Just in shortâ€¦
RM : ….but points out where they went wrong before launchiing into a description of his revolutionary re-conceptualization of control theory as it should be applied to the behavior of living systems – a re-conceptualization based on his rather well supported “conjecture” that the behavior of living systems IS control.
RM : But where Bill went with these ideas was truly revolutionary. All of these sources assumed that input causes output. Based on his understanding of behavior as control, Bill showed that what is actually happening is output controlling input.
HB : Rick. Your nonsense thinking that Â»Behavior can be controlÂ« or that Â»Behavior is controlling inputÂ« was proved as wrong many times. Behavior among other effects also affect input.
The best description of your wrong understanding was by my oppnion given by Rupert :
RY earlier : Sure, a perceptual signal (q.i*g) may correspond to, or be a function of, variable aspects of the environment (q.i) but it is the perceptual signal that is controlled not the variable aspects of the environment.
HB : Rupert assumes right that only perceptual signal is controlled in comparator. This is only control in the whole loop. It’s nervous system that is controlling.
Bill P (LCS I):
The Living Control System of this kind must sense the controlled quantity in each dimenssion in which the quantity is to be controlled; this implies the inner model of the quantity in the form of a signal or set of signals.
HB : In both cases you can see that perceptual signal (quantity) is to be controlled in comparatorÂ (it’s future tense). Â»Perceptual signal is only controlled variable there is in control loop. At least in PCT.
Bill P :
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
There are many other evidences that your statements are worng,so I don’t understand why are you doing this. To save your worthless books and articles where you are promoting wrong ideas about PCT or better where you promote your RCT ?
Let us finnish your sharade once for all.
All you have to prove is that you can control your behavior (output) ? Bill proved that you can't. Let me see your evidences thatyou canâ€¦
And you have to prove that there is some Â»Controlled Perceptual VariableÂ« in PCT ?
If you prove these Â»factsÂ« we’ll have to beleive that you are right ?
But if you’ll not prove it I expect that you’ll shut up and stop confussing people on CSGnet and go somewhere else where you could sell your bullshitt.
You are contradicting the main Bills’ finding that Â»Perception is controlled, not behaviorÂ«. Do you understand this.
Why don’t you beleive Bill and Mary Powers :
Mary Powers :
PCT requires a major shift in thinking from the traditional approach : that what is controlled is not behavior, but perception.
HB : I donâ€™t understand that after all these years you canâ€™t make major shift in your mind from â€œBehavior is controlâ€? to â€œPerception is controlledâ€?. And why you donâ€™t believe them ???
Bill P : (LCS III) : Note that we classify the controlled variable as an input variable, not an output variable.
Bill P : OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system.
HB : So you can see that behavior is not controlled variable,It’s just effects to immediate environment.
HB : There is no controlled effects to environmentâ€¦There is nothing controlled in outer environment. It’s just your imagination…
So will you except my proposal for IAPCT that Bills’ diagram (LCS III)and definitions (B:CP) are acccepted for the bases of it’s representation of Bills theory to the world ?Â
From: Richard Marken [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control
[From Rick Marken (2017.12.10.1215)]
Bruce Abbott (2017.12.10.1120 EST)
RM: What they didn’t recognize is that all behavior IS control. They didn’t see that even the behaviors that are the “means by which humans and other animals exert control over certain variables” – behaviors such as moving a handle to keep a cursor on target – are themselves controlled variables. This was a truly revolutionary observation.
BA: I have elsewhere referred to this assertion as the â€œPowers conjecture.â€? It is an assumption to be tested empirically.
RM: You betcha. You should try it sometime.
RM: Other evidence that PCT is revolutionary include the following: 1) PCT shows that the general linear model, the basic paradigm on which all psychological research based, is wrong when applied to the behavior of living systems (Powers, 1978)
BA: You are conflating the general linear model with lineal causality.
RM: Which is appropriate (according to the conventional paradigm in psychology) when the predictor variables are the independent variables and the criterion variable is the dependent variable in an experimental study.
BA: Your mistaken â€œhidden biasâ€? analysis of the power law makes use of the general linear model to find the so-called â€œhidden bias.â€?
RM: As does your truly mistaken power law as well; mistaken in the sense that this “law” is taken to reflect something about the “constraints” on the physiological processes that produce the movement when, of course, it doesn’t. And there is no mistake about my “hidden bias” analysis (actually, it’s called “omitted variable bias” (OVB) analysis; nothing is hidden); it accounts for the observed deviations from the 1/3 (or 2/3) power law perfectly.
BA: Lineal causality refers to open-loop cause and effect. As Iâ€™ve shown fairly recently on CSGnet, one can find numerous examples of research findings that are not invalidated by the presence of control systems.
RM: PCT doesn’t invalidate findings; it invalidates the interpretation of the findings. The finding that rats press a lever more often when the press is followed by food is not invalidated by PCT. What is invalidated is the idea that it’s the food selecting the press. PCT shows that it is actually the press that is being used to select the food.
BA: I am aware only of one book by Wiener (not Weiner): Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine, first published in 1948. This is the book that Bill P. credited with starting him on the path to PCT.
RM: When I say that PCT was revolutionary I didn’t mean that it had nothing to do with the many achievements that went before. Control theory itself was developed well before PCT and Bill certainly was influenced by that. But PCT represented a revolutionary break from these influences. That doesn’t mean he discarded everything that went before; he just applied these ideas in a revolutionary new way. If you read the first few sections of Bill’s 1978 Psych Review paper you will see that Bill pays homage to his predecessors in cybernetics, control theory and man-machine systems development but points out where they went wrong before launching into a description of his revolutionary re-conceptualization of control theory as it should be applied to the behavior of living systems – a re-conceptualization based on his rather well supported “conjecture” that the behavior of living systems IS control.
BA: Are there others by Wiener that you read?
RM: Yes, one called “The Human Use of Human Beings” which is even more relevant today than when he wrote it.
BA: Ashby wrote two books, Design for a brain (first published in 1952) and Introduction to cybernetics (first published in 1956).
RM: Yes, I think I read (or skimmed) both.
BA: The first presented a method of reorganization based on so-called â€œessential variablesâ€? that Bill P. incorporated into PCT (while changing â€œessentialâ€? to â€œintrinsicâ€?). The second provides an introduction to cybernetics that even a mathematically challenged person like me could understand.
RM: I encountered those books before I found B:CP. And B:CP might have just rolled off me like those books did. But I had the good fortune of getting a personal computer in 1978, finding Bill’s 1978 Psych Review article and 1979 Byte articles, programmed up the demos and models, which blew my mind, did some experiments and I was off to the races. It was the hands-on experience with the demos and models that helped me understand Powers’ control theory and see that it was the real deal, revolution-wise.
BA: As for your conclusion that these sources â€œdid all speak to one general concept of how organisms work: input causes output,â€? it is a good thing that Bill P. found in at least some of them valuable ideas that led ultimately to his insight that the function of behavior is to control oneâ€™s perceptions, and that the control systems through which such control is achieved might naturally emerge through the operation of a reorganizing system.
RM: There is no question that Bill found some valuable ideas from these sources; Bill certainly acknowledges his intellectual debt to these sources. But where Bill went with these ideas was truly revolutionary. All of these sources assumed that input causes output. Based on his understanding of behavior as control, Bill showed that what is actually happening is output controlling input.
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â€?
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery