goal of our researchgate project

_Boris_Hartman · April 15, 2019, 9:06pm

He, he as usually Rick is manipulating with words, taking text out of context and so on just to prove that his nonsense RCT theory is usufull. Well it’s not

Your theory RCT felt on the first test you produced. You can’t explaon “sleeping” behavior with your RCT ? And you can’t explain all those beaviors which I proposed. And you can’t explain many more other behaviors. Your RCT theory is wrong…

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

HB :You just have to say that you changed your mind, and continue with PCT :

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

HB : Â Â Â Â Â I told you Rick many times that If you want to continue conversations about your RCT, you should give real scientific experiments and PCT and RCT analysis of everyday behavior. So where are the analysis ?

Instead you are trying with childish game to prove what ?

RM: I tried being nice and I know I should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

HB : You are trying to be nice with “ugly thoughts” in background with your manipulative wording ? Idiotic theory RCT is for idiots, and that I’m trying to porve that idiot made it.

RM earlier :

So the environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and inside the skin but outside the nervous system

HB : Your statement above is showing “nice manipulation” which you even didn’t backup with evidences. So I have to give evidences that you are manipulating and lying. So where in LCS III diagram you see that PCT is about “environment” of nervous system. Every live controlling system is controlling for homeostasis as the whole not just in nervous system so control happens in organisms (inside) the whole controlling system not just part of it, like you tryed to present**.**

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

And here is evidence how PCT as whole theory should look like. It’s the whole organism that is contrrolling not just nervous system. Bill Leach mentioned lately genetic control system that is also included in “big picture of control in organism”.

HB : You see where is the border ? It’s clear. You see genetic control system ? All controlling system in organism are included in homestasis. Not just nervous system.

RM: I may have told you nothing. But I told those who are capable of understanding what I said something very important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

HB : Can you translate what you wrote ? Did you explain your “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or Bills ordinary perceptual signal ? And what this has to do with comparison and differences between two models of behavior that Richard was aksing for ?

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

RM: Everything. The definition of control in B:CP is:“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”

HB : Yes we know that for a long time. How did you find out ?

And where is the difference between your RCT and PCT that was the question ? You didn’t give it. Ohhh. Are you hiding something Rick ? You are manipulating again ? Â So what is the difference between PCT and RCT definition of control *

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

RM : Since a perceptual state is a value of the perceptual signal; and since the perceptual signal is an analog of an aspect of the environment,

HB : You are explaning what now ? PCT or RCT theory ? So what is the “perceptual state of controlled perceptual variable” that is “analog” of control in external environment ?

RM : …a perceptual state correspoonds to the state (value) of an analog of some aspect of the environment.

HB : It seems that you are repeating yourself ? You are a World top bluffer Rick.

RM : So the definition of control can be written as “Achievement and maintenance of a pre- selected state of an analog of some aspect of the environment by the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”

HB : Again your are repeating yourself ? But Richard didnt’ ask you just about PCT definition but about differences between RCT and PCT. So where is interpretation of your RCT in comparison to PCT ?

RM :Â This is something that would obvious to you if you actually tried to build some control models of behavior rather than just understanding PCT in terms of definitions and diagrams.

HB : Do you understand what you wrote ? You citated definition of PCT control (2x) , which I’m citating all the time and you are accusing me of using PCT in terms of defintions and diagrams ???

So if I understand right PCT definitnions of control and diagrams are disturbance to your understanding of how organisms function with your RCT (Ricks Contro Theory)… Is that the problem ?

<

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 9:34 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[Rick Marken 2019-04-15_12:33:30]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:38 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Richard Pfau to RM: Am I mistaken or in your e-mail did you define Control as “CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

RM : So the environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and inside the skin but outside the nervous system.

HB : What a nonsense is this. …Are you having us who read your nonsense for idiots ?

RM: I tried being nice and I know I should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

RP: If so, Boris is correct in saying that you are interpreting PCT differently than Bill Powers who defines Control as “CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

RM: A perceptual state is a state of a perceptual signal.

HB : What’s wrong with you Rick ? What a tautology. You told exactly nothing.

RM: I may have told you nothing. But I told those who are capable of understanding what I said something very important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

RM : A perceptual signal is “an internal analog of some ASPECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT” (Powers, B:CP, 1973, p. 286).

HB : So what. What this has to do with definition of control ?

HB :

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

bleach · April 16, 2019, 1:47am

Boris please read to the end of this post.

···

On 4/15/19 9:40 AM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

From: Bill Leach
Monday, April 15, 2019 8:52 AM
Boris Hartman Re: goal of our researchgate project

      BL : Never mind, it was just a joking question anyway.  I was
just asking you if I replaced Rick as the “top trouble maker,
etc.”

Bill,

        HB : Not
at all. You are not the reason why Rick is not entitled to
my real oppinon about how PCT function or about how
organisms function, I’ll not reveal my real oppinion to him
becasue of known reasons which I exposed in my post to Rick
when he was quite honest that he don’t understand where I
think he is wrong, Well if you have time read what I wrote.
It’s in CSGnet archives. It was few days ago.

        But it's
true that you both have the same mistake. You both are
throwing statements on CSGnet which you can’t prove. And you
both try to manipulate with wording.

        It' easy
to “read” you, because we know what Bill thought about such
an approcah :

    You have not convinced me that you know

what Bill thought. One has to be very careful when one takes a
single statement or even a short group of postings. If you fail
to interpret what Bill said in the context of his entire
explanation of what PCT is, how it work, and what the
implications are you can be quite wrong about what he thought.

Depending upon WHO he was
discussing an issue with also determined what assumptions he
made about that person’s knowledge. For example in discussions
with Martin, he assumed a very strong knowledge and
understanding of both engineering control theory and
mathematics. Someone else without that significant background
could easily misunderstand what Bill’s point was.

    He also considered how much information the

receiver might be able to ‘take in’ without being overwhelmed.
That, of course, means that in some postings Bill would
knowingly oversimplify his presentation.

        "LCS
will use any means to achieve goals". It can be seen
anywhere. Specially if you analyse the behavior of
dicatators. They will use any means to stay on “throne” even
kill mass of people. In the name of their goals although
they will try to present how others are responsable for his
action and so on. But in essence of human beings we can’t
miss that Bill was right.

        And that
goes for you two. You will say and write anything (use any
means) so that you will achieve your goals. And that is
quite obvious what it is. To preserve Ricks’ lost RCT
theory.

  BTW, that assertion also applies to yourself

as it does to any of us.

        So my
answer is no. You didn’t replace Rick as trouble maker but
you suplement him. And I hope (if you want) that we continue
civilized conversation, to stop your emotions about Rick and
try to think rational. Because in this way we can come to
some serious conclussions that could benefit CSGnet members.

        But I'll
nor reveal all my knowledge. Just part of it. For known
reason which only me and Rick understand.

Boris

    Boris, I have no idea of what your goals

are with respect to PCT. Are you claiming that PCT is wrong? I
know with certainty that you do claim the fabled RCT is wrong.
If you are asserting that PCT is not a complete theory of
behavior, then I will agree. It can only be made more complete
though application of additional knowledge and by conducting PCT
based research.

    For just one example, reorganization.  We

know that it happens, for that we have plenty of proof. Even
some PCT rigorous research has proven that reorganization does
take place. But HOW? What are the details? What are the
methods? We don’t have a clue. The discussion of
reorganization that take place here are, for many of us, an
attempt to stir interest in conducting research into that topic
by those capable of doing such research and to address some of
factors that are believed to have to be a part what the system
does and how it does it.

    First a question for you.  Are

knowledgeable about engineering control theory? I ask that
question because, while the label for the essential terms are
different between the two theories, there is nothing contained
in engineering control theory contradicted by PCT. Even the
first few levels of Bill’s proposed hierarchy are
consistent (though I have never seen the term hierarchy used in
engineering control theory but the principle exists in the
theory). Even relatively simple reorganization exists in
engineering control theory though again the term used for it is
different with the commonly used term ‘adaptive control’ being
only a part of the concept.

bill

wrleach@cableone.net
Sent:
To:boris.hartman@masicom.net
Subject:

bleach · April 16, 2019, 3:04am

···

On 4/15/19 9:54 AM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

Bill,

Â

        It was
nice chating with you about internal functioning of
organism. So I don’t understand how you end with defending
Ricks nonsense RCT theory, which he
denyed with his best life example of Powers PCT (sleeping)

Â

        You show
your good knowledge about first part of Bills definition of
control :

Â

        !Â  "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)).

Â

        which
you probably deliberatelly isolated as you knew that second
part of definition wouldn’t fit in your many nonsense
statements which you gave in “defence” to Ricks even more
nonsense RCT, which can’t stand even his example (sleeping)
of right using Bills definition of control.

  Boris you statement above is an insult.Â  I

don’t deliberately mislead people.

Â

        HB : So
the problem is not first part of Bills definition of
control, but interpretation of second part. Your
interpretation was :

Â

Bill Leach :

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

    I don't remember why I threw the word

‘canonical’ in that definition.Â Bill’s definition is correct.Â
The loop output, which affects some aspect of the environment
that is perceived (sensed by the input portion of the control
loop), is the means by which the control loop controls the
perception so that the perception comes close the the value of
the reference for that perception (low error or difference).

Â

        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.

Â

        HB : If
we want to continue discussion we need some rules so that we
could comr to some conclussions. So if you’ll answer on my
statements seriously will continue discussion.

Â

        If
you’ll answer in your “Rick style way – blidly” without
arguments, I’ll live CSGnet forum. So I expect that wil have
serious discussion on adult level. We will live out of our
discussion “children” with joystick to play their “Tracking
experiment” and enjoy their “childhood”.

  Again Boris, I perceive your statement in the

paragraph above as an unnecessary attack upon Rick.Â That is
particularly onerous because the various tests the computer
programs and the PCT simulations (predictions of behavior) were a
tremendous verification of the validity of the most basic
assertion of PCT (that observed behavior is a result of the
actions of a closed loop negative feedback control system).Â The
rubber band experiments, the coin experiments, etc. were useful,
particularly when introducing PCT to someone with no knowledge of
PCT.Â But those experiments did not generate the sort of data that
allows for rigorous analysis demanded for the 'hard sciences.'Â
The computer program did provide that data.

Â

        So my
conditions are :

Â

          You, and Barb
and me and probably more others experienced Bill Powers as
very seriously (scientifically) taking his PCT. So if I
understood right we can agree that he has very carefully
choosen words in any of his writings.

          Every our
statement will be “backuped” with Bill Powers text or some
scientific findings like physiology.

          We wiil
respect PCT analyses of everyday behavior.

          We don't need
to put all our efforts and knowledge into our observation
if we don’t want.

          We can leave
conversation whenever we want without explanation.

    Based upon what I said above about

interpreting Bill’s words we have to be careful not to use a
single statement of Bill’s to contradict the more general PCT
discussion in B:CP.Â It is true that some aspects of PCT did
evolve a bit following the publication of B:CP, these were the
things that Bill only hypothesized and not the fundamentals of
closed loop negative feedback control system operations.

    As far of #3 what happens on the forum are

discussions based upon opinions unless there is existing
rigorous PCT research that bares on the discussion.Â So I agree
that the discussion should always be conducted respectfully.Â
Points raised that appear to contradict the known portions of
the theory should be questioned.

Essentially I agree with all 5 terms.

Â

From: Bill Leach
( via csgnet Mailing List)
Monday, April 15, 2019 8:57 AM
Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

On 4/13/19 7:29 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Bill,

Â

          HB :
As I said before wording can’t change what is happening in
reality. And you are just wording and claiming things
which do not exist anywhere else but in your mind. You are
a mess and confussion maker. Are you doing this
deliberatelly ? You don’t understand PCT Period.

Â

          HB :
Living beings don’t control behavior (output). If you
think so prove that you can control output. And stop
insinuating that I don’t understand English because you
are insulting me.

    Actually you can 'control output' IF you

have another control system that monitors (perceives some aspect
of the output) and has the means for altering that output.Â That
indeed is the way that some known muscular systems function to
avoid muscle injury.Â However, that is a different thing from
trying to assert that an individual control loop can control its
output.Â It can not without additional ‘hardware.’

        BL :
Boris, I’m over 70 years old and I have never met
ANYONE that was more insulting toward others than you are.

      HB : O.K. You obviously didn't
read what I wrote few days ago in discussion with Rick when he
was for first time after more than 10 years writing about his
real problems in onversation with. I also descibed what I
experienced on CSGnet through these years. Many insults.

  Boris I suggest that your manner of

denigrating anyone that you disagree with invites critical
comments concerning how you express yourself.

      But If you accuse me of being the
on who is the worst in insulting then you really don’t know
Rick. I meantioned two names : Martin and Gavin Ritz (lathough
there are many others), for whom I assume that they will
confirm Ricks nasty nature. I learned being insulting on
CSGnet from him. Rick is with no doubt “World Champion” in
insulting. Beleive me I’m “little fish” in comparison to hei.
But you can go and check CSGnet archves or read what I wrote
if you have time.

      Let us go back to your ages.
Considering that I’m not so far away (in ages), I could say
that your memory is not in perfect shape. Maybe you remember
some inserts from conversation with Bill Powers and maybe the
meaning but not exact words. Memory can be problematic in old
people.

      As I said I'm a little younger (I
have two children and 3 grandchildren) and I enjoy their
company. I mostly watch grandchildren how they enjoy life.
Incredibly how inventive they are specially if you help them.
And when I observe them I think of Bill’s child
development theoretical backgroung which stands and
was quite good confirmed by Ploijj.

      Of course my PCT thoughts are
quite often on and observations are PCT flitered, so
grandchildren games stimulate many new ideas which come up and
can be tested immediatelly in life situation. So Bills theory
get it’s upgrades. His fundamentals are so strong that I
haven’t found “a hole” in his thinking about how child
develope. And if you count in my experiences in school work,
you can think why UN wants to talk with me about school system
theoretical background I have. I’ll always stay fair to Bill
and wherever I’ll go with his knowledge he is always there
with his citations. At least few so that hisÂ magnificent
theory is exposed in original form. I don’t remember that I
saw much his sitations in PCT literature.

  Beyond William James, there was not a whole

lot of behavioral scientists to cite!Â PCT comes directly from
engineering control theory and that was cited.

      So the point is that I don't try
to do transformations to his original thoughts but I comment
his original thoughts. That’s what I’ll be doing also during
ourconversation and that’s what I did many times before.

  Thats fine Boris.Â  However translation (as

opposed to transformation) to help deal with the use of PCT vs.
the research is useful.Â As an example, I will cite your comment
about applying PCT to everyday situations.Â Most of the time you
can not meet the data requirements demanded for a hard science
discipline like PCT.Â If you can’t produce (or a programming
expert can not produce from your explanation and data) a computer
program simulation that will predict within a 98% confidence
factor the same sort of behavior under varying conditions AND
allow for analysis of so called ‘outliers’ then you have not
actually advanced PCT research much.

        BL :
Living beings use output to control perception (and
of course that also requires a reference for the perception
and comparator to determine what error if any exists).

      HB : I'll try to analyze "control
loop" as possibleÂ exactly in accordance to PCT. But first
I’ll remind about some of your statements of “control loop”.

      While "behavior (output)" I'll
analyze latter, let me remind you that your answers about
“controlled variable” in external environment and “Controlled
perceptual variable” or PCV were :

HB : Any
behavior in Ricks theory has some “controlled variable” in
environment.

BL : It does not.

  What Rick, myself, and many others maintain,

is that there are some factors in the environment that are
perceived by the subject that are the SUBJECT of control.Â But
what is actually controlled is the subject’s own (internal and
invisible to any observer) own perceptions.Â We also assert that
when the observer is perceiving the same environmental factors
that the observer’s perception (in the case for humans) is likely
a very close match to the subject’s perception.

HB : Rick
is using term (CPV) which was never used by Bill.

        BL :
No, I agree, Bill did not use the term to my knowledge.

      HB : Now let us analyze your statement about "behavior being

control".Â

        BL : Living
beings use output to control perception

      HB : …contradicts to your several statements which you gave
on CSGnet and in our private talkings :

          Damn Boris!Â  I DID
NOT SAY THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED!Â

          First Boris, in the
above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled!

      HB : Although you changed "color" sometime, I'll understand
your statements that “behavior or ouptut is not controlled” as
right and I’ll assume that you support Bills’ definition about
“OUTPUT FUNCTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION” to be RIGHT.

        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

Â

      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.

Â

        Bill P

(B:CP):

        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.

Â

HB : So
my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR
(output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT
(PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is
showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT
that behavior (output) is not controlled.

  Output is NOT controlled.Â  Output is what the

observer can see and analyze.Â Bill called his seminal work on
this subject “Behavior: The Control of Perception” quite on
purpose.Â He was emphasizing that what we and especially
behaviorists, observe when watching someone is a closed loop
negative feedback system in operation.Â He was emphasizing that it
is not a linear stimulus-response system nor is it some sort of
computer analog that executes a program.Â So behavior is a sign
that control is occurring and is only a component of the control
process.Â But it is also the only part that we, the observers, can
actually see.

Â

      HB : Later we'll analyse your
other statement and difference about terms : “Behavior is
controlled” and “Behavior is control”. Yo said that there is a
difference. We just have to see what kind.

        BL : Good hell Boris, behavior
(what we observe a person doing) IS control.Â

Boris

Â

          You
don’t understand the whole theory.

Â

          HB : In LCS III diagram is the
only place in the loop where behavior is mentioned is
“OUTPUT FUNTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION”. It’s obviously
that “effects” to EXTERNAL environment are produced by
“OUTPUT FUNCTION” where by your oppinion control happens.
So the “function” of BEHAVIOR is to produce effects (NOT
CONTROLLED EFFECTS" TO ENVIRONMENT). WE said that Bill was
very percise with using words.

    No Boris, my assertions is that while the

output is what changes something in the environment it is, by
itself, NOT control.Â Control requires every component.Â Control
is a continuous process.

bill

          So if
“behavior controls” how do you see that in LCS III diagram
and definitions od control ?

Â

          PCT
Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (LCS III):

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

        Bill

P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Â

Boris

Â

.

Â

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 10:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

On 4/13/19 12:45 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Â

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

Â

          BL : This is possibly the last post that I will engage
with you.Â Your, in my opinion, elitist and arrogant,
approach to discussion is not acceptable to me.

            Well

Bill,

Â

            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.

Â

** Bill
P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) :**

            Perceptual
Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of
functioning for organisms

Â

            HB :
And you are just talking, like the words will change
physical and physiological etc. reality. What do you
think it’s more probable :

Â

              Physical
reality will change in accordance to your theory
(wording) or

Â

              Your
wording (theory) has to “adapt” to reality.

Â

            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 haveÂ to be “adapted” to
the reality not vica verse.

Â

            BL : Since I worked at reactor
plants I could not have caused a nuclear explosion.Â It
would appear that your knowledge of nuclear physics is
not great… either.Â And no, I am not a nuclear
physicist, I was an instrumentation and control systems,
and computer engineer.Â 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.

Â

            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

Â

            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.

            Â 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!Â 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.

            Â 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.

        First Boris, in the above I did NOT say that behavior or
output is controlled!Â Read again what I actually wrote.Â
What I said is that behavior IN living system is control.
There is a huge difference in English meaning between saying
that ‘behavior is controlled’ and ‘behavior is control’!Â
And yes of course, behavior is what happens when a control
system (living or otherwise) attempts to control perception
to some reference value for that perception.

        In PCT, "behavior is NOT emitted."Â  A quip I remember Bill

often using.

Â

          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.Â 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.

          I'm sorry
Boris but you have this wrong.Â The Title of Bill’s
seminal work is Behavior: the control of Perception.Â The
use of that particular title was to point out to
psychologists that the behavior they were observing and
studying results from the subject’s control or at least
attempt to control the subjects perception.Â Such a title
would be completely unnecessary in an engineering book on
the same subject.

          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.

          No Boris, the
whole negative feedback control loop is the mechanism for
control.Â The comparator does not ‘control perception’
either, the control loop does.

            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.

Â

            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.

          Excuse me
Boris, but “actions on the environment” IS behavior.Â
Exactly the same meaning for both terms.

Â

            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!Â “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.

          Your
statement above is ludicrous.Â PCT IS engineering Control
Theory, applied to ALL living things.Â While I’m probably
not as ignorant of physiology and neurophysiology as you
think, and it does not take much biological knowledge to
correctly apply PCT to the human body.

            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 : YouÂ 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).

          That was
intentional on my part including not typing an ellipsis at
the end of the quote portion.Â The sentence by Bill
conveyed two concepts.Â The portion before the word
“through” was a statement of purpose (what the control
loop is supposed to accomplish) and the portion after and
including “through” is how it accomplishes that purpose.

          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.

          Beyond
asserting again, that Bill’s definition is canonical PCT,
I don’t even understand what you are trying to say in the
above paragraph.

            RCT
(Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

            CONTROL :
Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – theÂ
controlled variable --Â in a reference state, protected
from disturbances.

        Rick can defend himself if he choose however, from the
perspective of the observer, Rick’s definition is correct.

        Since I neither speak, read, or write in any language other
than English, I somewhat loath to make this observation but
occasionally you write sentences that do not make sense in
English.Â The first sentence in the paragraph above
beginning with “So second part of definition of control…”
makes no sense to me starting with “…so that to…”.Â I
also do not have a clue what the second sentence is supposed
to be saying to me.

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”. ???

        First sentence response:Â  A control system that is "ON"
controls (or at least attempts to control) the entire time
that it is on.Â There can be situations (rare with respect
to CVs that are physically outside the body) where the
control system output is zero but it certainly occurs.Â
However, even with a zero output, the control system is
STILL controlling.Â i.e. Should the controlled perception
deviate sufficiently from the reference an output will be
produced to correct the deviation.

        Second sentence:Â  I can think of no system within the human
body involved in maintaining homeostasis that does not
operate continuously beginning some time during gestation
and lasting until sometime after death (in a human that has
not developed defects).Â For example, maintaining a proper
blood glucose concentration is a control system function.Â A
failure (all too common in today’s world) of that system can
easily result in death of the subject.Â However, before
death occurs other control systems will control their own
perception in a fashion that attempts to compensate for the
for the failure of the glucose control.

        If you know of an example of a homeostasis system that does
not control continuously, I would like to hear about it.

        Third sentence:Â  I don't know what you are trying to say.Â 
Are you saying that if a control system output is zero that
the system is not controlling?Â If that is what you are
trying to say then my comment is that you are absolutely
wrong.Â Again, a control system does not produce an output
when the perception being control exactly matches (or is
within the ‘dead band’ of the reference in the control
system however the system is still controlling.

        Forth sentence:Â  I don't know what you are trying to convey
in that sentence.Â If you are holding a coffee cup, you have
to compensate for gravity.Â We don’t usually consider
gravity to be a disturbance unless they is a special reason
for doing so in a particular discussion.Â In a static
environment (no disturbances) the control system output will
be some non-zero value that remain essentially constant
(though the output signal from the comparator will
eventually begin increasing due to the effects of muscle
fatigue).

Fifth sentence:Â No comment and no problem.

        Sixth sentence:Â  I don't see the point of the question, but
the perception under control 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 is
control”, there is “cannonical priciple” everywhere in PCT
and so on. And you are trying to say that this was normal
conversation ???

        I agree that Bill was usually very precise and not just in
his formal writing.Â He was however also very human and
occasionally did slip up in his wording (though as far as I
can recall, never to the point of causing confusion among
those that had studied his work).Â I believe that I recall
from years ago that on occasion Bill did post a follow-up on
CSGNet correcting something he said earlier.Â Dag would
likely know for sure.

        I am beginning to suspect that just possibly the major
portion of the arguments that you have gotten into on CSGNet
are due NOT to a difference in understand what PCT is and is
not but rather and understanding of the complete
definitions, including implied definitions, for PCT terms.Â
Bill Powers PCT term definitions include ALL aspects of the
the equivalent terms in engineered control system theory.

        What cause me to come to the above conclusion is your
insistence that control loops involved in homeostasis are
not alway functioning.Â As I state above, just because a
control system is not ‘doing anything’ or even has a zero
output does NOT mean in the engineering world (and by
extension) the PCT world that the system in not still
controlling.Â Remember, Bill started as an engineering
control system person and then became a behavioral
scientist.Â At NO time can I ever recall Bill implying that
a definition in PCT differed from its engineering
equivalent.

        I used the term 'deadband' above and at least when I
actually talked with Bill in person, he believed that such a
deadband existed in most if not all living system control
loops.Â The deadband, of course defines a region around the
reference value where the perception can differ from the
reference value but no change in controller output will
occur.Â The value of that deadband is specific to each
individual control loop and itself may be controlled by
another control system (i.e. the deadband may change at
anytime the control system is active (on).

bill

          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.

Â

            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.Â 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.

Â

          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 Â

Â

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”.

Â But paradoxically one
of examples until now that was given in PCT general sense
of control was Ricks’ : Â

            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!Â 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 – theÂ
controlled variable --Â 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.

Â

          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
have 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.Â

          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.Â

          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.Â 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).Â 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
: Â 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 ðŸ˜Š. Just kidding.

Boris

Â

On 4/12/19 11:51 AM, Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Fred Nickols 04.12.2019.1350 ET

Â

Oh well, I will try again.

Â

              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.Â 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.Â 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.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

                  On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:46 PM
“Boris Hartman” <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

                        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…

Â

                        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.Â It would appear that your knowledge
of nuclear physics is not great… either.Â And no, I am
not a nuclear physicist, I was an instrumentation and
control systems, and computer engineer.Â I was also a
reactor operator for a few years.

Â

                        We need evidence
Bill for what we are talking about, not
phylosophy.

Â

                        I just extract
places of some answeres for the beggining.
We’ll go part by part…

Â

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

Â

                      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.

Â

                        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!Â The entire
point of PCT is that behavior in Living
Systems IS closed loop negative feedback
CONTROL.

Â

                        HB : No.Â  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. Â 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.Â
You might be proposing some theory of behavior but it is
most certainly NOT PCT.

Â

                      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.

Â

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. Â 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.

Â

                        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!Â
“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)).

Â

Boris

Â

                        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.

Â

                        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.Â 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.

Â

                        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”.

Â

                      But
paradoxically one of examples until now that
was given in PCT general sense of control was
Ricks’ :

Â

                        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!Â As crazy as it
might sound, sleep is probably the most complex control
system in the human body!

Â

                      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!Â  Examples are used for purposes of
discussion.Â Research, especially involving the TCV are
used to provide proof of the theory.Â 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).Â
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.Â  Of course, as
research moves up the proposed hierarchy the difficulty in
proving the correctness increases nearly geometrically.

Â

                      One
experiment – one theory will not hold. You
have 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.

            Actually
Boris, your claim that “You have to analyze at least 50
behaviors…” is quite incorrect.Â ONE functioning
engineered closed loop negative feedback control system
proves the fundamental concept of Control System
theory.Â It is proving that areas involving living
things are closed loop negative feedback control systems
is the difficult part.Â Proving that humans are, at
least in part, closed loop negative feedback control
systems has been achieved.Â That only require a few
different types of tracking tasks (all of which are
replicatable by anyone that chooses to do so).

Â

                      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”.

Â

                      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.

Â

                        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

Â

Boris

Â

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

Â

                        On
4/11/19 5:38 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

HI

Fred,

Â

                        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.

Â

                        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.

Â

                        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.

Â

                      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.

Â

                      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 basedÂ 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.Â

                      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.Â 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 afterÂ 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.Â 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).”

Â

                          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.

Â

                        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 –
perception”.Â

Â

                        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.Â It is not “…only the input” that
is affected.Â

                      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.Â

                      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.Â 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…

                      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 ???

Â

                        There
is no “controlled variable” in environment
in PCT. See diagram LCS III and his
definitions (B:CP). Where is “controlled
variable” in environment ???

Â

                      Where it is labeled "INPUT QUANTITY" in the
diagram you provided above.Â 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…

Â

                        Controlled
variable is just perceptual signal. Period.

Â

                        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 ?

Â

                        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.

Â

                        But
paradoxically one of examples until now that
was given in PCT general sense of control
was Ricks’ :

Â

                          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

Â

                        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.

Â

                        One
experiment – one theory will not hold. You
have 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.

Â

                        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”.

Â

                        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.

Â

                        Sorry

Fred. This is my final decission.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

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

Â

                            From

Fred Nickols 04.11.2019.1728 ET

Â

Boris:

Â

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

Â

                              On
Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM “Boris
Hartman” <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

Bill

Â

                                  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”.Â
I told you once that I don’t want
phylosophy what you think about
Rick etc. I want “facts”.Â

Â

                                  Just

answer.

Â

                                  Which

model of human behaviour you think
is right.

Â

RCT

(Ricks Control Theory)
definition of control loop

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

                        In the spirit of this
discussion I accept this as true based upon
some assumptions.Â First we are viewing this
definition from the observers prospective.Â
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 ?

Â

                        I want comparison

of both defitnions ? You undertand ?

Â

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

                        I don't like the
wording here but it is essentially correct.

HB : In your head.

Â

                        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.Â

Â

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

                        I don't understand
what the statement is saying.Â Feedback is
actually a property of a control system, not
something that it does.Â Feedback occurs
when the effect on the controlled aspect of
the external environment changes the some
perception of that aspect of the external
environment.Â Bill’s description below of
how feedback WORKS is a very good one.

Â

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

                        Again, I don't like

the wording but it is essentially correct.

Â

COMPARATOR : ???

ERROR SIGNAL : ???

Â

PCT

Definitions of control loop :

                                  Bill

P (B:CP):

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

                        This is, of course,
the fundamental canonical definition of a
control system.

Â

                        HB : Where do you
see here “cannonical principle” ? What is
cannonical here ?

Â

                        Explain
what you uuderstand under "cannonical
principle ?

Â

                        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.

Â

                        For now this is

enough.

Â

                        So
if yo want further conversation I want :

                            Prove
(physiological evidence that behavior is
control

                            Prove that
control concerniong above behaviors
includeÂ cannoncial principle.

Â

                        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.Â

Â

Boris

Â

                                  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.

Â

                                  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.

                        I assume that the
leading (4 dot)Â ellipsis indicates missing
text.Â This is a reasonable description.

Â

                                  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.

Â

                                  Bill

P (B:CP) :

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

                        Yet again, a canonical

statement.

Â

                                  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.

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

                        Two sentences saying

the same thing and both are correct.

Â

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Also a correct statement.

bill

Â

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

Â

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

Bill…

Â

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

Â

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

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

                                    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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â The
‘controlled variable’ IS the
perception of that variable that
we all believes exists in the
environment.Â

Â

                                  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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â But
that belief is reasonable based
upon a great many years of shared
human experience with our external
world.Â Thus acknowledging that
the control of perception results
in real changes that can be
observed by others is not at all
unreasonable.Â 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.Â What is
perceived is also affected by
differing experience and
differences in world models.Â
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.Â Both are perceived by
the subject (and observer if there
is one).Â 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.Â INDEED that is really
the WHOLE POINT of PCT!Â 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!Â 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!Â 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 inÂ 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.Â 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.Â It is also not
relevant.

                                  Think quantum physics or quantum
electrodynamics.Â There are limits
to how accurately we can predict
or measure anything.Â In our “real
world” it is pretty much useless
to take things to the most minuet
detail.Â 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.Â Anyone
actually applying PCT knows that
individual variation is going to
show up.Â This is true for PCT
prediction as well.Â 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.Â Â

                                  I can only tell you that Bill
Powers personally told me that
Rick was one of the early
psychologists that thoroughly
understood PCT.Â 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.Â
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.Â

                                    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.Â 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)…Â 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.Â 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).Â 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.Â You
might well conclude that the
subject was controlling to follow
the other car.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â
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.Â MOL may be an example
of not only where precision is not
possible but likely not desired at
all!Â MOL seems to work just
because there is a reference for
not having internal conflicts.Â
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.Â 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.Â 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.Â Again, your mileage
may vary.

Bill

Â

–

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

–

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

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

bleach · April 16, 2019, 4:22am

···

On 4/15/19 3:06 PM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

        He,
he as usually Rick is manipulating with words, taking text
out of context and so on just to prove that his nonsense RCT
theory is usufull. Well it’s not

Â

        Your
theory RCT felt on the first test you produced. You can’t
explaon “sleeping” behavior with your RCT ? And you can’t
explain all those beaviors which I proposed. And you can’t
explain many more other behaviors. Your RCT theory is wrong…

    Boris your first 2 paragraphs are stated as

an attack rather than as a criticism.

    PCT is not yet at a state with its

practitioners/researcher can produce a simulation that will
predict 'sleeping behavior.'Â The most significant difference
between PCT and ALL other behavioral sciences is that PCT is
what is called a hard science.Â For some aspect of PCT to be
considered as valid theory, it must be capable of producing a
generative model that predicts with a high confidence factor
behavior of living systems.

    This is radically different than the rest

of the behavioral ‘science’ community which use opinion and
consensus for their “proofs.”

    It is also one of the major reasons why PCT

research is so difficult.Â A confidence factor of 70% would not
even convince a PCT researcher that you are on the right track
toward a solution or a valid explanation.

Â

RCT :

" CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – theÂ
controlled variable --Â in a reference state, protected from
disturbances."

Â

        HB :You just have to say
that you changed your mind, and continue with PCT :

Â

PCT

:

        "CONTROL:
Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual
state in the controlling system, through actions on the
environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances."
(Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

Â

        HB
: Â Â Â Â Â I told you Rick many times that If you want to
continue conversations about your RCT, you should give real
scientific experiments and PCT and RCT analysis of everyday
behavior. So where are the analysis ?

Â

        Instead
you are trying with childish game to prove what ?

Â

        RM: I tried
being nice and I know I should continue to rise above
but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think
you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

Â

      HB : You are
trying to be nice with “ugly thoughts” in background with your
manipulative wording ? Idiotic theory RCT is for idiots, and
that I’m trying to porve that idiot made it.

Â

RM

earlier :

        So the
environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and
inside the skin but outside the nervous system

Â

HB : Your
statement above is showing “nice manipulation” which you even
didn’t backup with evidences. So I have to
give evidences that you are manipulating and lying.
So where in LCS III diagram you see that PCT is about
“environment” of nervous system. Every live controlling system
is controlling for homeostasis as the whole not just in
nervous system so control happens in organisms (inside) the
whole controlling system not just part of it, like you tryed
to present**.**

  I'll be a little more specific than Rick

was…Â The environment is every thing below the input function
and below the output function shown in the basic control diagram.Â
The above statement by Rick is essentially correct but but not
complete since there are control loops that involve chemical
reactions and those are at least partly “outside the nervous
system.”

Â

PCT

:

        "CONTROL:
Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual
state in
the controlling system ,
through actions on the environment that also cancel the
effects of disturbances." (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).Â

Â

** And here is evidence how PCT as whole
theory should look like. It’s the whole organism that is
contrrolling not just nervous system. Bill Leach mentioned
lately genetic control system that is also included in “big
picture of control in organism”.**

Â

** HB : You see where is the border ? It’s
clear. You see genetic control system ? All controlling
system in organism are included in homestasis. Not just
nervous system.**

Â

        RM: I may
have told you nothing. But I told those who are
capable of understanding what I said something very important.
The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values
from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron
carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal
between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this
VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual
signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

Â

** HB : Can you translate what you wrote ?
Did you explain your “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or
Bills ordinary perceptual signal ? And what this has to do
with comparison and differences between two models of
behavior that Richard was aksing for ?**

Â

RCT :

" CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – theÂ
controlled variable --Â in a reference state, protected from
disturbances."

Â

PCT

:

        "CONTROL:
Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual
state in the controlling system, through actions on the
environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances."
(Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).Â

Â

** RM: Everything. The definition of
control in B:CP is**: “CONTROL: Achievement
and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the
controlling system, through actions on the environment that
also cancel the effects of disturbances.”

Â

HB : Yes we
know that for a long time. How did you find out ?

Â

        And where is the
difference between your RCT and PCT that was the question ?
You
didn’t give it. Ohhh. Are you hiding something Rick ? You
are manipulating again ? Â So what is the difference
between PCT and RCT definition of control *

    The only difference is in the words used

and not in the meaning.

bill

Â

RCT :

" CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – theÂ
controlled variable --Â in a reference state, protected from
disturbances."

Â

        RM
: Since a perceptual state is a value of the perceptual
signal; and since the perceptual signal is an analog of an
aspect of the environment,

Â

        HB
: You are explaning what now ? PCT or RCT theory ? So what is the
“perceptual state of controlled perceptual variable” that is
“analog” of control in external environment ?

Â

        RM
: …a perceptual state corresponds to the state (value) of an
analog of some aspect of the environment.

Â

        HB
: It seems that you are repeating yourself ? You are a World top
bluffer Rick.

Â

        RM
: So the definition of control can be written as
"Achievement and maintenance of a pre- selected state of an
analog of some aspect of the environment by the controlling
system, through actions on the environment that also cancel
the effects of disturbances."Â

Â

        HB
: Again your are repeating yourself ? But Richard didnt’ ask
you just about PCT definition but about differences between
RCT and PCT. So where is
interpretation of your RCT in comparison to PCT ?

Â

        RM
:Â This is something that would obvious to you if you
actually tried to build some control models of behavior
rather than just understanding PCT in terms of definitions
and diagrams.Â Â

Â

        HB : Do you understand
what you wrote ? You citated
definition of PCT control (2x) , which I’m citating
all the time and you are accusing me of using PCT in terms
of defintions and diagrams ???

Â

        So
if I
understand right PCT definitnions of control and diagrams
are disturbance to your understanding of how
organisms function with your RCT (Ricks Contro Theory)… Is
that the problem ?

Â

Boris

Â

From: Richard Marken
( via csgnet Mailing List)
Monday, April 15, 2019 9:34 PM
csgnet Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

[Rick Marken 2019-04-15_12:33:30]

Â

            On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:38 PM
“Boris Hartman” <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

Â

                        Â Richard
Pfau to RM: Am I mistaken or in your e-mail
did you define Control as " CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer
environment – theÂ controlled variable
–Â in a reference state, protected from
disturbances."

Â

                      RM
: So the environment in PCT includes
everything outside the skin and inside the
skin but outside the nervous system.Â

Â

                        HB : What a
nonsense is this. Â …Are you having
us who read your nonsense for idiots ?

Â

            RM: I tried being nice and I know I
should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist.
No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating
pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

Â

                              RP:
If so, Boris is correct in saying that
you are interpreting PCT differently
than Bill Powers who defines Control
as “CONTROL: Achievement and
maintenance of a preselected
perceptual state in the controlling
system, through actions on the
environment that also cancel the
effects of disturbances.” (Powers,
B:CP, 2005, p.296).Â

Â

                    RM:
A perceptual state is a state of a perceptual
signal.

Â

                    HB
: What’s wrong with you Rick ? What a tautology.
You told exactly
nothing.

Â

            RM: I may have told you nothing. But
I told those who are capable of understanding what I
said something very important. The perceptual signal is
a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec)
to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that
signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and
the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So
30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal,
called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

Â

                    Â RM
: A perceptual signal is “an internal analog of
some ASPECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT” (Powers, B:CP,
1973, p. 286).

Â

                    HB
: So what. What this has to do with definition
of control ?

Â

HB :

Â

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.â€?

                                  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â

–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

rsmarken@gmail.com csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
To:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:

_Boris_Hartman · April 16, 2019, 9:07am

Bill,

We are very close to finnishing our discussion, because you are bullshitting and selling crap again.

I answered on your answers bellow, but here is summary.

I want you to answer just with YES or NO whether what Bill wrote about control in outer environment is right or not. I didn’t ask you for your phylosophy.

HB : We agreed quite well that Bill Powers precisely used words for his control loop. In his definitions he is not mentioning any “observer”. That’s optinonal. Anyway any observer would has his own vision what is happening as you have yours.

Bill Powers is analyzing cotrol from aspect of “Living Control System”. So short answers. No bullshitting.

So we have two statements :

BL : Living beings use output to control perception

And

Bill Powers : That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

HB : So you are claiming that Living beings use output to control perception and Bill Powers is claiming that Living beings use output to affect input (perception).

No bullshitting Bill. Which statement is right ?

Your answer :

After you aanswered you can read continuing explanation.

HB : Now let us analyze your statement about “behavior being control”.

BL : Living beings use output to control perception

HB : â€¦contradicts to your several statements which you gave on CSGnet and in our private talkings :

Damn Boris! I DID NOT SAY THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED!
First Boris, in the above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled!

HB : Although you changed “color” sometime, I’ll understand your statements that “behavior or ouptut is not controlled” as right and I’ll assume that you support Bills’ definition about “OUTPUT FUNCTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION” to be RIGHT.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

HB : So my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR (output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT (PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

Bill : Output is NOT controlled.

HB : Good. So from aspect of Living Control System we can conclude that “output” is not controlled. That is in accordance to Bills defintion of “Ouptut”. From the aspect of Living Control System. As that is what is descibed in definitions.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

So do we agree again that output which produce effets to environment is not controlled, so it’s not controlling perception but affects perceptions ?

YES OR NO.

BL : Output is what the observer can see and analyze.

HB : Output is not only what the observer see and analyze but output is the portion of the system that converts … See definition aabove. So output is something that “Living Control System” is doing no matter of the observer.

Ouptu is part of Living organism, not part of the observer. Any also controlling system can observe it’s output. Emmiting effects to environment means that controlling sistem produce effects to environment and that doesn’t depend from observer but from controler what kind of effects will. And efects are not controlled.Whether observer is there or not. As I said we are very close to finishing discusion.

BL : Â Bill called his seminal work on this subject “Behavior: The Control of Perception” quite on purpose. He was emphasizing that what we and especially behaviorists, observe when watching someone is a closed loop negative feedback system in operation.

HB : Different observers will observ differently what other willl be doing. So observer has nothing to do with what controller is doing. And Bill Powers definitions are about what control system is doing.

HB : As I said before Bill cut the crap. What observes observe is of phylosophy. I never saw in any literature that Bill Powers gave such an explanation of his Titile of book. But clearly exposed in his theory that “behavior is not controlling perception but affecting”. So I can clearly prove my statment and you can not prove sour statement. So temporarely I’ll call you a liar until you prove your statement.

My proof (evidences) that Title of book means that “Behavior is not controlling perception”

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

Where is your proof (evidence) that “Behavior can control perception” ???

HB : You understand what are you doing Bill ? You are craping all the time and “bullshitting”. I want straight answers. Are Bills definitions right and is my conclussion that "behavior (output) affect input (perception) right or not.

YES OR NO.

So do you agree :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

HB : So my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR (output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT (PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

So do you agree that Bills Powers definitions are right and that thay are showing that “ouput is not for controlling perception” but for affecting perception ?

YES OR NO ?

Boris

Bill,

It was nice chating with you about internal functioning of organism. So I don’t understand how you end with defending Ricks nonsense RCT theory, which he denyed with his best life example of Powers PCT (sleeping)

You show your good knowledge about first part of Bills definition of control :

! “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)).

which you probably deliberatelly isolated as you knew that second part of definition wouldn’t fit in your many nonsense statements which you gave in “defence” to Ricks even more nonsense RCT, which can’t stand even his example (sleeping) of right using Bills definition of control.

BL : Boris you statement above is an insult. I don’t deliberately mislead people.

HB : Maybe you are not deliberatelly doing what you are doing, but you messmaker, and confussion maker. Â Whether you feel it as an insult or no. It’s the “fact”.

Â

HB : So the problem is not first part of Bills definition of control, but interpretation of second part. Your interpretation was :

Bill Leach :

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

I don’t remember why I threw the word ‘canonical’ in that definition.

HB : So you see. You were misleading members on CSGnet with claiming that PCT is “cannonical”.

BL : Bill’s definition is correct. The loop output, which affects some aspect of the environment that is perceived (sensed by the input portion of the control loop), is the means by which the control loop controls the perception so that the perception comes close the the value of the reference for that perception (low error or difference).

HB : Good. So we agree that PCT is not cannonical. PCT definitions is right.

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 : If we want to continue discussion we need some rules so that we could comr to some conclussions. So if you’ll answer on my statements seriously will continue discussion.

If you’ll answer in your “Rick style way – blidly” witthout arguments, I’ll live CSGnet forum. So I expect that wil have serious discussion on adult level. We will live out of our discussion “children” with joystick to play their “Tracking experiment” and enjoy their “childhood”.

Again Boris, I perceive your statement in the paragraph above as an unnecessary attack upon Rick. That is particularly onerous because the various tests the computer programs and the PCT simulations (predictions of behavior) were a tremendous verification of the validity of the most basic assertion of PCT (that observed behavior is a result of the actions of a closed loop negative feedback control system). The rubber band experiments, the coin experiments, etc. were useful, particularly when introducing PCT to someone with no knowledge of PCT. But those experiments did not generate the sort of data that allows for rigorous analysis demanded for the ‘hard sciences.’ The computer program did provide that data.

HB : Bill, it’s obviously that from computer experiments and all other stuff Bill Powers Â produced PCT theory and Rick produced RCT theory. We can resolve the problem by analyzing other behaviors. Many other behaviors as I suggested. You did nothing and you are still phylosophing.

So my conditions are :

You, and Barb and me and probably more others experienced Bill Powers as very seriously (scientifically) taking his PCT. So if I understood right we can agree that he has very carefully choosen words in any of his writings.

Every our statement will be “backuped” with Bill Powers text or some scientific findings like physiology.

We wiil respect PCT analyses of everyday behavior.

We don’t need to put all our efforts and knowledge into our observation if we don’t want.

We can leave conversation whenever we want without explanation.

Based upon what I said above about interpreting Bill’s words we have to be careful not to use a single statement of Bill’s to contradict the more general PCT discussion in B:CP. It is true that some aspects of PCT did evolve a bit following the publication of B:CP, these were the things that Bill only hypothesized and not the fundamentals of closed loop negative feedback control system operations.

As far of #3 what happens on the forum are discussions based upon opinions unless there is existing rigorous PCT research that bares on the discussion. So I agree that the discussion should always be conducted respectfully. Points raised that appear to contradict the known portions of the theory should be questioned.

Essentially I agree with all 5 terms.

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 8:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

Bill,

HB : As I said before wording can’t change what is happening in reality. And you are just wording and claiming things which do not exist anywhere else but in your mind. You are a mess and confussion maker. Are you doing this deliberatelly ? You don’t understand PCT Period.

HB : Living beings don’t control behavior (output). If you think so prove that you can control output. And stop insinuating that I don’t understand English because you are insulting me.

Actually you can ‘control output’ IF you have another control system that monitors (perceives some aspect of the output) and has the means for altering that output.

HB : Stop bullshitting Bill. Controller can’t control output. Whether observer is there or not. How the observer influence with means for altering the output ? Change controllers genetic structure. Â

That indeed is the way that some known muscular systems function to avoid muscle injury. However, that is a different thing from trying to assert that an individual control loop can control its output. It can not without additional ‘hardware.’

BL : Boris, I’m over 70 years old and I have never met ANYONE that was more insulting toward others than you are.

HB : O.K. You obviously didn’t read what I wrote few days ago in discussion with Rick when he was for first time after more than 10 years writing about his real problems in onversation with. I also descibed what I experienced on CSGnet through these years. Many insults.

Boris I suggest that your manner of denigrating anyone that you disagree with invites critical comments concerning how you express yourself.

But If you accuse me of being the on who is the worst in insulting then you really don’t know Rick. I meantioned two names : Martin and Gavin Ritz (lathough there are many others), for whom I assume that they will confirm Ricks nasty nature. I learned being insulting on CSGnet from him. Rick is with no doubt “World Champion” in insulting. Beleive me I’m “little fish” in comparison to hei. But you can go and check CSGnet archves or read what I wrote if you have time.

Let us go back to your ages. Considering that I’m not so far away (in ages), I could say that your memory is not in perfect shape. Maybe you remember some inserts from conversation with Bill Powers and maybe the meaning but not exact words. Memory can be problematic in old people.

As I said I’m a little younger (I have two children and 3 grandchildren) and I enjoy their company. I mostly watch grandchildren how they enjoy life. Incredibly how inventive they are specially if you help them. And when I observe them I think of Bill’s child development theoretical backgroung which stands and was quite good confirmed by Ploijj.

Of course my PCT thoughts are quite often on and observations are PCT flitered, so grandchildren games stimulate many new ideas which come up and can be tested immediatelly in life situation. So Bills theory get it’s upgrades. His fundamentals are so strong that I haven’t found “a hole” in his thinking about how child develope. And if you count in my experiences in school work, you can think why UN wants to talk with me about school system theoretical background I have. I’ll always stay fair to Bill and wherever I’ll go with his knowledge he is always there with his citations. At least few so that his magnificent theory is exposed in original form. I don’t remember that I saw much his sitations in PCT literature.

Beyond William James, there was not a whole lot of behavioral scientists to cite! PCT comes directly from engineering control theory and that was cited.

So the point is that I don’t try to do transformations to his original thoughts but I comment his original thoughts. That’s what I’ll be doing also during ourconversation and that’s what I did many times before.

Thats fine Boris. However translation (as opposed to transformation) to help deal with the use of PCT vs. the research is useful. As an example, I will cite your comment about applying PCT to everyday situations. Most of the time you can not meet the data requirements demanded for a hard science discipline like PCT. If you can’t produce (or a programming expert can not produce from your explanation and data) a computer program simulation that will predict within a 98% confidence factor the same sort of behavior under varying conditions AND allow for analysis of so called ‘outliers’ then you have not actually advanced PCT research much.

BL : Living beings use output to control perception (and of course that also requires a reference for the perception and comparator to determine what error if any exists).

HB : I’ll try to analyze “control loop” as possible exactly in accordance to PCT. But first I’ll remind about some of your statements of “control loop”.

While “behavior (output)” I’ll analyze latter, let me remind you that your answers about “controlled variable” in external environment and “Controlled perceptual variable” or PCV were :

HB : Any behavior in Ricks theory has some “controlled variable” in environment.

BL : It does not.

What Rick, myself, and many others maintain, is that there are some factors in the environment that are perceived by the subject that are the SUBJECT of control. But what is actually controlled is the subject’s own (internal and invisible to any observer) own perceptions. We also assert that when the observer is perceiving the same environmental factors that the observer’s perception (in the case for humans) is likely a very close match to the subject’s perception.

HB : Rick is using term (CPV) which was never used by Bill.

BL : No, I agree, Bill did not use the term to my knowledge.

HB : Now let us analyze your statement about “behavior being control”.

BL : Living beings use output to control perception

HB : …contradicts to your several statements which you gave oon CSGnet and in our private talkings :

Damn Boris! I DID NOT SAY THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED!

First Boris, in the above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled!

HB : Although you changed “color” sometime, I’ll understand your statements that “behavior or ouptut is not controlled” as right and I’ll assume that you support Bills’ definition about “OUTPUT FUNCTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION” to be RIGHT.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

HB : So my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR (output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT (PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

Output is NOT controlled.

Output is what the observer can see and analyze.

HB : Output is not only what observer analyse output is

BL : Â Bill called his seminal work on this subject “Behavior: The Control of Perception” quite on purpose. He was emphasizing that what we and especially behaviorists, observe when watching someone is a closed loop negative feedback system in operation.

HB : As I said before Bill cut the crap. What observes observe is of phylosophy. Different observers will observw differently what other swill be doing. So observer has nothing to do with what ccontrolled is doing.

So do you agree

BL : He was emphasizing that it is not a linear stimulus-response system nor is it some sort of computer analog that executes a program. So behavior is a sign that control is occurring and is only a component of the control process. But it is also the only part that we, the observers, can actually see.

HB : You understand what are you doing Bill ? You are craping akk the time and “bullshitting”. I want straight answer. Are Bills definitions right and my conclussion. YES OR NO.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

HB : So my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR (output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT (PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

YES OR NO.

HB : Later we’ll analyse your other statement and difference about terms : “Behavior is controlled” and “Behavior is control”. Yo said that there is a difference. We just have to see what kind.

BL : Good hell Boris, behavior (what we observe a person doing) IS control.

Boris

You don’t understand the whole theory.

HB : In LCS III diagram is the only place in the loop where behavior is mentioned is “OUTPUT FUNTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION”. It’s obviously that “effects” to EXTERNAL environment are produced by “OUTPUT FUNCTION” where by your oppinion control happens. So the “function” of BEHAVIOR is to produce effects (NOT CONTROLLED EFFECTS" TO ENVIRONMENT). WE said that Bill was very percise with using words.

No Boris, my assertions is that while the output is what changes something in the environment it is, by itself, NOT control. Control requires every component. Control is a continuous process.

bill

···

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:04 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

On 4/15/19 9:54 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

On 4/13/19 7:29 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

So if “behavior controls” how do you see that in LCS III diagram and definitions od control ?

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (LCS III):

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Boris

.

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 10:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

On 4/13/19 12:45 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

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”.

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.

First Boris, in the above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled! Read again what I actually wrote. What I said is that behavior IN living system is control. There is a huge difference in English meaning between saying that ‘behavior is controlled’ and ‘behavior is control’! And yes of course, behavior is what happens when a control system (living or otherwise) attempts to control perception to some reference value for that perception.

In PCT, “behavior is NOT emitted.” A quip I remember Bill often using.

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.

I’m sorry Boris but you have this wrong. The Title of Bill’s seminal work is Behavior: the control of Perception. The use of that particular title was to point out to psychologists that the behavior they were observing and studying results from the subject’s control or at least attempt to control the subjects perception. Such a title would be completely unnecessary in an engineering book on the same subject.

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.

No Boris, the whole negative feedback control loop is the mechanism for control. The comparator does not ‘control perception’ either, the control loop does.

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.

Excuse me Boris, but “actions on the environment” IS behavior. Exactly the same meaning for both terms.

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.

Your statement above is ludicrous. PCT IS engineering Control Theory, applied to ALL living things. While I’m probably not as ignorant of physiology and neurophysiology as you think, and it does not take much biological knowledge to correctly apply PCT to the human body.

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 onn 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).

That was intentional on my part including not typing an ellipsis at the end of the quote portion. The sentence by Bill conveyed two concepts. The portion before the word “through” was a statement of purpose (what the control loop is supposed to accomplish) and the portion after and including “through” is how it accomplishes that purpose.

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.

Beyond asserting again, that Bill’s definition is canonical PCT, I don’t even understand what you are trying to say in the above paragraph.

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.

Rick can defend himself if he choose however, from the perspective of the observer, Rick’s definition is correct.

Since I neither speak, read, or write in any language other than English, I somewhat loath to make this observation but occasionally you write sentences that do not make sense in English. The first sentence in the paragraph above beginning with “So second part of definition of control…” makes no sense to me starting with “…so that to…”. I also do not have a clue what the second sentence is supposed to be saying to me.

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”. ???

First sentence response: A control system that is “ON” controls (or at least attempts to control) the entire time that it is on. There can be situations (rare with respect to CVs that are physically outside the body) where the control system output is zero but it certainly occurs. However, even with a zero output, the control system is STILL controlling. i.e. Should the controlled perception deviate sufficiently from the reference an output will be produced to correct the deviation.

Second sentence: I can think of no system within the human body involved in maintaining homeostasis that does not operate continuously beginning some time during gestation and lasting until sometime after death (in a human that has not developed defects). For example, maintaining a proper blood glucose concentration is a control system function. A failure (all too common in today’s world) of that system can easily result in death of the subject. However, before death occurs other control systems will control their own perception in a fashion that attempts to compensate for the for the failure of the glucose control.

If you know of an example of a homeostasis system that does not control continuously, I would like to hear about it.

Third sentence: I don’t know what you are trying to say. Are you saying that if a control system output is zero that the system is not controlling? If that is what you are trying to say then my comment is that you are absolutely wrong. Again, a control system does not produce an output when the perception being control exactly matches (or is within the ‘dead band’ of the reference in the control system however the system is still controlling.

Forth sentence: I don’t know what you are trying to convey in that sentence. If you are holding a coffee cup, you have to compensate for gravity. We don’t usually consider gravity to be a disturbance unless they is a special reason for doing so in a particular discussion. In a static environment (no disturbances) the control system output will be some non-zero value that remain essentially constant (though the output signal from the comparator will eventually begin increasing due to the effects of muscle fatigue).

Fifth sentence: No comment and no problem.

Sixth sentence: I don’t see the point of the question, but the perception under control 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 thatâ€¦ “Behavior is control”, there is “cannonical priciple” everywhere in PCT and so on. And you are trying to say that this was normal conversation ???

I agree that Bill was usually very precise and not just in his formal writing. He was however also very human and occasionally did slip up in his wording (though as far as I can recall, never to the point of causing confusion among those that had studied his work). I believe that I recall from years ago that on occasion Bill did post a follow-up on CSGNet correcting something he said earlier. Dag would likely know for sure.

I am beginning to suspect that just possibly the major portion of the arguments that you have gotten into on CSGNet are due NOT to a difference in understand what PCT is and is not but rather and understanding of the complete definitions, including implied definitions, for PCT terms. Bill Powers PCT term definitions include ALL aspects of the the equivalent terms in engineered control system theory.

What cause me to come to the above conclusion is your insistence that control loops involved in homeostasis are not alway functioning. As I state above, just because a control system is not ‘doing anything’ or even has a zero output does NOT mean in the engineering world (and by extension) the PCT world that the system in not still controlling. Remember, Bill started as an engineering control system person and then became a behavioral scientist. At NO time can I ever recall Bill implying that a definition in PCT differed from its engineering equivalent.

I used the term ‘deadband’ above and at least when I actually talked with Bill in person, he believed that such a deadband existed in most if not all living system control loops. The deadband, of course defines a region around the reference value where the perception can differ from the reference value but no change in controller output will occur. The value of that deadband is specific to each individual control loop and itself may be controlled by another control system (i.e. the deadband may change at anytime the control system is active (on).

bill

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.

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 have to analyze at leeast 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. 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

On 4/12/19 11:51 AM, Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:46 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

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 50 behaviiors 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

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 – perception”.

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 perceptionâ€¦

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 ???

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 – onee theory will not hold. You have 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.

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 Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« 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 Â»controlled variableÂ« 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 : Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« 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 Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled PerceptionÂ«, the perceptual correlate of Â»controlled q.i.Â«

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 output 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 systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™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

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
â€œAssistance at A Distanceâ€?
www.nickols.us

–

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

_Boris_Hartman · April 16, 2019, 9:20am

Bill I have enough craping and bullshitting. Lets get to work. Before you answer again I want at least 10 analyzed behaviors form PCT and RCT view. You understand. You didn’t tell anything but you are phylosophing all the time. What is enough is enough. So cut the bullshitting and get to work and prove soemthing ???

Boris

···

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:23 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

On 4/15/19 3:06 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

He, he as usually Rick is manipulating with words, taking text out of context and so on just to prove that his nonsense RCT theory is usufull. Well it’s not

Your theory RCT felt on the first test you produced. You can’t explaon “sleeping” behavior with your RCT ? And you can’t explain all those beaviors which I proposed. And you can’t explain many more other behaviors. Your RCT theory is wrong…

Boris your first 2 paragraphs are stated as an attack rather than as a criticism.

PCT is not yet at a state with its practitioners/researcher can produce a simulation that will predict ‘sleeping behavior.’ The most significant difference between PCT and ALL other behavioral sciences is that PCT is what is called a hard science. For some aspect of PCT to be considered as valid theory, it must be capable of producing a generative model that predicts with a high confidence factor behavior of living systems.

This is radically different than the rest of the behavioral ‘science’ community which use opinion and consensus for their “proofs.”

It is also one of the major reasons why PCT research is so difficult. A confidence factor of 70% would not even convince a PCT researcher that you are on the right track toward a solution or a valid explanation.

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

HB :You just have to say that you changed your mind, and continue with PCT :

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

HB : I told you Rick many times that If you want to continue conversations about your RCT, you should give real scientific experiments and PCT and RCT analysis of everyday behavior. So where are the analysis ?

Instead you are trying with childish game to prove what ?

RM: I tried being nice and I know I should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

HB : You are trying to be nice with “ugly thoughts” in background with your manipulative wording ? Idiotic theory RCT is for idiots, and that I’m trying to porve that idiot made it.

RM earlier :

So the environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and inside the skin but outside the nervous system

HB : Your statement above is showing “nice manipulation” which you even didn’t backup with evidences. So I have to give evidences that you are manipulating and lying. So where in LCS III diagram you see that PCT is about “environment” of nervous system. Every live controlling system is controlling for homeostasis as the whole not just in nervous system so control happens in organisms (inside) the whole controlling system not just part of it, like you tryed to present**.**

I’ll be a little more specific than Rick was… The environment is every thing below the input function and below the output function shown in the basic control diagram. The above statement by Rick is essentially correct but but not complete since there are control loops that involve chemical reactions and those are at least partly “outside the nervous system.”

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

And here is evidence how PCT as whole theory should look like. It’s the whole organism that is contrrolling not just nervous system. Bill Leach mentioned lately genetic control system that is also included in “big picture of control in organism”.

HB : You see where is the border ? It’s clear. You see genetic control system ? All controlling system in organism are included in homestasis. Not just nervous system.

RM: I may have told you nothing. But I told those who are capable of understanding what I said something very important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

HB : Can you translate what you wrote ? Did you explain your “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or Bills ordinary perceptual signal ? And what this has to do with comparison and differences between two models of behavior that Richard was aksing for ?

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

RM: Everything. The definition of control in B:CP is:“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”

HB : Yes we know that for a long time. How did you find out ?

And where is the difference between your RCT and PCT that was the question ? You didn’t give it. Ohhh. Are you hiding something Rick ? You are manipulating again ? So what is the difference between PCT and RCT definition of control *

The only difference is in the words used and not in the meaning.

bill

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

RM : Since a perceptual state is a value of the perceptual signal; and since the perceptual signal is an analog of an aspect of the environment,

HB : You are explaning what now ? PCT or RCT theory ? So what is the “perceptual state of controlled perceptual variable” that is “analog” of control in external environment ?

RM : …a perceptual state corresponds tto the state (value) of an analog of some aspect of the environment.

HB : It seems that you are repeating yourself ? You are a World top bluffer Rick.

RM : So the definition of control can be written as “Achievement and maintenance of a pre- selected state of an analog of some aspect of the environment by the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”

HB : Again your are repeating yourself ? But Richard didnt’ ask you just about PCT definition but about differences between RCT and PCT. So where is interpretation of your RCT in comparison to PCT ?

RM : This is something that would obvious to you if you actually tried to build some control models of behavior rather than just understanding PCT in terms of definitions and diagrams.

HB : Do you understand what you wrote ? You citated definition of PCT control (2x) , which I’m citating all the time and you are accusing me of using PCT in terms of defintions and diagrams ???

So if I understand right PCT definitnions of control and diagrams are disturbance to your understanding of how organisms function with your RCT (Ricks Contro Theory)… Is that the prroblem ?

Boris

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 9:34 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[Rick Marken 2019-04-15_12:33:30]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:38 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Richard Pfau to RM: Am I mistaken or in your e-mail did you define Control as “CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

RM : So the environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and inside the skin but outside the nervous system.

HB : What a nonsense is this. …Are you having us who read your nonsense for idiots ?

RM: I tried being nice and I know I should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

RP: If so, Boris is correct in saying that you are interpreting PCT differently than Bill Powers who defines Control as “CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

RM: A perceptual state is a state of a perceptual signal.

HB : What’s wrong with you Rick ? What a tautology. You told exactly nothing.

RM: I may have told you nothing. But I told those who are capable of understanding what I said something very important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

RM : A perceptual signal is “an internal analog of some ASPECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT” (Powers, B:CP, 1973, p. 286).

HB : So what. What this has to do with definition of control ?

HB :

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

bleach · April 16, 2019, 11:24am

Again Boris, please try to make this a
civil discussion rather than a series of personal assaults.

···

On 4/16/19 3:07 AM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

From: Bill Leach (
via csgnet Mailing List) Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:04 AM
Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

Bill,

Â

        We are very
close to finnishing our discussion, because you are
bullshitting and selling crap again.

        I answered on your answers
bellow, but here is summary.

I want you to answer just with
YES or NO whether what Bill wrote about control in
outer environment is right or
not. I didn’t ask you for your phylosophy.

        HB
: We agreed quite well that Bill Powers precisely used words
for his control loop. In his definitions he is not
mentioning any “observer”. That’s optinonal. Anyway any
observer would has his own vision what is happening as you
have yours.

        Bill
Powers is analyzing cotrol from aspect of “Living Control
System”. So short answers. No bullshitting.

So we have two statements :

        BL : Living
beings use output to control perception

And

        Bill Powers :
That’s what feed-back means : it’s an
effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

      HB : So you are claiming that Living beings use output to
control perception and Bill Powers is claiming that Living
beings use output to affect input (perception).

        No
bullshitting Bill. Which statement is right ?

Your answer :

          They are both correct.Â  Living
things do use the output of a control loop to control
perceptions that happens to be what control of perception
is all about.Â That is an absolutely true statement.Â It
is also absolutly true that feedback is a systems output
effect on the system input.Â So the output has an ** effect
on the input and thus on the perception** .Â Feedback
is not actually a physical part of a control system but
rather the description we give to the function of those
physical part(s) that produce the effect described in our
definition of feedback.

Â

After you aanswered you can read continuing explanation.

      HB : Now let us analyze your statement about "behavior being

control".Â

        BL : Living
beings use output to control perception

      HB : …contradicts to your several statements which you gave
on CSGnet and in our private talkings :

          Damn Boris!Â  I DID
NOT SAY THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED!Â

          First Boris, in the
above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled!

      HB : Although you changed "color" sometime, I'll understand
your statements that “behavior or ouptut is not controlled” as
right and I’ll assume that you support Bills’ definition about
“OUTPUT FUNCTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION” to be RIGHT.

        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

Â

      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.

Â

        Bill P

(B:CP):

        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.

  Aspects of the output of one control system

can be and sometimes are controlled by yet another control system
but that is NOT what we are talking about.Â Also, one can say that
the output is ‘controlled’ by the error signal but ‘controlled’ is
an especially poor term to use for such a statement.Â Rather it
should be said that the output varies as function of changes in
the error signal (vector; polarity and magnitude).Â Using the
phrase that the output is controlled (except when it actually is
by another control system) is a bastardization of the definition
of control.

Â

HB : So
my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR
(output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT
(PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is
showing clearly (bellow)

  Again, I bring you back to B:CP where the

colon means 'is.'Â Behavior is the control of perception.Â That
statement is, of course, a gross oversimplification of the
process.Â Control loops control perception and the output is only
one part of such control loops.Â If any portion of a control loop
fails to function correctly then control is lost or at least
seriously degraded.Â However, the statement “Behavior is the
control of perception” is written that was because observers can
only observe behavior and for centuries now have misinterpreted
how behavior occurs.Â I believe Bill’s goal in using that title
was to wake up people in the behavioral sciences to the solution
to the dilemma so clearly discussed by the famous William James in
his comparison of the behavior of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet
vs. a magnet, paper, and iron filings.Â An important dilemma
ignored by the behavioral sciences for over a hundred years.

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT
that behavior (output) is not controlled.

        Bill : Output
is NOT controlled.Â

Â

        HB : Good.
So from aspect of Living Control System we can conclude that
“output” is not controlled. That is in accordance to Bills
defintion of “Ouptut”. From the aspect of Living Control
System. As that is what is descibed in definitions.

Â

         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

Â

      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.

Â

        So
do we agree again that output which produce effets to
environment is not controlled, so it’s not controlling perception
but affects perceptions ?

Â

YES OR NO.

  Yes, the output function is not sufficient to

produce control.Â As I stated above, all portions of a control
loop must exist and function more or less correctly to achieve any
control.

Â

        BL : Output is
what the observer can see and analyze.Â

Â

        HB : Output is not only what the
observer see and analyze but output is the portion of the
system that converts … See definition above. So output is
something that “Living Control System” is doing no matter of
the observer.

        Ouptu is part of Living organism,
not part of the observer. Any also controlling system can
observe it’s output. Emmiting effects to environment means
that controlling sistem produce effects to environment and
that doesn’t depend from observer but from controler what
kind of effects will. And efects are not controlled.Whether
observer is there or not. As I said we are very close to
finishing discusion.

    Close but probably not finished.Â  Yes, for

purposes of our discussion the presence of an observer does not
affect whether control will take place or not.Â Yes, the output
we are discussing in strictly part of the subject and not any
way a part of the observer.Â " Any also controlling system can observe
it’s output. " is true IF the controlling
system can perceive some part of an aspect of the environment
that the subject changing (by the subject using the subjects
own output, to bring the perception of the aspect to a
reference condition).

      As I recall,

Bill loathed the term “emitting” when used in this context.Â
But yes, the subject produces effects on the environment and
those effects do not depend upon the observer.Â Again I
qualify the claim that any observer can observe the subject’s
output.Â That is true only if the observer is able to perceive
some way essentially the same aspect of the environment that
the subject is controlling.Â That statement also raises other
issues.Â The observer may well perceive changes in the
environment that are unintended consequences of a relationship
between what the observer perceives and what the subject is
controlling.Â Further the subject might not even perceive what
the observer perceives.Â The observer may then conclude that
he has determined what the subject is controlling and be
completely wrong.Â That is particular likely when the TEST is
not or can not be used.

Â

BL : Â Bill called his seminal work on this
subject “Behavior: The Control of Perception” quite on
purpose.Â He was emphasizing that what we and especially
behaviorists, observe when watching someone is a closed loop
negative feedback system in operation.Â

Â

HB : Different observers will observ
differently what other willl be doing. So observer has
nothing to do with what controller is doing. And Bill Powers
definitions are about what control system is doing.

  That depends on what definitions made by Bill

you are talking about.Â Most of his definitions are those of
control which exclusively apply only to the subject.Â Because he
was very much interested in research and further development of
the theory and his hypotheses he also had to define other terms
such as those involving observation, tests, and analysis.

Â

        HB : As I said before Bill cut the
crap. What observes observe is of phylosophy. I never saw in
any literature that Bill Powers gave such an explanation of
his Titile of book. But clearly exposed in his theory that “behavior
is not controlling perception but affecting” . So I
can clearly prove my statment and you can not prove sour
statement. S o
temporarely I’ll call you a liar until you prove
your statement.

  Nice Boris, in the preceding paragraph you

managed to move from a thoughtful discussion to a bull shit
opinion.Â The fact that you can find it in Bill’s writings does
not mean that Bill did not say it.Â I would imagine that he told
quite a few people the same thing.Â Again Boris, behavior is what
behaviorists study.Â Bill use of that title was to point out that
unless you realize that the observed behavior results from the
process of control you will draw incorrect conclusions concerning
your observations.Â And that is exactly what has been happening
for centuries.Â One MUST know that behavior is the visible
manifestation of control system action or one can (and often do)
‘go off on flights of fancy’ in describing what is happening
INSIDE the subject.

Â

        My proof
(evidences) that Title of book means that “Behavior is not
controlling perception”

  You don't need to prove to anyone that

understands PCT that behavior on its own is controlling
perception.Â Control is not not a linear function, it is a
continuous functioning loop and all elements much be present and
functioning for control to occur.

Â

        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

Â

      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.

Â

        Bill P

(B:CP):

        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.

Â

        Where is
your proof (evidence) that “Behavior can control perception”
???

  I have no proof because while I assert that

behavior is a part (and I emphasize the observable part)
it is NOT sufficient to achieve control.

Â

        HB : You
understand what are you doing Bill ? You are craping all the
time and “bullshitting”. I want straight answers. Are Bills
definitions right and is my conclussion that "behavior
(output) affect input (perception) right or not.

** I am not sorry for the next.Â Damn you
Boris!Â Your insults must stop.Â I see little point in trying
to have a rational discussion with a person that is so
personally offensive as are you!**

To answer your question, YES to " Are Bills
definitions right and is my conclussion that "behavior
(output) affect input (perception) right or not. "Â In agreeing I am not precluding that some
people may misinterpret what is meant in some of the
definitions.Â Such is particularly true for definitions
given in response to statements Bill was trying to correct,
and some questions he was trying to address.Â In those
situations, taking the definition and discussion out of the
context of what Bill was addressing might lead one to draw
incorrect conclusions for other situations.

Â

YES OR NO.

Â

        So do you

agree :

Â

        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

  Yes, although Bill recognized that altering

the immediate environment may, and often is, done to control a
much higher level perception concerning things that are NOT in the
immediate environment.

Â

      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.

Yes

Â

        Bill P

(B:CP):

        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.

  Yes, but do you understand that feedback is

just a term describing the effect that results from acting upon
those physical laws, properties, arrangements, and linkages in the
environment when the resulting changes are perceived.

Â

HB : So
my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR
(output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT
(PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is
showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT
that behavior (output) is not controlled.

        So do you
agree that Bills Powers definitions are right and that thay
are showing that “ouput is not for controlling perception”
but for affecting perception ?

Â

YES OR NO ?

I was OK until the last line.Â ** The only
purpose for output IS the control of perception!** Â In the
case for any control system, the purpose of the output affecting
the input which is done to control perception!

bill

Boris

Â

On 4/15/19 9:54 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Bill,

Â

          It was
nice chating with you about internal functioning of
organism. So I don’t understand how you end with defending
Ricks nonsense RCT theory, which he
denyed with his best life example of Powers PCT
(sleeping)

Â

          You
show your good knowledge about first part of Bills
definition of control :

Â

          !Â 
“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)).

Â

          which
you probably deliberatelly isolated as you knew that
second part of definition wouldn’t fit in your many
nonsense statements which you gave in “defence” to Ricks
even more nonsense RCT, which can’t stand even his example
(sleeping) of right using Bills definition of control.

BL : Boris you statement above is an
insult.Â I don’t deliberately mislead people.

        HB : Maybe
you are not deliberatelly doing what you are doing, but you
messmaker, and confussion maker. Â Whether you feel it as an
insult or no. It’s the “fact”.

Â

          HB :
So the problem is not first part of Bills definition of
control, but interpretation of second part. Your
interpretation was :

Â

Bill Leach :

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

        I don't remember why I threw the
word ‘canonical’ in that definition.Â

        HB : So you see. You were
misleading members on CSGnet with claiming that PCT is
“cannonical”.

        BL
: Bill’s definition is
correct.Â The loop output, which affects some aspect of the
environment that is perceived (sensed by the input portion
of the control loop), is the means by which the control loop
controls the perception so that the perception comes close
the the value of the reference for that perception (low
error or difference).

HB : Good . So we
agree that PCT is not cannonical . PCT definitions
is right.

Â

          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.

Â

          HB :
If we want to continue discussion we need some rules so
that we could comr to some conclussions. So if you’ll
answer on my statements seriously will continue
discussion.

Â

          If
you’ll answer in your “Rick style way – blidly” without
arguments, I’ll live CSGnet forum. So I expect that wil
have serious discussion on adult level. We will live out
of our discussion “children” with joystick to play their
“Tracking experiment” and enjoy their “childhood”.

        Again Boris, I
perceive your statement in the paragraph above as an
unnecessary attack upon Rick.Â That is particularly onerous
because the various tests the computer programs and the PCT
simulations (predictions of behavior) were a tremendous
verification of the validity of the most basic assertion of
PCT (that observed behavior is a result of the actions of a
closed loop negative feedback control system).Â The rubber
band experiments, the coin experiments, etc. were useful,
particularly when introducing PCT to someone with no
knowledge of PCT.Â But those experiments did not generate
the sort of data that allows for rigorous analysis demanded
for the 'hard sciences.'Â The computer program did provide
that data.

Â

        HB : Bill,
it’s obviously that from computer experiments and all other
stuff Bill Powers Â produced PCT theory and Rick produced RCT
theory. We can resolve the problem by analyzing other
behaviors. Many other behaviors as I suggested. You did
nothing and you are still phylosophing.

Â

          So my

conditions are :

Â

            You,
and Barb and me and probably more others experienced
Bill Powers as very seriously (scientifically) taking
his PCT. So if I understood right we can agree that he
has very carefully choosen words in any of his writings.

            Every
our statement will be “backuped” with Bill Powers text
or some scientific findings like physiology.

            We
wiil respect PCT analyses of everyday behavior.

            We
don’t need to put all our efforts and knowledge into our
observation if we don’t want.

            We
can leave conversation whenever we want without
explanation.

        Based upon what I said above
about interpreting Bill’s words we have to be careful not to
use a single statement of Bill’s to contradict the more
general PCT discussion in B:CP.Â It is true that some
aspects of PCT did evolve a bit following the publication of
B:CP, these were the things that Bill only hypothesized and
not the fundamentals of closed loop negative feedback
control system operations.

        As far of #3 what happens on the
forum are discussions based upon opinions unless there is
existing rigorous PCT research that bares on the
discussion.Â So I agree that the discussion should always be
conducted respectfully.Â Points raised that appear to
contradict the known portions of the theory should be
questioned.

        Essentially I agree with all 5

terms.

Â

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via
csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

              **Sent:** Monday, April 15, 2019 8:57 AM
              **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
              **Subject:** Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

On 4/13/19 7:29 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Bill,

Â

            HB :
As I said before wording can’t change what is happening
in reality. And you are just wording and claiming things
which do not exist anywhere else but in your mind. You
are a mess and confussion maker. Are you doing this
deliberatelly ? You don’t understand PCT Period.

Â

            HB :
Living beings don’t control behavior (output). If you
think so prove that you can control output. And stop
insinuating that I don’t understand English because you
are insulting me.

        Actually you can 'control output'
IF you have another control system that monitors (perceives
some aspect of the output) and has the means for altering
that output.Â

        HB : Stop bullshitting Bill.
Controller can’t control output. Whether observer is there
or not. How the observer influence with means for altering
the output ? Change controllers genetic structure. Â

Â

        That indeed is the way that some
known muscular systems function to avoid muscle injury.Â
However, that is a different thing from trying to assert
that an individual control loop can control its output.Â It
can not without additional ‘hardware.’

          BL :
Boris, I’m over 70 years old and I have never met
ANYONE that was more insulting toward others than you are.

        HB : O.K. You obviously didn't
read what I wrote few days ago in discussion with Rick when
he was for first time after more than 10 years writing about
his real problems in onversation with. I also descibed what
I experienced on CSGnet through these years. Many insults.

        Boris I suggest
that your manner of denigrating anyone that you disagree
with invites critical comments concerning how you express
yourself.

        But If you accuse me of being
the on who is the worst in insulting then you really don’t
know Rick. I meantioned two names : Martin and Gavin Ritz
(lathough there are many others), for whom I assume that
they will confirm Ricks nasty nature. I learned being
insulting on CSGnet from him. Rick is with no doubt “World
Champion” in insulting. Beleive me I’m “little fish” in
comparison to hei. But you can go and check CSGnet archves
or read what I wrote if you have time.

        Let us go back to your ages.
Considering that I’m not so far away (in ages), I could say
that your memory is not in perfect shape. Maybe you remember
some inserts from conversation with Bill Powers and maybe
the meaning but not exact words. Memory can be problematic
in old people.

        As I said I'm a little younger
(I have two children and 3 grandchildren) and I enjoy their
company. I mostly watch grandchildren how they enjoy life.
Incredibly how inventive they are specially if you help
them. And when I observe them I think of Bill’s
child development theoretical backgroung which
stands and was quite good confirmed by Ploijj.

        Of course my PCT thoughts are
quite often on and observations are PCT flitered, so
grandchildren games stimulate many new ideas which come up
and can be tested immediatelly in life situation. So Bills
theory get it’s upgrades. His fundamentals are so strong
that I haven’t found “a hole” in his thinking about how
child develope. And if you count in my experiences in school
work, you can think why UN wants to talk with me about
school system theoretical background I have. I’ll always
stay fair to Bill and wherever I’ll go with his knowledge he
is always there with his citations. At least few so that
hisÂ magnificent theory is exposed in original form. I don’t
remember that I saw much his sitations in PCT literature.

        Beyond William
James, there was not a whole lot of behavioral scientists to
cite!Â PCT comes directly from engineering control theory
and that was cited.

        So the point is that I don't try
to do transformations to his original thoughts but I comment
his original thoughts. That’s what I’ll be doing also during
ourconversation and that’s what I did many times before.

        Thats fine
Boris.Â However translation (as opposed to transformation)
to help deal with the use of PCT vs. the research is
useful.Â As an example, I will cite your comment about
applying PCT to everyday situations.Â Most of the time you
can not meet the data requirements demanded for a hard
science discipline like PCT.Â If you can’t produce (or a
programming expert can not produce from your explanation and
data) a computer program simulation that will predict within
a 98% confidence factor the same sort of behavior under
varying conditions AND allow for analysis of so called
‘outliers’ then you have not actually advanced PCT research
much.

          BL :
Living beings use output to control perception (and
of course that also requires a reference for the perception
and comparator to determine what error if any exists).

        HB : I'll try to analyze
“control loop” as possibleÂ exactly in accordance to PCT.
But first I’ll remind about some of your statements of
“control loop”.

        While "behavior (output)" I'll
analyze latter, let me remind you that your answers about
“controlled variable” in external environment and
“Controlled perceptual variable” or PCV were :

HB : Any behavior in Ricks
theory has some “controlled variable” in environment.

BL : It does not.

        What Rick,
myself, and many others maintain, is that there are some
factors in the environment that are perceived by the subject
that are the SUBJECT of control.Â But what is actually
controlled is the subject’s own (internal and invisible to
any observer) own perceptions.Â We also assert that when the
observer is perceiving the same environmental factors that
the observer’s perception (in the case for humans) is likely
a very close match to the subject’s perception.

HB : Rick is using term
(CPV) which was never used by Bill.

          BL :
No, I agree, Bill did not use the term to my knowledge.

        HB : Now let us analyze your statement about "behavior

being control".Â

          BL : Living
beings use output to control perception

        HB : …contradicts to your several statements which you gave

on CSGnet and in our private talkings :

            Damn Boris!Â  I DID
NOT SAY THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED!Â

            First Boris, in
the above I did NOT say that behavior or output is
controlled!

        HB : Although you changed "color" sometime, I'll understand
your statements that “behavior or ouptut is not controlled”
as right and I’ll assume that you support Bills’ definition
about “OUTPUT FUNCTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION” to be RIGHT.

          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

Â

        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.

Â

          Bill P

(B:CP):

          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.

Â

HB : So
my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that
BEHAVIOR
(output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT
(PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is
showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN
PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

        Output is NOT

controlled.Â

Â

        Output is what
the observer can see and analyze.Â

Â

        HB : Output
is not only what observer analyse output is

Â

BL : Â Bill called his seminal work on this
subject “Behavior: The Control of Perception” quite on
purpose.Â He was emphasizing that what we and especially
behaviorists, observe when watching someone is a closed loop
negative feedback system in operation.Â

Â

        HB : As I
said before Bill cut the crap. What observes observe is of
phylosophy. Different observers will observw differently
what other swill be doing. So observer has nothing to do
with what ccontrolled is doing.

        So do you

agree

Â

BL : He was emphasizing that it is not a
linear stimulus-response system nor is it some sort of
computer analog that executes a program.Â So behavior is a
sign that control is occurring and is only a component of
the control process.Â But it is also the only part that we,
the observers, can actually see.

        HB : You
understand what are you doing Bill ? You are craping akk the
time and “bullshitting”. I want straight answer. Are Bills
definitions right and my conclussion. YES OR NO.

Â

        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

Â

      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.

Â

        Bill P

(B:CP):

        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.

Â

HB : So
my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR
(output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT
(PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is
showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT
that behavior (output) is not controlled.

YES OR NO.

Â

        HB : Later we'll analyse your
other statement and difference about terms : “Behavior is
controlled” and “Behavior is control”. Yo said that there is
a difference. We just have to see what kind.

          BL : Good hell Boris, behavior
(what we observe a person doing) IS control.Â

Boris

Â

            You
don’t understand the whole theory.

Â

          HB : In LCS III diagram is the only place in the loop
where behavior is mentioned is “OUTPUT FUNTION” and
“FEEDBACK FUNCTION”. It’s obviously that “effects” to
EXTERNAL environment are produced by “OUTPUT FUNCTION”
where by your oppinion control happens. So the “function”
of BEHAVIOR is to produce effects (NOT CONTROLLED EFFECTS"
TO ENVIRONMENT). WE said that Bill was very percise with
using words.

        No Boris, my assertions is that
while the output is what changes something in the
environment it is, by itself, NOT control.Â Control requires
every component.Â Control is a continuous process.

bill

            So
if “behavior controls” how do you see that in LCS III
diagram and definitions od control ?

Â

            PCT
Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (LCS III):

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

          Bill

P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Â

Boris

Â

.

Â

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 10:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

            On 4/13/19 12:45 AM, "Boris Hartman"
(boris.hartman@masicom.net
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Â

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

Â

            BL : This is possibly the last post that I will engage
with you.Â Your, in my opinion, elitist and arrogant,
approach to discussion is not acceptable to me.

              Well

Bill,

Â

              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.

Â

** Bill
P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) :**

              Perceptual
Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of
functioning for organisms

Â

              HB
: And you are just talking, like the words will change
physical and physiological etc. reality. What do you
think it’s more probable :

Â

                Physical
reality will change in accordance to your theory
(wording) or

Â

                Your
wording (theory) has to “adapt” to reality.

Â

              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 haveÂ to
be “adapted” to the reality not vica verse.

Â

              BL : Since I worked at reactor
plants I could not have caused a nuclear explosion.Â
It would appear that your knowledge of nuclear physics
is not great… either.Â And no, I am not a nuclear
physicist, I was an instrumentation and control
systems, and computer engineer.Â 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.

Â

              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

Â

              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.

              Â 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!Â 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.

              Â 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.

          First Boris, in the above I did NOT say that behavior or
output is controlled!Â Read again what I actually wrote.Â
What I said is that behavior IN living system is control.
There is a huge difference in English meaning between
saying that ‘behavior is controlled’ and ‘behavior is
control’!Â And yes of course, behavior is what happens
when a control system (living or otherwise) attempts to
control perception to some reference value for that
perception.

          In PCT, "behavior is NOT emitted."Â  A quip I remember

Bill often using.

Â

            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.Â 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.

            I'm sorry
Boris but you have this wrong.Â The Title of Bill’s
seminal work is Behavior: the control of Perception.Â
The use of that particular title was to point out to
psychologists that the behavior they were observing and
studying results from the subject’s control or at least
attempt to control the subjects perception.Â Such a
title would be completely unnecessary in an engineering
book on the same subject.

            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.

            No Boris,
the whole negative feedback control loop is the
mechanism for control.Â The comparator does not ‘control
perception’ either, the control loop does.

              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.

Â

              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.

            Excuse me
Boris, but “actions on the environment” IS behavior.Â
Exactly the same meaning for both terms.

Â

              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!Â “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.

            Your
statement above is ludicrous.Â PCT IS engineering
Control Theory, applied to ALL living things.Â While I’m
probably not as ignorant of physiology and
neurophysiology as you think, and it does not take much
biological knowledge to correctly apply PCT to the human
body.

              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 : YouÂ 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).

            That was
intentional on my part including not typing an ellipsis
at the end of the quote portion.Â The sentence by Bill
conveyed two concepts.Â The portion before the word
“through” was a statement of purpose (what the control
loop is supposed to accomplish) and the portion after
and including “through” is how it accomplishes that
purpose.

            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.

            Beyond
asserting again, that Bill’s definition is canonical
PCT, I don’t even understand what you are trying to say
in the above paragraph.

              RCT
(Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

              CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – theÂ
controlled variable --Â in a reference state,
protected from disturbances.

          Rick can defend himself if he choose however, from the
perspective of the observer, Rick’s definition is correct.

          Since I neither speak, read, or write in any language
other than English, I somewhat loath to make this
observation but occasionally you write sentences that do
not make sense in English.Â The first sentence in the
paragraph above beginning with “So second part of
definition of control…” makes no sense to me starting
with “…so that to…”.Â I also do not have a clue what
the second sentence is supposed to be saying to me.

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”. ???

          First sentence response:Â  A control system that is "ON"
controls (or at least attempts to control) the entire time
that it is on.Â There can be situations (rare with respect
to CVs that are physically outside the body) where the
control system output is zero but it certainly occurs.Â
However, even with a zero output, the control system is
STILL controlling.Â i.e. Should the controlled perception
deviate sufficiently from the reference an output will be
produced to correct the deviation.

          Second sentence:Â  I can think of no system within the
human body involved in maintaining homeostasis that does
not operate continuously beginning some time during
gestation and lasting until sometime after death (in a
human that has not developed defects).Â For example,
maintaining a proper blood glucose concentration is a
control system function.Â A failure (all too common in
today’s world) of that system can easily result in death
of the subject.Â However, before death occurs other
control systems will control their own perception in a
fashion that attempts to compensate for the for the
failure of the glucose control.

          If you know of an example of a homeostasis system that
does not control continuously, I would like to hear about
it.

          Third sentence:Â  I don't know what you are trying to
say.Â Are you saying that if a control system output is
zero that the system is not controlling?Â If that is what
you are trying to say then my comment is that you are
absolutely wrong.Â Again, a control system does not
produce an output when the perception being control
exactly matches (or is within the ‘dead band’ of the
reference in the control system however the system is
still controlling.

          Forth sentence:Â  I don't know what you are trying to
convey in that sentence.Â If you are holding a coffee cup,
you have to compensate for gravity.Â We don’t usually
consider gravity to be a disturbance unless they is a
special reason for doing so in a particular discussion.Â
In a static environment (no disturbances) the control
system output will be some non-zero value that remain
essentially constant (though the output signal from the
comparator will eventually begin increasing due to the
effects of muscle fatigue).

Fifth sentence:Â No comment and no problem.

          Sixth sentence:Â  I don't see the point of the question,
but the perception under control 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 is
control”, there is “cannonical priciple” everywhere in
PCT and so on. And you are trying to say that this was
normal conversation ???

          I agree that Bill was usually very precise and not just
in his formal writing.Â He was however also very human and
occasionally did slip up in his wording (though as far as
I can recall, never to the point of causing confusion
among those that had studied his work).Â I believe that I
recall from years ago that on occasion Bill did post a
follow-up on CSGNet correcting something he said earlier.Â
Dag would likely know for sure.

          I am beginning to suspect that just possibly the major
portion of the arguments that you have gotten into on
CSGNet are due NOT to a difference in understand what PCT
is and is not but rather and understanding of the complete
definitions, including implied definitions, for PCT
terms.Â Bill Powers PCT term definitions include ALL
aspects of the the equivalent terms in engineered control
system theory.

          What cause me to come to the above conclusion is your
insistence that control loops involved in homeostasis are
not alway functioning.Â As I state above, just because a
control system is not ‘doing anything’ or even has a zero
output does NOT mean in the engineering world (and by
extension) the PCT world that the system in not still
controlling.Â Remember, Bill started as an engineering
control system person and then became a behavioral
scientist.Â At NO time can I ever recall Bill implying
that a definition in PCT differed from its engineering
equivalent.

          I used the term 'deadband' above and at least when I
actually talked with Bill in person, he believed that such
a deadband existed in most if not all living system
control loops.Â The deadband, of course defines a region
around the reference value where the perception can differ
from the reference value but no change in controller
output will occur.Â The value of that deadband is specific
to each individual control loop and itself may be
controlled by another control system (i.e. the deadband
may change at anytime the control system is active (on).

bill

            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.

Â

              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.Â 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.

Â

            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 Â

Â

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”.

Â But paradoxically one
of examples until now that was given in PCT general
sense of control was Ricks’ : Â

              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!Â 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 – theÂ
controlled variable --Â 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.

Â

            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
have 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.Â

            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.Â

            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.Â 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).Â 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
: Â 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

ðŸ˜Š. Just kidding.

Boris

Â

On 4/12/19 11:51 AM, Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Fred Nickols 04.12.2019.1350 ET

Â

Oh well, I will try again.

Â

                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.Â 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.Â 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.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

                    On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:46
PM “Boris Hartman” <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

                          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…

Â

                          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.Â It would appear that your
knowledge of nuclear physics is not great… either.Â
And no, I am not a nuclear physicist, I was an
instrumentation and control systems, and computer
engineer.Â I was also a reactor operator for a few
years.

Â

                          We need evidence
Bill for what we are talking about, not
phylosophy.

Â

                          I just extract
places of some answeres for the beggining.
We’ll go part by part…

Â

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

Â

                        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.

Â

                          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!Â The entire point of PCT is
that behavior in Living Systems IS closed
loop negative feedback CONTROL.

Â

                          HB : No.Â 
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.
Â 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.Â You might be proposing some
theory of behavior but it is most certainly NOT PCT.

Â

                        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.

Â

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. Â 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.

Â

                          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!Â
“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)).

Â

Boris

Â

                          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.

Â

                          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.Â
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.

Â

                          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”.

Â

                        But
paradoxically one of examples until now that
was given in PCT general sense of control
was Ricks’ :

Â

                          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!Â As crazy as
it might sound, sleep is probably the most complex
control system in the human body!

Â

                        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!Â  Examples are used for purposes of
discussion.Â Research, especially involving the TCV are
used to provide proof of the theory.Â 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).Â 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.Â  Of course,
as research moves up the proposed hierarchy the
difficulty in proving the correctness increases nearly
geometrically.

Â

                        One
experiment – one theory will not hold. You
have 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.

              Actually
Boris, your claim that “You have to analyze at least
50 behaviors…” is quite incorrect.Â ONE functioning
engineered closed loop negative feedback control
system proves the fundamental concept of Control
System theory.Â It is proving that areas involving
living things are closed loop negative feedback
control systems is the difficult part.Â Proving that
humans are, at least in part, closed loop negative
feedback control systems has been achieved.Â That only
require a few different types of tracking tasks (all
of which are replicatable by anyone that chooses to do
so).

Â

                        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”.

Â

                        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.

Â

                          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

Â

Boris

Â

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

Â

                          On
4/11/19 5:38 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

HI

Fred,

Â

                          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.

Â

                          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.

Â

                          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.

Â

                        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.

Â

                        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 basedÂ 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.Â

                        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.Â 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 afterÂ 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.Â 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).”

Â

                            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.

Â

                          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 – perception”.Â

Â

                          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.Â It is not “…only the input”
that is affected.Â

                        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.Â

                        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.Â 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…

                        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 ???

Â

                          There
is no “controlled variable” in environment
in PCT. See diagram LCS III and his
definitions (B:CP). Where is “controlled
variable” in environment ???

Â

                        Where it is labeled "INPUT QUANTITY" in the
diagram you provided above.Â 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…

Â

                          Controlled

variable is just perceptual signal.
Period.

Â

                          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 ?

Â

                          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.

Â

                          But
paradoxically one of examples until now
that was given in PCT general sense of
control was Ricks’ :

Â

                            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

Â

                          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.

Â

                          One
experiment – one theory will not hold. You
have 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.

Â

                          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”.

Â

                          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.

Â

                          Sorry

Fred. This is my final decission.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

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

Â

                              From

Fred Nickols 04.11.2019.1728 ET

Â

Boris:

Â

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

Â

                                On
Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM “Boris
Hartman” <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

Bill

Â

                                    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”.Â I told
you once that I don’t want
phylosophy what you think about
Rick etc. I want “facts”.Â

Â

                                    Just

answer.

Â

                                    Which

model of human behaviour you
think is right.

Â

RCT

(Ricks Control Theory)
definition of control loop

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

                          In the spirit of
this discussion I accept this as true
based upon some assumptions.Â First we are
viewing this definition from the observers
prospective.Â 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 ?

Â

                          I want comparison

of both defitnions ? You undertand ?

Â

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

                          I don't like the

wording here but it is essentially
correct.

                          HB : In your

head.

Â

                          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.Â

Â

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

                          I don't understand
what the statement is saying.Â Feedback is
actually a property of a control system,
not something that it does.Â Feedback
occurs when the effect on the controlled
aspect of the external environment changes
the some perception of that aspect of the
external environment.Â Bill’s description
below of how feedback WORKS is a very good
one.

Â

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

                          Again, I don't like

the wording but it is essentially correct.

Â

                                      COMPARATOR :

???

                                      ERROR SIGNAL :

???

Â

PCT

Definitions of control loop :

                                    Bill

P (B:CP):

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

                          This is, of course,
the fundamental canonical definition of a
control system.

Â

                          HB : Where do you
see here “cannonical principle” ? What is
cannonical here ?

Â

                          Explain
what you uuderstand under "cannonical
principle ?

Â

                          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.

Â

                          For now this is

enough.

Â

                          So
if yo want further conversation I want :

                              Prove
(physiological evidence that behavior
is control

                              Prove that
control concerniong above behaviors
includeÂ cannoncial principle.

Â

                          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.Â

Â

Boris

Â

                                    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.

Â

                                    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.

                          I assume that the
leading (4 dot)Â ellipsis indicates
missing text.Â This is a reasonable
description.

Â

                                    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.

Â

                                    Bill

P (B:CP) :

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

                          Yet again, a

canonical statement.

Â

                                    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.

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

                          Two sentences saying

the same thing and both are correct.

Â

Bill P (B:CP) :

                                        ERROR SIGNAL :

A signal indicating the
magnitude and direction of
error.

Also a correct statement.

bill

Â

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

Â

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

Bill…

Â

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

Â

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

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

                                      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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â The
‘controlled variable’ IS the
perception of that variable that
we all believes exists in the
environment.Â

Â

                                    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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â But
that belief is reasonable based
upon a great many years of
shared human experience with our
external world.Â Thus
acknowledging that the control
of perception results in real
changes that can be observed by
others is not at all
unreasonable.Â 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.Â What is
perceived is also affected by
differing experience and
differences in world models.Â
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.Â Both are perceived by
the subject (and observer if
there is one).Â 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.Â INDEED that
is really the WHOLE POINT of
PCT!Â 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!Â 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!Â 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 inÂ 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.Â 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.Â It
is also not relevant.

                                    Think quantum physics or
quantum electrodynamics.Â There
are limits to how accurately we
can predict or measure
anything.Â In our “real world”
it is pretty much useless to
take things to the most minuet
detail.Â 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.Â
Anyone actually applying PCT
knows that individual variation
is going to show up.Â This is
true for PCT prediction as
well.Â 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.Â Â

                                    I can only tell you that Bill
Powers personally told me that
Rick was one of the early
psychologists that thoroughly
understood PCT.Â 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.Â
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.Â

                                      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.Â 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)…Â
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.Â 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).Â 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.Â You might
well conclude that the subject
was controlling to follow the
other car.Â 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.Â 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.Â
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.Â 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.Â MOL may be an
example of not only where
precision is not possible but
likely not desired at all!Â MOL
seems to work just because there
is a reference for not having
internal conflicts.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â Again, your mileage
may vary.

Bill

Â

–

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

–

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

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

bleach · April 16, 2019, 11:34am

Boris I am not and do not claim to be a PCT researcher.Â I do
discuss behavior, as do most of us, on this net.Â I am also quite
aware that when I’m discussing behavior that I am not using the
rigor required by the theory to produce any sort of proof.Â Nor am
I inclined to undertake that effort necessary to do so.

···

On 4/16/19 3:20 AM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

        Bill I
have enough craping and bullshitting. Lets get to work.
Before you answer again I want at least 10 analyzed
behaviors form PCT and RCT view. You understand. You didn’t
tell anything but you are phylosophing all the time. What is
enough is enough. So cut the bullshitting and get to work
and prove soemthing ???
        Boris

Â

From: Bill Leach
( via csgnet Mailing List)
Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:23 AM
Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

On 4/15/19 3:06 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

          He,
he as usually Rick is manipulating with words, taking text
out of context and so on just to prove that his nonsense
RCT theory is usufull. Well it’s not

Â

          Your
theory RCT felt on the first test you produced. You can’t
explaon “sleeping” behavior with your RCT ? And you can’t
explain all those beaviors which I proposed. And you can’t
explain many more other behaviors. Your RCT theory is
wrong…

        Boris your first 2 paragraphs are
stated as an attack rather than as a criticism.

        PCT is not yet at a state with
its practitioners/researcher can produce a simulation that
will predict 'sleeping behavior.'Â The most significant
difference between PCT and ALL other behavioral sciences is
that PCT is what is called a hard science.Â For some aspect
of PCT to be considered as valid theory, it must be capable
of producing a generative model that predicts with a high
confidence factor behavior of living systems.

        This is radically different than
the rest of the behavioral ‘science’ community which use
opinion and consensus for their “proofs.”

        It is also one of the major
reasons why PCT research is so difficult.Â A confidence
factor of 70% would not even convince a PCT researcher that
you are on the right track toward a solution or a valid
explanation.

Â

RCT :

" CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – theÂ
controlled variable --Â in a reference state, protected
from disturbances."

Â

          HB :You just have to
say that you changed your mind, and continue with PCT :

Â

PCT

:

          "CONTROL:
Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual
state in the controlling system, through actions on the
environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances."
(Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

Â

          HB
: Â Â Â Â Â I told you Rick many times that If you want to
continue conversations about your RCT, you should give
real scientific experiments and PCT and RCT analysis of
everyday behavior. So where are the analysis ?

Â

          Instead
you are trying with childish game to prove what ?

Â

          RM: I tried
being nice and I know I should continue to rise
above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I
think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for
idiots.

Â

        HB : You are
trying to be nice with “ugly thoughts” in background with
your manipulative wording ? Idiotic theory RCT is for
idiots, and that I’m trying to porve that idiot made it.

Â

RM

earlier :

          So the
environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin
and inside the skin but outside the nervous system

Â

HB : Your
statement above is showing “nice manipulation” which you
even didn’t backup with evidences. So I have
to give evidences that you are manipulating and
lying. So where in LCS III diagram you see that PCT is about
“environment” of nervous system. Every live controlling
system is controlling for homeostasis as the whole not just
in nervous system so control happens in organisms (inside)
the whole controlling system not just part of it, like you
tryed to present**.**

        I'll be a
little more specific than Rick was…Â The environment is
every thing below the input function and below the output
function shown in the basic control diagram.Â The above
statement by Rick is essentially correct but but not
complete since there are control loops that involve chemical
reactions and those are at least partly “outside the nervous
system.”

**Â **

PCT

:

          "CONTROL:
Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual
state in
the controlling system ,
through actions on the environment that also cancel the
effects of disturbances." (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).Â

**Â **

** And here is evidence how PCT as whole
theory should look like. It’s the whole organism that is
contrrolling not just nervous system. Bill Leach mentioned
lately genetic control system that is also included in
“big picture of control in organism”.**

**Â **

** HB : You see where is the border ?
It’s clear. You see genetic control system ? All
controlling system in organism are included in homestasis.
Not just nervous system.**

**Â **

          RM: I may
have told you nothing. But I told those who are
capable of understanding what I said something very
important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can
take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing
rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the
perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a
STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the
perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

**Â **

** HB : Can you translate what you wrote
? Did you explain your “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or
Bills ordinary perceptual signal ? And what this has to do
with comparison and differences between two models of
behavior that Richard was aksing for ?**

**Â **

RCT :

" CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – theÂ
controlled variable --Â in a reference state, protected
from disturbances."

Â

PCT

:

          "CONTROL:
Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual
state in the controlling system, through actions on the
environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances."
(Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).Â

**Â **

** RM: Everything. The definition of
control in B:CP is**: “CONTROL:
Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual
state in the controlling system, through actions on the
environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”

Â

HB : Yes we
know that for a long time. How did you find out ?

Â

          And where is the difference
between your RCT and PCT that was the question ? You
didn’t give it. Ohhh. Are you hiding something Rick ?
You are manipulating again ? Â So what is the
difference between PCT and RCT definition of control *

        The only difference is in the
words used and not in the meaning.

bill

Â

RCT :

" CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – theÂ
controlled variable --Â in a reference state, protected
from disturbances."

Â

          RM : Since
a perceptual state is a value of the perceptual signal;
and since the perceptual signal is an analog of an aspect
of the environment,

Â

          HB
: You are explaning what now ? PCT or RCT theory ? So what is the “perceptual state
of controlled perceptual variable” that is
“analog” of control in external environment ?

Â

          RM : …a
perceptual state corresponds to the state (value) of an
analog of some aspect of the environment.

Â

          HB
: It seems that you are repeating yourself ? You are a World top bluffer
Rick.

Â

          RM : So
the definition of control can be written as "Achievement
and maintenance of a pre- selected state of an analog of
some aspect of the environment by the controlling system,
through actions on the environment that also cancel the
effects of disturbances."Â

Â

          HB
: Again your are repeating yourself ? But Richard didnt’ ask you just
about PCT definition but about differences between RCT and
PCT. So
where is interpretation of your RCT in comparison to PCT
?

Â

          RM :Â  This
is something that would obvious to you if you actually
tried to build some control models of behavior rather than
just understanding PCT in terms of definitions and
diagrams.Â Â

Â

          HB : Do you understand what you
wrote ? You
citated definition of PCT control (2x) , which
I’m citating all the time and you are accusing me of using
PCT in terms of defintions and diagrams ???

Â

So if I
understand right PCT definitnions of control and
diagrams are disturbance to your understanding of
how organisms function with your RCT (Ricks Contro
Theory)… Is that the problem ?

Â

Boris

**Â **

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com
via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
        **Sent:** Monday, April 15, 2019 9:34 PM
        **To:** csgnet <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
        **Subject:** Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

[Rick Marken 2019-04-15_12:33:30]

Â

              On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:38 PM
“Boris Hartman” <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

Â

                          Â Richard
Pfau to RM: Am I mistaken or in your
e-mail did you define Control as " CONTROL
: Keeping of some aspect of outer
environment – theÂ controlled variable
–Â in a reference state, protected from
disturbances."

Â

                        RM
: So the environment in PCT includes
everything outside the skin and inside the
skin but outside the nervous system.Â

Â

                          HB : What a
nonsense is this. Â …Are you having
us who read your nonsense for idiots ?

Â

              RM: I tried being nice and I know I
should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist.
No, it is not nonsense but I think you are
demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

Â

                                RP: If
so, Boris is correct in saying that
you are interpreting PCT differently
than Bill Powers who defines Control
as “CONTROL: Achievement and
maintenance of a preselected
perceptual state in the controlling
system, through actions on the
environment that also cancel the
effects of disturbances.” (Powers,
B:CP, 2005, p.296).Â

Â

                      RM:
A perceptual state is a state of a perceptual
signal.

Â

                      HB
: What’s wrong with you Rick ? What a
tautology. You
told exactly nothing.

Â

              RM: I may have told you nothing.
But I told those who are capable of understanding what
I said something very important. The perceptual signal
is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0
(spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron
carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual
signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a
STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE
of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

Â

                      Â RM
: A perceptual signal is “an internal analog
of some ASPECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT” (Powers,
B:CP, 1973, p. 286).

Â

                      HB
: So what. What this has to do with definition
of control ?

Â

              HB :

Â

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.â€?

                                    Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â

–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

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

_Boris_Hartman · April 16, 2019, 3:19pm

Bill,

···

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:34 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

BL : Boris I am not and do not claim to be a PCT researcher.

HB : So why you are giving statements about PCT theory which can be proved only by real PCT scientific researches ? PCT is scientific theory.

BL : I do discuss behavior, as do most of us, on this net. I am also quite aware that when I’m discussing behavior that I am not using the rigor required by the theory to produce any sort of proof. Nor am I inclined to undertake that effort necessary to do so.

HB : What we ara then talking about ? Am I’m loosing time ?

So it stays. If you want to talk with me I want analyzed examples so that we’ll be able to understand what we are talking about.

I’ll give a model of our possible future conversation and of course example :

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

HB : Example of everyday behavior :

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 : Example is not in accordance with RCT definition of control but it is in accordance with PCT definition of control :

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

NEXT EXAMPLE ???

Boris

On 4/16/19 3:20 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Bill I have enough craping and bullshitting. Lets get to work. Before you answer again I want at least 10 analyzed behaviors form PCT and RCT view. You understand. You didn’t tell anything but you are phylosophing all the time. What is enough is enough. So cut the bullshitting and get to work and prove soemthing ???

Boris

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:23 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

On 4/15/19 3:06 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

He, he as usually Rick is manipulating with words, taking text out of context and so on just to prove that his nonsense RCT theory is usufull. Well it’s not

Your theory RCT felt on the first test you produced. You can’t explaon “sleeping” behavior with your RCT ? And you can’t explain all those beaviors which I proposed. And you can’t explain many more other behaviors. Your RCT theory is wrong…

PCT is not yet at a state with its practitioners/researcher can produce a simulation that will predict ‘sleeping behavior.’ The most significant difference between PCT and ALL other behavioral sciences is that PCT is what is called a hard science. For some aspect of PCT to be considered as valid theory, it must be capable of producing a generative model that predicts with a high confidence factor behavior of living systems.

This is radically different than the rest of the behavioral ‘science’ community which use opinion and consensus for their “proofs.”

It is also one of the major reasons why PCT research is so difficult. A confidence factor of 70% would not even convince a PCT researcher that you are on the right track toward a solution or a valid explanation.

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

HB :You just have to say that you changed your mind, and continue with PCT :

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

HB : I told you Rick many times that If you want to continue conversations about your RCT, you should give real scientific experiments and PCT and RCT analysis of everyday behavior. So where are the analysis ?

Instead you are trying with childish game to prove what ?

RM: I tried being nice and I know I should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

HB : You are trying to be nice with “ugly thoughts” in background with your manipulative wording ? Idiotic theory RCT is for idiots, and that I’m trying to porve that idiot made it.

RM earlier :

So the environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and inside the skin but outside the nervous system

HB : Your statement above is showing “nice manipulation” which you even didn’t backup with evidences. So I have to give evidences that you are manipulating and lying. So where in LCS III diagram you see that PCT is about “environment” of nervous system. Every live controlling system is controlling for homeostasis as the whole not just in nervous system so control happens in organisms (inside) the whole controlling system not just part of it, like you tryed to present**.**

I’ll be a little more specific than Rick was… The environment is every thing below the input function and below the output function shown in the basic control diagram. The above statement by Rick is essentially correct but but not complete since there are control loops that involve chemical reactions and those are at least partly “outside the nervous system.”

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

And here is evidence how PCT as whole theory should look like. It’s the whole organism that is contrrolling not just nervous system. Bill Leach mentioned lately genetic control system that is also included in “big picture of control in organism”.

HB : You see where is the border ? It’s clear. You see genetic control system ? All controlling system in organism are included in homestasis. Not just nervous system.

RM: I may have told you nothing. But I told those who are capable of understanding what I said something very important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

HB : Can you translate what you wrote ? Did you explain your “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or Bills ordinary perceptual signal ? And what this has to do with comparison and differences between two models of behavior that Richard was aksing for ?

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

RM: Everything. The definition of control in B:CP is:“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”

HB : Yes we know that for a long time. How did you find out ?

And where is the difference between your RCT and PCT that was the question ? You didn’t give it. Ohhh. Are you hiding something Rick ? You are manipulating again ? So what is the difference between PCT and RCT definition of control *

The only difference is in the words used and not in the meaning.

bill

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

RM : Since a perceptual state is a value of the perceptual signal; and since the perceptual signal is an analog of an aspect of the environment,

HB : You are explaning what now ? PCT or RCT theory ? So what is the “perceptual state of controlled perceptual variable” that is “analog” of control in external environment ?

RM : …a perceptuaal state corresponds to the state (value) of an analog of some aspect of the environment.

HB : It seems that you are repeating yourself ? You are a World top bluffer Rick.

RM : So the definition of control can be written as “Achievement and maintenance of a pre- selected state of an analog of some aspect of the environment by the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.”

HB : Again your are repeating yourself ? But Richard didnt’ ask you just about PCT definition but about differences between RCT and PCT. So where is interpretation of your RCT in comparison to PCT ?

RM : This is something that would obvious to you if you actually tried to build some control models of behavior rather than just understanding PCT in terms of definitions and diagrams.

HB : Do you understand what you wrote ? You citated definition of PCT control (2x) , which I’m citating all the time and you are accusing me of using PCT in terms of defintions and diagrams ???

So if I understand right PCT definitnions of control and diagrams are disturbance to your understanding of how organisms function with your RCT (Ricks Contro Theory)â€¦ Is that the problem ?

Boris

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 9:34 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[Rick Marken 2019-04-15_12:33:30]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:38 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Richard Pfau to RM: Am I mistaken or in your e-mail did you define Control as “CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

RM : So the environment in PCT includes everything outside the skin and inside the skin but outside the nervous system.

HB : What a nonsense is this. …Are you having us who read your nonsense for idiots ?

RM: I tried being nice and I know I should continue to rise above but I just can’t resist. No, it is not nonsense but I think you are demonstrating pretty clearly that it is for idiots.

RP: If so, Boris is correct in saying that you are interpreting PCT differently than Bill Powers who defines Control as “CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

RM: A perceptual state is a state of a perceptual signal.

HB : What’s wrong with you Rick ? What a tautology. You told exactly nothing.

RM: I may have told you nothing. But I told those who are capable of understanding what I said something very important. The perceptual signal is a VARIABLE – it can take on values from 0 (spikes/sec) to the maximum firing rate of the neuron carrying that signal. Any value of the perceptual signal between 0 and the maximum firing rate is a STATE of this VARIABLE. So 30 impulses/sec is a STATE of the perceptual signal, called the PERCEPTUAL STATE.

RM : A perceptual signal is “an internal analog of some ASPECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT” (Powers, B:CP, 1973, p. 286).

HB : So what. What this has to do with definition of control ?

HB :

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

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

Boris your first 2 paragraphs are stated as an attack rather than as a criticism.

_Boris_Hartman · April 16, 2019, 3:26pm

Bill

···

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

BL : Again Boris, please try to make this a civil discussion rather than a series of personal assaults.

HB : Bill if somebody is claiming nonsense than I have to describe that noncenses. Sorry

BL :They are both correct. Living things do use the output of a control loop to control perceptions that happens to be what control of perception is all about. That is an absolutely true statement.

BL : It is also absolutly true that feedback is a systems output effect on the system input.

HB : Do you understand what means absolutelly ? Do you understand what you wrote ?

Your 1.statement that you can control output and thus perception is without any evidence. Where did you see Bill ever wrote :

that Living things use output to control perception (book and page).
…and where did youu see physiological evidence that output can be controlled. I want you to prove that you can control muscle tension. I’ll help you a little…

Bill P. (B:CP, Preface) :

Rather, the central problem has been to find out a plausible model which can behave at all…. For example iit will be shown later that the brain does not command the muscles to act. That concept implies properties that the neuromuscular system simply does not have… There is just no way the brain can select a muscle tension that will produce one and only one behavioral effect, even if that tension is accurately produced. The result of this approcah is a model nearly devoid of specific behavioral content.

HB : As for the first of your statements is clear that Bill Powers was very precise with using terms (you confirmed), so in PCT : “output affects input (perception)”. Period. That is the fact in PCT.

But in PCT mantra is :

Bill Powers : That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

HB : So there is no doubt that you are wrong with your statement that “output controls perception”. At least in PCT. But in your BLCT you can think whatever you want. But don’t say that your BLCT theory is the same as PCT because it isn’t.Â Â

HB : There is no control in Bill Powers definition of “feedback function”. So your statement is ABSOULTELLY WRONG ???

PCT model is general so is general Bill Powers theory and can have only one meaning which was given by Biil Powers who seriously and scientifically wrote his theory.

Bill P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) : Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms

HB : And I admire his effort. But I don’t like some “confussion makers” that are minimizing the value of his theory and claim that they are speaking in the name of PCT because they don’t.Â

And if theory and model are GENERAL that can be in only one meaning which is clear from diagram LCS III and definitions

cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (LCS III):

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Your BLCT theory is wrong (!!!) in respect to Bill Powers general theory and diagram.

Let us see how your BLCT theory look like with help of RCT according to all statements you gave during our discussion :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of some aspect of environment – the controlled variable - in reference state through cannonical actions on the environment that also protect controlling system from disturbances.
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of cannonical effects and controlled effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own boxx represents the effective and controlled means this system has for causing non-controlled and controlled changes in it’s environment.

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the cannonical action and controlled action of this system that feeds-back to affect and control its own input. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect and controlled effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli that are analogs of the aspect ot the environment – the controlled variable-- , and generates a perceptual signal that is defined by the nature of this function.
COMPARATOR : The function portion of control system that takes the 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.
ERROR SIGNAL : A signal – THEE OUTPUT of the comparator function indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

Would you and Rick like to propose changes to Bill Powers theory ???

Well Barb and Alison would you accept Ricks and Bill proposal for changing PCT. Well sorry Bill. I think they would not do that.

HB : So if you want us to continue discussion than I want examples and proofs (evidences) that your BLCT (Blls’ Leach Control Theory) and Ricks RCT (Ricks Control Theory) are right. And we can get proves only by every day examples like Rick was :

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 : Example is in accordance with PCT definition of control :

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

HB : ….but is not in accordance with RCT definition of conntrol

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

NEXT EXAMPLE ???

BorisÂ

On 4/16/19 3:07 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:04 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

Bill,

We are very close to finnishing our discussion, because you are bullshitting and selling crap again.

I answered on your answers bellow, but here is summary.

I want you to answer just with YES or NO whether what Bill wrote about control in outer environment is right or not. I didn’t ask you for your phylosophy.

HB : We agreed quite well that Bill Powers precisely used words for his control loop. In his definitions he is not mentioning any “observer”. That’s optinonal. Anyway any observer would has his own vision what is happening as you have yours.

Bill Powers is analyzing cotrol from aspect of “Living Control System”. So short answers. No bullshitting.

So we have two statements :

BL : Living beings use output to control perception

And

Bill Powers : That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

HB : So you are claiming that Living beings use output to control perception and Bill Powers is claiming that Living beings use output to affect input (perception).

No bullshitting Bill. Which statement is right ?

Your answer :

They are both correct. Living things do use the output of a control loop to control perceptions that happens to be what control of perception is all about. That is an absolutely true statement. It is also absolutly true that feedback is a systems output effect on the system input. So the output has an effect on the input and thus on the perception. Feedback is not actually a physical part of a control system but rather the description we give to the function of those physical part(s) that produce the effect described in our definition of feedback.

After you aanswered you can read continuing explanation.

HB : Now let us analyze your statement about “behavior being control”.

BL : Living beings use output to control perception

HB : …contradicts to your several statemennts which you gave on CSGnet and in our private talkings :

Damn Boris! I DID NOT SAY THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED!

First Boris, in the above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled!

HB : Although you changed “color” sometime, I’ll understand your statements that “behavior or ouptut is not controlled” as right and I’ll assume that you support Bills’ definition about “OUTPUT FUNCTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION” to be RIGHT.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

Aspects of the output of one control system can be and sometimes are controlled by yet another control system but that is NOT what we are talking about. Also, one can say that the output is ‘controlled’ by the error signal but ‘controlled’ is an especially poor term to use for such a statement. Rather it should be said that the output varies as function of changes in the error signal (vector; polarity and magnitude). Using the phrase that the output is controlled (except when it actually is by another control system) is a bastardization of the definition of control.

HB : So my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR (output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT (PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is showing clearly (bellow)

Again, I bring you back to B:CP where the colon means ‘is.’ Behavior is the control of perception. That statement is, of course, a gross oversimplification of the process. Control loops control perception and the output is only one part of such control loops. If any portion of a control loop fails to function correctly then control is lost or at least seriously degraded. However, the statement “Behavior is the control of perception” is written that was because observers can only observe behavior and for centuries now have misinterpreted how behavior occurs. I believe Bill’s goal in using that title was to wake up people in the behavioral sciences to the solution to the dilemma so clearly discussed by the famous William James in his comparison of the behavior of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet vs. a magnet, paper, and iron filings. An important dilemma ignored by the behavioral sciences for over a hundred years.

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

Bill : Output is NOT controlled.

HB : Good. So from aspect of Living Control System we can conclude that “output” is not controlled. That is in accordance to Bills defintion of “Ouptut”. From the aspect of Living Control System. As that is what is descibed in definitions.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

So do we agree again that output which produce effets to environment is not controlled, so it’s not controlling perception but affects perceptions ?

YES OR NO.

Yes, the output function is not sufficient to produce control. As I stated above, all portions of a control loop must exist and function more or less correctly to achieve any control.

BL : Output is what the observer can see and analyze.

HB : Output is not only what the observer see and analyze but output is the portion of the system that converts â€¦ See definition above. So output is something that “Living Control System” is doing no matter of the observer.

Ouptu is part of Living organism, not part of the observer. Any also controlling system can observe it’s output. Emmiting effects to environment means that controlling sistem produce effects to environment and that doesn’t depend from observer but from controler what kind of effects will. And efects are not controlled.Whether observer is there or not. As I said we are very close to finishing discusion.

Close but probably not finished. Yes, for purposes of our discussion the presence of an observer does not affect whether control will take place or not. Yes, the output we are discussing in strictly part of the subject and not any way a part of the observer. “Any also controlling system can observe it’s output.” is true IF the controlling system can perceive some part of an aspect of the environment that the subject changing (by the subject using the subjects own output, to bring the perception of the aspect to a reference condition).

As I recall, Bill loathed the term “emitting” when used in this context. But yes, the subject produces effects on the environment and those effects do not depend upon the observer. Again I qualify the claim that any observer can observe the subject’s output. That is true only if the observer is able to perceive some way essentially the same aspect of the environment that the subject is controlling. That statement also raises other issues. The observer may well perceive changes in the environment that are unintended consequences of a relationship between what the observer perceives and what the subject is controlling. Further the subject might not even perceive what the observer perceives. The observer may then conclude that he has determined what the subject is controlling and be completely wrong. That is particular likely when the TEST is not or can not be used.

BL : Bill called his seminal work on this subject “Behavior: The Control of Perception” quite on purpose. He was emphasizing that what we and especially behaviorists, observe when watching someone is a closed loop negative feedback system in operation.

HB : Different observers will observ differently what other willl be doing. So observer has nothing to do with what controller is doing. And Bill Powers definitions are about what control system is doing.

That depends on what definitions made by Bill you are talking about. Most of his definitions are those of control which exclusively apply only to the subject. Because he was very much interested in research and further development of the theory and his hypotheses he also had to define other terms such as those involving observation, tests, and analysis.

HB : As I said before Bill cut the crap. What observes observe is of phylosophy. I never saw in any literature that Bill Powers gave such an explanation of his Titile of book. But clearly exposed in his theory that “behavior is not controlling perception but affecting”. So I can clearly prove my statment and you can not prove sour statement. So temporarely I’ll call you a liar until you prove your statement.

Nice Boris, in the preceding paragraph you managed to move from a thoughtful discussion to a bull shit opinion. The fact that you can find it in Bill’s writings does not mean that Bill did not say it. I would imagine that he told quite a few people the same thing. Again Boris, behavior is what behaviorists study. Bill use of that title was to point out that unless you realize that the observed behavior results from the process of control you will draw incorrect conclusions concerning your observations. And that is exactly what has been happening for centuries. One MUST know that behavior is the visible manifestation of control system action or one can (and often do) ‘go off on flights of fancy’ in describing what is happening INSIDE the subject.

My proof (evidences) that Title of book means that “Behavior is not controlling perception”

You don’t need to prove to anyone that understands PCT that behavior on its own is controlling perception. Control is not not a linear function, it is a continuous functioning loop and all elements much be present and functioning for control to occur.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

Where is your proof (evidence) that “Behavior can control perception” ???

I have no proof because while I assert that behavior is a part (and I emphasize the observable part) it is NOT sufficient to achieve control.

HB : You understand what are you doing Bill ? You are craping all the time and “bullshitting”. I want straight answers. Are Bills definitions right and is my conclussion that "behavior (output) affect input (perception) right or not.

I am not sorry for the next. Damn you Boris! Your insults must stop. I see little point in trying to have a rational discussion with a person that is so personally offensive as are you!

To answer your question, YES to "Are Bills definitions right and is my conclussion that “behavior (output) affect input (perception) right or not.” In agreeing I am not precluding that some people may misinterpret what is meant in some of the definitions. Such is particularly true for definitions given in response to statements Bill was trying to correct, and some questions he was trying to address. In those situations, taking the definition and discussion out of the context of what Bill was addressing might lead one to draw incorrect conclusions for other situations.

YES OR NO.

So do you agree :

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

Yes, although Bill recognized that altering the immediate environment may, and often is, done to control a much higher level perception concerning things that are NOT in the immediate environment.

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

Yes

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

Yes, but do you understand that feedback is just a term describing the effect that results from acting upon those physical laws, properties, arrangements, and linkages in the environment when the resulting changes are perceived.

HB : So my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR (output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT (PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

So do you agree that Bills Powers definitions are right and that thay are showing that “ouput is not for controlling perception” but for affecting perception ?

YES OR NO ?

I was OK until the last line. The only purpose for output IS the control of perception! In the case for any control system, the purpose of the output affecting the input which is done to control perception!

bill

Boris

On 4/15/19 9:54 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Bill,

It was nice chating with you about internal functioning of organism. So I don’t understand how you end with defending Ricks nonsense RCT theory, which he denyed with his best life example of Powers PCT (sleeping)

You show your good knowledge about first part of Bills definition of control :

! “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)).

which you probably deliberatelly isolated as you knew that second part of definition wouldn’t fit in your many nonsense statements which you gave in “defence” to Ricks even more nonsense RCT, which can’t stand even his example (sleeping) of right using Bills definition of control.

BL : Boris you statement above is an insult. I don’t deliberately mislead people.

HB : Maybe you are not deliberatelly doing what you are doing, but you messmaker, and confussion maker. Whether you feel it as an insult or no. It’s the “fact”.

HB : So the problem is not first part of Bills definition of control, but interpretation of second part. Your interpretation was :

Bill Leach :

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

I don’t remember why I threw the word ‘canonical’ in that definition.

HB : So you see. You were misleading members on CSGnet with claiming that PCT is “cannonical”.

BL : Bill’s definition is correct. The loop output, which affects some aspect of the environment that is perceived (sensed by the input portion of the control loop), is the means by which the control loop controls the perception so that the perception comes close the the value of the reference for that perception (low error or difference).

HB : Good. So we agree that PCT is not cannonical. PCT definitions is right.

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 : If we want to continue discussion we need some rules so that we could comr to some conclussions. So if you’ll answer on my statements seriously will continue discussion.

If you’ll answer in your “Rick style way – blidly” withoutt arguments, I’ll live CSGnet forum. So I expect that wil have serious discussion on adult level. We will live out of our discussion “children” with joystick to play their “Tracking experiment” and enjoy their “childhood”.

Again Boris, I perceive your statement in the paragraph above as an unnecessary attack upon Rick. That is particularly onerous because the various tests the computer programs and the PCT simulations (predictions of behavior) were a tremendous verification of the validity of the most basic assertion of PCT (that observed behavior is a result of the actions of a closed loop negative feedback control system). The rubber band experiments, the coin experiments, etc. were useful, particularly when introducing PCT to someone with no knowledge of PCT. But those experiments did not generate the sort of data that allows for rigorous analysis demanded for the ‘hard sciences.’ The computer program did provide that data.

HB : Bill, it’s obviously that from computer experiments and all other stuff Bill Powers produced PCT theory and Rick produced RCT theory. We can resolve the problem by analyzing other behaviors. Many other behaviors as I suggested. You did nothing and you are still phylosophing.

So my conditions are :

You, and Barb and me and probably more others experienced Bill Powers as very seriously (scientifically) taking his PCT. So if I understood right we can agree that he has very carefully choosen words in any of his writings.

Every our statement will be “backuped” with Bill Powers text or some scientific findings like physiology.

We wiil respect PCT analyses of everyday behavior.

We don’t need to put all our efforts and knowledge into our observation if we don’t want.

We can leave conversation whenever we want without explanation.

Based upon what I said above about interpreting Bill’s words we have to be careful not to use a single statement of Bill’s to contradict the more general PCT discussion in B:CP. It is true that some aspects of PCT did evolve a bit following the publication of B:CP, these were the things that Bill only hypothesized and not the fundamentals of closed loop negative feedback control system operations.

As far of #3 what happens on the forum are discussions based upon opinions unless there is existing rigorous PCT research that bares on the discussion. So I agree that the discussion should always be conducted respectfully. Points raised that appear to contradict the known portions of the theory should be questioned.

Essentially I agree with all 5 terms.

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 8:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

On 4/13/19 7:29 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

Bill,

HB : As I said before wording can’t change what is happening in reality. And you are just wording and claiming things which do not exist anywhere else but in your mind. You are a mess and confussion maker. Are you doing this deliberatelly ? You don’t understand PCT Period.

HB : Living beings don’t control behavior (output). If you think so prove that you can control output. And stop insinuating that I don’t understand English because you are insulting me.

Actually you can ‘control output’ IF you have another control system that monitors (perceives some aspect of the output) and has the means for altering that output.

HB : Stop bullshitting Bill. Controller can’t control output. Whether observer is there or not. How the observer influence with means for altering the output ? Change controllers genetic structure.

That indeed is the way that some known muscular systems function to avoid muscle injury. However, that is a different thing from trying to assert that an individual control loop can control its output. It can not without additional ‘hardware.’

BL : Boris, I’m over 70 years old and I have never met ANYONE that was more insulting toward others than you are.

HB : O.K. You obviously didn’t read what I wrote few days ago in discussion with Rick when he was for first time after more than 10 years writing about his real problems in onversation with. I also descibed what I experienced on CSGnet through these years. Many insults.

Boris I suggest that your manner of denigrating anyone that you disagree with invites critical comments concerning how you express yourself.

But If you accuse me of being the on who is the worst in insulting then you really don’t know Rick. I meantioned two names : Martin and Gavin Ritz (lathough there are many others), for whom I assume that they will confirm Ricks nasty nature. I learned being insulting on CSGnet from him. Rick is with no doubt “World Champion” in insulting. Beleive me I’m “little fish” in comparison to hei. But you can go and check CSGnet archves or read what I wrote if you have time.

Let us go back to your ages. Considering that I’m not so far away (in ages), I could say that your memory is not in perfect shape. Maybe you remember some inserts from conversation with Bill Powers and maybe the meaning but not exact words. Memory can be problematic in old people.

As I said I’m a little younger (I have two children and 3 grandchildren) and I enjoy their company. I mostly watch grandchildren how they enjoy life. Incredibly how inventive they are specially if you help them. And when I observe them I think of Bill’s child development theoretical backgroung which stands and was quite good confirmed by Ploijj.

Of course my PCT thoughts are quite often on and observations are PCT flitered, so grandchildren games stimulate many new ideas which come up and can be tested immediatelly in life situation. So Bills theory get it’s upgrades. His fundamentals are so strong that I haven’t found “a hole” in his thinking about how child develope. And if you count in my experiences in school work, you can think why UN wants to talk with me about school system theoretical background I have. I’ll always stay fair to Bill and wherever I’ll go with his knowledge he is always there with his citations. At least few so that his magnificent theory is exposed in original form. I don’t remember that I saw much his sitations in PCT literature.

Beyond William James, there was not a whole lot of behavioral scientists to cite! PCT comes directly from engineering control theory and that was cited.

So the point is that I don’t try to do transformations to his original thoughts but I comment his original thoughts. That’s what I’ll be doing also during ourconversation and that’s what I did many times before.

Thats fine Boris. However translation (as opposed to transformation) to help deal with the use of PCT vs. the research is useful. As an example, I will cite your comment about applying PCT to everyday situations. Most of the time you can not meet the data requirements demanded for a hard science discipline like PCT. If you can’t produce (or a programming expert can not produce from your explanation and data) a computer program simulation that will predict within a 98% confidence factor the same sort of behavior under varying conditions AND allow for analysis of so called ‘outliers’ then you have not actually advanced PCT research much.

BL : Living beings use output to control perception (and of course that also requires a reference for the perception and comparator to determine what error if any exists).

HB : I’ll try to analyze “control loop” as possible exactly in accordance to PCT. But first I’ll remind about some of your statements of “control loop”.

While “behavior (output)” I’ll analyze latter, let me remind you that your answers about “controlled variable” in external environment and “Controlled perceptual variable” or PCV were :

HB : Any behavior in Ricks theory has some “controlled variable” in environment.

BL : It does not.

What Rick, myself, and many others maintain, is that there are some factors in the environment that are perceived by the subject that are the SUBJECT of control. But what is actually controlled is the subject’s own (internal and invisible to any observer) own perceptions. We also assert that when the observer is perceiving the same environmental factors that the observer’s perception (in the case for humans) is likely a very close match to the subject’s perception.

HB : Rick is using term (CPV) which was never used by Bill.

BL : No, I agree, Bill did not use the term to my knowledge.

HB : Now let us analyze your statement about “behavior being control”.

BL : Living beings use output to control perception

HB : …contradicts to your several statements which you gave onn CSGnet and in our private talkings :

Damn Boris! I DID NOT SAY THAT BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED!

First Boris, in the above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled!

HB : Although you changed “color” sometime, I’ll understand your statements that “behavior or ouptut is not controlled” as right and I’ll assume that you support Bills’ definition about “OUTPUT FUNCTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION” to be RIGHT.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

HB : So my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR (output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT (PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

Output is NOT controlled.

Output is what the observer can see and analyze.

HB : Output is not only what observer analyse output is

BL : Bill called his seminal work on this subject “Behavior: The Control of Perception” quite on purpose. He was emphasizing that what we and especially behaviorists, observe when watching someone is a closed loop negative feedback system in operation.

HB : As I said before Bill cut the crap. What observes observe is of phylosophy. Different observers will observw differently what other swill be doing. So observer has nothing to do with what ccontrolled is doing.

So do you agree

BL : He was emphasizing that it is not a linear stimulus-response system nor is it some sort of computer analog that executes a program. So behavior is a sign that control is occurring and is only a component of the control process. But it is also the only part that we, the observers, can actually see.

HB : You understand what are you doing Bill ? You are craping akk the time and “bullshitting”. I want straight answer. Are Bills definitions right and my conclussion. YES OR NO.

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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.

HB : So my conclussion is based upon Bills definitions that BEHAVIOR (output) DOES NOT CONTROL PERCEPTION BUT AFFECT INPUT (PERCEPTION). That’s also what LCS III diagram is showing clearly (bellow)

I think that is also in accordance with MANTRA IN PCT that behavior (output) is not controlled.

YES OR NO.

HB : Later we’ll analyse your other statement and difference about terms : “Behavior is controlled” and “Behavior is control”. Yo said that there is a difference. We just have to see what kind.

BL : Good hell Boris, behavior (what we observe a person doing) IS control.

Boris

You don’t understand the whole theory.

HB : In LCS III diagram is the only place in the loop where behavior is mentioned is “OUTPUT FUNTION” and “FEEDBACK FUNCTION”. It’s obviously that “effects” to EXTERNAL environment are produced by “OUTPUT FUNCTION” where by your oppinion control happens. So the “function” of BEHAVIOR is to produce effects (NOT CONTROLLED EFFECTS" TO ENVIRONMENT). WE said that Bill was very percise with using words.

No Boris, my assertions is that while the output is what changes something in the environment it is, by itself, NOT control. Control requires every component. Control is a continuous process.

bill

So if “behavior controls” how do you see that in LCS III diagram and definitions od control ?

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (LCS III):

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Boris

.

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 10:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

On 4/13/19 12:45 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

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”.

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.

First Boris, in the above I did NOT say that behavior or output is controlled! Read again what I actually wrote. What I said is that behavior IN living system is control. There is a huge difference in English meaning between saying that ‘behavior is controlled’ and ‘behavior is control’! And yes of course, behavior is what happens when a control system (living or otherwise) attempts to control perception to some reference value for that perception.

In PCT, “behavior is NOT emitted.” A quip I remember Bill often using.

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.

I’m sorry Boris but you have this wrong. The Title of Bill’s seminal work is Behavior: the control of Perception. The use of that particular title was to point out to psychologists that the behavior they were observing and studying results from the subject’s control or at least attempt to control the subjects perception. Such a title would be completely unnecessary in an engineering book on the same subject.

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 ccontrol 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.

No Boris, the whole negative feedback control loop is the mechanism for control. The comparator does not ‘control perception’ either, the control loop does.

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.

Excuse me Boris, but “actions on the environment” IS behavior. Exactly the same meaning for both terms.

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.

Your statement above is ludicrous. PCT IS engineering Control Theory, applied to ALL living things. While I’m probably not as ignorant of physiology and neurophysiology as you think, and it does not take much biological knowledge to correctly apply PCT to the human body.

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).

That was intentional on my part including not typing an ellipsis at the end of the quote portion. The sentence by Bill conveyed two concepts. The portion before the word “through” was a statement of purpose (what the control loop is supposed to accomplish) and the portion after and including “through” is how it accomplishes that purpose.

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.

Beyond asserting again, that Bill’s definition is canonical PCT, I don’t even understand what you are trying to say in the above paragraph.

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.

Rick can defend himself if he choose however, from the perspective of the observer, Rick’s definition is correct.

Since I neither speak, read, or write in any language other than English, I somewhat loath to make this observation but occasionally you write sentences that do not make sense in English. The first sentence in the paragraph above beginning with “So second part of definition of control…” makes no sense to me starting with “…so that to…”. I also do not have a clue what the second sentence is supposed to be saying to me.

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”. ???

First sentence response: A control system that is “ON” controls (or at least attempts to control) the entire time that it is on. There can be situations (rare with respect to CVs that are physically outside the body) where the control system output is zero but it certainly occurs. However, even with a zero output, the control system is STILL controlling. i.e. Should the controlled perception deviate sufficiently from the reference an output will be produced to correct the deviation.

Second sentence: I can think of no system within the human body involved in maintaining homeostasis that does not operate continuously beginning some time during gestation and lasting until sometime after death (in a human that has not developed defects). For example, maintaining a proper blood glucose concentration is a control system function. A failure (all too common in today’s world) of that system can easily result in death of the subject. However, before death occurs other control systems will control their own perception in a fashion that attempts to compensate for the for the failure of the glucose control.

If you know of an example of a homeostasis system that does not control continuously, I would like to hear about it.

Third sentence: I don’t know what you are trying to say. Are you saying that if a control system output is zero that the system is not controlling? If that is what you are trying to say then my comment is that you are absolutely wrong. Again, a control system does not produce an output when the perception being control exactly matches (or is within the ‘dead band’ of the reference in the control system however the system is still controlling.

Forth sentence: I don’t know what you are trying to convey in that sentence. If you are holding a coffee cup, you have to compensate for gravity. We don’t usually consider gravity to be a disturbance unless they is a special reason for doing so in a particular discussion. In a static environment (no disturbances) the control system output will be some non-zero value that remain essentially constant (though the output signal from the comparator will eventually begin increasing due to the effects of muscle fatigue).

Fifth sentence: No comment and no problem.

Sixth sentence: I don’t see the point of the question, but the perception under control 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… “Behaavior is control”, there is “cannonical priciple” everywhere in PCT and so on. And you are trying to say that this was normal conversation ???

I agree that Bill was usually very precise and not just in his formal writing. He was however also very human and occasionally did slip up in his wording (though as far as I can recall, never to the point of causing confusion among those that had studied his work). I believe that I recall from years ago that on occasion Bill did post a follow-up on CSGNet correcting something he said earlier. Dag would likely know for sure.

I am beginning to suspect that just possibly the major portion of the arguments that you have gotten into on CSGNet are due NOT to a difference in understand what PCT is and is not but rather and understanding of the complete definitions, including implied definitions, for PCT terms. Bill Powers PCT term definitions include ALL aspects of the the equivalent terms in engineered control system theory.

What cause me to come to the above conclusion is your insistence that control loops involved in homeostasis are not alway functioning. As I state above, just because a control system is not ‘doing anything’ or even has a zero output does NOT mean in the engineering world (and by extension) the PCT world that the system in not still controlling. Remember, Bill started as an engineering control system person and then became a behavioral scientist. At NO time can I ever recall Bill implying that a definition in PCT differed from its engineering equivalent.

I used the term ‘deadband’ above and at least when I actually talked with Bill in person, he believed that such a deadband existed in most if not all living system control loops. The deadband, of course defines a region around the reference value where the perception can differ from the reference value but no change in controller output will occur. The value of that deadband is specific to each individual control loop and itself may be controlled by another control system (i.e. the deadband may change at anytime the control system is active (on).

bill

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.

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 have to analyze at least 50 behavviors 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. 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

On 4/12/19 11:51 AM, Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:46 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

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 aat 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.

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

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 – pperception”.

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…

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 ???

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 leasst 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.

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 Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« 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 Â»controlled variableÂ« 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 : Â»ControlÂ« of some Â»aspect of outer environmentÂ« 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 Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« or Â»Controlled PerceptionÂ«, the perceptual correlate of Â»controlled q.i.Â«

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 output function shown in it’s own box represents thee 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 systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™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

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
â€œAssistance at A Distanceâ€?
www.nickols.us

–

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

_Boris_Hartman · April 16, 2019, 3:39pm

Bill,

···

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:47 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

Boris please read to the end of this post.

On 4/15/19 9:40 AM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

From: Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 8:52 AM
To: Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

BL : Never mind, it was just a joking question anyway. I was just asking you if I replaced Rick as the “top trouble maker, etc.”

Bill,

HB : Not at all. You are not the reason why Rick is not entitled to my real oppinon about how PCT function or about how organisms function, I’ll not reveal my real oppinion to him becasue of known reasons which I exposed in my post to Rick when he was quite honest that he don’t understand where I think he is wrong, Well if you have time read what I wrote. It’s in CSGnet archives. It was few days ago.

But it’s true that you both have the same mistake. You both are throwing statements on CSGnet which you can’t prove. And you both try to manipulate with wording.

HB earlier : It’ easy to “read” you, because we know what Bill thought about such an approcah :

BL: You have not convinced me that you know what Bill thought.

HB : Neither did you convinced me what he thought.

BL :One has to be very careful when one takes a single statement or even a short group of postings.

HB : Exactly that’s is what you and Rick are doing all the time.

BL : If you fail to interpret what Bill said in the context of his entire explanation of what PCT is, how it work, and what the implications are you can be quite wrong about what he thought.

HB : That’s exactly what I’m doing but you are not. I’m presenting all the time the whole theory and you are representing pieces.

cid:image001.jpg@01D37ABE.36063DF0

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

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

Bill P (B:CP):

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

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

Bill P (LCS III):

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

HB : I’m who show evidences of Bill Powers work and you are the one who is “bullshitting”. Do you understand that I have enough of your wording and phylosophing. I want facts and evidences about what you are talking about. Do you understand ???

BL : Depending upon WHO he was discussing an issue with also determined what assumptions he made about that person’s knowledge. For example in discussions with Martin, he assumed a very strong knowledge and understanding of both engineering control theory and mathematics. Someone else without that significant background could easily misunderstand what Bill’s point was.

HB : We discussed with Martin many things. So I know approximatelly what he thinks. Occasionally he changes his mind.

BL : He also considered how much information the receiver might be able to ‘take in’ without being overwhelmed. That, of course, means that in some postings Bill would knowingly oversimplify his presentation.

HB : I’m sorry Bill but I don’t understand what you are talking about.

HB earlier : “LCS will use any means to achieve goals”. It can be seen anywhere. Specially if you analyse the behavior of dicatators. They will use any means to stay on “throne” even kill mass of people. In the name of their goals although they will try to present how others are responsable for his action and so on. But in essence of human beings we can’t miss that Bill was right.

And that goes for you two. You will say and write anything (use any means) so that you will achieve your goals. And that is quite obvious what it is. To preserve Ricks’ lost RCT theory.

BL : BTW, that assertion also applies to yourself as it does to any of us.

HB : That’s how LCS works.

HB : earlier : So my answer is no. You didn’t replace Rick as trouble maker but you suplement him. And I hope (if you want) that we continue civilized conversation, to stop your emotions about Rick and try to think rational. Because in this way we can come to some serious conclussions that could benefit CSGnet members.

But I’ll not reveal all my knowledge. Just part of it. For known reason which only me and Rick understand.

BL : Boris, I have no idea of what your goals are with respect to PCT. Are you claiming that PCT is wrong?

HB :What’s your question got to do with our discussion. I was talking about my relation to Rick, and you are asking me if I claim that PCT is wrong. ?

HB : I see that your atitude to explaining PCT will not change. You will continue phylosophing and imputating. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS CLAIMIMNG THAT PCT IS WRONG. You are proposing wrong model of how organisms function :

You are claimimg that RCT is the same as PCT. IT ISN’T ? So by claimimg that RCT is the same as PCT you claim that PCT is wrong
You claim that PCT is cannonical ? So prove it ? And explain what does “cannonical” mean to you ? Here is an example

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through CANONICAL actions on the environment that cancel the effects of disturbances.”.

You are claimimg that Behavior (ouput) controls perception WHAT IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING Bill Powers definition of output and feedback ?

Bill P (B;CP) :

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

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

Bill P (LCS III):

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

BL :I know with certainty that you do claim the fabled RCT is wrong.

HB : RCT (Ricks Control Theory) is absoutelly wrong theory as he proved for himself with his example of sleeping. It’s something that people do for man hours a day.

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 is pure PCT explanation of control :

PCT :

“CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected perceptual state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.” (Powers, B:CP, 2005, p.296).

HB : …which drastically diverge from RCT.

RCT :

“CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.”

BL : If you are asserting that PCT is not a complete theory of behavior, then I will agree. It can only be made more complete though application of additional knowledge and by conducting PCT based research.

HB : So if I understand right we agree to some point that PCT is not finnished theory and that RCT is WRONG theory abuout how organisms function. So get to work and start analyting behaviors so that will try to finnish PCT theory.

ANALYSE everyday BEHAVIORS and stop phylosophing. This sort of “empty” communication will never stop if you will not show evidences. Next time you answer to me, I want evidences. Do you understand ?

BL : For just one example, reorganization. We know that it happens, for that we have plenty of proof. Even some PCT rigorous research has proven that reorganization does take place.

HB : Which are these rigourus research ?

BL : But HOW? What are the details? What are the methods? We don’t have a clue.

HB : There is no such thing because “reorganization” is “blank” term.

Bill P :

Reorganization is a blanket term that means changing the way the nervous system is internally connected.

The reorganization system doesn’t stop altering behavioral organization when something useful, reasonable, wise, or socially responsible is learned. It stops when intrinsic error goes to zero.

The concept of error-driven reorganization is a distinct departure from traditional notions of the causes of learning.

The reorganization idea is essentially the reversal image of the idea of reinforcement. Under the reorganization concept behavior continually changes as long there is intrinsic error. When an effect of behavior is to reduce intrinsic error, the next change in organization is delayed, so that behavior that happened to reduce intrinsic error persists a little longer. When the behavioral organization is found that reduces intrinsic error to zero (or whatever the required lower threshold is), the behavioral organization that then exists simply continues to operate unmodified.

So under reinforcement theory, a reinforcement effects of behavior has a positive effect on producing the same behavior, while under reorganization theory, a beneficial effects of behavior reduces the changes that the organization producing that behavior will be altered by further reorganization.

Bill P (B:CP) :

My objective in the remainder of this chapter is to develop a theory of reorganization: only this kind of theory can account for the existence of an adult’s hierarchy of control systems.

The concepts however, can be extended beyond my application of them. Nearly everyone who has worked on self-organizing systems has used principles like mine; I am merely adapting what others have done to a specific model.

Bill P :

I took this idea, incidentally, from the cyberneticist W. Ross Ashby because I thought he was right, though I couldn’t prove it.

Bill P (B:CP) :

My model is direct extension of Ashby’s concept of “ultrastability”, the property intended be demonstrated by this uniselector-equipped homeostat. Ultrastability exists when a system is capable not only of feedback control of behavior-affected perception, but of altering the properties of the control system, including how they perceive and act, as means of satisfying the highest requirements of all survival.

Bill P : Human reorganization capabilities are demonstrated by the so-called plasticity of the nervous system.

HB : You seems to be imagining things Bill. Reorganization is “blank term”.

BL : The discussion of reorganization that take place here are, for many of us, an attempt to stir interest in conducting research into that topic by those capable of doing such research and to address some of factors that are believed to have to be a part what the system does and how it does it.

HB : Bill sorry. I have enough of your phylosophy. Evidences ???

BL : First a question for you. Are knowledgeable about engineering control theory?

HB : Engineering theoy has little part in Bills PCT. Anyway he was criticizing engineers approcah to “control in Living beings”. So cut the crap about engineering control theory and it’s aplication to Living organisms. Most of PCT is hidden in Ashby’s work and phisiological facts. Go read his literature.

BL : I ask that question because, while the label for the essential terms are different between the two theories, there is nothing contained in engineering control theory contradicted by PCT.

HB : All is contradicted. Engineers control theroy is just opposite. Termostat is controlling in the external environment and so on. So most of engineering theories “control outside”. And that’s what is applied to human beings. It’s wrong. Read a little literature about PCT. I’ll give example engineering understanding that Henry Yin exposed in his article. You are again bluffing with you phylosophy. I said I have enough of your insinuations.

Henry Yin :

Control of Input. A control system always controls its input, not output [7]. Only perceivable consequences of behavior can be controlled.

According to mainstream engineering control theory, a control system controls its outputs, not its input. This is perhaps the most common fallacy today, both in engineering and in the life sciences [49, 55, 56]. This fallacy, an unfortunate legacy of cybernetics, is the result of imposing the perspective of the observer rather than using the perspective of the organism or controller. The mistake is to assume that what the engineer perceives and records, the “objective” effect of the system, is the output of the system.

As a result of these conceptual confusions, in traditional models negative feedback is always misunderstood. Placing the comparator outside the organism has the unintended effect of inverting the inside and outside of the system (Figure 5).What should be part of the organism is considered To be a part of the environment, and what should be part of the environment, namely, the feedback function, is considered a part of the organism. Consequently, the equations that describe how forces act on loads and accelerations and decelerations of the loads are assumed to be computed by the nervous system [50]. These conceptual confusions have largely prevented any progress in the study of behavior for many decades.

Boris

bleach · April 17, 2019, 12:20am

Boris, I am a person that does have a
strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned before my
“background” is in physics and electronics. I started learning
about the properties and mathematics of feedback as a child
using vacuum tube technology. For reasons that I certainly do
not know, when I first dealt with systems that controlled
something “outside of the system itself,” I recognized that such
systems were actually mimicking how a person might accomplish
the same task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had no
idea of how profound that concept was. I learned that when I
met Bill Powers.

    Like most people, I was required to take

some courses in behavioral science and I admit that I did learn
some things of value in those courses but was also rather
disgusted that the research for the field was called science. I
think that most anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics
believes that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true
science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion. There
is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was true.

    I have forgotten why I actually bought B:CP

back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was the reason. I
was stunned! Here in my hands was the first thing I had ever
read or heard that provided a hard science approach to the
non-scientific methods used in behavioral studies.

    It seems that most behavioral 'scientists'

fail to understand that ALL aspects of the scientific method
have to be complied with to be doing ‘scientific work.’ It is
not sufficient to just produce data and use (or misuse)
statistical analysis to prove your hypothesis. You also can not
just ignore some of the data (so called outliers). If you can
not produce a model from your interpretation of the data that
correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven anything
and you do not have a theory. At best you still have an
unproven hypothesis.

    You and I (and indeed others) have been

arguing about words NOT about theory. You seem to be
claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not
use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they
wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!

    One of the most important characteristics

of a teacher is to be able to explain the same concept using
different words and different examples.

** Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote
is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!**

    I was particularly annoyed when you

essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.

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

You have to know that Rick did not
for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was
anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as
though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a
proven theory.

    His statement is, obviously in my opinion,

essentially correct. Most of the chemical signaling that occurs
is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic
nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense
though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body
that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be
exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to
have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential
element of human understanding) what Rick said is a perfectly
valid postulate in PCT. The fact that it might
error by not including chemical control loops not involving
nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued
that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that
even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was
incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current
biochemical research has only identified hormones whose
production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what
we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.

    One reason for 'defending' RIck is that he

may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or
is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT.
He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation
factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed
experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has
a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, ** that
ANYONE else can replicate** . Outliers in this sense is not
that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory
is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur
in a rigorous manner.
*** My sincere apologies to anyone else
here that I am unaware of that has also done such work*****.**

    I am not trying to say that all other

discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected
to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become
something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory.
Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual
physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.

    Unlike ALL other behavioral sciences, PCT

does not rely on expert opinion including those of Bill Powers
himself.

    You have provided NO evidence or data that

I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.

    So yes, we are wasting each others time and

probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this
thread.

bill

wmansell · April 17, 2019, 8:54am

Well said Bill.

···

On 17 Apr 2019, at 01:20, Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

    Boris, I am a person that does have a
strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned before my
“background” is in physics and electronics. I started learning
about the properties and mathematics of feedback as a child
using vacuum tube technology. For reasons that I certainly do
not know, when I first dealt with systems that controlled
something “outside of the system itself,” I recognized that such
systems were actually mimicking how a person might accomplish
the same task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had no
idea of how profound that concept was. I learned that when I
met Bill Powers.

    Like most people, I was required to take
some courses in behavioral science and I admit that I did learn
some things of value in those courses but was also rather
disgusted that the research for the field was called science. I
think that most anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics
believes that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true
science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion. There
is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was true.

    I have forgotten why I actually bought B:CP
back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was the reason. I
was stunned! Here in my hands was the first thing I had ever
read or heard that provided a hard science approach to the
non-scientific methods used in behavioral studies.

    It seems that most behavioral 'scientists'
fail to understand that ALL aspects of the scientific method
have to be complied with to be doing ‘scientific work.’ It is
not sufficient to just produce data and use (or misuse)
statistical analysis to prove your hypothesis. You also can not
just ignore some of the data (so called outliers). If you can
not produce a model from your interpretation of the data that
correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven anything
and you do not have a theory. At best you still have an
unproven hypothesis.

    You and I (and indeed others) have been
arguing about words NOT about theory. You seem to be
claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not
use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they
wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!

    One of the most important characteristics
of a teacher is to be able to explain the same concept using
different words and different examples.

** Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote
is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!**

    I was particularly annoyed when you
essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.

      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

You have to know that Rick did not
for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was
anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as
though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a
proven theory.

    His statement is, obviously in my opinion,
essentially correct. Most of the chemical signaling that occurs
is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic
nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense
though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body
that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be
exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to
have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential
element of human understanding) what Rick said is a perfectly
valid postulate in PCT. The fact that it might
error by not including chemical control loops not involving
nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued
that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that
even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was
incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current
biochemical research has only identified hormones whose
production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what
we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.

    One reason for 'defending' RIck is that he
may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or
is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT.
He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation
factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed
experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has
a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, ** that
ANYONE else can replicate** . Outliers in this sense is not
that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory
is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur
in a rigorous manner.
*** My sincere apologies to anyone else
here that I am unaware of that has also done such work*****.**

    I am not trying to say that all other
discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected
to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become
something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory.
Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual
physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.

    Unlike ALL other behavioral sciences, PCT
does not rely on expert opinion including those of Bill Powers
himself.

    You have provided NO evidence or data that
I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.

    So yes, we are wasting each others time and
probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this
thread.

bill

richardhpfau · April 17, 2019, 1:23pm

[From: (Richard Pfau (2019.04.17 (:20 am EST)]

Bill,

Personally I have found the thread to be stimulating and useful to my understanding of PCT. In fact, I have been copying down especially enlightening portions - enlightening for me at least.

It is also interesting how some of us with hard science backgrounds have had similar reactions to psychology in general and, in contrast, have found PCT to be so attractive.

With Regards,

Richard

···

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:21 PM Bill Leach csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

    Boris, I am a person that does have a
strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned before my
“background” is in physics and electronics. I started learning
about the properties and mathematics of feedback as a child
using vacuum tube technology. For reasons that I certainly do
not know, when I first dealt with systems that controlled
something “outside of the system itself,” I recognized that such
systems were actually mimicking how a person might accomplish
the same task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had no
idea of how profound that concept was. I learned that when I
met Bill Powers.

    Like most people, I was required to take
some courses in behavioral science and I admit that I did learn
some things of value in those courses but was also rather
disgusted that the research for the field was called science. I
think that most anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics
believes that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true
science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion. There
is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was true.

    I have forgotten why I actually bought B:CP
back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was the reason. I
was stunned! Here in my hands was the first thing I had ever
read or heard that provided a hard science approach to the
non-scientific methods used in behavioral studies.

    It seems that most behavioral 'scientists'
fail to understand that ALL aspects of the scientific method
have to be complied with to be doing ‘scientific work.’ It is
not sufficient to just produce data and use (or misuse)
statistical analysis to prove your hypothesis. You also can not
just ignore some of the data (so called outliers). If you can
not produce a model from your interpretation of the data that
correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven anything
and you do not have a theory. At best you still have an
unproven hypothesis.

    You and I (and indeed others) have been
arguing about words NOT about theory. You seem to be
claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not
use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they
wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!

    One of the most important characteristics
of a teacher is to be able to explain the same concept using
different words and different examples.

** Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote
is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!**

    I was particularly annoyed when you
essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.

      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

You have to know that Rick did not
for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was
anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as
though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a
proven theory.

    His statement is, obviously in my opinion,
essentially correct. Most of the chemical signaling that occurs
is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic
nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense
though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body
that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be
exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to
have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential
element of human understanding) what Rick said is a perfectly
valid postulate in PCT. The fact that it might
error by not including chemical control loops not involving
nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued
that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that
even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was
incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current
biochemical research has only identified hormones whose
production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what
we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.

    One reason for 'defending' RIck is that he
may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or
is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT.
He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation
factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed
experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has
a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, ** that
ANYONE else can replicate** . Outliers in this sense is not
that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory
is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur
in a rigorous manner.
*** My sincere apologies to anyone else
here that I am unaware of that has also done such work*****.**

    I am not trying to say that all other
discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected
to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become
something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory.
Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual
physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.

    Unlike ALL other behavioral sciences, PCT
does not rely on expert opinion including those of Bill Powers
himself.

    You have provided NO evidence or data that
I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.

    So yes, we are wasting each others time and
probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this
thread.

bill

_Boris_Hartman · April 17, 2019, 3:21pm

And what was well said….???

That he insulted Bill Powers ??? Weren’t you one of admirer of Bill Powers ???

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:55 AM
To: wrleach@cableone.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

Well said Bill.

On 17 Apr 2019, at 01:20, Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Boris, I am a person that does have a strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned before my “background” is in physics and electronics. I started learning about the properties and mathematics of feedback as a child using vacuum tube technology. For reasons that I certainly do not know, when I first dealt with systems that controlled something “outside of the system itself,” I recognized that such systems were actually mimicking how a person might accomplish the same task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had no idea of how profound that concept was. I learned that when I met Bill Powers.

Like most people, I was required to take some courses in behavioral science and I admit that I did learn some things of value in those courses but was also rather disgusted that the research for the field was called science. I think that most anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics believes that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion. There is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was true.

I have forgotten why I actually bought B:CP back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was the reason. I was stunned! Here in my hands was the first thing I had ever read or heard that provided a hard science approach to the non-scientific methods used in behavioral studies.

It seems that most behavioral ‘scientists’ fail to understand that ALL aspects of the scientific method have to be complied with to be doing ‘scientific work.’ It is not sufficient to just produce data and use (or misuse) statistical analysis to prove your hypothesis. You also can not just ignore some of the data (so called outliers). If you can not produce a model from your interpretation of the data that correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven anything and you do not have a theory. At best you still have an unproven hypothesis.

You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory. You seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!

One of the most important characteristics of a teacher is to be able to explain the same concept using different words and different examples.

Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!

I was particularly annoyed when you essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.

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

You have to know that Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.

His statement is, obviously in my opinion, essentially correct. Most of the chemical signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential element of human understanding) what Rick said is a perfectly valid postulate in PCT. The fact that it might error by not including chemical control loops not involving nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current biochemical research has only identified hormones whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.

One reason for ‘defending’ RIck is that he may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT. He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, that ANYONE else can replicate. Outliers in this sense is not that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur in a rigorous manner.
My sincere apologies to anyone else here that I am unaware of that has also done such work.

I am not trying to say that all other discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory. Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.

Unlike ALL other behavioral sciences, PCT does not rely on expert opinion including those of Bill Powers himself.

You have provided NO evidence or data that I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.

So yes, we are wasting each others time and probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this thread.

bill

_Boris_Hartman · April 17, 2019, 3:22pm

Well Rick, good if you learned something. The most important it would be if you wouldn’t beleive in your RCT theory but in PCT.

You have potential. Use it and do something that will contribute to development of PCT. Not to it’s retardation.

But I’m deeply dissapointed about you. How can you let that Bill Leach insult Bill Powers in the middle of CSGnet forum which was created for him. I thought you were friends with Bill Powers.

Boris

···

From: Richard Pfau (richardhpfau@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 3:24 PM
To: wrleach@cableone.net; csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

[From: (Richard Pfau (2019.04.17 (:20 am EST)]

Bill,

Personally I have found the thread
to be stimulating and useful to my understanding of PCT. In fact, I have been copying down especially enlightening portions - enlightening for me at least.

It is also interesting how some of us with hard science backgrounds have had similar reactions to psychology in general and, in contrast, have found PCT to be so attractive.

With Regards,

Richard

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:21 PM Bill Leach csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Boris, I am a person that does have a strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned before my “background” is in physics and electronics. I started learning about the properties and mathematics of feedback as a child using vacuum tube technology. For reasons that I certainly do not know, when I first dealt with systems that controlled something “outside of the system itself,” I recognized that such systems were actually mimicking how a person might accomplish the same task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had no idea of how profound that concept was. I learned that when I met Bill Powers.

Like most people, I was required to take some courses in behavioral science and I admit that I did learn some things of value in those courses but was also rather disgusted that the research for the field was called science. I think that most anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics believes that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion. There is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was true.

I have forgotten why I actually bought B:CP back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was the reason. I was stunned! Here in my hands was the first thing I had ever read or heard that provided a hard science approach to the non-scientific methods used in behavioral studies.

It seems that most behavioral ‘scientists’ fail to understand that ALL aspects of the scientific method have to be complied with to be doing ‘scientific work.’ It is not sufficient to just produce data and use (or misuse) statistical analy
sis to prove your hypothesis. You also can not just ignore some of the data (so called outliers). If you can not produce a model from your interpretation of the data that correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven anything and you do not have a theory. At best you still have an unproven hypothesis.

You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory. You seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!

One of the most important characteristics of a teacher is to be able to explain the same concept using different words and different examples.

** Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other t
han he wrote or said it!**

I was particularly annoyed when you essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.

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

You have to know that Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.

His statement is, obviously in my opinion, essentially correct. Most of the chemical signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are connected to the auton
omic nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential element of human understanding) what Rick said is a perfectly valid postulate in PCT. The fact that it might error by not including chemical control loops not involving nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current biochemical research has only identified hormones whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.

One reason for ‘defending’ RIck is that he may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT. He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, that ANYONE else can replicate. Outliers in this sense is not that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur in a rigorous manner.
My sincere apologies to anyone else here that I am unaware of that has also done such work.

I am not trying to say that all other discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory. Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.

Unlike ALL other behavioral sciences, PCT does not rely on expert opinion including those of Bill Powers himself.

You have provided NO evidence or data that I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.

So yes, we are wasting each others time and probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this thread.

bill

_Boris_Hartman · April 17, 2019, 3:23pm

Sorry Richard.

I thought that this was mesage send by Rick Marken.

Best, Boris

···

From: Richard Pfau (richardhpfau@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 3:24 PM
To: wrleach@cableone.net; csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchga
te project

[From: (Richard Pfau (2019.04.17 (:20 am EST)]

Bill,

Personally I have found the thread to be stimulating and useful to my understanding of PCT. In fact, I have been copying down especially enlightening portions - enlightening for me at least.

It is also interesting how some of us with hard science backgrounds have had similar reactions to psychology in general and, in contrast, have found PCT to be so attractive.

With Regards,

Richard

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:21 PM Bill Leach csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Boris, I am a person that does have a strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned before my “background” is in physics and electronics. I started learning about the properties and mathematics of feedback as a child using vacuum tube technology. For reasons that I certainly do not know, when I first dealt with systems that controlled something “outside of the system itself,” I recognized that such systems were actually mimicking how a person might accomplish the s
ame task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had no idea of how profound that concept was. I learned that when I met Bill Powers.

Like most people, I was required to take some courses in behavioral science and I admit that I did learn some things of value in those courses but was also rather disgusted that the research for the field was called science. I think that most anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics believes that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion. There is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was true.

I have forgotten why I actually bought B:CP back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was the reason. I was stunned! Here in my hands was the first thing I had ever read or heard that provided a hard science approach to the non-scientific
methods used in behavioral studies.

It seems that most behavioral ‘scientists’ fail to understand that ALL aspects of the scientific method have to be complied with to be doing ‘scientific work.’ It is not sufficient to just produce data and use (or misuse) statistical analysis to prove your hypothesis. You also can not just ignore some of the data (so called outliers). If you can not produce a model from your interpretation of the data that correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven anything and you do not have a theory. At best you still have an unproven hypothesis.

You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory. You seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they wrote is wrong. That position is i
tself B.S.!

One of the most important characteristics of a teacher is to be able to explain the same concept using different words and different examples.

Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!

I was particularly annoyed when you essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.

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

You have to know that Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothet
ical musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.

His statement is, obviously in my opinion, essentially correct. Most of the chemical signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential element of human understanding) what Rick said is a perfectly valid postulate in PCT. The fact that it might error by not including chemical control loops not involving nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that even thoug
h I did post somewhere besides here that it was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current biochemical research has only identified hormones whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.

One reason for ‘defending’ RIck is that he may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT. He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, that ANYONE else can replicate . Outliers in this sense is not that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur in a rigorous manner.
My sincere apologies to anyone else here that I am unaware of that has also done such work.

I am not trying to say that all other discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory. Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.

Unlike ALL other behavioral sciences, PCT does not rely on expert opinion including those of Bill Powers himself.

You have provided NO evidence or data that I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.

So yes, we are wasting e
ach others time and probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this thread.

bill

bleach · April 17, 2019, 6:05pm

I did NOT insult Bill Powers. I am not only an admirer of Bill
Powers I believe that at some point in the future he will be as
famous as luminaries like William James for having created a
behavioral science of the same class as physics!

bill

···

On 4/17/19 9:21 AM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

        And
what was well said….???

        That
he insulted Bill Powers ??? Weren’t you one of admirer of
Bill Powers ???

Boris

From: Warren Mansell
( via csgnet Mailing List)
Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:55 AM
Re: goal of our researchgate project

Well said Bill.

        On 17 Apr 2019, at 01:20, Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net
        via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu            >

wrote:

            Boris, I am a person that
does have a strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned
before my “background” is in physics and electronics. I
started learning about the properties and mathematics of
feedback as a child using vacuum tube technology. For
reasons that I certainly do not know, when I first dealt
with systems that controlled something “outside of the
system itself,” I recognized that such systems were
actually mimicking how a person might accomplish the
same task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had
no idea of how profound that concept was. I learned
that when I met Bill Powers.

            Like most people, I was
required to take some courses in behavioral science and
I admit that I did learn some things of value in those
courses but was also rather disgusted that the research
for the field was called science. I think that most
anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics believes
that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true
science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion.
There is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was
true.

            I have forgotten why I
actually bought B:CP back in the 70’s but suspect that
its title was the reason. I was stunned! Here in my
hands was the first thing I had ever read or heard that
provided a hard science approach to the non-scientific
methods used in behavioral studies.

            It seems that most behavioral
‘scientists’ fail to understand that ALL aspects of the
scientific method have to be complied with to be doing
‘scientific work.’ It is not sufficient to just produce
data and use (or misuse) statistical analysis to prove
your hypothesis. You also can not just ignore some of
the data (so called outliers). If you can not produce a
model from your interpretation of the data that
correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven
anything and you do not have a theory. At best you
still have an unproven hypothesis.

            You and I (and indeed others)
have been arguing about words NOT about theory.
You seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything
about PCT that does not use exactly the same words as
did Bill Powers then whatever they wrote is wrong. That
position is itself B.S.!

            One of the most important
characteristics of a teacher is to be able to explain
the same concept using different words and different
examples.

** Stating what Bill Powers
said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he
wrote or said it!**

            I was particularly annoyed
when you essentially attacked Rick for his musings on
sleep.

            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

You have to know that
Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his
statement about sleep was anything more than a
hypothetical musing, but you treated it as though it
should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a
proven theory.

            His statement is, obviously
in my opinion, essentially correct. Most of the
chemical signaling that occurs is generated by organs
that are connected to the autonomic nervous system. I
will agree with you (I think) in one sense though, that
there are are control loops that exist in the body that
do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not
be exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT
(you seem to have no use for philosophy even though it
is an essential element of human understanding) what
Rick said is a perfectly valid postulate in PCT. The
fact that it might error by not including
chemical control loops not involving nerves does not
disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued that Rick’s
statement is completely correct (and I admit that even
though I did post somewhere besides here that it was
incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the
current biochemical research has only identified
hormones whose production and concentrations are
controlled by organs and what we call glands that ARE
connected to the nervous system.

            One reason for 'defending'
RIck is that he may well be the only person currently on
CSGNet that has done or is doing research that meets the
criteria acceptable under PCT. He has produced data
that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and
does not have outliers. That is he has designed
experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data,
that has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no
outliers, that ANYONE else can replicate .
Outliers in this sense is not that they fall within some
band on a graph but that the theory is not capable of
predicting them or explaining why they occur in a
rigorous manner.
*** My sincere apologies to
anyone else here that I am unaware of that has also
done such work*.**

            I am not trying to say that
all other discussion and hypotheses have no value but
only when subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they
gain the potential to become something that can be
included in PCT as a part of the theory. Nor am I
trying to exclude biological research that shows actual
physical connections that implement functions described
in PCT.

            Unlike ALL other behavioral
sciences, PCT does not rely on expert opinion including
those of Bill Powers himself.

            You have provided NO evidence
or data that I have seen that proves anything beyond
what Bill wrote.

            So yes, we are wasting each
others time and probably the time of anyone else that
happens to read this thread.

bill

wmansell@gmail.com csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
**To:**wrleach@cableone.net
**Cc:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:

_Boris_Hartman · April 17, 2019, 9:26pm

Bill,

the problem I see in your approach to PCT or to the sicence is that you think that you are so much smarter than all other scientist.

Well surprise you are not.

I didn’t want to answer as you ask for it :

BL : So yes, we are wasting each others time and probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this thread.

HB : O.K. I’ll not demand honorarium becasue you are repeating what I already wrote that we can’t communicate. It’s hard to communicate if somebody is bullshitting.

And I’ll be quite long as such approach you showed needs long critics.

BL : You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory.

HB : You can’t be that stupid. Words, numbers etc. express theory and “represent” to some extent what is happening inside and outside organism. How else could we communicate and exchange what we understand about Real Reality if not with words and numbers that represent something.

BL : You seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!

HB : It seems that you don’t understand the problem you have and what I’m doing. You can write what ever you want but I’ll always compare what you said with Bill Powers words. We agreed that he was very precise in using his words about what is true how orgsnisms funtion.

So if your words does not match Powers words than we have to encode meaning of his words and your words. Words always have some meaning which is given by individual.

If other words represent other meaning than Bill Powers than it’s very likely that words are wrongly describing what is happening in Real Reality. That’s why we have experiments and Tests to check the whether words and numbers would express what is really happening. It’s not just about wording. But also about meaning of the words.

HB : We were not arguing about words Bill, but about whether words and numbers mean something really what we can experience in our Lives and when some life experiments are started and repeated or about.

I say that Bill Powers words have extremly high comatibility what is happening in Reality. They represent quite well what is happening inside and outside organisms of any kind. It’s the General theory of how organisms function, so Bill Powers words explain how really Living beings function.

And Ricks (RCT) and yours (BLCT) don’t explain even close as much as Bill Powers words. Do you understand what I’m talking about. Although Rick “signed” that he agree that Bill Powers words explain what was written in the above text.

If words or numbers turn to describe wrongly what is happening in Reality (and yours words with no doubt are of this kind) than we have to change words. Ask Martin how wording and numbering is changed in physics ( if doesn’t suit Reality (Rayleigh–Jeans Law). They used wrong words and numbers to describe whatever they thought was happening in physical reality.

BL : Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!

HB : This is probably the biggest nonsense I’ve read on CSGnet forum, beside Rick of course. So if I understand right, Bill Powers words are NOT PROOF of then just “words on the paper”. They don’t PROVE anyathing but they they are written. That’s all.

HB : If I understand right what you wrote Bill Powers words don’t prove anything that is behind words, because we are talking just about words.

BL : You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory.

HB : Sorry Bill Leach. You know what folloews : Stop bullshitting.

HB : Bill Powers theory is proof that HIS WORDS QUITE EXACTLY EXPLAIN HOW LIVING BEINGS FUNTION. So they are NOT just "words on the paper that doesn’t prove anything. BILL POWERS WORDS EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF LIVING BEINGS WITH SO MUCH PRECISSION THAT IT CAN’T BE SIMPLY EXCHANGED FOR OTHER WORDS LIKE YOURS OR RISCK’S ARE.

BILL POWERS THEORY WORKS in Real Reality when we experience it. I see you are avoiding experiencing PCT because it could “pull down” your little selfish imagined World. You are Living in dreams Bill Leach. It’s time to wake up and step into Reality. I’ll help you.

HB : So Biil s words are not ONLY PROOF of what Bill Powers wrote and said, its’ PROOF THAT HIS THEORY FUNCTION WHEN IT IS EXPERIENCED IN REALITY with experimenting or just experiencing it.

How can you insult dead man and his work THAT HIS ENTIRE WORK ARE JUST WORDS ANS WORDING AND NOTHING ELSE ? This is probably as low as you can fall searching the arguments for nonsense RCT and yours even more nonsense BLCT.

HB : You are a big hypocrite Bill Leach. You can use biochemical and physilogical etc. evidences and other knowledge to support your statements and others are not entilted to do it. I didin’t citate only Bill Powers I citated also Henry Yin, Gary Czico… And I was citating Richard Marken. And I would citate many other authors for I beleive their knowledge wiil come true when tested in Reality. You and Rick are Living in your narrow imagination and you think that Reality will change in accordance to your imagination. It wiil not. Ask Martin why ?

And let us be clear for ever about Bill Powers work. Read all the literature he citated in his legacy. You’ll be surprised howe much knowledge Bill Powers had from others which turned to be right when tested in Reality.

HB : Did you ever say something like that to him ? That his words are proof just of what he wrote and said and nothing else. Or that they are not proof of anything else than what he wrote and said.

Deep meaning of Bill Powers express something that can be chaecked in Reality. What about your words and Ricks ?

Did you thought of that before you “wrote” something Rick said quite some time ago. You two are the same phylosophers :

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

HB : I bet you didn’t. It’s humiliating for such a great mind as Bill Powers was that somebody says that his words are NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!

And who are you to judge his work ? You should start reading his work immediately (there is a gigantic library of Bill Powers words if I understood Barb right)

……and you should give an excuse to Powers ladies.

HB : If I understand right what you are talking about then it seems that you are saying that it’s all the same whatever we say or write it’s just words.

But If Bill Leach saya that horse is elephant, that is so. But if others say the same thing that is not so because they are using just words and Bill Leach words means “facts” like Ricks.

HB : It’s not that easy Bill Leach. That’s why we had oppinion of other people which have the same power to judge as any other person what is happening inside or outside organisms. They are “equal” to you in I hoped that you’ll respect that. But your arogancy exceeded any normal limits. You know what follows. Stop bullshitting Bill Leach.

HB : You REFERED many time to some of researches which we don’t know exactly what they are because we didn’t see authors and Titles. I suppose you used literature to prove that your way of thinking is right and others are wrong (like Darwins theory). You told exactly nothing as usual Rick is doing.

You also used physiological evidences (or biochemical) to prove that your standpoint is right. So you can use researches and scientific knowledge to prove your stand point and others can’t or what ? Others are just wording.

if you’ll go through Bills’ books and literature you’ll find some literature which is mostly of scientific character. That means that experiments are included. It means that Authors of the books tested or they described experiments (that can be tested) as proof that what they say can be repeated and will show at least aproximatelly the same results in Reality or as Bill said in “nature, the final arbiter”.

In my studies I’ve done quite some exercises in anatomical and physiological laboratories (I hope you understand what I mean). It’s real experiences with human body and I find out that what is written in physiological books is what is really happening when I came to real life situation or when I observed myself how I’m functioning.

HB : And doctors and nusrses use these knowledge every day to save lives. No, Bill Leach says that they are only wording, because Bill Powers used their literature, but his words means just words with no meaning as they don’t proof anything else but that they are written.

It’s not just about words. It’s about real life. And Bill used the same literature as you are “citating” which can be used in real Life and works.

Ashby was psychiatrist so you can imagine what he knew about human body. Also literature Ashby used and life examples he used are convincing about how living beings function. Maturana was biologist also full of knowledge from experiments with living beings and he knew what he was talking about.

No. They didn’t know anything because Bill Leach said so. They were just “wording”. I can’t hold. I’m sorry Bill Leach. Cut the crap and bullshitting.

HB : But you can try all that knowledge and experiments in real life and convince yourself whether is true what they were saying or not. They are scientific words.

That’s why I want that we use real life examples to find whether what we are talking is trully happening in real life or not or it’s just imagination. And in most of your explanations you used your imagination. You’ll have to start to use more real life experiences and support your words with scientific arguments instead with your imagination. But it seems that you don’t know how to do it.

BL earlier : Boris I am not and do not claim to be a PCT researcher.

HB : So why the hell you comment things that you don’t understand. Because you’ll understand them only with researches with everday life examples which will show which “wording” is right.

I have a bad feeling that you and Rick are the rare members on CSGnet that use just wording, O.K. Rick has also “bright days”.

HB : Now about real life examples.

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 : You have to know that Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.

HB : Ricks’ description of sleeping suit PCT and some basic physiological findings about sleeping. You confirmed that. So it’s not any more hypothesis but it can be supported with scientific evidences what you actually did. I agree that your physiological explanation is basically right. So Ricks example of sleeping is by my oppinion “pearl” in scientific description of PCT. Again. Bravo Rick.

BL :His statement is, obviously in my opinion, essentially correct.

HB : So we agree that Ricks example is “rigorous scientific explanation” based on proven physiological theories about sleeping.

BL : Most of the chemical signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly complete.

HB : I agree. We can not get to pure essency of living but we can be more or less close what continuous experimenting of observing the same natural event can show and knowledge about natural event improved. But imagining at home in the bed how it would look like will not give much result.

BL : Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential element of human understanding)

HB : That’s you problem Bill. PCT is not just phylosophy but it’s also physiology and specially cybernetics, based on W.Ross Ashby’s work. You are supporting your knowledge with physiology or biochemistry (look above you explanation in support to Ricks explanation of sleeping) and you say it’s correct but insufficient. But you in that case you used science to confirm that not phylosophy (imagination).

BL : …what Rick said is a perfectly valid postulate in PCT.

HB : That’s what I’m talking about all the time. He confirmed that theoretical basis of PCT is right. And PCT is not just phylosophy. Do we understand ?

BL : The fact that it might error by not including chemical control loops not involving nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current biochemical research has only identified hormones whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.

HB : So on scientific basis we agree about Rick’s example of sleeping being right. We don’t doubt about that. So we need more examples of that kind, and I’m sure that we’ll agree about PCT being right theory that explains how generally organisms function.

Now try sunbathing. Bruce Abbott once gave nice description (physiological). I have him for a serious scientist and researcher. So if you’ll not find explanation in CSGnet archives you can probably ask him to give you explanation. Or seeing that your physiological knowledge is quite on the level, you can find it for yourself. And you’ll see that it matches PCT not RCT explanation of how Living beings control.

BL : One reason for ‘defending’ RIck is that he may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT. He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, that ANYONE else can replicate.

HB : And who created these sort of testing Rick is using. Bill Powers who is just wording,

BL : Outliers in this sense is not that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur in a rigorous manner.

HB : You could give some example. And you could give some example of Bill Powers work. We are on CSGnet forum. Remember.

HB : Many psychological and speccially physiological reseraches are done with at least aproximatelly precission as Ricks results, but it’s not the problem in scientific precission of research but in interpretation.

Ricks interpretation with his RCT in comparison to PCT is WRONG. So it’s not problem the experiment which can be done as you said by anyone with high preccision, and repeat result. Problem is what kind of interpretation someone made. And I beleive that Ricks’ interpretation is wrong because movements in “tracking experiment” are too fast so he can’t see the nature of real control. You know people perception can be tricky.

As I said once or two times before. My serious of experiments are slow enough too show how actions are performed to vary perception arround references and prove with the same precisions as Ricks “tracking experiment” that Bill Powers was right with his PCT theorethical explanation and Rick is wrong.

BL : I am not trying to say that all other discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory. Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.

HB : That’s exactly what you were not trying to say. That all knowledge Bill used are just words written on the paper. That his words are not proof of anything else. And now you are saying that Bills words are also PROOF of something else that has SOME VALUE !!!

BL : Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!

HB : Bill used the literature you are talking above which is also prof of something else not just that they are written.

BL : You have provided NO evidence or data that I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.

HB : I provided all the evidences that are icnluded into Bills writings which can be tested in Real Reality and proved that they are right or not. We know that Ricks words (theory) were tested in Reality and didn’t pass the Test.

HB : It’s true that I could add some more “wording” from some literature and results of my experiments, but I’ll stay with Bills “wording”. His words are enough powerfull to distinguish betweem charlatans and scientist. You know what follows :

Cut the crap and bullshitting and get to real work. ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

Boris

···

From: Bill Leach (wrleach@cableone.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:21 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: goal of our researchgate project

Boris, I am a person that does have a strong interest in PCT. As I have mentioned before my “background” is in physics and electronics. I started learning about the properties and mathematics of feedback as a child using vacuum tube technology. For reasons that I certainly do not know, when I first dealt with systems that controlled something “outside of the system itself,” I recognized that such systems were actually mimicking how a person might accomplish the same task. At the time that realization ‘hit me’ I had no idea of how profound that concept was. I learned that when I met Bill Powers.

Like most people, I was required to take some courses in behavioral science and I admit that I did learn some things of value in those courses but was also rather disgusted that the research for the field was called science. I think that most anyone with a focus on sciences such as physics believes that the behavioral sciences lack the rigor of a true science. Their foundation is primarily expert opinion. There is NO doubt that Bill Powers believed that was true.

I have forgotten why I actually bought B:CP back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was the reason. I was stunned! Here in my hands was the first thing I had ever read or heard that provided a hard science approach to the non-scientific methods used in behavioral studies.

It seems that most behavioral ‘scientists’ fail to understand that ALL aspects of the scientific method have to be complied with to be doing ‘scientific work.’ It is not sufficient to just produce data and use (or misuse) statistical analysis to prove your hypothesis. You also can not just ignore some of the data (so called outliers). If you can not produce a model from your interpretation of the data that correctly predicts behavior then you have not proven anything and you do not have a theory. At best you still have an unproven hypothesis.

You and I (and indeed others) have been arguing about words NOT about theory. You seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then whatever they wrote is wrong. That position is itself B.S.!

One of the most important characteristics of a teacher is to be able to explain the same concept using different words and different examples.

Stating what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or said it!

I was particularly annoyed when you essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.

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

You have to know that Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothetical musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.

His statement is, obviously in my opinion, essentially correct. Most of the chemical signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are connected to the autonomic nervous system. I will agree with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are control loops that exist in the body that do not involve nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly complete. Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential element of human understanding) what Rick said is a perfectly valid postulate in PCT. The fact that it might error by not including chemical control loops not involving nerves does not disqualify it. Also it can easily be argued that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit that even though I did post somewhere besides here that it was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the current biochemical research has only identified hormones whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous system.

One reason for ‘defending’ RIck is that he may well be the only person currently on CSGNet that has done or is doing research that meets the criteria acceptable under PCT. He has produced data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and does not have outliers. That is he has designed experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, that ANYONE else can replicate. Outliers in this sense is not that they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory is not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur in a rigorous manner.
My sincere apologies to anyone else here that I am unaware of that has also done such work.

I am not trying to say that all other discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the potential to become something that can be included in PCT as a part of the theory. Nor am I trying to exclude biological research that shows actual physical connections that implement functions described in PCT.

Unlike ALL other behavioral sciences, PCT does not rely on expert opinion including those of Bill Powers himself.

You have provided NO evidence or data that I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill wrote.

So yes, we are wasting each others time and probably the time of anyone else that happens to read this thread.

bill

bleach · April 18, 2019, 12:22pm

I do hope that others will not be
too offended by my response to this post.

    Boris, why don't you try learning something

about language?Â It is hard for me to even believe that someone
that is educated in science, has done research, has been (is?)
an educator could be so ignorant of the properties of language
as to make the stupid statements that you so frequently make.Â
And I am NOT talking about lousy use of the English language
with your incomplete sentences, lack of agreement between
subject and object, incorrect use of tense, etc., etc.,etc.Â
Instead, you typically vomit pages of text that only
demonstrates that you know nothing about language, nor anything
about what is required as proof for portions of theory, PCT
included.

    While I did go down through part of this

post and comment, I realize while doing that there is a much
better way to attempt to finally end this stupid arguing.

    We are basically arguing about only 2

things.

** The First Issue of
Contention
**

    You are taking a position that pretty much

any statement about what PCT is or about how PCT works that is
stated in a manner different than exactly how Bill stated the
same concept is, by definition, wrong.

    My position and I'm pretty sure the

position of everyone on CSGNet except yourself is that in most
any language different wording can express exactly the same
meaning as other wordings.Â I also include most emphatically the
most precise language that humans have developed, that of
mathematics.Â If the writer of those words is able to make
accurate assumptions about the knowledge of the subject being
discussed for the reader/listener then an even broader range of
differences in wording is possible.

    Teacher/educators are usually quite aware

of the importance for them to both be able to express a concept
in multiple exactly correct forms as well as to be able to
express (particularly complex) concepts in simplified forms for
the purpose of teaching the most important aspect(s) of a
concept.Â In the latter case the student must also learn the
aspect(s) of the concept that were not included in the
simplified explanation.Â Another reason for using a simplified
form is when it is known that the reader/listener already knows
a correct full expression of the concept(s) under discussion but
only particular aspect(s) of one or more of the concepts is
important in the discussion.Â In fact if they are not aware of
this then they are probably lousy teachers!

    In ALL cases, including mathematics, some

degree of knowledge concerning the context is necessary for
understanding of what was written or spoken.Â Context is itself
a complex term that always includes a general understanding of
what subject is being discussed and includes factor such as why
statement are being made among other possible factors.Â That is
particularly true for statements in the formal language of
mathematics.Â However, in mathematics we quite often explicitly
state some of the context when we include the “Where:” clause.Â
However, it is also quite common when writing classic formulas
NOT to include the “Where” clause in that for anyone in the
field would know that clause.

Examples:

In ‘common’ language’:

    Some examples exist below.Â  I am not

inclined to search through Bill’s works and his writings in the
archives to find examples of where he used different wording to
describe the same thing.Â Maybe another PCTer can do that
without having to expend a great deal of time.

    In mathematics (in this case specifically

electricity/electronics):

  E = I x R = EMF = (Voltage across some part of

a circuit) = (current flow through the circuit in amperes) x (the
resistance of the circuit) = (number of coulombs per second
passing a point in a circuit) x R = (coulombs per second) x n x
(kg x m^2 x s^-3 x A^-2) = etc.
^ => character(s) immediately following
are superscript

    etc. => implies more examples exist than are shown

    / = division sign

    A = amperes

    EMF = potential across two points in volts

    kg = kilogram

    I = current in amperes

    m = meters

    n = number of standard resistance units

    R = resistance in ohms

    x = multiplication sign

** Note that EACH of the 8 individual
expressions are EXACTLY THE SAME THING!**

** The Second Issue of
Contention**

    Is the definition of proof.Â  To Bill

Powers, Rick Marken, and myself (and I know very many others
involved in PCT) for something to actually be a PROOF is must be
expressible accurately in a form such as those given in the
equation example above.Â In the Preface to B:CP I seem to
remember that Bill stated essentially that "Opinions from
experts or others, INCLUDING HIS OWN, are not PROOFs."Â If Bill
had any shortcomings as a human, over-blown ego, superiority,
and arrogance were not among them!Â He knew humans are not error
free, ever; and that he was included in that class.Â The facts
that I just stated about Bill Powers is indeed one of the many
things that endeared him so deeply to so many of us that knew
him.Â He was one of the most wonderful people that I have ever
interacted with.

    If something about PCT can not be written

in the language of mathematics then it might be useful, might be
suggestive of “correctness” but it is NOT a proof.Â That is the
END of discussion with your “Give me data,” Ashby says …," and
other disparaging and disgusting comments.

bill

···

On 4/17/19 3:26 PM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

boris.hartman@masicom.net

Bill,

Â

        the
problem I see in your approach to PCT or to the sicence is
that you think that you are so much smarter than all other
scientist.

Â

        Well
surprise you are not.Â Â

  No Boris, I don't think that "I am the

brightest bulb in the pack."Â I have worked with too many geniuses
to have that opinion.

Â

        I didn't
want to answer as you ask for it :

Â

        BL :
So yes, we are wasting each others time and probably the
time of anyone else that happens to read this thread.

Â

        HB :
O.K. I’ll not demand honorarium becasue you are repeating
what I already wrote that we can’t communicate. It’s hard to
communicate if somebody is bullshitting.Â Â

Â

        And I'll
be quite long as such approach you showed needs long
critics.Â

  I agree Boris, but it is YOU that are

bullshitting trying to show that you know something when all you
do is demonstrate just how ignorant you are.

Â

        BL : You and I
(and indeed others) have been arguing about words
NOT about theory.Â

Â

HB : You can’t
be that stupid. Words, numbers etc. express theory
and “represent” to some extent what is happening inside and
outside organism. How else could we communicate and exchange
what we understand about Real Reality if not with words and
numbers that represent something.

  Of course Boris, at least in speaking or

writing in subject areas that have a relationship to some science,
our words and formulas are what we use to convey to others what we
are trying to describe or explain.Â Even in fiction and fantasy
the story teller or writer is relying upon some common perception
for a world model, based primarily upon experience, in the
listeners or readers.

Â

        BL : You seem
to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT that
does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers then
whatever they wrote is wrong.Â That position is itself B.S.!

Â

        HB : It
seems that you don’t understand the problem you have and
what I’m doing. You can write what ever you want but I’ll
always compare what you said with Bill Powers words. We
agreed that he was very
precise in using his words about what is true how
orgsnisms funtion.

Â

        So if
your words does not match Powers words than we have to
encode meaning of his words and your words. Words always
have some meaning which is given by individual.

Â

        If other
words represent other meaning than Bill Powers than it’s
very likely that words are wrongly describing what is
happening in Real Reality. That’s why we have experiments
and Tests to check the whether words and numbers would
express what is really happening. It’s not just about
wording. But also about meaning of the words.Â

  In Bills formal writing is was indeed

particularly careful in his choice of phraseology and use of
terms.Â Not perfect, mind you, but unusually good at it.

Â

HB : We were not
arguing about words Bill , but about whether words
and numbers mean something really what we can experience in
our Lives and when some life experiments are started and
repeated or about.

Â

        I say
that Bill Powers words have extremly high comatibility what
is happening in Reality. They represent quite well what is
happening inside and outside organisms of any kind. It’s the
General theory of how organisms function, so Bill Powers
words explain how really Living beings function.Â

    I pretty much agree with what I think you

are trying to express until the last sentence.Â Some points:

      PCT is a theory ONLY because Bill

performed some experiments that provided formal proof some of
the concepts of his original hypothesis, and

      Bill recognized that some research

literature from related disciplines actually provided formal
proof for some concepts of his original hypothesis

      Bill fully recognized that his theory

was not sufficiently complete to explain all human behavior

      Bill also recognized that parts of his

theory could well be proven to NOT be correct
Bill Powers did not claim that it was proven
that PCT as a whole was correct.Â So while it is a General Theory
of how living organisms function it does not currently
explain all that is know about how human (and most complex living
beings) function.Â Even if everything currently in the theory was
proven to be correct, the theory is NOT complete.Â An incomplete
theory can not explain all observed phenomenon!

Â

        And
Ricks (RCT) and yours (BLCT) don’t explain even close as
much as Bill Powers words. Do you understand what I’m
talking about. Although Rick “signed” that he agree that
Bill Powers words explain what was written in the above
text.Â

Â

        If words
or numbers turn to describe wrongly what is happening in
Reality (and yours words with no doubt are of this kind)
than we have to change words.Â Ask Martin how wording and
numbering is changed in physics ( if doesn’t suit Reality (**
Rayleigh–Jeans
Law). They used wrong words and numbers to describe
whatever they thought was happening in physical reality.**

  I think I understand what you said, and if so

then you are wrong in your assertion, period!

Â

** BL : Stating
what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything
other than he wrote or said it!**

Â

        HB :
This is probably the biggest nonsense I’ve read on CSGnet
forum, beside Rick of course. So if I understand right, Bill
Powers words are NOT PROOF of then just “words on the
paper”. They don’t PROVE anyathing but they they are
written. That’s all.

    It is in this assertion of yours that shows

that you clearly never met Bill Powers.Â ** If
you think that Bill Powers believed that something was true
just because he said so then you know absolutely nothing
about the character of the man!**

    Proof as Bill Powers defined it and

described it, involves formal testing (experiments) conducted
with the rigor used in the hard sciences that are replicable by
pretty much anyone with reasonable skill in performing
experiments.Â No one’s opinion would be considered as a proof by
Bill (including his own opinion).

Â

        HB : If
I understand right what you wrote Bill Powers words don’t
prove anything that is behind words, because we are talking
just about words.

Â

        BL : You and I
(and indeed others) have been arguing about words
NOT about theory.

Â

        HB :
Sorry Bill Leach. You know what folloews : Stop
bullshitting.

  Any you need to know that every time you say

that your are only demonstrating to everyone that reads this what
an ignorant ass you are!

Â

HB : Bill Powers
theory is proof that HIS WORDS QUITE EXACTLY
EXPLAIN HOW LIVING BEINGS FUNTION. So they are NOT just
"words on the paper that doesn’t prove anything. BILL POWERS
WORDS EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF LIVING BEINGS WITH SO MUCH
PRECISSION THAT IT CAN’T BE SIMPLY EXCHANGED FOR OTHER WORDS
LIKE YOURS OR RISCK’S ARE.

  NO Boris!Â  His theory does NOT explain EXACTLY

how living being function.Â The lowest levels of the theory have
been proven to be correct in the rigorous sense.Â Everything above
that however is general theory or more accurately in most cases
general hypothesis.Â ALL of the higher levels lack sufficient
detail beyond just a sketch in pretty vague terms how they
function with nothing concrete on how they function.

Â

        BILL
POWERS THEORY WORKS in Real Reality when we experience it. I see
you are avoiding experiencing PCT because it could “pull
down” your little selfish imagined World. You are
Living in dreams Bill Leach. It’s time to wake up
and step into Reality. I’ll help you.

  I can envision you helping anyone, you are too

arrogant and full of yourself to stoop to helping what in your
mind are lessor mortals (which includes probably everyone buy
yourself but especially anyone that dares to disagree with you).

Â

        HB : So
Biil s words are not ONLY PROOF of what Bill Powers wrote
and said, its’ PROOF THAT HIS THEORY FUNCTION WHEN IT IS
EXPERIENCED IN REALITY with experimenting or just
experiencing it.

  Based upon what Bill wrote and spoke of,

particularly at PCT conferences, what you wrote above, contradicts
everything he said about proof and believed about proof.

Â

        How
can you insult dead man and his work THAT HIS ENTIRE WORK
ARE JUST WORDS ANS WORDING AND NOTHING ELSE ? This is
probably
as low as you can fall searching the
arguments for nonsense RCT and yours even more
nonsense BLCT.

  And here again you only demonstrate how

ignorant of language principles you are (or maybe just how bad
your understanding of the English is?)!Â No one but a complete
IDIOT could infer from what I have written about what Bill said or
wrote that his word did not contain meaning.Â He words conveyed
some of the most profound ideas ever expressed in psycology but
his words are not proofs.Â Even in his own mind.

Â

        HB : You
are a big hypocrite Bill Leach. You can use
biochemical and physilogical etc. evidences and other
knowledge to support your statements and others are
not entilted to do it. I didin’t
citate only Bill Powers I citated also Henry Yin ,
Gary Czico… And I was citating Richard Marken. And I would
citate many other authors for I beleive their knowledge wiil
come true when tested in Reality. You and Rick are Living in
your narrow imagination and you think that Reality will
change in accordance to your imagination. It wiil
not. Ask Martin why ?

  Yes Boris, I cited works from other fields and

never claimed that you could not.Â The problem that I had with
your references is the status you were an [never mind, I’m
switching to a different approach]

Â

        And let
us be clear for ever about Bill Powers work. Read all the
literature he citated in his legacy. You’ll be surprised
howe much knowledge Bill Powers had from others which turned
to be right when tested in Reality.Â Â

Â

        HB : Did
you ever say something like that to him ? That his
words are proof just of what he wrote and said and nothing
else. Or that they are not proof of anything else
than what he wrote and said.

Â

        Deep
meaning of Bill Powers express something that can be
chaecked in Reality. What about your words and Ricks ?

Â

        Did you
thought of that before you “wrote” something Rick said quite
some time ago. You two are the same phylosophers :

Â

        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;-

Â

        HB : I
bet you didn’t. It’s humiliating for such a great mind as
Bill Powers was that somebody says that his words are ** NOT PROOF of anything other than he
wrote or said it!**

        And who
are you to judge his work ? You should
start reading his work immediately (there is a gigantic
library of Bill Powers words if I understood Barb right)

Â

        …..and
you should give an excuse to Powers ladies.

Â

        HB : If
I understand right what you are talking about then it seems
that you are saying that it’s all the same whatever we say
or write it’s just words.

Â

        But If
Bill Leach saya that horse is elephant, that is so. But if
others say the same thing that is not so because they are
using just words and Bill Leach words means “facts” like
Ricks.

Â

        HB
: It’s not that easy Bill Leach. That’s
why we had oppinion of other people which have the same
power to judge as any other person what is happening inside
or outside organisms. They are “equal” to you in I hoped
that you’ll respect that. But your arogancy exceeded any
normal limits. You know what follows. Stop bullshitting Bill
Leach.Â

Â

HB : You
REFEREDÂ many time to some of researches which we don’t
know exactly what they are because we didn’t see
authors and Titles. I suppose you used literature to prove
that your way ofÂ thinking is right and others are wrong
(like Darwins theory). You told exactly nothing as usual
Rick is doing.

Â

        YouÂ 
also used physiological evidences (or biochemical) to prove
that your standpoint is right. So you can use
researches and scientific knowledge to prove your stand
point and others can’t or what ? Others are just
wording.

Â

        if
you’ll go through Bills’ books and literature you’ll find
some literature which is mostly of scientific character.
That means that experiments are included. It means that
Authors of the books tested or they described experiments
(that can be tested) as proof that what they say can be
repeated and will show at least aproximatelly the same
results in Reality or as Bill said in “nature, the final
arbiter”.

Â

        In my
studies I’ve done quite some exercises in anatomical and
physiological laboratories (I hope you understand what I
mean). It’s real experiences with human body and I find out
that what is written in physiological books is what is
really happening when I came to real life situation or when
I observed myself how I’m functioning.

Â

        HB : And
doctors and nusrses use these knowledge every day to save
lives.Â No, Bill Leach says that they are only wording,
because Bill Powers used their literature, but his words
means just words with no meaning as they don’t proof
anything else but that they are written.

Â

        It's
not just about words. It’s about real life. And Bill used
the same literature as you are “citating” which can be used
in real Life and works.

Â

        Ashby
was psychiatrist so you can
imagine what he knew about human body . Also
literature Ashby used and life examples he used are
convincing about how living beings function. Maturana was
biologist also full of knowledge from experiments with
living beings and he knew what he was talking about.

Â

        No. They
didn’t know anything because Bill Leach said so. They were
just “wording”. I can’t hold. I’m sorry Bill Leach. Cut the
crap and bullshitting.

Â

        HB : But
          you can
try all that knowledge and experiments in real life and
convince yourself whether is true what they were saying or
not. They are scientific words.

Â

        That's
why I want that we use real life examples to find whether
what we are talking is trully happening in real life or not
or it’s just imagination. And in
most of your explanations you used your imagination. You’ll
have to start to use more real life experiences and support
your words with scientific arguments instead with your
imagination. But it seems that you don’t know how to do it.

Â

        BL earlier :
Boris I am not and do not claim to be a PCT researcher.Â

Â

        HB : So
why the hell you comment things that you don’t understand.
Because you’ll understand them only with researches with
everday life examples which will show which "wording"Â is
right.

        Â I have
a bad feeling that you and Rick are the rare members on
CSGnet that use just wording, O.K. Rick has also “bright
days”.

Â

        HB : Now
about real life examples.

        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 : You have to know
that Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his
statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothetical
musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a
rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.

      HB : Ricks' description of
sleeping suit PCT and some basic physiological findings about
sleeping. You confirmed that. So it’s not any more hypothesis
but it can be supported with scientific evidences what you
actually did. I agree that your physiological explanation is
basically right. So Ricks example of sleeping is by my
oppinion “pearl” in scientific description of PCT. Again.
Bravo Rick.Â Â

BL : His statement is, obviously
in my opinion, essentially correct.Â

        HB :
So we agree that Ricks example is “rigorous scientific
explanation” based on proven physiological theories about
sleeping.Â Â

        BL : Most of the chemical
signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are
connected to the autonomic nervous system.Â I will agree
with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are
control loops that exist in the body that do not involve
nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly
complete.

        HB : I
agree. We can not get to pure essency of living but we can
be more or less close what continuous experimenting of
observing the same natural event can show and knowledge
about natural event improved. But imagining at home in the
bed how it would look like will not give much result.

Â

        BL : Based upon
the philosophy of PCT (you seem to have no use for
philosophy even though it is an essential element of human
understanding)

Â

        HB :
That’s you problem Bill. PCT is not just phylosophy but it’s
also physiology and specially cybernetics, based on W.Ross
Ashby’s work. You are supporting your knowledge with
physiology or biochemistry (look above you explanation in
support to Ricks explanation of sleeping) and you say it’s
correct but insufficient. But you in
that case you used science to confirm that not phylosophy
(imagination).Â

Â

BL :
…what Rick said is a perfectly valid
postulate in PCT.Â

Â

        HB :
That’s what I’m talking about all the time. He confirmed
that theoretical basis of PCT is right. And PCT is not just
phylosophy. Do we understand ?

Â

BL : The fact that it might
error by not including chemical control loops not involving
nerves does not disqualify it.Â Also it can easily be argued
that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit
that even though I did post somewhere besides here that it
was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the
current biochemical research has only identified hormones
whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs
and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous
system.

Â

HB : So on
scientific basis we agree about Rick’s example of sleeping
being right. We don’t doubt about that. So we need
more examples of that kind, and I’m sure that we’ll agree
about PCT
being right theory that explains how generally organisms
function.

Â

        Now try
sunbathing. Bruce Abbott once gave nice description
(physiological). I have him for a serious scientist and
researcher. So if you’ll not find explanation in CSGnet
archives you can probably ask him to give you explanation.
Or seeing that your physiological knowledge is quite on the
level, you can find it for yourself. And you’ll see that it
matches PCT not RCT explanation of how Living beings
control.

Â

        BL : One reason
for ‘defending’ RIck is that he may well be the only person
currently on CSGNet that has done or is doing research that
meets the criteria acceptable under PCT.Â He has produced
data that meets or exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and
does not have outliers.Â Â That is he has designed
experiments using TCV (‘The TEST’), and produced data, that
has a correlation factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers,
that ANYONE else can replicate.

Â

        HB
: And who created these sort of testing Rick is using. Bill
Powers who is just wording,

Â

        BL : Outliers
in this sense is not that they fall within some band on a
graph but that the theory is not capable of predicting them
or explaining why they occur in a rigorous manner.

Â

        HB : You could
give some example. And you could give some example of Bill
Powers work. We are on CSGnet forum. Remember.

Â

        HB :
Many psychological and speccially physiological reseraches
are done with at least aproximatelly precission as Ricks
results, but it’s not the problem in scientific precission
of research but in interpretation.

Â

        Ricks
interpretation with his RCT in comparison to PCT is WRONG. So it’s
not problem the experiment which can
be done as you said by anyone with high preccision,
and repeat result. Problem is what kind
of interpretation someone made. And I beleive that
Ricks’ interpretation is wrong because movements in
“tracking experiment” are too fast so he can’t see the
nature of real control. You know people perception can be
tricky.

Â

        As
I said once or two times before.Â My serious of experiments
are slow enough too show how actions are performed to vary
perception arround references and prove with the same
precisions as Ricks “tracking experiment” that Bill Powers
was right with his PCT theorethical explanation and Rick is
wrong.

Â

BL : I am not trying to say that all other
discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when
subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the
potential to become something that can be included in PCT as
a part of the theory.Â Nor am I trying to exclude biological
research that shows actual physical connections that
implement functions described in PCT.

        HB :
That’s exactly what you were not trying to say. That all
knowledge Bill used are just words written on the paper.
That his words are not proof of anything else. And now you
are saying that Bills words are also PROOF of something else
that has SOME VALUE !!!Â

Â

** BL : Stating
what Bill Powers said and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything
other than he wrote or said it!**

Â

        HB :
Bill used the literature you are talking above which is also
prof of something else not just that they are written.

        BL : You have provided NO
evidence or data that I have seen that proves anything
beyond what Bill wrote.

Â

        HB : I
provided all the evidences that are icnluded into Bills
writings which can be tested in Real Reality and proved that
they are right or not. We know that Ricks words (theory)
were tested in Reality and didn’t pass the Test.Â

Â

        HB :
It’s true that I could add some more “wording” from some
literature and results of my experiments, but I’ll stay with
Bills “wording”. His words are enough powerfull to
distinguish betweem charlatans and scientist. You know what
follows :

Â

        Cut the
crap and bullshitting and get to real work. ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

Â

Boris

Â

From: Bill Leach
( via csgnet Mailing List)
Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:21 AM
Re: goal of our researchgate project

Â

        Boris, I am a person that does
have a strong interest in PCT.Â As I have mentioned before
my “background” is in physics and electronics.Â I started
learning about the properties and mathematics of feedback as
a child using vacuum tube technology.Â For reasons that I
certainly do not know, when I first dealt with systems that
controlled something “outside of the system itself,” I
recognized that such systems were actually mimicking how a
person might accomplish the same task.Â At the time that
realization ‘hit me’ I had no idea of how profound that
concept was.Â I learned that when I met Bill Powers.

        Like most people, I was required
to take some courses in behavioral science and I admit that
I did learn some things of value in those courses but was
also rather disgusted that the research for the field was
called science.Â I think that most anyone with a focus on
sciences such as physics believes that the behavioral
sciences lack the rigor of a true science.Â Their foundation
is primarily expert opinion.Â There is NO doubt that Bill
Powers believed that was true.

        I have forgotten why I actually
bought B:CP back in the 70’s but suspect that its title was
the reason.Â I was stunned!Â Here in my hands was the first
thing I had ever read or heard that provided a hard science
approach to the non-scientific methods used in behavioral
studies.

        It seems that most behavioral
‘scientists’ fail to understand that ALL aspects of the
scientific method have to be complied with to be doing
'scientific work.'Â It is not sufficient to just produce
data and use (or misuse) statistical analysis to prove your
hypothesis.Â You also can not just ignore some of the data
(so called outliers).Â If you can not produce a model from
your interpretation of the data that correctly predicts
behavior then you have not proven anything and you do not
have a theory.Â At best you still have an unproven
hypothesis.

        You and I (and indeed others)
have been arguing about words NOT about theory.Â You
seem to be claiming that if anyone writes anything about PCT
that does not use exactly the same words as did Bill Powers
then whatever they wrote is wrong.Â That position is itself
B.S.!

        One of the most important
characteristics of a teacher is to be able to explain the
same concept using different words and different examples.

** Stating what Bill Powers said
and wrote is NOT PROOF of anything other than he wrote or
said it!**

        I was particularly annoyed when
you essentially attacked Rick for his musings on sleep.Â Â

        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

You have to know that
Rick did not for a moment intend to convey that his
statement about sleep was anything more than a hypothetical
musing, but you treated it as though it should have been a
rigorous scientific presentation, a proven theory.

        His statement is, obviously in my
opinion, essentially correct.Â Most of the chemical
signaling that occurs is generated by organs that are
connected to the autonomic nervous system.Â I will agree
with you (I think) in one sense though, that there are are
control loops that exist in the body that do not involve
nerves at all so the statement might not be exactly
complete.Â Based upon the philosophy of PCT (you seem to
have no use for philosophy even though it is an essential
element of human understanding) what Rick said is a
perfectly valid postulate in PCT.Â The fact that it might
error by not including chemical control loops not involving
nerves does not disqualify it.Â Also it can easily be argued
that Rick’s statement is completely correct (and I admit
that even though I did post somewhere besides here that it
was incomplete because of chemical signaling), because the
current biochemical research has only identified hormones
whose production and concentrations are controlled by organs
and what we call glands that ARE connected to the nervous
system.

        One reason for 'defending' RIck
is that he may well be the only person currently on CSGNet
that has done or is doing research that meets the criteria
acceptable under PCT.Â He has produced data that meets or
exceed the 0.98 correlation factor and does not have
outliers.Â Â That is he has designed experiments using TCV
(‘The TEST’), and produced data, that has a correlation
factor of 0.95 or better with no outliers, ** that ANYONE
else can replicate** . Outliers in this sense is not that
they fall within some band on a graph but that the theory is
not capable of predicting them or explaining why they occur
in a rigorous manner.
*** My sincere apologies to
anyone else here that I am unaware of that has also done
such work*.**

        I am not trying to say that all
other discussion and hypotheses have no value but only when
subjected to the rigors of THE TEST do they gain the
potential to become something that can be included in PCT as
a part of the theory.Â Nor am I trying to exclude biological
research that shows actual physical connections that
implement functions described in PCT.

        Unlike ALL other behavioral
sciences, PCT does not rely on expert opinion including
those of Bill Powers himself.

        You have provided NO evidence or
data that I have seen that proves anything beyond what Bill
wrote.

        So yes, we are wasting each
others time and probably the time of anyone else that
happens to read this thread.

bill

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