BL : This is possibly the last post that I will engage with you. Your, in my opinion, elitist and arrogant, approach to discussion is not acceptable to me.
Well Bill,
we could possibly continue discussion who is elitist and arrogant, but we need to come to the truth about what Bill was writing about or better it would be good that we come to the truth how generally organisms function.
Bill P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) :
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms
HB : And you are just talking, like the words will change physical and physiological etc. reality. What do you think it’s more probable :
-
Physical reality will change in accordance to your theory (wording) or
-
Your wording (theory) has to “adapt” to reality.
Ask Martin how that works in physics. But you could probaly understand how that works in physics. It’s probable that we all understand that theories have to be “adapted” to the reality not vica verse.
BL : Since I worked at reactor plants I could not have caused a nuclear explosion. It would appear that your knowledge of nuclear physics is not great… either. And no, I am not a nuclear physicist, I was an instrumentation and control systems, and computer engineer. I was also a reactor operator for a few years.
HB : I agree with that I’m not some expert for nuclear physics as you could admitt that you are not some expert for physiology or neurophysiology.
I’ll just answer to some parts of your posts as mostly I hope our converastion is directed to seeking for the truth about how generally control function in organisms. All parts discussion will be spread out for easier reading
FN : Would you disagree that we act to keep some perceived aspect of our environment in a reference state?
HB : It’s not the problem whether we act to keep perception in a reference state (it’s not just perceived aspect of external environment as you probably all think), but how we do it.
BL : Maybe I’m reading more into the above line than I should but if I am not doing that then there is nothing you have ever posted where I AGREE with you more than in that statement! The entire point of PCT is that behavior in Living Systems IS closed loop negative feedback CONTROL.
HB : Once for all. Behavior in Living Systems is not CONTROL in closed loop negative feedback.
 It’s sure it can’t be “Control of behavor” or “Control of output” because in PCT mantra is that “Behavior or output is not controlled”. So this option is off, at least in PCT. Also you didn’t prove that we can control “output”.Â
HB : So conclussion is that "Behavior (output) in organisms is not control or controlled or whatever. That is not the general way how organisms keep homeostasis.
Organisms achieve and maintain homeostasis with “Control of perception”. If you don’t accept that you don’t understand PCT.
BL : If you do not accept that “Behavior is the control of perception” then you do not understand PCT as taught be Bill Powers and there is no further purpose in ‘talking’ with you. You might be proposing some theory of behavior but it is most certainly NOT PCT.
HB : First you are proposing some theory of “behavior is control” which is not in accordance to PCT. I’m proposing all the time theory of “Control of perception” which is in accordance to PCT.
Behavior is not control so with behavior we don’t control perception. It’s more likely that Behavior is result of “control of perception” if you mean Title of the book “Behavior –“ the control of perception”.
See LCS III diagram. Behavior is coming after perception is controlled in comparator. So “Behavior is consequence of Control of perception” what you agreed with in our converstaion. But the problem was that you claimed that Rick wrote that. Rick never wrote that “Behavior is consequence of Control of perception”. I wrote that many times in conversation with others.
So again. If you don’t understand that “Behavior is consequence of Control of perception” (what is clear from LCS III diagram) than you don’t understand PCT. But from LCS III diagram you can not conclude that behavior is “controlling perception”. Behavior (actions) can ALSO cancel (compensate, counteract) EFFECTS of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP): CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Why do you think Bill was carefull with definition of control ??? Your ignorancy is incredible. You should read more Bills’ literature and physiological literature. And of course neurophysiological.
BL : I don’t know what the hell you’re rambling about Boris! “Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system” IS minimizing the difference between the perception(s) and the reference(s) (the “preselected state” is/are the reference signal(s)).
HB : You don’t know what I’m talking about (I will not lose time about your arrogany in talking) because you don’t understand how organisms function, so you don’t understand at least physiology and neurophysiology which are necessary for understanding definition of control in PCT.
You wrote just first part of definition :
“Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system” IS minimizing the difference between the perception(s) and the reference(s) (the “preselected state”
HB : You left out the other part : …. through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
ALSO cancelling the effects means that “effects of output (it’s not controlled effects)” which cancel the effects of disturbances are not present contuinuously like control in organism which is working 24/7. So effects of output are neither generally “controlling” in external environment neither are always succesfull. Empahsis is on ALSO (occasionaly).
So second part of definition of control has nothing to so with “cannonical control” so that to the extend that is controlled in organism is also controlled in external environment. It’s ALSO it’s not ALWAYS (generally). So Ricks definition of “control” is WRONG.
RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.
HB : It’s obviously that Ricks’ version of control significantly deviate from Bill Powers definition. Rick’s version of control is “continuosly” controlling in external environment what is not true speccially if you would analyze any behavior I offered. “Behavior is not control” in the sense that it would continuosly keep homestasis in organism 24/7 and thus continuously maintain perception near references. It’s just ALSO cancel (compensate, counteract) disturbances. These are tems that were most frequently used by Bill Powers. What kind of term is “protected from disturbances”. ???
Ask Barb or Alison how precise was Bill at choosing terms for his theory. So every his word counts. And you are giving statements just like that… “Behavior iss control”, there is “cannonical priciple” everywhere in PCT and so on. And you are trying to say that this was normal conversation ???
As I said before. You are increasing confussion on this forum speccially as you don’t want to analyse proposed behaviors. And we know why. Because you can’t explain them with RCT (Ricks Control Theory). Rick is also the one that is talking without showing any evidences.
In the meantime you can explain all behaviors which were proposed from RCT and PCT view.
BL : No Boris, I don’t particularly want to spend hours thinking through all of what is involved in those questions. Even a relatively simple function such as blood pressure control is vastly more complex than most realize and undoubtedly even more complex that biologists have identified so far.
HB : I don’t understand. If you so clearly understand PCT and RCT, how is that you would spend thinking for hours. You just put “data” into RCT theory and try it. If it doesn’t work (what will probably happen) you put “data” in PCT diagram and definitions and Bingo. It works. Â
I saw you avoided this part about life examples which could prove which theory is right. It is the part which is proving that Bills’ PCT works and RCT doesn’t work. And these are also behaviors which denies your hypothesis about “cannonical principle”.
But paradoxically one of examples until now that was given in PCT general sense of control was Ricks’ :
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
BL : While I agree with Rick’s generalization in the above, the term variables covers A LOT OF TERRITORY! As crazy as it might sound, sleep is probably the most complex control system in the human body!
HB : I also agree about sleeping. But Rick is not talking about “variables”, he is talking about “intrinsic physiological variables” which according to physiology are kept in “critical limits”. You can read which they are and what their limits are in any physiological book. Or you can go to a doctor and he wiil direct you to laboratory, where you can find out which “intrinsic variables” we are talking about and which are their “physilogical limits” that are kept in “preselected state” so that we survive.
The main point is that Rick is using Bill Powers right definition of control :
Bill P (B:CP): CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : He is not using HIS WRONG definition of control
RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.
HB : How can you keep (protect) with your actual actions “controlled variable” in external environment and survive during sleeping. You are obviously using “internal control mechanisms” which are working 24/7 NOT JUST OCCASIONALLY OR ALSO.
And I must admitt, Rick gave perfect definiton of sleeping (Bravo Rick). I only don’t understand why he didn’t continue in this (right) direction and support Bills definition of control. Why he is “chewing” laboratory experiment which is obviously showing wrong theoretical background. Maybe I now the answer as Rick preditcs.
HB : If you want to prove which theory is right you have to use experiments and life examples which prove which theory is right.
HB earlier : One experiment – one theory will not hold. You haave to analyze at least 50 behaviors that you will be at least aproximatelly sure that you are talking at some level of generality. It would the best if you analyze all known behavior and test them with PCT and RCT and any other theory that appears on CSGnet forum. They are like “mushrooms” after the rain.
BL earlier : Actually Boris, your claim that “You have to analyze at least 50 behaviors…” is quite incorrect.
HB : First I didn’t claim that I analyzed 50 behaviors, but I analyzed them quite some. See CSGnet archives. Read cerafully what I wrote. But even if I would write that : what is incorrect ? The number ??? You could say maybe that is improbable or incredible, but how do you know that is incorrect ???
With varying one experiment (chewing tracking experiment) you can’t get general theory of how organisms function. But you can get the right general theory with researching as you proposed :
BL : Examples are used for purposes of discussion.
HB : So I want you and anybody that will ask me any further question about PCT, to analyze some of these behaviors : sunbathing (Bruce Abbott did once), observing (Martin’s example), sleeping (Ricks example), sitting and thinking (my example), walking (my example), table tennis play (my example), tennis play (my example), learners behavior (my example) etc. You can add for example swimming, running, etc. In one word “everyday examples”.
BL : Research, especially involving the TCV are used to provide proof of the theory. In addition, some biological research has proven the physical existence of closed loop negative feedback system in both humans and other animals (I think that is true for some plants too). Also, a famous DNA researcher (whose name I’ve forgotten and is now deceased) published a paper detailing closed loop negative feedback control system in the DNA
HB : That’s what we need too. But first I would like analysis of “everyday life behaviors”. When you’ll have results of these “behaviors” evaluated from PCT view, and RCT view and other control theories that appeared on CSGnet forum, then we can talk about results you got.
BL : If I or anyone else could give a detailed, thorough, and complete PCT analysis of any of the behaviors you proposed that person should at least be considered for the Nobel Prize.
HB : Sorry to say it Bill. That’s what we have to do. That’s the only way to establish what is what and which theory is right. Well I agree it’s considerable work to be done, but there is no other way. And you’ll see it will be worth of and instructive and educational. You know the slogan in school politics. We never have to stop learning.
Many expetiments and anaylsis have to be done to get real sicentific work and to find out which theory is right. Ask PhD members how research work function. Ask Martin for advise, as I saw he advised you here. It was good advise.
PhD members are sure the greatest possible potential for providing scientific directed research. But I’m sure that Rick is also aware of this. He just don’t want to admitt to himself that real scientific work has to be done. He rather dreams in front of the computer how “target and cursor” deviate (endless attempts) and plays with joystick like a little child. Â I hope he will not die in the chair behind computer.
I must say I admire Gary Czico and his life energy (video with rowing). And by the way I assume that he wanted to start with experiments on CSGnet conference 2018, but it seems that nothing happened. Well cooperation with him would be interesting specially as he started on one of my professional fields (tennis).
So let us get on work Bill. Maybe we’ll get Nobel Prize 
. Just kidding.
Boris
Fred Nickols 04.12.2019.1350 ET
Oh well, I will try again.
Boris, would you agree that we act to keep some perception aligned with a reference state?
This is a valid statement even though it is not using what I would call PCT style wording. A statement worded in the manner you used is particularly useful when dealing with people not familiar with PCT and would be particularly useful, in my opinion, when discussing with people how to avoid conflicts. Or to say it another way, to explain PCT principles to someone that wants to use it as a tool rather than be involved in PCT research.
Fred Nickols
Well Bill I must admitt that you are top trouble maker, confuser and mess maker. You just talk without any evidences. Whatever you say it’s true, He, he…
Were you really “nuclear phiyicist” ? Without any sense for “evidences”. It’s good that you didn’t cause “nuclear explosion” with your phylosophycal approcah.
Since I worked at reactor plants I could not have caused a nuclear explosion. It would appear that your knowledge of nuclear physics is not great… either. And no, I am not a nuclear physicist, I was an instrumentation and control systems, and computer engineer. I was also a reactor operator for a few years.
We need evidence Bill for what we are talking about, not phylosophy.
I just extract places of some answeres for the beggining. We’ll go part by part…
FN : Would you disagree that we act to keep some perceived aspect of our environment in a reference state?
HB : It’s not the problem whether we act to keep perception in a reference state (it’s not just perceived aspect of external environment as you probably all think), but how we do it.
BL : Maybe I’m reading more into the above line than I should but if I am not doing that then there is nothing you have ever posted where I AGREE with you more than in that statement! The entire point of PCT is that behavior in Living Systems IS closed loop negative feedback CONTROL.
HB : No. Behavior is not controlling in closed loop, but “behavior is part of negative closed loop” and it’s not controlled. You’ll have to read some books and then we can talk about how much behavior is cotnrolled. You are trying as Rick with turning words to prove impossible. SO PROVE THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED OR SHUT UP. Or maybe you want to propose changes to PCT and turn it theory of “Control of behavior”. You can’t done that just with wording. EVIDENCES BILL. WE NEED EVIDENCES ???
If you do not accept that “Behavior is the control of perception” then you do not understand PCT as taught be Bill Powers and there is no further purpose in ‘talking’ with you. You might be proposing some theory of behavior but it is most certainly NOT PCT.
BL : By using “control of behavior (again for that explanation we are talking about the OBSERVED) behavior)” the error between the perceptions and reference for that perception is minimized.
HB : No wrong. That could be the case with control in organism, but it’s not the case with external output. That’s why Bill was carefull enough. So your statement is wrong from aspect of control in PCT.
I will admit that Martin corrected me and I should NOT have included the parenthetical phrase.
Bill P (B:CP): CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Why do you think Bill was carefull with definition of control ??? Your ignorancy is incredible. You should read more Bills’ literature and physiological literature. And of course neurophysiological.
I don’t know what the hell you’re rambling about Boris! “Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system” IS minimizing the difference between the perception(s) and the reference(s) (the “preselected state” is/are the reference signal(s)).
Boris
P.S. Because you made such a mess with answers (probably delibratelly" so that your nonsense answers could be seen as reasonable, I must dissapoint you. We’ll try to make order so that you nonsense answers will be clearly seen.
In the meantime you can explain all behaviors which were proposed from RCT and PCT view.
No Boris, I don’t particularly want to spend hours thinking through all of what is involved in those questions. Even a relatively simple function such as blood pressure control is vastly more complex than most realize and undoubtedly even more complex that biologists have identified so far.
I saw you avoided this part. It is the part which is proving that Bills’ PCT works and RCT doesn’t work. And these are also behaviors which denies your hypothesis about “cannonical principle”.
But paradoxically one of examples until now that was given in PCT general sense of control was Ricks’ :
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
While I agree with Rick’s generalization in the above, the term variables covers A LOT OF TERRITORY! As crazy as it might sound, sleep is probably the most complex control system in the human body!
HB : So if we are talking about “general theory” of human behavior, you can’t make theory on one example or experiment as Rick and you and some others are doing.
Good God Boris! Examples are used for purposes of discussion. Research, especially involving the TCV are used to provide proof of the theory. In addition, some biological research has proven the physical existence of closed loop negative feedback system in both humans and other animals (I think that is true for some plants too). Also, a famous DNA researcher (whose name I’ve forgotten and is now deceased) published a paper detailing closed loop negative feedback control system in the DNA.
It is all of these that provide the proof. Of course, as research moves up the proposed hierarchy the difficulty in proving the correctness increases nearly geometrically.
One experiment – one theory will not hold. You have to analyze at least 500 behaviors that you will be at least aproximatelly sure that you are talking at some level of generality. It would the best if you analyze all known behavior and test them with PCT and RCT and any other theory that appears on CSGnet forum. They are like “mushrooms” after the rain.
Actually Boris, your claim that “You have to analyze at least 50 behaviors…” is quite incorrect. ONE functioning engineered closed loop negative feedback control system proves the fundamental concept of Control System theory. It is proving that areas involving living things are closed loop negative feedback control systems is the difficult part. Proving that humans are, at least in part, closed loop negative feedback control systems has been achieved. That only require a few different types of tracking tasks (all of which are replicatable by anyone that chooses to do so).
So I want you and anybody that will ask me any further question about PCT, to analyze some of these behaviors : sunbathing (Bruce Abbott did once), observing (Martin’s example), sleeping (Ricks example), sitting and thinking (my example), walking (my example), table tennis play (my example), tennis play (my example), learners behavior (my example) etc. You can add for example “swimming”, running, etc. In one word “everyday examples”.
When you’ll have results of these “behaviors” evaluated from PCT view, and RCT view and other control theories that appeared on CSGnet forum, then we can talk about results you got.
If I or anyone else could give a detailed, thorough, and complete PCT analysis of any of the behaviors you proposed that person should at least be considered for the Nobel Prize.
You understand what you have to do. I want all analysis of all these behaviors from RCT and PCT view. Otherwise will know that you are blufffing.
I am NOT one of your students Boris, I don’t have to do anything you order me to do.
bill
···
From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 10:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
On 4/12/19 11:51 AM, Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:46 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Boris
From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 5:33 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
On 4/11/19 5:38 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
HI Fred,
you all want answers from me instead of reading Bills literature. I don’t want to offend anybody but I have enough giving instructions about PCT all over again, because you don’t read what I write or you understand what I write in “bilion variations” what obvioulsy give an answer that nothing “corresponding” to aspect of external environment is not perceived in the same way. But it’s some “relative” function.
I gave more then 50 explanations about the same problem. You can see them in CSGnet arvhives. I have enough of ignorancy and not reading Bills PCT. Instead it seems that most of you read and understand PCT whoever and whatever take 5 minutes time and underdstand it as somebody want to understood and “adapt” explanations to personal situable form.
Although I know that is natural if we are speaking about LCS, and that’s what PCT is explaining in the best possible way, but what is enough is enough. Even to my students at school I don’t need to repeat so many times.
How “aspect of environment is perceived” and what is happening to milions of nerv signals after that in hierarchy. Bill described only some levels, but it’s enough that you can grasp the " essence" of how it works.
Rick is mostly saying that is done with “control of behavior” (actions, output), (he also change his mind sometimes) so that what you are asking about “keeping perception near reference state” - usually inside physilogical limits, is based upon assumption that there is “controlled variable” in external environment (who knows what kind of names you invented) which is somehow affected by output and perceived. That’s not what is “feedback” in PCT. In PCT actions are affecting input.
First neither the ‘thing being perceived,’ nor the ‘disturbance’ are necessarily external to the system.
HB : You are saying this now as I told you so many times that events are not only externalv ? See Bills definitions of control down. Where did you come from ?
BL : I cite just one obvious example, blood pressure in a mammal. While I recognize that most PCT block diagrams distinguish between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the subject, this is to provide guidance about OBSERVED behavior and is otherwise NOT canonical to PCT.
HB : Where did you come from Mars ? I keep saying this for years, that control is not cannonical. It’s happening in organism as Bill Powers is claiming. And you came after all these years to tell us that there is control in organism and there is no cannonical principle ??? Grow up Bill.
BL : By using “control of behavior (again for that explanation we are talking about the OBSERVED) behavior)” the error between the perceptions and reference for that perception is minimized. The output is the only thing that the subject can use to affect the ‘thing’ being perceived, thus again it is not at all unreasonable to talk in terms of “controlling behavior (and again, as long as one keeps in mind that this is closed loop negative feedback control and all that that fact implies).”
Bill P (LCS III):
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
Every even so little move you make is accompanied with “perceptual signal”. Observe yourself and you will see how continuously LCS III loop works with relation “action – percception”.
So generally speaking I think Bill was right. Actions are affecting only “input” and that’s all we perceive. Maybe it’s hard to graps this simple fact because of the “fastness” of control loop. But I agree with him.
You are not completely correct in the above statement. It is not “…only the input” that is affected.
HB : Whatever output affects in environment is sooner or later effecting input. Maybe Bill Powers was not clear about that. If you have complaint about that give proposal to Barb and Alison to change PCT definition.
The ‘thing’ (that is perceived by the subject) is also actually affected and possibly whatever might be providing the disturbance forces.
HB : Right. But finally they are perceived. Perception is all there is.
BL : With respect to the control loop under discussion, you are correct that the status of the input is all that is perceived by the subject. An observer may well be perceiving additional information about the process.
HB : What’s that we were talking about. Oh yeah. It was about that all is perception…
/p>
BL : In addition, in ‘real world’ situations, the subject may very well also perceive additional information especially related to the effort and amount of force needed to establish and maintain control.
HB : Can you translate this into some understandable form ? What is “additional information” ???
BL : That said though, from a view of the control loop (which in a living thing we can not currently actually see), you are correct
HB : So why loosing so mnany words ???
There is no “controlled variable” in environment in PCT. See diagram LCS III and his definitions (B:CP). Where is “controlled variable” in environment ???
![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
Where it is labeled “INPUT QUANTITY” in the diagram you provided above. I quote “Physical variable that affects sensory inputs of controller (may be multiple).”
As to your questions directed at me, I missed them so I’ll address them below…
Controlled variable is just perceptual signal. Period.
You statement becomes strange or or even ridicoluous if you ask yourself that in sleeping we act to keep “some perceived aspect of our environment” in the reference state. Which aspect of environment ?
Answer in almost all cases you and others presented is about external environment, because that’s what people are mostly aware of. But there’s even bigger “space” of perceptions which people are unaware of.
But paradoxically one of examples until now that was given in PCT general sense of control was Ricks’ :
RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states
HB : So if we are talking about “general theory” of human behavior, you can’t make theory on one example or experiment as Rick and you and some others are doing.
One experiment – one theory will not hold. You have to analyze at least 500 behaviors that you will be at least aproximatelly sure that you are talking at some level of generality. It would the best if you analyze all known behavior and test them with PCT and RCT and any other theory that appears on CSGnet forum. They are like “mushrooms” after the rain.
So I want you and anybody that will ask me any further question about PCT, to analyze some of these behaviors : sunshining (Bruce Abbott did once), observing (Martin’s example), sleeping (Ricks example), sitting and thinking (my example), walking (my example), table tennis play (my example), tennis play (my example), learners behavior (my example) etc. You can add for example “swimming”, running, etc. In one word “everyday examples”.
When you’ll have results of these “behaviors” evaluated from PCT view, and RCT view and other control theories that appeared on CSGnet forum, then we can talk about results you got.
Sorry Fred. This is my final decission.
Best,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:30 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project
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?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
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
- CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
In the spirit of this discussion I accept this as true based upon some assumptions. First we are viewing this definition from the observers prospective. Second, we accept that both the observers and subject’s perception are both consistent with each other and a reasonably accurate representation of the actual aspect of the outer environment being observed and controlled.
HB : This is not definition about “interperosnal control”, but control in individual. Control in organism. And avoiding to give Bills Powers you are manipulating. The above defintion is wrong from PCT perspective. You understand that.
Bill P (B:CP):
- CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Compare both definitons and tell what they have in common ?
I want comparison of both defitnions ? You undertand ?
- OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
I don’t like the wording here but it is essentially correct.
HB : In your head.
So prove to us that you can control muscle tension and so that behavior (output) is controlled and that it can produce "controlled effects ??? What ignorancy. DEFINITION IS TOTALY WRONG FROM ASPECT OF PCT. Control is happening in organism not outside. I TOLD YOU SO MANY TIMES THAT YOU DON’T SPEAK WITH ME IF YOU DON’T SHOW EVIDENCES. IT’S EASY TO SAY THAT ELEPHANT IS HORSE BUT PROCVE THAT.
- FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
I don’t understand what the statement is saying. Feedback is actually a property of a control system, not something that it does. Feedback occurs when the effect on the controlled aspect of the external environment changes the some perception of that aspect of the external environment. Bill’s description below of how feedback WORKS is a very good one.
- INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
Again, I don’t like the wording but it is essentially correct.
- COMPARATOR : ???
- ERROR SIGNAL : ???
PCT Definitions of control loop :
Bill P (B:CP):
- CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
This is, of course, the fundamental canonical definition of a control system.
HB : Where do you see here “cannonical principle” ? What is cannonical here ?
Explain what you uuderstand under "cannonical principle ?
HB : This is general definition of control and it has to be in accordance with any behavior. So explain how this definition is cannonical in behaviors : sleeping, sunbathing, sitting and thinking etc. If you’ll prove cannpnical principle in these bahaviors I’ll call you a liar.
For now this is enough.
So if yo want further conversation I want :
- Prove (physiological evidence that behavior is control
- Prove that control concerniong above behaviors include cannoncial principle.
You want to change something in PCT put the proprsal on the table ? Otherwise I’d advise that you that you stop confussing CSGnet forum and clean the mess you make.
Boris
Bill P (B:CP):
- OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Again, a canonical definitions.
Bill P (LCS III):…the ooutput function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
I assume that the leading (4 dot) ellipsis indicates missing text. This is a reasonable description.
Bill P (LCS III):
- FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
This is a classic, absolutely correct statement on the function and operation of the feedback function.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
Yet again, a canonical statement.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P (B:CP)
Yet again, a canonical statement.
- 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.
Two sentences saying the same thing and both are correct.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
Also a correct statement.
bill
![cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0]()
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
–
Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
. Just kidding.