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. Many of the discussions seem to be much ado about very little. And the tone of some of these discussions can be rather off-putting. 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. There is also the fear that the narrow focus and tone of the discussions drive away newcomers to CSGNet. 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,Â
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. Which suggests to me that CSGNet will remain pretty much the same when moved to a new platform and when accompanied by a wiki. 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. But I couldn't stay away because, for me, the benefits provided by the discussions on CSGNet far outweighed the costs.Â
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; and the discussions may seem acrimonious because conflicts between high gain controllers (and these discussions are conflicts; when people are in agreement there is little to discuss) will sometimes result in those controllers increasing the amplitude of their outputs until they end up saying things they wish they hadn't said, such as ad hominum attacks and insults. 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.Â
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>http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Instruct.html

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.Â
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.Â
Best regards
Rick

···

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

[Leeanne Wright (2017.03.16.10.35 AEST)]

Hi Rick,

The outline you have given below is why, as a student, I am finding these posts from CSGnet valuable. We all get something quite unique out of it. Personally, as a student, I feel that this illustrates that learning is a life-long process and I am not just an empty-vessel to be filled up with the knowledge of others but am actively constructing my own learning as I “listenâ€? to these online discussions and debates.

LW: I also agree there should be “rules of engagementâ€? although that also means that CSGnet members perhaps need to collaboratively decide on what these rules should be and someone is required to moderate these. Funnily enough, this is how the Responsible Thinking Process, based on PCT, worked in schools with the Administrator responsible for ensuring that everyone followed the rules. From personal experience, that can work really well.

LW: If there are rules that are agreed upon, and individuals wish to benefit from the learning opportunities that collaboration and cooperation throw up, then they would presumably either follow the rules or exit the forum. I think it is entirely ok to insist that an online community be respectful of one another, especially in an environment based upon the premise of disagreement in the pursuit of furthering scientific knowledge.

LW: That is, the entire reason for the forum existing is to disagree/question/discuss the current state of our understanding of all things PCT. That is why I subscribed, at least. You do perhaps potentially miss out on hearing the ideas of someone who is really high gain on an issue if you set rules, but it is probably to the greater good. And it doesn’t prevent someone who is high gain on an issue making contact outside of the forum with individuals they think may be helpful to them…

LW: Feeling safe to post questions or ideas is especially important if you are a newcomer I believe , i.e. having a (p) perception of safety. If you wish to be attractive to newcomers as an online community, i.e, being variables in their environment (Qi) that provide them with feelings of safety when posting to Csgnet, then there probably need to be some rules/boundaries. By the way, did I demonstrate an understanding of p and Qi then or am I completely and utterly off base? I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately…

LW: For me the benefits are in knowing that scientific study is a persistent, incremental journey which is made all the more enjoyable and accessible through this type of collaboration. And nor do I need to be a genius. I’m not. I sincerely admire and respect those of you who have put their life into this type of work and appreciate the opportunity to learn from you all.

LW: Sometimes the biggest disagreements lead to reorganisation. I don’t think it is disagreements or even passionate disagreements that are the problem. Just the way they are sometimes conducted. Respectful disagreement is usually a very positive thing.

LW: I popped over and did the demo, Rick. I remembered the visual illusion from first year uni, so I first attempted it by looking at the whole image (where the salmon dot was in relation to the grey dots around it). My first few runs at this were indeed lousy! Then I selectively attended only to the salmon dot and used the after-image on the computer screen to vary the size of the dot. That gave me a much better result! However, my eyes are still recovering from it. I think I get your explanation above. I have been following the p/QI discussions and this explanation makes a lot of sense to me. However, I am weak at the modelling side of things and would probably benefit from sitting down with a pen and paper to further work this out.

LW: I agree!

Regards

Leeanne

···

[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. Many of the discussions seem to be much ado about very little. And the tone of some of these discussions can be rather off-putting. 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. There is also the fear that the narrow focus and tone of the discussions drive away newcomers to CSGNet. 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,

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. Which suggests to me that CSGNet will remain pretty much the same when moved to a new platform and when accompanied by a wiki. 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. But I couldn’t stay away because, for me, the benefits provided by the discussions on CSGNet far outweighed the costs.

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; and the discussions may seem acrimonious because conflicts between high gain controllers (and these discussions are conflicts; when people are in agreement there is little to discuss) will sometimes result in those controllers increasing the amplitude of their outputs until they end up saying things they wish they hadn’t said, such as ad hominum attacks and insults. 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.

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

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: 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.

[Martin Taylor 2017.03.15.23.04]

I don't think a Forum would be expected to change the quality of the

debate at all. What it would do is keep the debate more accessible
months and years later than it is in the CSGnet archives. On a Forum
thread that seemed deadlocked and on which posting stopped two years
ago, someone new might read through the argument and have an idea
that breaks the deadlock and post it as a simple response on the
same thread. That simply doesn’t happen on a mailing list.

Sure. But just as you claim to write differently for publication

than you do on CSGnet, so also one writes differently on the Forum
when the preceding discussion is laid out before you rather than
being hidden behind subject lines in a mail client. Personally, I
have much preferred the Forum environment of ECACS than the
ephemeral back-and-forth of CSGnet, in which a good idea can be
posted one day and forgotten the next week, or a bad one be
maintained in a go-round-the-circuit repetition of arguments and
explanations, like your idea in the Power-law discussion that if X =
X, that’s an important finding.

Martin
···

[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. Many of
the discussions seem to be much ado about very little. And the
tone of some of these discussions can be rather off-putting.
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. There is also the fear that
the narrow focus and tone of the discussions drive away
newcomers to CSGNet. 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,

      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.

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 ddiscussions may seem acrimonious 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 increasing thhe 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… &nbbsp;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.Â

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

[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.

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 discussioons may seem acrimonious 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 increasing 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

Down…

···

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.

  1.   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)
    
  2.   There is no other way that control can be transferred into environment specially not with Telekinesis
    
  3.   There is no always “controlled variable� in the outer environment of the controlling system
    
  4.   There is no “controlled perception� or “controlled perceptual variable�
    
  5.   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

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 acrimonious 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: …wwill sometimes result in those controllers increasing 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

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.16.1420)]

···

Leeanne Wright (2017.03.16.10.35 AEST)

Hi Rick,

LW: The outline you have given below is why, as a student, I am finding these posts from CSGnet valuable.Â

RM: Hi Leeanne.Â

RM: That’s nice to hear! Thanks.

LW:… I think it is entirely ok to insist that an online community be respectful of one another, especially in an environment based upon the premise of disagreement in the pursuit of furthering scientific knowledge. Â

RM: I’m not a big fan of insisting on people being respectful to one another; I’m more into expecting it. But, of course, I am often disappointed, and that includes myself since I’m sure I have been guilty of occasionally being (or of appearing to be) disrespectful. This recognition of my own fallibility (as a controlling person) allows me to be willing to cut people some slack about being respectful  (in PCT terms, I control with low gain for people being respectful to me or to each other).Â

LW:  That is, the entire reason for the forum existing is to disagree/question/discuss the current state of our understanding of all things PCT. That is why I subscribed, at least. You do perhaps potentially miss out on hearing the ideas of someone who is really high gain on an issue if you set rules, but it is probably to the greater good. And it doesn’t prevent someone who is high gain on an issue making contact outside of the forum with individuals they think may be helpful to them…

RM: I think there are ways to be both high gain on an issue and respectful at the same time. Bill Powers was a master at it. But despite this many people felt disrespected by Bill and left CSGNet after disagreements with him. I think this is because disagreement per se is often confused with lack of respect. I think that’s the main problem on CSGNet, actually. Intense disagreements are apparently seen by on-lookers (and, to some extent, by the participants in the disagreements) as signs of personal animosity between those involved in the disagreement.Â

LW:  I popped over and did the demo, Rick. I remembered the visual illusion from first year uni, so I first attempted it by looking at the whole image (where the salmon dot was in relation to the grey dots around it). My first few runs at this were indeed lousy! Then I selectively attended only to the salmon dot and used the after-image on the computer screen to vary the size of the dot. That gave me a much better result! However, my eyes are still recovering from it.Â

RM: Oh my, it’s not supposed to wreck you vision;-) I don’t understand why you used an afterimage. Perhaps you could post a screen shot of your results. But based on your post I made a little movie showing myself doing the demo. Notice that I am keeping the target disk about the same size (perceptually about 1/4 inch in diameter) throughout the task: Â

 Â

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xsqen2o08qs3vpc/Screenflick%20Movie.mp4?dl=0

Best

RM: In terms of the Qi versus p discussion, the demo aims to show that Qi is just the observer’s perception of the perception, p, controlled by another person. It does this by showing that an instructor who thinks of Qi as different from p will see control as deteriorating in the second phase of the experiment. That’s because the subject was instructed to control the size of the target disk and this instruction is taken, by the instructor, to be the definition of Qi, the environmental variable that the subject is expected to be controlling. In the first phase of the experiment it looks like the subject is, indeed, controlling the size of the target disk. But in the second half of the experiment control of the size of the target disk deteriorates, suggesting that the subject’s perception, p,  is no longer an accurate reflection of  Qi. But, in fact, the subject was always controlling, not the size of the target disk but the ratio of the size of that disk to the size of the context disks.Â

RM: So Qi, the variable being controlled, is actually the ratio of the size of the context to the size of the target disk, not the size of the target disk alone. This ratio corresponds to the perception, p, that the subject is controlling. In other words, when correctly identified, the aspect of the environment that an observer sees as being controlled – the variable called Qi –  corresponds to the perception – the variable called p – that the subject is controlling. Qi (when correctly identified) is the perceptual variable, p, that the controller is controlling seen from the perspective of the observer.

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.16.1425)]

···

Martin Taylor (2017.03.15.23.04)

MT: I don't think a Forum would be expected to change the quality of the

debate at all. What it would do is keep the debate more accessible
months and years later than it is in the CSGnet archives.

RM: I agree.Â

Â

MT: Personally, I

have much preferred the Forum environment of ECACS than the
ephemeral back-and-forth of CSGnet, in which a good idea can be
posted one day and forgotten the next week, or a bad one be
maintained in a go-round-the-circuit repetition of arguments and
explanations, like your idea in the Power-law discussion that if X =
X, that’s an important finding.

RM: Sounds great. But would the Forum environment prevent discussants from falsely attributing ideas to other discussants? :wink:

BestÂ

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[Marin Taylor 2017.03.16.22.54]

It would allow everyone to see whose ideas they were, at least if

they were in the same or a linked thread. The one great thing is
that you don’t have to click one link after another to see the
thread. You just read straight through it.
I presume that your question was intended to disown your “proof” of
the speed-curvature relationship power law, which was, as several
people independently demonstrated in different ways, actually a
proof that X = X. I hope your paper “In press” avoids that serious
mistake.
Even so, your question does serve as a pointer to one of the more
important advantages of the Forum over the mailing list format.
Martin

···

On 2017/03/16 5:26 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.16.1425)]

Martin Taylor (2017.03.15.23.04)

            MT: I don't think a Forum would be expected to change

the quality of the debate at all. What it would do is
keep the debate more accessible months and years later
than it is in the CSGnet archives.

RM: I agree.

            MT: Personally, I

have much preferred the Forum environment of ECACS than
the ephemeral back-and-forth of CSGnet, in which a good
idea can be posted one day and forgotten the next week,
or a bad one be maintained in a go-round-the-circuit
repetition of arguments and explanations, like your idea
in the Power-law discussion that if X = X, that’s an
important finding.

      RM: Sounds great. But would the Forum environment prevent

discussants from falsely attributing ideas to other
discussants? :wink:

Vyv H (17.03.2017)

Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 09.54.34.png

···

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 PDT)]

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

VH: I enjoyed doing the demo. I’m not sure about the RMS for the ratio as I wasn’t getting results I expected. I just did a run controlling ratio in the first half and then moving the mouse vaguely along with the tune “teddy bears picnic”
which I don’t think was aligned in any way with the context changes (see attached pic). I still got a low RMS for that … in fact lower than the first run when I was controlling ratio?

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;-).

VH: It don’t quite follow this Rick. Are you describing in a situation where the experimenter / tester is unware of the context so they would see apparent poor performance in phase 2 and conclude the person wasn’t controlling area very
well? But once they spotted the context it would become clear control was excellent as the person was “really” controlling ratio? But they were instructed to control area? So why would they control ratio?

VH: When I’m doing it I find it hard not to control ratio in Phase 2 but I can ignore the context by putting a piece of tape on my screen. That was when I noticed something weird about the Ratio RMS I
mentioned above, it stayed low.

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.

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.

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

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.17.0954 ET)]

I have a comment related to the last remark by Rick below – so I’ve snipped all the rest. That said, I look forward to Rick’s response to Vyv.

···

From: Huddy, Vyv [mailto:v.huddy@ucl.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 6:25 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Homage to CSGNet

Vyv H (17.03.2017)

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 PDT)]

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.

FN: Actually, I disagree with your last sentence. I don’t think “we” can control for making it better. The best we can do is control what we can do to make it better. In short, I think making the list “better” entails establishing reference signals or goals for our individual responses that align with whatever “better” means and then working hard to keep our posts aligned with our standards.

Fred Nickols

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.17.1040 ET)]

Darn! Upon reading it, I conclude my response wasn’t at all clear.

What I was trying to point out is that making this list better is a matter of individual effort. I can do what I can do; Rick can do what he can do; Martin can do what he can do; and, yes, Boris can do what he can do.

The rub in all this is the probably lack of an agreed upon set of standards which we adopt as reference signals. So, what are the standards or “code of conduct” that ought to apply? Here’s a starter list of two:

Civility (no bashing)

Asking questions of clarification before taking issue.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:59 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Homage to CSGNet

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.17.0954 ET)]

I have a comment related to the last remark by Rick below – so I’ve snipped all the rest. That said, I look forward to Rick’s response to Vyv.

From: Huddy, Vyv [mailto:v.huddy@ucl.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 6:25 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Homage to CSGNet

Vyv H (17.03.2017)

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 PDT)]

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.

FN: Actually, I disagree with your last sentence. I don’t think “we” can control for making it better. The best we can do is control what we can do to make it better. In short, I think making the list “better” entails establishing reference signals or goals for our individual responses that align with whatever “better” means and then working hard to keep our posts aligned with our standards.

Fred Nickols

03/17/17 10:40 am Andrew Nichols wrote

  What forum platform is being considered?  I, for one, think that

the interface of a forum would make consumption of CSGNet much
easier.

Andrew

···

On 03/17/2017 09:44 AM, Fred Nickols
wrote:

        [From

Fred Nickols (2017.03.17.1040 ET)]

        Darn! 

Upon reading it, I conclude my response wasn’t at all clear.

        What

I was trying to point out is that making this list better is
a matter of individual effort. I can do what I can do; Rick
can do what he can do; Martin can do what he can do; and,
yes, Boris can do what he can do.

        The

rub in all this is the probably lack of an agreed upon set
of standards which we adopt as reference signals. So, what
are the standards or “code of conduct” that ought to apply?
Here’s a starter list of two:

        Civility

(no bashing)

        Asking

questions of clarification before taking issue.

        Fred

Nickols

From:
Fred Nickols Friday, March 17, 2017 9:59 AM
RE: Homage to CSGNet

        [From

Fred Nickols (2017.03.17.0954 ET)]

        I

have a comment related to the last remark by Rick below – so
I’ve snipped all the rest. That said, I look forward to
Rick’s response to Vyv.

From:
Huddy, Vyv [mailto:v.huddy@ucl.ac.uk ]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 6:25 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Homage to CSGNet

          Vyv

H (17.03.2017)

                  [From

Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 PDT)]

                  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.

                  FN: 

Actually, I disagree with your last sentence. I
don’t think “we” can control for making it
better. The best we can do is control what we can
do to make it better. In short, I think making
the list “better” entails establishing reference
signals or goals for our individual responses that
align with whatever “better” means and then
working hard to keep our posts aligned with our
standards.

                  Fred

Nickols

mailto:fred@nickols.us
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:

This discussion is really getting somewhere. I love it!

Fred Good

···

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.17.1040 ET)]

Â

Darn! Upon reading it, I conclude my response wasn’t at all clear.

Â

What I was trying to point out is that making this list better is a matter of individual effort. I can do what I can do; Rick can do what he can do; Martin can do what he can do; and, yes, Boris can do what he can do.

Â

The rub in all this is the probably lack of an agreed upon set of standards which we adopt as reference signals. So, what are the standards or “code of conduct� that ought to apply? Here’s a starter list of two:

Â

Civility (no bashing)

Asking questions of clarification before taking issue.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

Â

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:59 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Homage to CSGNet

Â

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.17.0954 ET)]

Â

I have a comment related to the last remark by Rick below – so I’ve snipped all the rest. Thaat said, I look forward to Rick’s response to Vyv.

Â

From: Huddy, Vyv [mailto:v.huddy@ucl.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 6:25 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Homage to CSGNet

Â

Â

Vyv H (17.03.2017)

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 PDT)]

Â

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.Â

Â

FN: Actually, I disagree with your last sentence. I don’t think “we� can control for making it better. The best we can do is control what we can do to make it better. In short, I think making the list “better� entails establishing reference signals or goals for our individual responses that align with whatever “better� means and then working hard to keep our posts aligned with our standards.

Â

Fred Nickols

[Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.11 48]

···

On 2017/03/17 11:41 AM, andrew wrote:

03/17/17 10:40 am Andrew Nichols wrote

What forum platform is being considered? I, for one, think that the interface of a forum would make consumption of CSGNet much easier.

Do you have a suggestion? The old ECACS forum was "Discusware", which went out of business. I have not looked at possible modern platforms, but if one is chosen for which services are offered to transfer the saved ECACS content, I don't mind paying to have it transcribed.

Martin

I'll check some out :slight_smile:

A

···

On 03/17/2017 10:52 AM, Martin Taylor wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.11 48]

On 2017/03/17 11:41 AM, andrew wrote:

03/17/17 10:40 am Andrew Nichols wrote

What forum platform is being considered? I, for one, think that the interface of a forum would make consumption of CSGNet much easier.

Do you have a suggestion? The old ECACS forum was "Discusware", which went out of business. I have not looked at possible modern platforms, but if one is chosen for which services are offered to transfer the saved ECACS content, I don't mind paying to have it transcribed.

Martin

[From Fred Nickols (2017.03.17.1229 ET)]

I found this discussion of free and paid online forum platforms...

-and-paid/

Fred Nickols

···

-----Original Message-----
From: andrew [mailto:anicholslcsw@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:57 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Homage to CSGNet

I'll check some out :slight_smile:

A

On 03/17/2017 10:52 AM, Martin Taylor wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.11 48]

On 2017/03/17 11:41 AM, andrew wrote:

03/17/17 10:40 am Andrew Nichols wrote

What forum platform is being considered? I, for one, think that the
interface of a forum would make consumption of CSGNet much easier.

Do you have a suggestion? The old ECACS forum was "Discusware", which
went out of business. I have not looked at possible modern platforms,
but if one is chosen for which services are offered to transfer the
saved ECACS content, I don't mind paying to have it transcribed.

Martin

[Bruce Nevin 20170317.1248 ET]

BH (quoting 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.

BH (rule #4):

  There is no “controlled perceptionâ€? or “controlled perceptual variableâ€?

The phrase “a preselected state” means "a preselected state of a variable."Â

"Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state of a variable in the controlling system."Â

What is that controlled variable, Boris? What is the “preselected state” a state of, if it is not a perception?

(Both senses of the word “perception” are intended, the neural signal p and the subject’s experience of it.)

···

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Â

Â

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

Â

[Chad Green (2017.03.16.1423 EDT)]

Â

RM: Many of the discussions seem to be much ado about very little.

Â

HB : Self critics is the best way to change something.

Â

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.

Â

HB : Good observation Chad. There are just some simple rules to understand PCT om the basis of Bills’ definition of control (B:CP) :

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.

Â

1.      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)

2.      There is no other way that control can be transferred into environment specially not with Telekinesis

3.      There is no always “controlled variableâ€? in the outer environment of the controlling system

4.      There is no “controlled perceptionâ€? or “controlled perceptual variableâ€?

5.      There is only control in the controlling system

Â

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.

Â

If you have any other methods for learning simple rules please come forward with them.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Best,

Chad

Â

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

Â

Down…>

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:31 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Homage to CSGNet

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 PDT)]

Â

RM: I can see why there might be an interest in making changes aimed at improving CSGNet.

Â

HB : Its’ obvious that your RCT is problem.

Â

RM: Many of the discussions seem to be much ado about very little.

Â

HB : Self critics is the best way to change something.

Â

RM: And the tone of some of these discussions can be rather off-putting.

Â

HB : It’s not the tone but the content. It’s your RCT that’s making rather off-putting discussions

Â

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.Â

Â

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.

Â

Â

RM: There is also the fear that the narrow focus and tone of the discussions drive away newcomers to CSGNet.

Â

HB : What could be more narrow focus of discussions as RCT is.

Â

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,Â

Â

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.

Â

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.

Â

HB : Right.

Â

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.

Â

HB : Right.

Â

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.

Â

HB : It seems that we have the same problem.

Â

RM: But I couldn’t stay away because, for me, the benefits provided by the discussions on CSGNet far outweighed the costs.Â

Â

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.

Â

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;

Â

HB : What does this tell you ? I would understand immediatelly after first correction that you should change your obvious RCT to PCT ?

Â

RM: …and the discussions may seem acrimonious because conflicts between high gain controllers (and these discussions are conflicts; when people are in agreement there is little to discuss)

Â

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.

Â

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 ?

Â

RM: …will sometimes result in those controllers incrreasing the amplitude of their outputs until they end up saying things they wish they hadn’t said, such as ad hominum attacks and insults.

Â

HB : If you show me some other way how could I persuade you to change your RCT into PCT I’ll respect your wish.

Â

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.Â

Â

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.

Â

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.

Â

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:

Â

 http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Instruct.html

Â

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.

Â

In your new demo your RCT is again failure about PCT. On wrong bases you can’t get right result.

Â

RM : Â 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”,

Â

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.

Â

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.

Â

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.

Â

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.

Â

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.Â

Â

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;-).

Â

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:

Â

Marken, R. & Shaffer, D. (in press) “The power law of movement: an example of a behavioral illusion” Experimental Brain Research

Â

RM: I’ll let you know as soon as I have copies to distribute, probably in a couple weeks.Â

Â

HB : I hope not.

Â

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.Â

Â

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.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Best regards

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.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Hi Bruce

···

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 :

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

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.

  1.   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)
    
  2.   There is no other way that control can be transferred into environment specially not with Telekinesis
    
  3.   There is no always “controlled variable� in the outer environment of the controlling system
    
  4.   There is no “controlled perception� or “controlled perceptual variable�
    
  5.   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

[From Rupert Young (2017.04.01 18.00)]

···

I may have missed some of this discussion, but would I be correct
in saying that everybody is amenable to moving to a forum?

  I recently met up with Warren, Max and Ben, the Young Dudes of

PCT, and they were certainly keen on a more accessible,
interactive and informative community.

  Assuming others are also interested I'll also have a look at

options.

  What would people like to see for the topic structure?

  e.g.
  1. Basics

  2. Perceptual Control

  3. Hierarchy

  4. Levels

  5. Tutorials

  6. Modelling

  7. Psychology

  8. Behaviour

  9. Therapy

  10. Experiments

  11. Sociology

  12. Neuroscience

  13. Animal Behaviour

  14. Robotics

  15. Learning

  16. Philosophy

  17. Concepts

  18. Consciousness

    Rupert

On 17/03/2017 15:57, andrew wrote:

  I'll check some out :)






  A






  On 03/17/2017 10:52 AM, Martin Taylor wrote:
    [Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.11 48]






    On 2017/03/17 11:41 AM, andrew wrote:
      03/17/17 10:40 am Andrew Nichols wrote




      What forum platform is being considered?  I, for one, think

that the interface of a forum would make consumption of CSGNet
much easier.

    Do you have a suggestion? The old ECACS forum was "Discusware",

which went out of business. I have not looked at possible modern
platforms, but if one is chosen for which services are offered
to transfer the saved ECACS content, I don’t mind paying to have
it transcribed.

    Martin