Honestly (was Re: environmental correlate)

[Rick Marken 2018-06-24_16:48:47]

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.24 20.50)]

RY: Well, in my point on there not being an environmental correlate of honesty I wasn't including other perceivers in the environment...

RM: I think it would make a lot more sense to first determine empirically what people are controlling when they are controlling what might be called "honesty" before speculating about what the environmental (or, more realistically, the lower level perceptual) "correlates" of this variable might be. Knowing that behavior is control, can you think of a way of determining what a person is controlling when we see him or her behaving honestly, somewhat honestly or completely dishonestly? I think that once we have figured out how to define the variable being controlled when a person is behaving with some degree of honesty we will be well on our way to understanding the environmental (and certainly the perceptual)Â "correlates" of honesty.Â
BestÂ
Rick

Â

···

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

philip jun24 6:11pm

Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of
honesty is "not taking what doesn't belong to you". One would expect a
zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else's things.

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of
honesty is "not taking what doesn't belong to you". One would expect a
zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else's things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don't have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like "degree of honesty" but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call "honesty" at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some "treasure" on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer's avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant's avatar should turn.Â
RM: I'm not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception -- particularly control of higher level perceptions -- is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I'd love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.
BestÂ
Rick

···

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

Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

···

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of

honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a

zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.Â

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. Marken Â

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

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

···

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don’t think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls? Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of

honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a

zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.Â

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. Marken Â

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

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_17:41:54]

PY: Yes.  It's not difficult to describe your conscious experience. I would say that I keep the ball in the center of my field of view. If you're saying that it's impossible to tell without a computer whether its optical acceleration or optical velocity is zero, I would like to hear it.

 RM: I'm not saying it's impossible. I just think it's unlikely that you can really describe the variables you control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable.But if you are really as good at describing the variables you control as you say you are then you qualify as a one-person PCT lab. How about describing the variables you control as you carry out various everyday activities. You could enter the results of your self analysis in the spreadsheet we started creating some time ago:
<Behavior Is Control - Google Sheets

 I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
BestÂ
Rick

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don't think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls? Â
BestÂ
Rick

 >>>

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of
honesty is "not taking what doesn't belong to you". One would expect a
zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else's things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don't have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like "degree of honesty" but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call "honesty" at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some "treasure" on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer's avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant's avatar should turn.Â
RM: I'm not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception -- particularly control of higher level perceptions -- is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I'd love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.
BestÂ
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Â

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

···

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <<mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu>pyeranos@ucla.edu> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Richard Marken <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken <<mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

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

Which activity for example?

···

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_17:41:54]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Yes.Â
 It’s not difficult to describe your conscious experience.Â

I would say that I keep the ball in the center of my field of view. If you’re saying that it’s impossible to tell without a computer whether its optical acceleration or optical velocity is zero, I would like to hear it.

 RM: I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just think it’s unlikely that you can really describe the variables you control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable.But if you are really as good at describing the variables you control as you say you are then you qualify as a one-person PCT lab. How about describing the variables you control as you carry out various everyday activities. You could enter the results of your self analysis in the spreadsheet we started creating some time ago:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit?usp=sharing

 I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

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

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don’t think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls? Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of

honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a

zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.Â

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. Marken Â

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

Anyone you like. How about brushing your teeth?

···

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_17:41:54]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Yes.Â
 It’s not difficult to describe your conscious experience.Â

I would say that I keep the ball in the center of my field of view. If you’re saying that it’s impossible to tell without a computer whether its optical acceleration or optical velocity is zero, I would like to hear it.

 RM: I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just think it’s unlikely that you can really describe the variables you control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable.But if you are really as good at describing the variables you control as you say you are then you qualify as a one-person PCT lab. How about describing the variables you control as you carry out various everyday activities. You could enter the results of your self analysis in the spreadsheet we started creating some time ago:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit?usp=sharing

 I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

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

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don’t think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls? Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of

honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a

zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.Â

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. Marken Â

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

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

Your premise is that it’s unlikely that people can really describe the variables they control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable. Describe what you mean by precision.Â

Why do you want me to describe what variable is controlled when I’m brushing my teeth? That is something you wouldn’t even ask a kindergartner. Here’s a better one that shouldn’t insult your intelligence: what variable do you control when you’re juggling 3 things?Â

Why haven’t you added catching flyballs to the list?Â

Â

···

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

Anyone you like. How about brushing your teeth?

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:27 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Which activity for example?


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

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_17:41:54]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Yes.Â
 It’s not difficult to describe your conscious experience.Â

I would say that I keep the ball in the center of my field of view. If you’re saying that it’s impossible to tell without a computer whether its optical acceleration or optical velocity is zero, I would like to hear it.

 RM: I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just think it’s unlikely that you can really describe the variables you control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable.But if you are really as good at describing the variables you control as you say you are then you qualify as a one-person PCT lab. How about describing the variables you control as you carry out various everyday activities. You could enter the results of your self analysis in the spreadsheet we started creating some time ago:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit?usp=sharing

 I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

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

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don’t think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls? Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of

honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a

zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.Â

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. Marken Â

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

[Rick Marken 2018-06-28_18:12:36]

···

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:31 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Your premise is that it’s unlikely that people can really describe the variables they control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable. Describe what you mean by precision.Â

RM: Fair question. I think ideally a precise description of a controlled variable would be in the form of a mathematical function. But especially for “higher level” controlled variables, like “degree of honesty”, a precise definition of the variable (at least for now) would have to be in the form of a verbal description of the lower level perceptions that make up the variable.Â

PY: Why do you want me to describe what variable is controlled when I’m brushing my teeth? That is something you wouldn’t even ask a kindergartner.

RM: According to PCT, all behavior involves the control of perceptual variables. Brushing teeth just popped into my head as one kind of behavior that you probably engage in. I wasn’t trying to insult you; I was just suggesting an everyday example of behavior that you have probably engaged in that would, therefore, be a behavior that you could analyze in terms of the perceptual variables that you control when you do it. (Oh, and I would ask a kindergartner to do a PCT analysis of brushing their teeth; I haven’t done so, yet, because none has yet told me – as you did – that it’s easy to tell what variables they are controlling when they do things like catch fly balls).Â

Â

PY: Here’s a better one that shouldn’t insult your intelligence: what variable do you control when you’re juggling 3 things?Â

RM: Asking what I control when I brush my teeth wouldn’t insult my intelligence either. But you were the one who said it was easy to tell what variables you are controlling when you do things so it would be nice if you would tell me some of the perceptual variables that you are controlling when you juggle three things.Â

Â

PY: Why haven’t you added catching flyballs to the list?Â

 RM: I didn’t have a list; I believe I just asked you to describe the perceptual variables you control when you do some everyday behaviors. Juggling three things and catching fly balls are not part of my everyday behavior (maybe they should be) so I didn’t suggest them. Brushing my teeth is, I’m proud to say, part of my everyday behavior so I mentioned it because I assumed it was part of yours too.

RM: Again, I point you to the spreadsheet at:Â

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit#gid=0

RM: for examples of the kind of analysis I’ve suggested that you try. I’m interested in whether you can come up with more precise definitions of the variables you control (the variables described in the Controlled Variables column) than those in the spreadsheet so far. Whether you can or not, I think doing this (adding some rows to the matrix) would be a good exercise in starting to look at behavior through control theory glasses.

Best

Rick

Â

Â


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

Anyone you like. How about brushing your teeth?

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:27 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Which activity for example?


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

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_17:41:54]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Yes.Â
 It’s not difficult to describe your conscious experience.Â

I would say that I keep the ball in the center of my field of view. If you’re saying that it’s impossible to tell without a computer whether its optical acceleration or optical velocity is zero, I would like to hear it.

 RM: I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just think it’s unlikely that you can really describe the variables you control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable.But if you are really as good at describing the variables you control as you say you are then you qualify as a one-person PCT lab. How about describing the variables you control as you carry out various everyday activities. You could enter the results of your self analysis in the spreadsheet we started creating some time ago:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit?usp=sharing

 I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

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

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don’t think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls? Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of

honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a

zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.Â

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. Marken Â

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

You juggle by throwing the balls in non intersecting trajectories.
Notice in the video how each ball has a trajectory that is either a
different height or a different width. Eventually, the trajectories
collide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsLFYhI6gZY

Down…

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 1:49 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Honestly (was Re: environmental correlate)

[Rick Marken 2018-06-24_16:48:47]

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.24 20.50)]

RY: Well, in my point on there not being an environmental correlate of honesty I wasn’t including other perceivers in the environment…

HB : I think Rick that you should copy – paste the whole Rupert’s statement :

RY : Well, in my point on there not being an environmental correlate of honesty I wasn’t including other perceivers in the environment. If we did then, I think, we could say there was a property of the honesty of a particular person in the real world, but that property is in the head of that particular person (and not accessible to the main perceiver). In other words, it is a perceptual property not a property of the physical world, external to perceivers.

HB : Now you can see how to explore honesty. Do you understand what Rupert wrote ??? There is no “environmental correlates” because “environmental correlates” are the problem of being constructed in perceptual hierarchy in individuals. Model of “environmental correlate” is what exists only in the head of individual.

RM: I think it would make a lot more sense to first determine empirically what people are controlling when they are controlling what might be called “honesty”…

HB : In PCT we have empirical way to determine what people are controlling… TCV…

Bill P (B:CP) :

The TCV is method for identifying control organization of nervous system….

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

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

RM : ….before speculating about what the environmental (or, more realistically, the lower level perceptual) “correlates” of this variable might be.

HB : See above.

RM : : Knowing that behavior is control, …

HB : Why don’t you prove us first that behavior is control ? Bill thought it wasn’t ? What is for your central problem in PCT ???

Bill P. (B:CP) :

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

RM : …can you think of a way of determining what a person is controlling when we see him or her behaving honestly, somewhat honestly or completely dishonestly?

HB : Rupert already answered you that question…

RY earlier : Control of honesty is done in the perceiver not the environment, in my view

RM : I think that once we have figured out how to define the variable being controlled when a person is behaving with some degree of honesty

HB : And how we “figure out” how to define the variable being controlled ???

RM : …we will be well on our way to understanding the environmental (and certainly the perceptual) “correlates” of honesty.

HB : You main problem Rick is, that you are making incredible mess and of course confussion of worst kind, because you are listening just to yourself. Do you read what others write ??? The more I’m telling you and Rupert that PCT is not about “behavior is control” and understanding what people control outside. You’ll hardly “extracti” from behavior what people really control.

Assumptions about what people are controlling are made on other bases. See above.

Boris

Best

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: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 2:42 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Honestly (was Re: environmental correlate)

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_17:41:54]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Yes. It’s not difficult to describe your conscious experience. I would say that I keep the ball in the center of my field of view. If you’re saying that it’s impossible to tell without a computer whether its optical acceleration or optical velocity is zero, I would like to hear it.

RM: I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just think it’s unlikely that you can really describe the variables you control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable.But if you are really as good at describing the variables you control as you say you are then you qualify as a one-person PCT lab. How about describing the variables you control as you carry out various everyday activities. You could enter the results of your self analysis in the spreadsheet we started creating some time ago:

HB : You are bullshitting again Rick. Some time ago when you created your behavioristic spreadsheet we clearly established what Bill was writting about. You initiated your behavioristic “research” somehwere arroung July, August 2017. It was a disaster because Bills’ conclusion was clear about how “behavior” function. See it on the end of the Chapter where you found “spreadsheet” :

Bill P (LCS I) :

There is one explanation for existance of reference states that has been proposed over and over for centuries : they are determined by the intentions of the behaving system. The driver has inside him, the intention that the door be open. He acts to achieve this purpose, doing whatever is required (if possible) to achieve it.

HB : It was obviously what Bill wanted to show with “spreadsheet”.

RM : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit?usp=sharing

RM : I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

HB : So start with PCT examples and PCT research work.

Boris

Best

Rick

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don’t think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls?

Best

Rick

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of
honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a
zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

Best

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

Richard S. Marken

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

Richard S. Marken

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

Down

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 11:49 PM
To: pyeranos@ucla.edu
Cc: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Honestly (was Re: environmental correlate)

RM : Anyone you like. How about brushing your teeth?

HB : Any case of “behavior” in everyday life follows the same PCT principles of how orgsnism function.

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 glass change froom »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 actionns that alter the world of perception…

HB : Every behavior follows the same mechanism. Just switch “perception of glass” with perceptions of “brushing teeth”.

Boris

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:27 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Which activity for example?

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_17:41:54]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Yes. It’s not difficult to describe your conscious experience. I would say that I keep the ball in the center of my field of view. If you’re saying that it’s impossible to tell without a computer whether its optical acceleration or optical velocity is zero, I would like to hear it.

RM: I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just think it’s unlikely that you can really describe the variables you control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable.But if you are really as good at describing the variables you control as you say you are then you qualify as a one-person PCT lab. How about describing the variables you control as you carry out various everyday activities. You could enter the results of your self analysis in the spreadsheet we started creating some time ago:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit?usp=sharing

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Best

Rick

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don’t think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls?

Best

Rick

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of
honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a
zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

Best

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

Richard S. Marken

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

Richard S. Marken

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

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

Philip,

Keep on. Rick has nothing. He blow up and now he is trying to “cover” his mistake.

RM: Again, I point you to the spreadsheet at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit#gid=0

HB : And again I’m pointing that your spreadsheet was meant for behavioristic research of how "behavior is control"… And you know already what Bills’ answer was.

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 3:13 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Honestly (was Re: environmental correlate)

[Rick Marken 2018-06-28_18:12:36]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:31 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Your premise is that it’s unlikely that people can really describe the variables they control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable. Describe what you mean by precision.

RM: Fair question. I think ideally a precise description of a controlled variable would be in the form of a mathematical function. But especially for “higher level” controlled variables, like “degree of honesty”, a precise definition of the variable (at least for now) would have to be in the form of a verbal description of the lower level perceptions that make up the variable.

PY: Why do you want me to describe what variable is controlled when I’m brushing my teeth? That is something you wouldn’t even ask a kindergartner.

RM: According to PCT, all behavior involves the control of perceptual variables. Brushing teeth just popped into my head as one kind of behavior that you probably engage in. I wasn’t trying to insult you; I was just suggesting an everyday example of behavior that you have probably engaged in that would, therefore, be a behavior that you could analyze in terms of the perceptual variables that you control when you do it. (Oh, and I would ask a kindergartner to do a PCT analysis of brushing their teeth; I haven’t done so, yet, because none has yet told me – as you did – that it’s easy to tell what variables they are controlling when they do things like catch fly balls).

PY: Here’s a better one that shouldn’t insult your intelligence: what variable do you control when you’re juggling 3 things?

RM: Asking what I control when I brush my teeth wouldn’t insult my intelligence either. But you were the one who said it was easy to tell what variables you are controlling when you do things so it would be nice if you would tell me some of the perceptual variables that you are controlling when you juggle three things.

PY: Why haven’t you added catching flyballs to the list?

RM: I didn’t have a list; I believe I just asked you to describe the perceptual variables you control when you do some everyday behaviors. Juggling three things and catching fly balls are not part of my everyday behavior (maybe they should be) so I didn’t suggest them. Brushing my teeth is, I’m proud to say, part of my everyday behavior so I mentioned it because I assumed it was part of yours too.

RM: Again, I point you to the spreadsheet at:

HB : And again I’m pointing that your spreadsheet was meant for behavioristic research of how “behavior is controll”…

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit#gid=0

RM: for examples of the kind of analysis I’ve suggested that you try. I’m interested in whether you can come up with more precise definitions of the variables you control (the variables described in the Controlled Variables column) than those in the spreadsheet so far. Whether you can or not, I think doing this (adding some rows to the matrix) would be a good exercise in starting to look at behavior through control theory glasses.

Best

Rick

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

Anyone you like. How about brushing your teeth?

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:27 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Which activity for example?

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_17:41:54]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: Yes. It’s not difficult to describe your conscious experience. I would say that I keep the ball in the center of my field of view. If you’re saying that it’s impossible to tell without a computer whether its optical acceleration or optical velocity is zero, I would like to hear it.

RM: I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just think it’s unlikely that you can really describe the variables you control with the level of precision that you would get from testing for the controlled variable.But if you are really as good at describing the variables you control as you say you are then you qualify as a one-person PCT lab. How about describing the variables you control as you carry out various everyday activities. You could enter the results of your self analysis in the spreadsheet we started creating some time ago:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JmS6tOjt_nvrpmD5sGySwup0ZZCU_hYtZqlHxW80dME/edit?usp=sharing

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Best

Rick

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-27_10:44:39]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

PY: Why is it necessary to empirically determine the variables people control when they can just tell you?

RM: Because I don’t think people are very good at doing that. For example, would you be able to correctly tell what variable(s) you are controlling when you catch fly balls?

Best

Rick

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2018-06-25_09:55:56]

philip jun24 6:11pm

PY: Given the preference of the wallet example, the controlled variable of
honesty is “not taking what doesn’t belong to you”. One would expect a
zero correlation between your grasp and somebody else’s things.

RM: Yes, this is a good start. I actually don’t have a good idea of how to test for control of perceptual variables like “degree of honesty” but I think it would be best if we could figure out a way to test for such control in a laboratory environment, where we have better control of all the variables that might affect the hypothetical controlled variable. One idea I had was to develop a game where, in order to keep accumulating points, the player would have to control a variable that we would call “honesty” at some reference level. So maybe you show the participant the location of some “treasure” on the screen and then have avatars representing the computer and the participant try to get to the treasure. A each point in the hunt the participant is asked which way each avatar should turn. The participant should find questions about the correct way to turn to be disturbances to making an honest answer when the question is about how the computer’s avatar should turn but not when the question is about how the participant’s avatar should turn.

RM: I’m not crazy about this exact idea but this is the line along which I think we should go about trying to determine the kinds of perceptual variables people control. I think developing a science of control of perception – particularly control of higher level perceptions – is completely new territory for the behavioral sciences and will require some serious thinking by smart people, who understand behavior as control, to figure out how to do it. I’d love to see some detailed proposals for how to do such research.

Best

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

Richard S. Marken

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

Richard S. Marken

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

Richard S. Marken

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

Richard S. Marken

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

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.29 19.50)]

  I think the video you linked is an example of an automaton, in

that it is operating without feedback, and just carrying out
certain actions. The conditions are carefully controlled, but even
so, the slight differences accumulate so that the trajectories
can’t be maintained.

  There are many perceptions a person controls when juggling,

position of hands, orientation of wrists, direction of throwing of
ball, angle of elbows, effort in throwing balls, relationship
between throwing of one ball and preceding ball (when latter is at
top), height of balls, shoulder yaw, position of head (so you can
see balls), speed of ball, pliability of limbs etc etc.

  If these (or similar) perceptions are controlled any inevitable

differences are continually compensated for and the trajectories
won’t collide.

Three ball juggling

Regards,

Rupert

···

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCt1bmSASCI

  On 29/06/2018 06:30, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

You juggle by throwing the balls in non intersecting trajectories.
Notice in the video how each ball has a trajectory that is either a
different height or a different width. Eventually, the trajectories
collide.

pyeranos@ucla.edu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsLFYhI6gZY

These perceptions you list are varied on order to maintain nonintersecting trajectories. If the trajectories themselves are not varied, then the balls will eventually collide. I’m sure a perceptual control system will have an easier time varying the trajectories than a model based on inverse kinematics. However, the fact that inverse kinematics is or is not used to calculate the solution does not determine whether something is an automaton. Autonomy is not determined by whether or not feedback exists.

···

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Rupert Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.29 19.50)]

  I think the video you linked is an example of an automaton, in

that it is operating without feedback, and just carrying out
certain actions. The conditions are carefully controlled, but even
so, the slight differences accumulate so that the trajectories
can’t be maintained.

  There are many perceptions a person controls when juggling,

position of hands, orientation of wrists, direction of throwing of
ball, angle of elbows, effort in throwing balls, relationship
between throwing of one ball and preceding ball (when latter is at
top), height of balls, shoulder yaw, position of head (so you can
see balls), speed of ball, pliability of limbs etc etc.

  If these (or similar) perceptions are controlled any inevitable

differences are continually compensated for and the trajectories
won’t collide.

Three ball juggling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCt1bmSASCI

Regards,

Rupert

  On 29/06/2018 06:30, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:


You juggle by throwing the balls in non intersecting trajectories.
Notice in the video how each ball has a trajectory that is either a
different height or a different width. Eventually, the trajectories
collide.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsLFYhI6gZY](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DLsLFYhI6gZY&d=DwMCaQ&c=OCIEmEwdEq_aNlsP4fF3gFqSN-E3mlr2t9JcDdfOZag&r=G2rjwc9SjlT6Blyc8su_Md8P_xOsOTRMJ5teQVBC2qU&m=1Jgx3Wyl6hI8sretptqJnY-gh4KfxyV3ng0wBwSSpsQ&s=wcaCdY-8LYfao2fep8MRo56cbcUoHDAOajPJheubKCk&e=)

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.29 21.55)]

These perceptions you list are varied on order to maintain nonintersecting trajectories. If the trajectories themselves are not varied, then the balls will eventually collide.

If the trajectories do not vary and they are nonintersecting, then, by definition they will not collide.

I'm sure a perceptual control system will have an easier time varying the trajectories than a model based on inverse kinematics. However, the fact that inverse kinematics is or is not used to calculate the solution does not determine whether something is an automaton.

What makes it an automaton is that carries out its actions irrespective of the influences of those actions.

Autonomy is not determined by whether or not feedback exists.

Autonomy - freedom from external control or influence

Feedback is the way by which control systems maintain that freedom from external influence.

Regards,
Rupert

···

On 29/06/2018 21:01, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.30 10.50)]

>If the trajectories do not vary and they are nonintersecting then the system can operate without feedback.

This contradicts what you said previously.

···

On 29/06/2018 22:52, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:

On 29/06/2018 21:01, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
> If the trajectories themselves are not varied, then the balls will eventually collide.

And on the first point, that situation is unlikely to persist in the real world, and feedback would be required to correct for divergences. You can get it to work in simulation, but that just highlights the invalidity of applying the computational approach to the real world.

Rupert

What is the invalidity of applying the computational approach to the real world?

···

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Rupert Young csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2018.06.30 10.50)]

On 29/06/2018 22:52, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:

If the trajectories do not vary and they are nonintersecting then the system can operate without feedback.

This contradicts what you said previously.

On 29/06/2018 21:01, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

If the trajectories themselves are not varied, then the balls will eventually collide.

And on the first point, that situation is unlikely to persist in the real world, and feedback would be required to correct for divergences. You can get it to work in simulation, but that just highlights the invalidity of applying the computational approach to the real world.

Rupert