatever property or structure of the real
environment produces the sensory effects that eventually wind up
being perceived as the CEV. A CEV is only inside a person. Evolution and reorganization may well
have resulted in most CEVs having a close relation with an RREV that
is actually affecting the sensors as does Bill’s CV, but the CEV
itself is the value of a controlled perception that appears in
consciousness, where it is set in a consciously perceived context.
Bill’s CV is a theorized structure in Reality (not a structure in Reality) that produces a perception based on some pattern over time
and sensors of the sensations provided by Real Reality. If the
theory were actually correct, the CV would be the RREV.
See previous comment.
Other than our differing concepts of the distinctions among CV (MMT:
theorized to exist in Real Reality), CEV (MMT: a contextualized
conscious version of the perception), and RREV (MMT: an unknowable
structure in Real Reality that produces the same sensory effects as
would the theorized CV), I think we agree on the main points here. To clarify the way I look at it, a perception p at the Nth level of
the hierarchy, if we ignore imagination, is the scalar-valued result
of a function of the results of level N-1 functions, and similarly N
levels deep to functions whose arguments are the outputs of
individual sensors (themselves functions of influences from Real
Reality). Everything we perceive consciously or non-consciously is
the result of some function of many variables, or stated perhaps
more strongly, we can perceive nothing that is not the result of
functions acting upon the effects of Real Reality’s influences on
our sensors. I believe this is a reasonable expansion of what you
are saying. I hope so, because if it isn’t, the ground becomes
treacherous.
I guess we have different concepts of “knowing”, which is probably
the key to most of these apparent differences. Most of what you
treat as “known”, I would call having a reasonably high probability
of being somewhere near the truth. In other words, (in a technical
discussion) I could not have used the phrase “…know well
enough to…”. I would have said instead something like “ is
probably accurate enough”. With that caveat, I would agree with “”, if you take a rather loose view of “accurate”. We
can build structures that control well enough for most purposes much
of the time. Most of the time, I don’t see these things as binary oppositions
between truth and falsehood, but as graded likelihoods of
approximation to truth or to untruth. I perceive you, over the
years, as more likely to perceive one of the binary end-points (true
or false) for any topic. For example, you have stated as true of
control in general properties that are true only of the unattainable
ideal of perfect control, or of a time infinitely long after the
one-and-only step change in the value of a disturbance.
"… is for me a bit of a problem. Why choose those, the
foundations of which are neither fully agreed (The “Standard Model”
of Quantum Chromodynamics is understood to be incomplete or
basically wrong, because there is much in what we perceive as the
Universe doesn’t work as the Standard Model says it should). In fact, why choose at all, when all you need to claim is that Real
Reality has structures and processes that a controller’s outputs can
influence and that can influence the sensors that provide inputs to
all those levels of functions in the controller. You don’t need to
specify what those structures and processes might be, though it is a
very good thing to create theories that hypothesize them. Six kinds
of quarks, I don’t know how many types of gluons, electrons and
photons, the Higgs boson, and I don’t know what else, all seem to
fit together by some mechanism we call the four forces into
structures we call protons, electrons, and so forth. It takes a lot of “fancy mathematics” to generate testable
constructs such as the protons, neutrons and electrons that are the
gross components of atoms from unaided human perceptions. It takes
“fancy mathematics” to produce tools like cyclotrons of nearly a
century ago or the Large Hadron Collider to aid human perception and
manipulation of these things and their components. Use “fancy
mathematics” and you can get some wild predictions of things that
happen, such as the near coincidence of a burst of light-flashes in
a “neutrino detector” and a visible flash of radiation from
Supernova 1987 in the Magellanic Cloud. Mathematics allows for tricks like that or the prediction of and
“direct” observation of a black hole, so why not take the
foundational axioms of mathematics as your basic variables, rather
than material objects, if you have to say anything at all about the
nature of Real Reality? Mathematics is basically the perception of
structure and process, often without reference to the entities are
the components of the structure. Does Mathematics exist in Real Reality? Who knows, but some have
claimed it to be the only reality, Real or otherwise. And as Gödel
proved, mathematics is as strange as quantum mechanics, since any
mathematics based on axioms sufficiently complex to include
arithmetic contains statements that are true but cannot be proved to
be true using that set of axioms. Maybe Real Reality is weirder than
either? Didn’t Einstein say something like “Not only is the Universe
weirder than we know, it is weirder than we know”.
Yes, they do. I hope my explanation of where and why I think we
differ will continue leading toward convergence, if not to total
agreement (which I think would be a dead-end state leading to
complacency).
Martin

···

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

[Martin Taylor 2019.04.09.08.21]

            MT:

In response to Rick’s message and its correction I have
only questions for him, answers to which might help me
understand them a little better.

            MT: 1. Do you believe there is a Real Reality, or do you

take the solipsist position that what you perceive is
the totality of what is?

RM: I believe there is a Real Reality.Â

            MT:

Assuming you believe there is a Real Reality …

            1a. Do you believe that there is a Real Reality that can

be known to us?

RM: Yes.Â

            MT: 1b. do you believe there is a Real Reality that can

never be known to us?

        RM: I don't really have any beliefs about this one way or

another. But I lean toward “No”.Â

            MT: Assuming the you believe there exists a Real Reality

…

            2. Where is the CV of which Powers writes?

        Â RM: In the brain of the observer (in fact) and in the

brain of the controller (in theory, as the variable p).

            MT:

3. If the perception and the CEV are literally the same,
   at least one of the following must be true. Which one or
   more?

            3a. Solipsism is correct.
   
            3b. Real Reality is what we influence and what we sense.
   
            3c. Real Reality exists, is knowable, and the CV is in
   

it, while the perception is in the perceiver, which
means that the CV and the perception are not the same.

            3d. Real Reality exists but is not knowable, and the CV

behaves approximately or exactly as does some function
of variables that exist in Real Reality.

            3e. None of the above.

RM: 3bÂ

            MT:

I guess that’s enough for now, because I’m not looking
for further obfuscation. A series of answers (these
would be mine) of the form:

            1. Real Reality.

            1a. No

            1b. Yes

        RM: I answered "yes" to 1a because I believe that science

(observation, modeling and testing) has been a successful
approach to knowing Real Reality. I responded “agnostic” to
1b because I believe that science (observation, modeling and
testing) has been a successful approach to knowing Real
Reality. But I think that, to date, science has done a
startlingly good job of producing what seems like a very
close approximation to Real Reality.

•  believe that science (observation,
  

modeling and testing) has been a successful approach to knowing
Real Reality** believe that science
(observation, modeling and testing) has been a successful approach
to knowing Real Reality** I think
that, to date, science has done a startlingly good job of
producing what seems like a very close approximation to Real
Reality*

            2. MT:Â  In the perception of an observer (at least,

that’s what Powers said).

        RM: This is your answer to "Where is the CV about which

Powers writes". I agree that it is a perception in the
observer but it is also a perception (in theory) in the
controller.

        But I think we understand this idea somewhat

differently. You seem to think that what Bill meant is that
there is a variable “out there” in the environment called
the CV (that you call the CEV) that exists as a perception
in the observer (and, theoretically, in the controller).Â

Real

I think the CV exists only as a perception in
both observer and (in theory) controller.

        The CV is a perception in the sense that it is a FUNCTION

of variables in Real Reality. This FUNCTION defines
the aspect of Real Reality that is the CV. But this CV
exists only in systems that can compute this function of
Real Reality (actually, the sensory effects thereof) , such
systems being living organisms and now some AI computer
systems.

            MT:

3b and 3d

        RM: I didn't include 3d mainly because it started out

saying that Real Reality is not knowable, which I think is
debatable and not really relevant; I think we know Real
Reality well enough to build accurate models of control that
include definitions of CVs in terms of variables in Real
Reality as defined by the models of physics and chemistry.

•  I
  

think we know Real Reality well enough to build accurate models of
control*

•  models of control that include definitions of CVs in terms of
  

variables in Real Reality as defined by the models of physics and
chemistry"*
can

            MT:

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

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

too.

Best

RickÂ

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

                                "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

[bleach]

I fear that I’m going to regret responding
to this post but here goes anyway…

···

On 4/9/19 12:12 PM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

Bill…

Â

From: Bill Leach
( via csgnet Mailing List)
Monday, April 8, 2019 7:35 PM
Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

      Thank you Martin.  I'm still not sold on using the CEV and

RREV terms but they are understandable.

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

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

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

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

      In introducing PCT to the uninitiated the general idea of

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

      Performing the TEST in real world situations is quite

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

      HB : I agree with most of your

statements. Only about the Test I think it’s not just about
“applying disturbances” but more about “guessing” what person
could be controlling and forming right “picture” of controlled
quantity.

    Both really.  In the computer driven tests,

it is demonstrably the disturbance created by the computer
program that is being resisted by the subject. So in that case,
it absolutely an applied disturbance. In Bill’s rubber band
demos I believe it is safe to say also that again you can say
for certainty that it is an applied disturbance that is being
minimized by the subject. Also Bill showed that the perception
under control could change (for example where the disturbance
became so great that there was danger that the rubber band would
break.

    That said however, you are also correct

that when the observer has no means of applying or even
measuring the magnitude of the disturbance then it become as
“guess” as you mention. Basically, if the subject is providing
perfect control, the observer might well not be able to discern
what is being controlled at all.

    In the example of driving an automobile,

see say that the subject is controlling for the image viewed
through the windshield but recognize that is NOT a detailed
description of the actual perception. Not only are different
subjects viewing that same image (say driving the same model of
car in the same location) differently but so will be the
observers (particular since their viewing angle is different as
well).

    We also know that drivers have many other

perceptions that they may or may not be controlling for at the
same time, such as avoiding possibly slippery portions of the
roadway or positioning the car to improve the chances of
avoiding a collision, etc.

        Bill P (B:CP)

:

        The TCV is

method for identifying control organization of nervous
system….

Â

        There will be

ambiguous cases : the disturbance may be only weakly
opposed. That effect could be due not to poor control system
but to a definition of actions that are only remotely linked
to the actual controlled quantity.

        For

example : if when you open the window I sometimes get up and
close it, you might conclude that I am controlling the
position of the window when in fact I only shut it if the
room gets too chilly to suit me. I could be controlling
sensed temperature very precisely, when necesarry, but by a
variety of means : shutting the window, turning up the
termostat, putting on a sweater, or exercising. You are on
the track of the right controlled quantity, but haven’t got
the right definition yet. It is safest to assume that an
ambiguous result from TCV is the fault of the hypotehsis and
to continue looking for a better definition of the
controlled quantity.

HB : … or what is really controlled.

    I don't think that what I said above is at

all inconsistent with your quote of Bill’s writing at all.Â
Determining what perception(s) a person is controlling is not a
trivial undertaking particularly when the observer is unable to
determine the characteristics of the disturbance.

wrleach@cableone.netcsgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:

[bleach]

Bill…

From: Bill Leach (<mailto:wrleach@cableone.net>wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) <mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu><csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:02 PM
To: <mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

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

Rick is free to correct me here if I'm wrong of course, but I don't think he is trying to say that people will generate the same perceptual signal or that the signal's magnitude, response curve, etc. will be identical. His statement that "...I believe that you (and virtually everyone else) would agree that the distance between the cursor and target is the perception that is being controlled." is absolutely correct.

HB : I think that the statement that perception is the distance between cursor and target (as somebody perceive it) could be correct relativelly not absolutelly.

I agree, we use the term "distance between the cursor and the target" as a means of explaining that we believe the person is controlling (typically) for a zero distance between the two.

Whether people observe the distance between "cursor" and "target" depends from their understanding what they are looking for. It's unlikely that they would percive the "distance" which is controlled. I think that most people don't understand what does this mean.

I believe almost everyone would know or at least understand that they are controlling for a distance between the cursor and the target with a reference of zero difference. To me the implication of what you are saying is that they would be actually considering the distance difference in terms of some units of measurement when of course that would NOT be the case. The subject is likely to have some concept of how accurate they at the task but would only be able to venture a guess as to how far, in measurement term, they have failed to control for zero distance.

BTW, the computer performing the test does 'know' all about the distance between the cursor and the target so it is possible to know what that distance was at any time during the test run. But again I agree that neither the subject or observer really knows what the error distance was during the run.

I think that most of the people wouldn't recognize that perception of the distance that is "being controlled". We can talk about percpetion of the "distance as control" in PCT "circle", but most humanity of the Earth wouldn't understand what we are talking about.

So It hink that "absolutelly correct" can be maybe on CSGnet if all members would see it as "Control of perception". But even here we can see that members can be found who think that "distance between cursor and target" is not perception that is being controlled but is "controlled variable" in external environment that is being controlled by "Controlled behavior" or output of the system. So people mostly don't think that "perception is what is being controlled", but real distance in environment by control of behavior. And Rick is one of them.

I'm not sure what to say about the above paragraph. The 'controlled variable' IS the perception of that variable that we all believes exists in the environment. Through science and indeed our own experience with our environment we believe that there are things in our environment that we can influence or change. We believe generally that things we perceive (especially objects) actually exist in our environment and exist pretty much in the form as we perceive them. That is an assumption but it happens to be a vital one for all human communication and action.

When I control to open a door, I consider that a very real, in the external environment door, was opened by me. However, when I talk in term of how that task was accomplished in somewhat detailed PCT terms, to someone that knows nothing about PCT and wants to learn, then I need to bring up that the very existence of the door is actually a perceptual signal in my own head as well as the assumption that others that can see the door perceive as well (and perceived it essentially as I do), and that the act of opening it happens through a very complex set of processes where I set a reference for each 'thing' that must be done to perceive that the door is open. I have to perceive that I am close enough to the door to grab the door operating handle and if not then change the reference for how close I am to the door, etc.

Once again I perceive that you are accusing Rick of some misunderstanding where there is none. Of course Rick, and for that matter I recognize that we are controlling perceptions, that is we are controlling for perceiving something that we believe exists in the RR. But that belief is reasonable based upon a great many years of shared human experience with our external world. Thus acknowledging that the control of perception results in real changes that can be observed by others is not at all unreasonable. Nor is accepting the idea what you perceive happens in the environment actually does happen in the environment (though indeed occasionally it actually does not or does not happen in the manner we think is does).

And there are also other limitations of people observing the same thing. For ex. if person is blind or have some other disability, your statement of "absolute correctness" is wrong.

What is perceived will always depend from the nature of "sensor" apparatus and control hierarchy and that is genetically different in every human (LCS).

At some level of detail the above is certainly true. What is perceived is also affected by differing experience and differences in world models. But the differences that I believe you are talking about are not very important in the experimental world unless such difference actually results in an observed behavior that appears NOT to be explained by PCT.

But I think that Rick is not talking about whether "perception of distance is controlled" but whether he can make mess and confussion so that he can prove finally that he thinks the same as Bill Powers did, and that his RCT is the same as PCT. It's not and will never be.

Rick talks PCT irrespective of what you and some others claim.

Rick is hidding something and manipulating, but he can't hide from CSGnet archives.

He was claiming for years that "cursor and target" are outside and are functioning as "outside controlled variable". And this is wrong from PCT view. But it's probably right from behavioristic view. Rick is psychologist (behaviorist) and he is trying to present that he is "seeing" control of perception what was not his first conclussion about "tracking experiment". On the basis of that experiment he build RCT theory with controlled variable in outer environment called RCT.

First the cursor and the target are most definitely outside the subject. Both are perceived by the subject (and observer if there is one). It is perfectly reasonable to describe the tracking task in terms of what we believe is physically occurring in the environment and in terms of what is taking place within the subject. INDEED that is really the WHOLE POINT of PCT! As long as it is closed loop negative feedback control it does not matter at which point in the control loop you describe the process! PCT's major assertion that essentially demolishes all other behavioral theories is that the behavior that one observes IS strictly the result of the output of a closed loop negative feedback control loop attempting to maintain a perceptions (or set of perceptions) close to a reference value (or set of reference values).

Of course there are also those psychologists that believe that we effectively have a digital computer in our heads that calculates the force vectors required for all of the actions that are observed which is even more ridiculous.

Other theories assume a linear stimulus-response where the stimulus (perception) triggers a response, but fail to recognize that it is a continuous process involving again, closed loop negative feedback CONTROL (as defined in the engineering world and first analyzed by James Clerk Maxwell).

Trying to claim that Rick does not understand that is preposterous! He could not possibly have created the computer demonstration testing that he has produced without a thorough knowledge of closed loop negative feedback control.

He is changing his mind again. If he can't perceive the distance in the same way how can other people perceive the same thing in the same way.

So I think that Rick is not talking about whether control of perception of the "target and cursor" is correct, but whether it can be seen the same from all people. This is his insinuation. He is just "hidding" behind that statement what is his great manipulation again. People will never see experiments in the same way. It can be similar but not "the same". There will be always differences which can be seen in every statistical analysis of any experiment. It's about differences among people.

Lord Boris, even the same experiment performed with the same subject multiple times does not yield EXACTLY the same results and it is disingenuous to claim Rick or anyone else here think that is not true. It is also not relevant.

Think quantum physics or quantum electrodynamics. There are limits to how accurately we can predict or measure anything. In our "real world" it is pretty much useless to take things to the most minuet detail. While there are certainly some aspects of fine grain detail in PCT that do apply universally, in application to studies and subject testing what we are looking for is producing generalities that have a good match to all of the data. Anyone actually applying PCT knows that individual variation is going to show up. This is true for PCT prediction as well. That Bill wanted to see 0.95 and better correspondence is a testament to just how good PCT is (actually I believe 0.95 was 'you are on the right track, and 0.98 was what he really wanted to see).

Other theories are quite happy with anything over about 0.51!

The more experiments become complex the more differences in perceiving and intepretations of what is controlled become different among people. Also simple experiments with colours showed differences in perceiving in the same "coloured" space (Maturana). So generally speaking people do not perceive whatever is out there is the same way.

So Rick does not and can't understand PCT in the same way as Bill did. Bill Powers even confirmed that.

I can only tell you that Bill Powers personally told me that Rick was one of the early psychologists that thoroughly understood PCT. In every discussion with Rick, even when I have disagreed with him there has never been any doubt in my mind that Rick understands PCT. Apparently your mileage will vary.

One of the things that amazed me was meeting so many psychologists that could accurately apply engineering control theory to behavior at the same time that well known engineering control system engineers literally 'fell apart' in their attempts to make the fit.

So beleiving that we see everything in the same way will not solve the problem. Other experiments beside "tracking experiments" can prove whether PCT is right about how people perceive and control or how generally organisms function. One experiment can not prove anything.

There are many things that can be and have been proven with just one experiment and the more times that experiment is repeated the more confident one can be in the conclusion. On of the most famous cases in all of physics was after Einstein predicted that gravity would bend light and the MIchaelson-Morley experiment proved the prediction to be correct.

Again back to the tracking experiments (specifically the cursor-target experiment)... The PCT conclusion is that the subjects are controlling the perception of the distance between the cursor and the target TO A REFERENCE value of close to zero distance between the two. While not precise, it is also NOT incorrect to flatly state that the subject(s) are controlling the cursor (i.e. the cursor that we believe exists because of our own perceptions of it) and the cursor's relationship to the target (which again we believe exists because of our own perception of it). Both are correct PCT because what MATTERS is the phenomenon of closed loop negative feedback control not how well a subject or even group(s) of subjects perform the task.

Another example that might be a better one would be if you as an observer where watching a subject driving a car and noted that another car seemed to always be in front of the subject's car even though the other car was driving a rather circuitous route. You might well conclude that the subject was controlling to follow the other car. This same act carried out by a different subject would appear quite different even when the basic perception being controlled is the perception of following another car. The separation distance used, the changes in separation distance would not be particularly consistent for one subject much less a comparison to other subjects.

Understanding PCT would indeed be useful in designing a study that attempted to determine some aspect of how well people can achieve control of perceptions so that the results and conclusion would have a real basis in reality and not just be the opinion of some academic elitist.

If PCT people are going to interest people in other disciplines to realize that PCT explains what we observe as behavior and could well be useful knowledge for their own work, it is essential not to bury people in too much detail. The argument that different subjects have different results in a tracking task is not relevant to understand what is happening based upon concepts of PCT.

In the more complex follow a car example even I can envision a number of controlled perceptions that could affect following distance and change following distance for one subject and certainly would make a difference with several subjects such has controlling for maintaining a safe distance behind the other car. Those differences have nothing to do with the PCT assertion that the subject was controlling for a perception of following another car.

I think you (and others) are insisting that PCT be far more precise than we have the ability to make it and for that matter far more precise than it should be for most uses. MOL may be an example of not only where precision is not possible but likely not desired at all! MOL seems to work just because there is a reference for not having internal conflicts. What appears to be important is not that the therapist or patient precisely determine the conflict but that the patient searches for the conflict with an understanding of the hierarchy according to PCT.

There is not "one theory of Universe" present among people in the sense that people perceive Universe in the same way and think about in the same way. There are many theories.

And I say that diagram LCS III and definitions of control (B:CP) show right how people perceive and control or how organisms function. What do you think ?

I agree that there are many theories about the Universe and many of them cover different aspect of our Universe. Some may well be correct and no doubt there are some that are not.

As to your statement that LCS III and B:CP describe what PCT is (and is not) is correct. As to Rick, ever time over the years that I thought that Rick made a statement that I thought was not 'proper' PCT, I asked him about it and in all such cases I realized that it was my failure to correct understand what he said that was the problem. Again, your mileage may vary.

Bill

<snip>

···

On 4/9/19 12:12 PM, "Boris Hartman" (<mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net>boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

[FredNickols]

Fred Nickols 04.11.2019.1657 ET

Were you to ask me what I was trying to control in the tracking task, I would probably say something like “alignmentâ€? but not “closeness.â€?  Were you to ask me how I gauged or measured alignment I would probably say something like “how close together they are.â€?  My point is that language plays a key role in our discussions and thinking and communicating regarding PCT and I don’t think it gets the attention it deserves or warrants.

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distanceâ€?
www.nickols.us

[_Boris_Hartman]

Bill

It’s too long. Till now you were doing well. But phylosophical discourse in Ricks favour forced me to give you two options you can choose.I hope you don’t want open conflict because that what’s you are doing. So let us cut the “bullshitting”. I told you once that I don’t want phylosophy what you think about Rick etc. I want “facts”.

Just answer.

Which model of human behaviour you think is right.

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

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

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

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

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

5. COMPARATOR : ???

6. ERROR SIGNAL : ???

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (LCS III):

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

···

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

On 4/9/19 12:12 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Bill…

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:02 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

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

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

HB : I think that the statement that perception is the distance between cursor and target (as somebody perceive it) could be correct relativelly not absolutelly.

I agree, we use the term “distance between the cursor and the target” as a means of explaining that we believe the person is controlling (typically) for a zero distance between the two.

Whether people observe the distance between “cursor” and “target” depends from their understanding what they are looking for. It’s unlikely that they would percive the “distance” which is controlled. I think that most people don’t understand what does this mean.

I believe almost everyone would know or at least understand that they are controlling for a distance between the cursor and the target with a reference of zero difference. To me the implication of what you are saying is that they would be actually considering the distance difference in terms of some units of measurement when of course that would NOT be the case. The subject is likely to have some concept of how accurate they at the task but would only be able to venture a guess as to how far, in measurement term, they have failed to control for zero distance.

BTW, the computer performing the test does ‘know’ all about the distance between the cursor and the target so it is possible to know what that distance was at any time during the test run. But again I agree that neither the subject or observer really knows what the error distance was during the run.

I think that most of the people wouldn’t recognize that perception of the distance that is “being controlled”. We can talk about percpetion of the “distance as control” in PCT “circle”, but most humanity of the Earth wouldn’t understand what we are talking about.

So It hink that “absolutelly correct” can be maybe on CSGnet if all members would see it as “Control of perception”. But even here we can see that members can be found who think that “distance between cursor and target” is not perception that is being controlled but is “controlled variable” in external environment that is being controlled by “Controlled behavior” or output of the system. So people mostly don’t think that “perception is what is being controlled”, but real distance in environment by control of behavior. And Rick is one of them.

I’m not sure what to say about the above paragraph. The ‘controlled variable’ IS the perception of that variable that we all believes exists in the environment.

Through science and indeed our own experience with our environment we believe that there are things in our environment that we can influence or change. We believe generally that things we perceive (especially objects) actually exist in our environment and exist pretty much in the form as we perceive them. That is an assumption but it happens to be a vital one for all human communication and action.

When I control to open a door, I consider that a very real, in the external environment door, was opened by me. However, when I talk in term of how that task was accomplished in somewhat detailed PCT terms, to someone that knows nothing about PCT and wants to learn, then I need to bring up that the very existence of the door is actually a perceptual signal in my own head as well as the assumption that others that can see the door perceive as well (and perceived it essentially as I do), and that the act of opening it happens through a very complex set of processes where I set a reference for each ‘thing’ that must be done to perceive that the door is open. I have to perceive that I am close enough to the door to grab the door operating handle and if not then change the reference for how close I am to the door, etc.

Once again I perceive that you are accusing Rick of some misunderstanding where there is none. Of course Rick, and for that matter I recognize that we are controlling perceptions, that is we are controlling for perceiving something that we believe exists in the RR. But that belief is reasonable based upon a great many years of shared human experience with our external world. Thus acknowledging that the control of perception results in real changes that can be observed by others is not at all unreasonable. Nor is accepting the idea what you perceive happens in the environment actually does happen in the environment (though indeed occasionally it actually does not or does not happen in the manner we think is does).

And there are also other limitations of people observing the same thing. For ex. if person is blind or have some other disability, your statement of “absolute correctness” is wrong.

What is perceived will always depend from the nature of “sensor” apparatus and control hierarchy and that is genetically different in every human (LCS).

At some level of detail the above is certainly true. What is perceived is also affected by differing experience and differences in world models. But the differences that I believe you are talking about are not very important in the experimental world unless such difference actually results in an observed behavior that appears NOT to be explained by PCT.

But I think that Rick is not talking about whether “perception of distance is controlled” but whether he can make mess and confussion so that he can prove finally that he thinks the same as Bill Powers did, and that his RCT is the same as PCT. It’s not and will never be.

Rick talks PCT irrespective of what you and some others claim.

Rick is hidding something and manipulating, but he can’t hide from CSGnet archives.

He was claiming for years that “cursor and target” are outside and are functioning as “outside controlled variable”. And this is wrong from PCT view. But it’s probably right from behavioristic view. Rick is psychologist (behaviorist) and he is trying to present that he is “seeing” control of perception what was not his first conclussion about “tracking experiment”. On the basis of that experiment he build RCT theory with controlled variable in outer environment called RCT.

First the cursor and the target are most definitely outside the subject. Both are perceived by the subject (and observer if there is one). It is perfectly reasonable to describe the tracking task in terms of what we believe is physically occurring in the environment and in terms of what is taking place within the subject. INDEED that is really the WHOLE POINT of PCT! As long as it is closed loop negative feedback control it does not matter at which point in the control loop you describe the process! PCT’s major assertion that essentially demolishes all other behavioral theories is that the behavior that one observes IS strictly the result of the output of a closed loop negative feedback control loop attempting to maintain a perceptions (or set of perceptions) close to a reference value (or set of reference values).

Of course there are also those psychologists that believe that we effectively have a digital computer in our heads that calculates the force vectors required for all of the actions that are observed which is even more ridiculous.

Other theories assume a linear stimulus-response where the stimulus (perception) triggers a response, but fail to recognize that it is a continuous process involving again, closed loop negative feedback CONTROL (as defined in the engineering world and first analyzed by James Clerk Maxwell).

Trying to claim that Rick does not understand that is preposterous! He could not possibly have created the computer demonstration testing that he has produced without a thorough knowledge of closed loop negative feedback control.

He is changing his mind again. If he can’t perceive the distance in the same way how can other people perceive the same thing in the same way.

So I think that Rick is not talking about whether control of perception of the “target and cursor” is correct, but whether it can be seen the same from all people. This is his insinuation. He is just “hidding” behind that statement what is his great manipulation again. People will never see experiments in the same way. It can be similar but not “the same”. There will be always differences which can be seen in every statistical analysis of any experiment. It’s about differences among people.

Lord Boris, even the same experiment performed with the same subject multiple times does not yield EXACTLY the same results and it is disingenuous to claim Rick or anyone else here think that is not true. It is also not relevant.

Think quantum physics or quantum electrodynamics. There are limits to how accurately we can predict or measure anything. In our “real world” it is pretty much useless to take things to the most minuet detail. While there are certainly some aspects of fine grain detail in PCT that do apply universally, in application to studies and subject testing what we are looking for is producing generalities that have a good match to all of the data. Anyone actually applying PCT knows that individual variation is going to show up. This is true for PCT prediction as well. That Bill wanted to see 0.95 and better correspondence is a testament to just how good PCT is (actually I believe 0.95 was 'you are on the right track, and 0.98 was what he really wanted to see).

Other theories are quite happy with anything over about 0.51!

The more experiments become complex the more differences in perceiving and intepretations of what is controlled become different among people. Also simple experiments with colours showed differences in perceiving in the same “coloured” space (Maturana). So generally speaking people do not perceive whatever is out there is the same way.

So Rick does not and can’t understand PCT in the same way as Bill did. Bill Powers even confirmed that.

I can only tell you that Bill Powers personally told me that Rick was one of the early psychologists that thoroughly understood PCT. In every discussion with Rick, even when I have disagreed with him there has never been any doubt in my mind that Rick understands PCT. Apparently your mileage will vary.

One of the things that amazed me was meeting so many psychologists that could accurately apply engineering control theory to behavior at the same time that well known engineering control system engineers literally ‘fell apart’ in their attempts to make the fit.

So beleiving that we see everything in the same way will not solve the problem. Other experiments beside “tracking experiments” can prove whether PCT is right about how people perceive and control or how generally organisms function. One experiment can not prove anything.

There are many things that can be and have been proven with just one experiment and the more times that experiment is repeated the more confident one can be in the conclusion. On of the most famous cases in all of physics was after Einstein predicted that gravity would bend light and the MIchaelson-Morley experiment proved the prediction to be correct.

Again back to the tracking experiments (specifically the cursor-target experiment)… The PCT conclusion is that the subjects are controlling the perception of the distance between the cursor and the target TO A REFERENCE value of close to zero distance between the two. While not precise, it is also NOT incorrect to flatly state that the subject(s) are controlling the cursor (i.e. the cursor that we believe exists because of our own perceptions of it) and the cursor’s relationship to the target (which again we believe exists because of our own perception of it). Both are correct PCT because what MATTERS is the phenomenon of closed loop negative feedback control not how well a subject or even group(s) of subjects perform the task.

Another example that might be a better one would be if you as an observer where watching a subject driving a car and noted that another car seemed to always be in front of the subject’s car even though the other car was driving a rather circuitous route. You might well conclude that the subject was controlling to follow the other car. This same act carried out by a different subject would appear quite different even when the basic perception being controlled is the perception of following another car. The separation distance used, the changes in separation distance would not be particularly consistent for one subject much less a comparison to other subjects.

Understanding PCT would indeed be useful in designing a study that attempted to determine some aspect of how well people can achieve control of perceptions so that the results and conclusion would have a real basis in reality and not just be the opinion of some academic elitist.

If PCT people are going to interest people in other disciplines to realize that PCT explains what we observe as behavior and could well be useful knowledge for their own work, it is essential not to bury people in too much detail. The argument that different subjects have different results in a tracking task is not relevant to understand what is happening based upon concepts of PCT.

In the more complex follow a car example even I can envision a number of controlled perceptions that could affect following distance and change following distance for one subject and certainly would make a difference with several subjects such has controlling for maintaining a safe distance behind the other car. Those differences have nothing to do with the PCT assertion that the subject was controlling for a perception of following another car.

I think you (and others) are insisting that PCT be far more precise than we have the ability to make it and for that matter far more precise than it should be for most uses. MOL may be an example of not only where precision is not possible but likely not desired at all! MOL seems to work just because there is a reference for not having internal conflicts. What appears to be important is not that the therapist or patient precisely determine the conflict but that the patient searches for the conflict with an understanding of the hierarchy according to PCT.

There is not “one theory of Universe” present among people in the sense that people perceive Universe in the same way and think about in the same way. There are many theories.

And I say that diagram LCS III and definitions of control (B:CP) show right how people perceive and control or how organisms function. What do you think ?

I agree that there are many theories about the Universe and many of them cover different aspect of our Universe. Some may well be correct and no doubt there are some that are not.

As to your statement that LCS III and B:CP describe what PCT is (and is not) is correct. As to Rick, ever time over the years that I thought that Rick made a statement that I thought was not ‘proper’ PCT, I asked him about it and in all such cases I realized that it was my failure to correct understand what he said that was the problem. Again, your mileage may vary.

Bill

[FredNickols]

From Fred Nickols 04.11.2019.1728 ET

Boris:

Would you disagree that we act to keep some perceived aspect of our environment in a reference state?

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2019-04-11_14:33:34]

Fred Nickols 04.11.2019.1657 ET

FN: Were you to ask me what I was trying to control in the tracking task, I would probably say something like “alignmentâ€? but not “closeness.â€?  Were you to ask me how I gauged or measured alignment I would probably say something like “how close together they are.â€?  My point is that language plays a key role in our discussions and thinking and communicating regarding PCT and I don’t think it gets the attention it deserves or warrants.

RM: The role of language in PCT science – specifically in the description of controlled variables (quantities) – was discussed succinctly in the “Experimental Methods” chapter of B:CP. In his discussion of the “Coin Game” version of the Test for the Controlled Quantity", Bill says this (on p. 237-238 of the 2nd edition):

Â

BP: Another educational feature of the game is the way it puts verbal analysis aside. I know of no clearer demonstration of the difference between perceiving and talking about perceptions. When E and S compare written definitions at the end of the game, they may often find that they have used quite different language, different verbal analogs of the controlled quantity. S may have been preserving a “zigzag” pattern and E may conclude it is the letter N or Z.  If they are both word-oriented types, E and S may argue about whose definition is the “right” one, forgetting that E has discovered what S was, in fact, controlling, whatever either of them likes to call it. Even S can be mistaken in this argument, because he may verbally define the controlled quantity to himself in a way that suggests may aspects of it that he does not actually control– a complex definition may boil down to a trivially simple perception. [emphasis mine]

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[FredNickols]

Fred Nickols 04.11.2019.1743 ET

If I understand you, Rick, agreement is not a necessary component of PCT. If that’s the case, it is doomed.

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distanceâ€?
www.nickols.us

[rsmarken]

[Rick Marken 2019-04-11_15:05:07]

Â

BH: RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

Â

RM: As the Rick of Rick’s Control Theory I will take the liberty of giving the correct definitions of the functional components of my theory:Â

Here’s your version:

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

And here is my corrected version:Â

Â

1. CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable -- in a reference state, protected from disturbances.
2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : Function that converts an error signal into an output variable that has effects in the environment.
3. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : Physical laws that determine effect of system outputs on a controlled variable.
4. INPUT FUNCTION : Function that converts sensory or perceptual inputs into a perceptual signal that is an analog of the aspect of the environment – the controlled variable – defined by the nature of this function.Â
5. COMPARATOR : Function that takes a perceptual and a reference signal as input and produces an error signal as output, the error signal being proportional to the difference between the inputs to this function.
6. ERROR SIGNAL : The output of the comparator function.Â
7. CONTROLLED VARIABLE (or CONTROLLED QUANTITY): The aspect of the environment, defined by the input function, that is controlled by a control system.Â
   I added # 7 because it’s kind of important in Rick’s Control Theory. I think it’s equally important in Powers’ Control Theory. But, after all, Powers stole his whole theory from me. (Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, but it seemed to fit in with the truthiness of the current discussion of Rick’s Control Theory).

Best

Rick

···

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 2:13 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2019.04.11.17.54]

Fred Nickols 04.11.2019.1743 ET

    If I understand you, Rick, agreement is not a

necessary component of PCT. If that’s the case, it is doomed.

I did not understand Rick the same way, but it has long been a

notable feature of CSGnet that we can appear to disagree on
technology (as I think is happening here) when all we actually
disagree about is the word pattern used to describe it. Ridiculous
but prototypical example… Statement: "If you add 2 and 2, your
result is 4"Â Reply: “Nonsense: Two plus two equals four. Let’s have
less of your fancy Arabic Numerals so we can have a sensible
discussion without unnecessary fancy mathematics”.

The strength and the weakness of using language is that it is almost

always ambiguous, with the ambiguities being reduced by context or
by further interaction. One of the strengths and weaknesses of
mathematics is its precision, which often means that it produces
approximations that seem to be precise.

So, Fred, let's ask what you ordinarily mean by "agreement". Is it a

state in which the ambiguities of two ways of stating something
overlap and could mean the same thing? Or is it a state in which
something is stated with mathematical rigour but is not exactly what
either really means, or is it something else I haven’t thought of?

I don't interpret either Bill or Rick as claiming agreement about

what is being controlled being necessary, but rather, I understand
them both saying that at the end of a play of the coin game, when
the subject says “OK” or equivalent, they DO agree that whatever is
being controlled is now within its tolerance bounds – the effective
error is zero.

Martin

···

Fred Nickols

    Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker

    Distance Consulting LLC

    “Assistance at A Distance�

    [www.nickols.us](http://www.nickols.us)