Input Control Theory (was RE: TCV and Collective Control ...)

From Fred Nickols (2016.11.21.0515 ET)]

Regarding the notion of “input control theoryâ€? some doggerel rhyme I published way back in the mid-1970s might be of interest.

Here are the opening lines:

Things coming in are routed about, molded and shaped on their way out.

Outputs are exchanged for things coming in; and the cycle starts all over again.

Systems are loops, they’re cycles of events. Focusing on “parts” doesn’t make much sense.

If you would make use of the systems view, here’s some well-meant advice from me to you:

When observing systems from the outside, trace their outputs back to their input side,

for what systems “do,” or so I believe,**isact to control the things they receive.

The full poem can be found at http://www.nickols.us/systems_poem.htm

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 12:38 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control …

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.20.0940)]

Rupert Young (2016.11.19 18.30)–

(Rick Marken (2016.11.18.1020)]

RM: …But I just wanted to let you know that I liked this post of your; your ideas on perception are, as Bill said somewhere in B:CP “comfortably compatible” with mine.

RY: Thanks. I am beginning to think we have a problem with the term “perception”

RM: I agree. I would rather that Powers’ control theory had been called “input control theory” (IPT) but it’s too late now, I guess. The problem with calling it perceptual control theory is that many lay people think of “perception” as meaning something like “opinion”. So many people come to PCT thinking it justifies what is basically a postmodernist approach to understanding the world – an approach that treats ideas as just a matter of opinion and my opinion is just as good as yours. The irony is that this has led many people who are basically anti-science to become fervent supporters of the science that Bill was trying to create. Perhaps everything would have worked out better if Bill had titled his book “Behavior:The Control of Input”. But maybe not.

RM: When I first saw Bill’s book, on that fateful day in 1974 while roaming through the library at UCSB, I found the title shocking for the reason I believe Bill intended it to be shocking: because it was describing behavior in the exact opposite way that psychologists thought of it. I was trained to see behavior as controlled (caused, really) by input; and here was a book that said appeared to be saying the opposite. So I was interested in the book to see how the author could justify such an apparently absurd statement. It wasn’t the word “perception” that caught my attention – that part of the title was uncontroversial to me. There wasn’t a psychologist I know who wouldn’t have said that it is the perception of environment that is the input that causes behavior. What was controversial about the title of Powers’ book is that it was saying that input was what was controlled rather than what was doing the controlling.

RM: So if I had the power to do it, I would change the name of Powers’ theory from PCT to ICT (and, in the mean time, also change the result of the recent election to that of the person who won the popular vote). I think I will be equally successful at both;-)

Best

Rick

which has representational connotations, whereas what we, more generally, mean is internal neural signals that, ultimately, contribute to the organism maintaining energy levels such that it lives long enough to reproduce.

We must rename the theory from PCT to INSTUCTTOMELSTILLETRCT!

RM: And, again, I should point out that this is not just a “philosophical” disagreement (between representationalists and constructivists). The difference could have real consequences for one’s ability to do PCT science, particularly the Test for the Controlled Variable. A representationalist would be oriented toward finding out whether a person is controlling “correctly” – whether the perception is a correct representation of some entity in the world (this is the approach of conventional psychology). A constructivist would be oriented toward finding out what “constructed” as aspect of physical reality (as we know it via physics and chemistry) is being controlled (this is the approach of PCT).

Yes, I recall, at University, being unconvinced with the main approach to computer vision. David Marr’s approach of a one-way processing pipeline in order to extract the information from static images. I preferred Gibson’s dynamic approach, but I guess his is still one-way processing.

Rupert

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[From Fred Nickols (2016.11.21.0734 ET)]

Thanks, Eetu. Glad you liked the poem. I’ve never tried to sing it but it does seem to have some kind of lilt to it. Maybe Rap would get it.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:10 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Input Control Theory (was RE: TCV and Collective Control …)

Fred, I want to tell that your whole poem is really nice piece of work!

Have you ever tried to sing it? I saw some time ago an interesting document about a Japanese ocean biologist who used self made songs as teaching material in university. He sang his songs with the students as karaoke (which is quite popular in Japan, as in Finland). (Rap would offer still more possibilities…)

Eetu Pikkarainen


Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 21. marraskuuta 2016 12:18
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Input Control Theory (was RE: TCV and Collective Control …)

from Fred Nickols (2016.11.21.0515 ET)]

Regarding the notion of “input control theory” some doggerel rhyme I published way back in the mid-1970s might be of interest.

Here are the opening lines:

Things coming in are routed about, molded and shaped on their way out.

Outputs are exchanged for things coming in; and the cycle starts all over again.

Systems are loops, they’re cycles of events. Focusing on “parts” doesn’t make much sense.

If you would make use of the systems view, here’s some well-meant advice from me to you:

When observing systems from the outside, trace their outputs back to their input side,

for what systems “do,” or so I believe,**isact to control the things they receive.

The full poem can be found at http://www.nickols.us/systems_poem.htm



From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 12:38 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control …

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.20.0940)]

Rupert Young (2016.11.19 18.30)–

(Rick Marken (2016.11.18.1020)]

RM: …But I just wanted to let you know that I liked this post of your; your ideas on perception are, as Bill said somewhere in B:CP “comfortably compatible” with mine.

RY: Thanks. I am beginning to think we have a problem with the term “perception”

RM: I agree. I would rather that Powers’ control theory had been called “input control theory” (IPT) but it’s too late now, I guess. The problem with calling it perceptual control theory is that many lay people think of “perception” as meaning something like “opinion”. So many people come to PCT thinking it justifies what is basically a postmodernist approach to understanding the world – an approach that treats ideas as just a matter of opinion and my opinion is just as good as yours. The irony is that this has led many people who are basically anti-science to become fervent supporters of the science that Bill was trying to create. Perhaps everything would have worked out better if Bill had titled his book “Behavior:The Control of Input”. But maybe not.

RM: When I first saw Bill’s book, on that fateful day in 1974 while roaming through the library at UCSB, I found the title shocking for the reason I believe Bill intended it to be shocking: because it was describing behavior in the exact opposite way that psychologists thought of it. I was trained to see behavior as controlled (caused, really) by input; and here was a book that said appeared to be saying the opposite. So I was interested in the book to see how the author could justify such an apparently absurd statement. It wasn’t the word “perception” that caught my attention – that part of the title was uncontroversial to me. There wasn’t a psychologist I know who wouldn’t have said that it is the perception of environment that is the input that causes behavior. What was controversial about the title of Powers’ book is that it was saying that input was what was controlled rather than what was doing the controlling.

RM: So if I had the power to do it, I would change the name of Powers’ theory from PCT to ICT (and, in the mean time, also change the result of the recent election to that of the person who won the popular vote). I think I will be equally successful at both;-)

Best

Rick

which has representational connotations, whereas what we, more generally, mean is internal neural signals that, ultimately, contribute to the organism maintaining energy levels such that it lives long enough to reproduce.

We must rename the theory from PCT to INSTUCTTOMELSTILLETRCT!

RM: And, again, I should point out that this is not just a “philosophical” disagreement (between representationalists and constructivists). The difference could have real consequences for one’s ability to do PCT science, particularly the Test for the Controlled Variable. A representationalist would be oriented toward finding out whether a person is controlling “correctly” – whether the perception is a correct representation of some entity in the world (this is the approach of conventional psychology). A constructivist would be oriented toward finding out what “constructed” as aspect of physical reality (as we know it via physics and chemistry) is being controlled (this is the approach of PCT).

Yes, I recall, at University, being unconvinced with the main approach to computer vision. David Marr’s approach of a one-way processing pipeline in order to extract the information from static images. I preferred Gibson’s dynamic approach, but I guess his is still one-way processing.

Rupert

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.21.0835)]

···

Fred Nickols (2016.11.21.0515 ET)]

Things coming in are routed about, molded and shaped on their way out.

Outputs are exchanged for things coming in; and the cycle starts all over again.

Systems are loops, they’re cycles of events. Focusing on “parts” doesn’t make much sense.

If you would make use of the systems view, here’s some well-meant advice from me to you:

When observing systems from the outside, trace their outputs back to their input side,

for what systems “do,” or so I believe,**isact to control the things they receive.

RM: This is wonderful Fred! I dub you the poet laureate of ICT;-)

Best

Rick



From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 12:38 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control …

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.20.0940)]

Rupert Young (2016.11.19 18.30)–

(Rick Marken (2016.11.18.1020)]

RM: …But I just wanted to let you know that I liked this post of your; your ideas on perception are, as Bill said somewhere in B:CP “comfortably compatible” with mine.

RY: Thanks. I am beginning to think we have a problem with the term “perception”

RM: I agree. I would rather that Powers’ control theory had been called “input control theory” (IPT) but it’s too late now, I guess. The problem with calling it perceptual control theory is that many lay people think of “perception” as meaning something like “opinion”. So many people come to PCT thinking it justifies what is basically a postmodernist approach to understanding the world – an approach that treats ideas as just a matter of opinion and my opinion is just as good as yours. The irony is that this has led many people who are basically anti-science to become fervent supporters of the science that Bill was trying to create. Perhaps everything would have worked out better if Bill had titled his book “Behavior:The Control of Input”. But maybe not.

RM: When I first saw Bill’s book, on that fateful day in 1974 while roaming through the library at UCSB, I found the title shocking for the reason I believe Bill intended it to be shocking: because it was describing behavior in the exact opposite way that psychologists thought of it. I was trained to see behavior as controlled (caused, really) by input; and here was a book that said appeared to be saying the opposite. So I was interested in the book to see how the author could justify such an apparently absurd statement. It wasn’t the word “perception” that caught my attention – that part of the title was uncontroversial to me. There wasn’t a psychologist I know who wouldn’t have said that it is the perception of environment that is the input that causes behavior. What was controversial about the title of Powers’ book is that it was saying that input was what was controlled rather than what was doing the controlling.

RM: So if I had the power to do it, I would change the name of Powers’ theory from PCT to ICT (and, in the mean time, also change the result of the recent election to that of the person who won the popular vote). I think I will be equally successful at both;-)

Best

Rick

which has representational connotations, whereas what we, more generally, mean is internal neural signals that, ultimately, contribute to the organism maintaining energy levels such that it lives long enough to reproduce.

We must rename the theory from PCT to INSTUCTTOMELSTILLETRCT!

RM: And, again, I should point out that this is not just a “philosophical” disagreement (between representationalists and constructivists). The difference could have real consequences for one’s ability to do PCT science, particularly the Test for the Controlled Variable. A representationalist would be oriented toward finding out whether a person is controlling “correctly” – whether the perception is a correct representation of some entity in the world (this is the approach of conventional psychology). A constructivist would be oriented toward finding out what “constructed” as aspect of physical reality (as we know it via physics and chemistry) is being controlled (this is the approach of PCT).

Yes, I recall, at University, being unconvinced with the main approach to computer vision. David Marr’s approach of a one-way processing pipeline in order to extract the information from static images. I preferred Gibson’s dynamic approach, but I guess his is still one-way processing.

Rupert

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.21.0900)]

···

eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-21

EP: This begs some questions:

RM: Actually, this is not what “begging the question” means but I’ll save that for another time, when I explain what “The exception proves the rule” actually means;-)Â

EP: Is it here, the problem which Boris protests?Â

RM: Probably, though methinks Boris doth protest way too much;-)

EP: Input and input quantity are something happening outside the organism, in the boundaries of environment, isn’t it?Â

RM: I think of input as the sensory effects of environmental variables. So, for example,  pressure variations in the air are inputs to the auditory system because the auditory system has sensory transducers that convert there pressure variations into neural signals. The term “input quantity” is not the same as “input”. The term "input quantity" is synonymous with “controlled quantity”; these terms refer to the function of environmental variables that corresponds to a controlled perceptual variable.

EP: Instead perception takes place inside organism, in the input function and after it in perception signal?Â

RM: Yes, of course.Â

EP: What we can control is perception inside the organism - the perception signal in comparator (if I at the moment have understood right the concept of control)?Â

RM: Yes, its the perceptual signal that is controlled. Â

EP: What we cannot control but only affect
are the events in environment?

RM: No, when we control perceptions we are also controlling the aspects of the environment of which these perceptions are a function. Think of it in terms of a thermostat. Like any control system the thermostat controls a perceptual variable; the diameter of a bimetallic strip in this case. This perceptual variable is a function of an aspect of the environment; the rate of motion of the air molecules-- air temperature – around the bimetallic strip. When the thermostat controls its perception it is at the same time controlling air temperature. If the thermostat were only affecting (not controlling) the air temperature when it was controlling its perception it would not be very useful; it people were only affecting (not controlling) the environment when they are controlling their perceptions they wouldn’t be very alive.Â

Best

Rick

BTW. As non English speaker I have wondered why the name of PCT is Peceptual Control Theory and not Perception Control Theory? For me the previous one means something like Control with the help or mediation of Perception and the latter would mean Control
of Perception. At least this is what I get when I make a literal translation to Finnish.Â

(I still do not know how I should translate the name to Finnish.)

Eetu Pikkarainen


Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 21. marraskuuta 2016 12:18
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Input Control Theory (was RE: TCV and Collective Control …)
Â

From Fred Nickols (2016.11.21.0515 ET)]

Â

Regarding the notion of “input control theory� some doggerel rhyme I published way back in the mid-1970s might be of interest.

Â

Here are the opening lines:

Â

Things coming in are routed about, molded and shaped on their way out.

Outputs are exchanged for things coming in; and the cycle starts all over again.

Systems are loops, they’re cycles of events. Focusing on “parts” doesn’t make much sense.

If you would make use of the systems view, here’s some well-meant advice from me to you:

When observing systems from the outside, trace their outputs back to their input side,

for what systems “do,” or so I believe, is act to control the things they receive.

Â

Â

The full poem can be found at

http://www.nickols.us/systems_poem.htm

Â

Â

Â

Â

**Â **

**Â **

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 12:38 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control …

Â

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.20.0940)]

Â

Rupert Young (2016.11.19 18.30)–

Â

(Rick Marken (2016.11.18.1020)]

RM: …But I just wanted to let you know that I liked this post of your; your ideas on perception are, as Bill said somewhere in B:CP “comfortably compatible” with mine.Â

RY: Thanks. I am beginning to think we have a problem with the term “perception”

Â

RM: I agree. I would rather that Powers’ control theory had been called “input control theory” (IPT) but it’s too late now, I guess. The problem with calling it perceptual control theory is that many lay people think of “perception” as
meaning something like “opinion”. So many people come to PCT thinking it justifies what is basically a postmodernist approach to understanding the world – an approach that treats ideas as just a matter of opinion and my opinion is just as good as yours. The
irony is that this has led many people who are basically anti-science to become fervent supporters of the science that Bill was trying to create. Perhaps everything would have worked out better if Bill had titled his book “Behavior:The Control of Input”. But
maybe not.Â

Â

RM: When I first saw Bill’s book, on that fateful day in 1974 while roaming through the library at UCSB, I found the title shocking for the reason I believe Bill intended it to be shocking: because it was describing behavior in the exact
opposite way that psychologists thought of it. I was trained to see behavior as controlled (caused, really) by input; and here was a book that said appeared to be saying the opposite. So I was interested in the book to see how the author could justify such
an apparently absurd statement. It wasn’t the word “perception” that caught my attention – that part of the title was uncontroversial to me. There wasn’t a psychologist I know who wouldn’t have said that it is the perception of environment that is the input
that causes behavior. What was controversial about the title of Powers’ book is that it was saying that input was what was controlled rather than what was doing the controlling.Â

Â

RM: So if I had the power to do it, I would change the name of Powers’ theory from PCT to ICT (and, in the mean time, also change the result of the recent election to that of the person who won the popular vote). I think I will be equally
successful at both;-)

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Â

which has representational connotations, whereas what we, more generally, mean is internal neural signals that, ultimately, contribute to the organism maintaining energy levels such that it lives long enough to reproduce.

We must rename the theory from PCT to INSTUCTTOMELSTILLETRCT!

RM: And, again, I should point out that this is not just a “philosophical” disagreement (between representationalists and constructivists). The difference could have real consequences for one’s ability to do PCT science, particularly the
Test for the Controlled Variable. A representationalist would be oriented toward finding out whether a person is controlling “correctly” – whether the perception is a correct representation of some entity in the world (this is the approach of conventional
psychology). A constructivist would be oriented toward finding out what “constructed” as aspect of physical reality (as we know it via physics and chemistry) is being controlled (this is the approach of PCT).

Yes, I recall, at University, being unconvinced with the main approach to computer vision. David Marr’s approach of a one-way processing pipeline in order to extract the information from static images. I preferred Gibson’s dynamic approach, but I guess his
is still one-way processing.

Rupert

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers


Richard S. MarkenÂ

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

In the text below…

image001155.jpg

image00280.png

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 6:01 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Input Control Theory (was RE: TCV and Collective Control …)

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.21.0900)]

eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-21

EP: This begs some questions:

RM: Actually, this is not what “begging the question” means but I’ll save that for another time, when I explain what “The exception proves the rule” actually means;-)

EP: Is it here, the problem which Boris protests?

RM: Probably, though methinks Boris doth protest way too much;-)

HB :

Boris doesn’t protest, Boris just explains PCT as it is writen by the Bills’ books and from the memory of talkings to Bill. Rick protest against Bills’ Theory PCT trying to change PCT into RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory). So Boris always support his statements with physiological evidences and Bill’s books. But Rick is misleading on the CSGnet without any evidences. Do we feel the diference ??? Rick is selling his own theory RCT on CSGnet and publically. So I’m wandering when he will stop hiding behind PCT and open his own »shop« for trading RCT.

EP: Input and input quantity are something happening outside the organism, in the boundaries of environment, isn’t it?

RM: I think of input as the sensory effects of environmental variables. So, for example, pressure variations in the air are inputs to the auditory system because the auditory system has sensory transducers that convert there pressure variations into neural signals. The term “input quantity” is not the same as “input”. The term “input quantity” is synonymous with “controlled quantity”; these terms refer to the function of environmental variables that corresponds to a controlled perceptual variable.

HB : There is no »controlled parceptual variable« as there is no »controlled variable« in environment« and there is no »Control of behavior«. The term “input quantity” is synonymous with “controlled quantity” because it will be controlled in comparator. There is »time line« in control loop. There is nothing controlled yet in external environment. It’s RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory).The only place where perception is controlled is comparator.There is no such thing as »Perceptual controlled variable« in PCT. It’s just Perceptual signal.

You are right Eetu that »input« and »input quantity« are something happening outside the organism and percpetual signal is something that is directly controlled in comparator (inside organism).

EP: Instead perception takes place inside organism, in the input function and after it in perception signal?

RM: Yes, of course.

EP: What we can control is perception inside the organism - the perception signal in comparator (if I at the moment have understood right the concept of control)?

RM: Yes, its the perceptual signal that is controlled.

HB : So you see it’s Perceptual signal, Perceptual Control Theory and there is no »Perceptual Controlled Variable«.

EP: What we cannot control but only affect are the events in environment?

RM: No, when we control perceptions we are also controlling the aspects of the environment of which these perceptions are a function.

HB : No. When we Control perception we are not controlling any aspect of envoironment. We are just affecting it. Control is happening inside organism, so we don’t control any aspect of environment. We just affect outside environment with output. Bills’ diagram is obvious about that and definitions also.

Bill P.: (B:CP)

cid:image001.png@01D23600.98B1E160

You are right Eetu and Rick is wrong.

We went so many times through these problems that it makes me seek when Rick starts with his »RCT«. It’s enough Rick. It’s enough misleading the forum and it’s enough of your attempts to change Bill’s theory.

Barb STOP HIM !!!

RM : Think of it in terms of a thermostat.

HB . Thermostat is not living system and it’s not producing references and it’s not born and it doesn’t die. Thermostat doesn’t need to survive. I told you Rick many times that you should read again Henry Yin article, where he explained everything about Living Control Systems and »machines«.

RM : Like any control system the thermostat controls a perceptual variable; the diameter of a bimetallic strip in this case. This perceptual variable is a function of an aspect of the environment; the rate of motion of the air molecules-- air temperature – around the bimetallic strip. When the thermostat controls its perception it is at the same time controlling air temperature.

HB : But not like any LIVING CONTROL SYSTEM. Thermostat is not controlling »perception«. Perception is only controlled in human and it occurs only in nerv fibres according to PCT.

So we can’t give the example of human control by »machines«. The example of human control is in Bills’ diagram (LCS III). See bellow.

RM : If the thermostat were only affecting (not controlling) the air temperature when it was controlling its perception it would not be very useful; it people were only affecting (not controlling) the environment when they are controlling their perceptions they wouldn’t be very alive.

HB : Thermostat is not living system, it has no internal organisztion which produces references and realize them in order to survive. And Theromstats are not controlling perception whatever it means to you. Thermostat is made by the living system and is used for better »Control pf perception« of human. It’s part of the »Control of human perception«. And people are very much alive and survive with »Control of perception«. Thermostat wouldn’t even exist without human »Control of perception« and affecting environment with output.

Again your conversation with Eetu :

EP: Instead perception takes place inside organism, in the input function and after it in perception signal?

RM: Yes, of course.

EP: What we can control is perception inside the organism - the perception signal in comparator (if I at the moment have understood right the concept of control)?

RM: Yes, its the perceptual signal that is controlled.

HB : Once for all. Bills’ diagram is clear. Perception is controlled in Living Control Systems and output affects environment NOT CONTROL !!!. Fullstop.

cid:image003.jpg@01D23694.7341FD90

You’ll never understand Rick. You’ll have to read Bills’ books all over again and of course Henry Yins’ article.

But I hope this is your last attempt to change PCT into RCT. It’s not tha problem in changing Bills’ theory it’s the problem in understanding it right. And you Rick wants to change PCT into your RCT because it’s the way you wrongly understand PCT. Instead of traing to understand PCT you are traying to change PCT into what you understand as RCT.

So dear Eetu please continue your good work and citate Powers not Marken.

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

BTW. As non English speaker I have wondered why the name of PCT is Peceptual Control Theory and not Perception Control Theory? For me the previous one means something like Control with the help or mediation of Perception and the latter would mean Control of Perception. At least this is what I get when I make a literal translation to Finnish.

(I still do not know how I should translate the name to Finnish.)

Eetu Pikkarainen


Lähettäjä: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Lähetetty: 21. marraskuuta 2016 12:18
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Input Control Theory (was RE: TCV and Collective Control …)

From Fred Nickols (2016.11.21.0515 ET)]

Regarding the notion of “input control theory� some doggerel rhyme I published way back in the mid-1970s might be of interest.

Here are the opening lines:

Things coming in are routed about, molded and shaped on their way out.

Outputs are exchanged for things coming in; and the cycle starts all over again.

Systems are loops, they’re cycles of events. Focusing on “parts” doesn’t make much sense.

If you would make use of the systems view, here’s some well-meant advice from me to you:

When observing systems from the outside, trace their outputs back to their input side,

for what systems “do,” or so I believe,**isact to control the things they receive.

The full poem can be found at http://www.nickols.us/systems_poem.htm



From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 12:38 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: TCV and Collective Control …

[From Rick Marken (2016.11.20.0940)]

Rupert Young (2016.11.19 18.30)–

(Rick Marken (2016.11.18.1020)]

RM: …But I just wanted to let you know that I liked this post of your; your ideas on perception are, as Bill said somewhere in B:CP “comfortably compatible” with mine.

RY: Thanks. I am beginning to think we have a problem with the term “perception”

RM: I agree. I would rather that Powers’ control theory had been called “input control theory” (IPT) but it’s too late now, I guess. The problem with calling it perceptual control theory is that many lay people think of “perception” as meaning something like “opinion”. So many people come to PCT thinking it justifies what is basically a postmodernist approach to understanding the world – an approach that treats ideas as just a matter of opinion and my opinion is just as good as yours. The irony is that this has led many people who are basically anti-science to become fervent supporters of the science that Bill was trying to create. Perhaps everything would have worked out better if Bill had titled his book “Behavior:The Control of Input”. But maybe not.

RM: When I first saw Bill’s book, on that fateful day in 1974 while roaming through the library at UCSB, I found the title shocking for the reason I believe Bill intended it to be shocking: because it was describing behavior in the exact opposite way that psychologists thought of it. I was trained to see behavior as controlled (caused, really) by input; and here was a book that said appeared to be saying the opposite. So I was interested in the book to see how the author could justify such an apparently absurd statement. It wasn’t the word “perception” that caught my attention – that part of the title was uncontroversial to me. There wasn’t a psychologist I know who wouldn’t have said that it is the perception of environment that is the input that causes behavior. What was controversial about the title of Powers’ book is that it was saying that input was what was controlled rather than what was doing the controlling.

RM: So if I had the power to do it, I would change the name of Powers’ theory from PCT to ICT (and, in the mean time, also change the result of the recent election to that of the person who won the popular vote). I think I will be equally successful at both;-)

Best

Rick

which has representational connotations, whereas what we, more generally, mean is internal neural signals that, ultimately, contribute to the organism maintaining energy levels such that it lives long enough to reproduce.

We must rename the theory from PCT to INSTUCTTOMELSTILLETRCT!

RM: And, again, I should point out that this is not just a “philosophical” disagreement (between representationalists and constructivists). The difference could have real consequences for one’s ability to do PCT science, particularly the Test for the Controlled Variable. A representationalist would be oriented toward finding out whether a person is controlling “correctly” – whether the perception is a correct representation of some entity in the world (this is the approach of conventional psychology). A constructivist would be oriented toward finding out what “constructed” as aspect of physical reality (as we know it via physics and chemistry) is being controlled (this is the approach of PCT).

Yes, I recall, at University, being unconvinced with the main approach to computer vision. David Marr’s approach of a one-way processing pipeline in order to extract the information from static images. I preferred Gibson’s dynamic approach, but I guess his is still one-way processing.

Rupert

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers