···
From: Bruce Nevin [mailto:bnhpct@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 5:48 PM
To: CSG
Subject: Re: Homage to CSGNet
[Bruce Nevin 20170317.1248 ET]
BH (quoting B:CP):
HB : I wrote many times that I don’t want to be named with BH but HB. Â Â
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 : And again BH…. Can you »copy« »pastee« my initials from original post ??? At least that is not hard to do.
BH (rule #4):
There is no “controlled perception� or “controlled perceptual variable�
BN : The phrase “a preselected state” means “a preselected state of a variable.”
HB : This is not an aswer to rule #4. What is it »controlled perception« or »controlled perceptual variable« ???
And Bill wasn’t "phrasing much. You are wih your “empty” phylosophy.
Anything in PCT is meant as variable. Ashby made clear what »variable« theory is about 60 years ago. You seem to be out o time. So I doubt that you understand what you wrote. And you know what it means. And now this is right because almighty Bruce Nevin said so ???
BN : “Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state of a variable in the controlling system.”
HB : What did you say new if you add »variable«. Exactly what you meant with “predefined state as variable” in the controlling system ???
Bil was inteligent man. I’m sure that Bill would never put it that way. I’ll take this as an insult to his work. How about saying that Earth is variable, Solar System is variable, Univers is variable… Are you saying that there is only one variable in human organism = living controlling system which is representing »predefined state« ??? You are “shooting in the fog” as I’ll show you later.
Whatever you wrote is nonsence and it shows you low level of understanding  of PCT and organisms.
I still don’t get it how could you know what Bill would add into his definiton. You are talking in the behalf of Bill. And you are somehow authorized to change his defitnions ? Or you somehow have »contact« with him and you know what he would add into his defitnition.
Are you another »Telephatic medium« with Superman abilities as Rick is. I hope you heard that Rick has some Superman abilities. Instead of evidences he is covering his ignorance with imagination. And it seems that you are on his way.
So when you have sessions ? I’d like to talk to my sister. She died in the same month as Bill did. If you have contact with him she can’t be far away.
You transformed Bills’ definition and explained it as how it suits yourself and also revealed that you have no idea what could mean »predefined state«, how organisms function and how control loop function.
The question whether “predefined state” is “one” variable which can be “directly” perceived and controlled is quite vague but it’s sure not “one” variable.
Bills’ oppinion was :
Bill P :
Obviously not every variable ….can be involved in this wrongness–detection. Some processes are burried deep in the details of organ function and cellular function.
HB : Well we can see that Bill was going deep into the organisms functioning (cellular level) where not only “control mechanisms” are present, but also “non-control”. So it’s difficult to say if “predefined state” is variable only in PCT sense. It has to be defined more precisley.
Bill P :
For control of most of the variables in the physiological-biochemical system we rely entirely on the inherited system to work right. It’s only at top level of physiological functioning that we can expect sensing of the general status…
<
HB : I would say that you can perceive in some sense “predefined state” but not as “one variable” as you demolished Bills’ definition.
But for this kind of conversation we shlould include also whole PCT (including diagram on p. 191 orlast  Bills’ diagram as Dag presented) and of course a lot of physiological knowledge which you don’t have. The diagram which Dag presented is unfinished and so I understand why you don’t understand what you are talking about. But this kind of conversation with me are priviliged just to PCT members that I trust. And you are not one of them.
![]()
HB : You and Rick are inventing quite interesting RCT and BNCT theory (Bruce Nevin Control Theory). As I said before. CSGnet forum should have two parts. NON-PCT part and PCT part.
Whatever you meant with »variable« in your definition is achieved and maintained in the controlling system not outside. Beside that Bill never used »controlled perceptual variable« or »controlled perception«. Show me where did you find it ? Your debate is useless.
BN : What is that controlled variable, Boris? What is the “preselected state” a state of, if it is not a perception?
HB : This looks like a question. So I was right that you don’t understand what “predefined state” is and how organisms function.
Anyway this have nothing to do with Ricks »definition« of “external” perceptual signal. Internal are working in the same way.
But I answered you above. If you want detailed instructions we’ll have to establish quite different relation so that I’ll epxlain it to you in detail what you don’t understand.
Controlled variable is a perception but not in the sense Rick is using. »Controlled variable« as perception is meant that it will be controlled in the comparator not from outside as Rick is offering the explanation of the perceptual signal.
Bill P :
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
HB : We can see clearly that in the comparator only perceptual signal is entering what is in accordance with physiological evidences. But you can show your evidences. Feel free to do it. I’d like to see your BNCT (Bruce Nevin Control Theory). But in PCT perceptual signal is »mismatched« with reference signal. There is no “double meaning” as you are imagining. That’s all there is. There is no »Controlled Perceptual Signal« or PCV as Rick is forcing, And there is no »controlled perception«. Bill never used this combination of words because »controlled perceptual variable« is nonexistent in afferent nerv signal. But perceptual signal is »controlled variable« and wil be controlled in the comparator. There is a time line.
But Martin did wrote once something what I think can not be answered yet. Maybe conditionally we could talk about »controlled perception« if you would search traces of »mismatched« perceptual signal in »error« signal. That signal could contain trases of »controlled perception«. Martin revealed a heavy problem by stating that there are »controlled« and »uncontrolled« perceptions. He persuaded me saying, that I just have to look around and I’ll see that most of perceptions are uncontrolled. It’s hard to oppose that experience with perceptual signal as anybody can see it’s “the fact”. So I started to search in this direction. I’m trying to find out why some perception are controled and others are not.
BN : (Both senses of the word “perception” are intended,
HB : I don’t underdtand how you got this conclussion from “predefined state is variable” and what these statements have in common. Just like that becasue almighty Bruce Nevin said so.
But anyway if you want to explain what is “controlled perception” in RCT (Ricks’ sense) you’ll have to explain how control comes into the »perceptual signal = afferent nerv signal« into organism ? And how did the control come to outer environment ? And how it is transformed through »input function«.
BN earlier :
The key insight is that we do not control our behavior. Rather, behavior is variable in just the manner and extent necessary to make our experience be the way we want it to be. The title of the locus classicus of this science of psychology is Behavior: The control of perception, published in 1973 by William T. Powers.
HB : So you can see that even you don’t beleive in what Rick is saying about “Behavior is Control” and “Controlled Perceptual Variable”. There is no such a loop in PCT as Rick is presenting and what you tryed to present.Â
BN : ….the neural signal p and the subject’s experience of it…)
HB : This could make some sense. If neural signal p is produced by events in outer environment, than subject could have experince of it. But after neural signal was produced. Do you see the time line ? First neural signal than experience of the subject. It’s not experience of the subject of "controlled external environment and »controll of afferent nerv signal« at the same time as Rick is saying.
Bill P :
Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make the perception of the gllass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception…
<
HB : So I agree that the only thing subject is experiencing, is neural signal. Not “Controlled perceptusl Variable”, not “Controlled Perception” and not “Controlled afferent nerv impuls”.
Now we know pretty well each other Bruce. I already understand your way of argumenting things, and I warned you that I’ll stand immediatelly in the »defending« position when I’m talking to you. It’s not just because you are Rikcs’ friend, but because of your way of »abstract« argumentation of the problems. You can’t solve all problems in your chair at home.
So if you want to start some real scientific discussion not phylosophical you’d better find some evidences.
With me your phylosophy will not work. You’ll have to show some physiological knowledge as Bill did a lot. I’m not in the mud »listening« to your insinuations. If you want to prove something you’ll have to show evidences as I expect them form Rick too. Or you can make yourself Occultist or Parapsychological forum for NON-PCT members.
As you asked me something, I’ll ask you something… How will you prove that control is coming outside the organism so that you can get another meaning of »perception« ? So how will you prove that Ricks’ statement is right :
BA earlier: The simple answer is that control systems control perceptions.
RM earlier: And by doing so they are controlling the aspects of the environment that correspond to those perceptions.
HB : It seems that you didn’t read my posts to Rick where I defined his RCT and compare it to PCT. RCT is based on the statement above. But you as Ricks’ friend can prove that all his elements of control loop works right.
So if summerize what Rick is talking about we can made his RCT definitons of control loop :
-
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected from disturbances.
-
OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
-
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
-
COMPARATOR : ????
This seems to be the »Control loop« Rick is trying to sell instead of PCT definitions. Now we have to go through PCT definitions of control loop. Why do I have to do it so many times ?
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 ffunction 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.
HB :
So Bruce I wish you luck with proving nonexistant things. But please don’t use for your argumentation Telekinesis or Telephaty or »protection from bullits« or some »extrasensory perception«, “talking to dead” and so on…
Rick is loosing himself in algebraic formulas and »kindergarten« mathematics as Martin is emphasizing. And it has nothing in common with what is happening in the »real« nature. Or as you and Bill said »how people experience neural signals« as that is all there is. Not experience »controlled neural signal«.
Best,
Boris
/B
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
From: Chad T. Green [mailto:Chad.Green@lcps.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Homage to CSGNet
[Chad Green (2017.03.16.1423 EDT)]
RM: Many of the discussions seem to be much ado about very little.
HB : Self critics is the best way to change something.
CG: Hence the utility of defining a few rules of engagement here that anyone can remember and use on a moment’s notice. For example, I’ve found recently that by applying a few simple rules on the game Slither.io online, I can improve my fitness significantly while navigating the game’s complex, dynamic environment, especially if the rules are contradictory in nature. The mind prefers to overemphasize one rule at the expense of the others. By repeating the rules out loud, and constantly switching them as the action unfolds, I become an observer of the game’s simple rules in action. Those who break the rules often have fatal, in a virtual sense, consequences.
HB : Good observation Chad. There are just some simple rules to understand PCT om the basis of Bills’ definition of control (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.
-
Behavior is not controlled it’s just one kind of action on environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances (disturbances and effects of actions are added)
-
There is no other way that control can be transferred into environment specially not with Telekinesis
-
There is no always “controlled variable� in the outer environment of the controlling system
-
There is no “controlled perception� or “controlled perceptual variable�
-
There is only control in the controlling system
Only 5 rules and Rick would understand PCT. I hope Rick will not break rules any more. And I hope Powers ladies will contribute to forbidding Rick to go out of PCT rules.
If you have any other methods for learning simple rules please come forward with them.
Best,
Boris
Best,
Chad
From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:52 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Homage to CSGNet
Down…
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:31 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Homage to CSGNet
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 PDT)]
RM: I can see why there might be an interest in making changes aimed at improving CSGNet.
HB : Its’ obvious that your RCT is problem.
RM: Many of the discussions seem to be much ado about very little.
HB : Self critics is the best way to change something.
RM: And the tone of some of these discussions can be rather off-putting.
HB : It’s not the tone but the content. It’s your RCT that’s making rather off-putting discussions
RM: So there is a reluctance to point students interested in learning PCT to CSGNet for fear they will find the discussions irrelevant and/or cringe worthy.
HB : I think students would learn rea PCT not some fake in form of RCT. Read once again your discussions with Rupert and Bruce Abbott.
RM: There is also the fear that the narrow focus and tone of the discussions drive away newcomers to CSGNet.
HB : What could be more narrow focus of discussions as RCT is.
RM: The main solutions that have been proposed have been to move CSGNet to a new, more “modern” platform and to provide easy access to a FAC or wiki that provides the basics of PCT and the “rules of engagement” for discussions on CSGNet,
HB : No. One solution that was proposed was also to splitt CSGnet into NON PCT and PCT part. NON PCT part is for exmaple RCT.
RM: I think both of these are good ideas and I hope they are tried out. But ultimately I believe that the character and quality of discussions on CSGNet is determined by the people on CSGNet themselves.
HB : Right.
RM: Which suggests to me that CSGNet will remain pretty much the same when moved to a new platform and when accompanied by a wiki.
HB : Right.
RM: I say this because we have tried these things in the past and they didn’t make much difference; CSGNet has been going on for nearly 30 years now (I can hardly believe it!) and things have been pretty much the same during that time. Sometimes the discussions have been interesting and courteous; others they have been heated, intense and somewhat abusive. I myself considered leaving CSGNet a couple times at least.
HB : It seems that we have the same problem.
RM: But I couldn’t stay away because, for me, the benefits provided by the discussions on CSGNet far outweighed the costs.
HB : The same for me. I’m just coming back from time to time becasue Barb wrote to me that it would be good to come from time to time on CSGnet. And I can understand why. Probably she don’t want that PCT which I represent with Bills’ citations would not dissapear. My citations seems to be quite rare oportunity for members of CSGnet to »hear« the right voice of real PCT with its’ real terminology and ideas.
RM: The benefits of CSGNet, for me, came in the form of ideas for research that were often turned into publications or on-line demonstrations. The source of these ideas were the apparently esoteric, repetitious and/or acrimonious discussions on CSGNet. I think these discussions might have seemed to be esoteric because they focused on detailed aspects of PCT where there could be legitimate disagreement about what PCT says; the discussions might have seemed repetitious because there are only a few fundamental aspects of PCT that are matters of contention and they come up again and again, always in somewhat different guises;
HB : What does this tell you ? I would understand immediatelly after first correction that you should change your obvious RCT to PCT ?
RM: …and the discussions may seem accrimonious because conflicts between high gain controllers (and these discussions are conflicts; when people are in agreement there is little to discuss)
HB : People are not in agreement that there is little to discuss but there is a wrong matter that is discussed. For example I, Rupert, Bruce, Martin and Huddy think that you have wrong approcah to understanding what is q.i. That’s the basics of PCT.
So we are discussing about your RCT for a long time and almost nothing has changed and conflict is going on. When will you change your RCT ?
RM: …will sometimes result in those controllers increaasing the amplitude of their outputs until they end up saying things they wish they hadn’t said, such as ad hominum attacks and insults.
HB : If you show me some other way how could I persuade you to change your RCT into PCT I’ll respect your wish.
RM: I personally let those roll off since I know why they happen Of course, if all a person has to say are ad hominum attacks and insults then I just put those into the spam folder.
HB : Bla, bla Rick. I know that you are reading all those posts as how would you know that in them are insults and attacks. And beside that you are using some thoughts out of those posts in your publications and you are not reveling the source. I think it’s some kind of theft.
But it gives me to think why you don’t change your RCT to PCT. Maybe you are doing it on puspose to find out what is wrong with your RCT.
RM: No matter how heated the discussions on CSGNet have been, however, I have benefited from them to the present day, as evidenced by the fact that two recent discussion threads have led to the development of a new demo and a new publication. The thread on the distinction between Qi and p led to the development of a demo I call “Just Following Instructions”, which is available at:
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Instruct.html
HB : Yes I already thought about that you cold more intelligent than you show. You could be really leraning (benefited from discussions) but the problem is that you don’t change your RCT and why you don’t mention in publications where the benefits come from.
In your new demo your RCT is again failure about PCT. On wrong bases you can’t get right result.
RM : But PCT also says that what seems to be “out there” in the world is actually a perceptual representation of what is really “out there”,
Bill P :
It has to do with the brain’s models of the external world… has not seen models; he has seen a hierarchy of perceptions that somehow represents an external world, and a large collection of Complex Environmental Variables (as Martin Taylor calls them) that is mirrored inside the brain in the form of perceptions.
Briefly, then: what I call the hierarchy of perceptions is the model. When you open your eyes and look around, what you see – and feel, smell, hear, and taste – is the model. In fact we never experience anything but the model. The model is composed of perceptions of all kinds from intensities on up.
That is all we need to do to build up a model of the external world. It’s not even that; it’s just a model of the world.
HB : PCT is a little bit more complicated as you think. It’s not just about »representations of the world«. Perception are transformed on hierarchical levels quite in differrent way you think so you are not describing real PCT but your RCT. I know it’s hard to get out of your skin, and change your RCT to PCT. But it would be good if you wouldn’t make any more damage to PCT with your wrong demos.
But it seems that evidences with Bills’ writings are not enough for you and some others PCT’ers. You are spreading RCT instead of PCT despite very celar bills’ citations. I’m surprised that also Powers ladies don’t aknowledge their Dads’ literature.
RM: The demo is described as a caution about the possible pitfalls of doing performance evaluations without an understanding of the fact that what a person is controlling may not be exactly what they were instructed to control. But it is actually a demonstration of the fact that Qi is p from the observer’s perspective (and, conversely, that p is Qi from the controller’s perspective). Of course, comments or suggestions about the demo and/or the write-up would be most welcome (especially if they leave out ad hominum attacks;-).
RM: And the thread on the Power Law led to a paper that will appear soon in the journal Experimental Brain Research, where much of the research on the Power Law has been published. The reference to the paper is:
Marken, R. & Shaffer, D. (in press) “The power law of movement: an example of a behavioral illusion” Experimental Brain Research
RM: I’ll let you know as soon as I have copies to distribute, probably in a couple weeks.
HB : I hope not.
RM: So CSGNet has been very good to me. But there is always room for improvement. However, I don’t believe improvement comes automatically; it takes agents controlling for making it better – making the discussion topics relevant to a wider audience and making the discussions themselves more civil – to make it better. That is, it takes those of us on CSGNet to control for making it better.
HB : With your RCT which me and some other members of CSGnet forum proved to be opposite to PCT you are surely not making PCT better but worse. But we (other members) are trying to make it better or at least to preserve PCT.
Best,
Boris
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery