Martin,
I know that you can understand me if you want. But if you don’t want to understand me you will not. See below my explanation. If there is anything that you don’t understand please ask me.Â
···
From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 5:13 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control
[Martin Taylor 2017.12.21.17.58]
On 2017/12/21 5:44 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:
Martin
From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 5:51 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Kenneth J. W. Craik on levels of perception and control
[Martin Taylor 2017.12.19.23.28]
…
HB : You are right Martin that each disputant uses different denitions not only of the word »control« but also of other elements of control loop. In PCT »control is quite clearly defined :
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : It’s true that many members don’t understand physiology and how organisms function which is quite necessary to understand this definition
I usually don’t respond to your postings, because your perceptions of the world are expressed in language that makes it appear that you see things very differently from the way I do.
HB : It would be a miracle if we would perceive world the same. Nether Bill nor Maturana would agree.
MT : That make useful interaction very different, so I just don’t bother.
HB : You said that you can change your oppinion every day. Or did I understand something wrong.? It’s no problem, so I don’t bother iether. Once you stand on my position, once on Bills, once on Ricks’. It’s O.K. Sooner or later you will find yourself.
But I think that we have at least one goal in common. To understand how Living beings function.
MT : However, on this occasion, I just would like to point out that Bill’s definition applies equally to controlling systems that are constructed of steel and rubber, or of electrons in transistors that allow abstract variables to vary in simulations. For the definition of control, the manner in which the material substrate exists is totally irrelevant.
Bill : Bills definition applies to Living Control System which is quite different from any machine logic. As far as I understand LCS form references inside and machine don’t. It’s a huge difference.
MT : Boris likes the concept of control as in theory bringing some variable toward a commensurate reference variable, whether or not either variable can be observed.
HB : Sorry Martin I don’t get it what you meant ? But it seems that you know exatly what I’m thinking. Some kind of »Telepathy« ?
MT : I said I had a hypothesis.
HB : Where can I see hypothetical logic ?
MT : Rick said my hypothesis was wrong about him. Apparently my hypothesis about you is equally wrong.
HB : Good. Appologie accepted.
MT : I had understood that your idea was that control meant bringing a perception toward its reference value and keeping it there in the presence of disturbances to the environmental variable being perceived. If I was wrong, you have to forgive my inability to read your English.
HB : Well Martin I think we have a problem. But I assume it is not your inability to read my English.
We are talking for qutie a long time and as I remember we had »ups and downs«. In the beggining some 8 or 9 years ago, I had real diffcculties understanding your English. But we overcome those problems and we cooperated nicely for quite some time to the extend that you even wanted to visit me in Slovenia some 5 or 6 years ago. Remember ? Why should you visit somebody whos English you don’t understand ?
Our cooperation on ECACS was briliant. You expressed your admiration to my very long posts about school system (how could you read them if you don’t understand my English) and you asked me if my expert posts about school system can stay on your forum. I agreed. Remember ? Why would you ask somebody to leave his writings on your forum if you couldn’t read them because of your inability to read my English ???
I think Martin that problem is somewhere else. Our friendship start to fall appart when you asked me for some informations which I didn’t want to give. I demanded cooperation between us. And you refused.
And there our friendship ended. I admitt I made a huge mistake attacking you in one post about your theory of CEV which I turned into CEP. If it means anything to you I appologize although I think CEP is more suitable concpet inside PCT.
So I think it would be better if we find out the real reason why you don’t want to understand my English. Where is the problem ?
MT : Maybe I read or English wrongly in my understanding of what you believe Rick believes about PCT, but from what I do understand, I would say that you are quite wrong in most of it.
HB : As I accompany every my statement about Ricks’ RCT with citations from Bills literature I assume that you think that Biill Powers is also mostly wrong. So you don’t understand his English iether.
I’ll not take your remarck seriously because you didn’t accompany it with any evidences. It’s just like that because Martin said so. Please don’t fall on Bruce Nevin level.
MT : Language is such a problem. I believe that my understanding of PCT is very like Bill’s and like Rick’s.
HB : Bill and Rikcs’ theory are milion years appart. But if you understand both then explain differences and similarities between their theories. Just don’t say that they are the same because you would fall on lowest point in our conversations,
If you beleive that your underdstanding of PCT is very much like Bills’ then you will not mind if I ask you to confirm (for 3rd time) Bills’ definitions (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III) as reference for PCT. Obviously you understand Bills’ language. And please don’t forget that there were some conversations with Bill when you wanted verification from me whether you understood him right or not. So I wonder which English you don’t understand. I must say that I’m quite dissapointed. Anyway : Do you agree with Bills’ diagram (LCS III) and his definitions about control loop :
Definitions of PCT control loop :
Bill P (B:CP):
-
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):
-
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Bill P (LCS III):…¦the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
Bill P (LCS III):
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P (B:CP)
-
: ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
MT : Rick does not. I have found at CSGnet meetings (the two that I have attended), that when we meet in person, Rick and I are much more in agreement than we are on CSGnet. I don’t know why, but at least we use language in much the same way, which seems not to be the case when I read your messages. So I expect to revert to simply not responding to them.
HB : Good point Martin. Maybe you could really realize your trip to Slovenia so that we can talk in person. I beleive that we would talk at least equally good as you talked in person with Rick. And much more. I’m quite certain that we could upgrade PCT and do many other improvements to science.
Although I think that even me and Rick would talk differently in person as we had common interest : dance. JJJ
Boris
Martin