More examples of behavior as control (was Re: The Hammer and Nail Example)

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.09.1620)]
RM: Boris suggested analyzing some behaviors in terms of control and Fred came up with his own example so I thought I would give them a try in terms of the main categories in the "Behavior is control" spreadsheet. Here they are:

  Behavior Controlled Variable(s) Reference State Means Disturbances
  Standing and watching the sunset Location of sunset relative to center of field of view Centered Moving head, eyes, body Obstructions such as trees, other people
  Turning your head to see whether car is coming along the street Angle of head relative to location of car Zero degrees Applying torque to head using the sternocleidomastoid and trapezius muscles Movement of car, which way you are facing
  Sitting in the park and observing Position on bench Seated position Applying force with appropriate muscles Gravity, Changing posture to observe whatever is being observed
  Sleeping Intrinsic variables Close to Intrinsic references Who knows? Noise, jostling
  Standing at cross walk, waiting to cross the street Relationship between crossing and color of pedestrian cross light Cross when green, wait when red Walking or not walking Color of pedestrian crossing light
RM: Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states. For the others I just picked the one controlled variable that seemed to be most clearly implied by the behavior description in the Behavior column.

RM: Doing this made me realize that rather than using verbal descriptions of behavior as the basis for a control analysis it would be much better to use short video snippets of people (or other animals) behaving and trying to come up with a list of several controlled variables for the behavior. So I've added a "Video" column to the spreadsheet and inserted a pointer to one of my favorite behavioral videos: the greylag goose rolling an egg into her nest.

RM: I'm going to start an all video version of the Behavior as Control spreadsheet. Once I get some videos I'll make it public. If anyone has any suggested videos -- nice, short videos of behaviors done by people or other organisms -- please send me the URLs. That should make things a lot more interesting.

Best

Rick

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mindreadings.com&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=xN_tytZCgxCBobK2JnfDs66qQ1KR8PiptCoPlzAqVfU&s=jzYw0AMVq21OwPW9ekvVW5XWIAV7rX6L9ABVoPYadNA&e=>www.mindreadings.com
Author of <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=xN_tytZCgxCBobK2JnfDs66qQ1KR8PiptCoPlzAqVfU&s=RqlSrXTJJMtB0xskSpRruGQ8mtdKnIDSVA_nCwGInPg&e=>Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.09.1620)]

RM: Boris suggested analyzing some behaviors in terms of control and Fred came up with his own example so I thought I would give them a try in terms of the main categories in the “Behavior is control” spreadsheet. Here they are:

Behavior

Controlled Variable(s)

Reference State

Means

Disturbances

Standing and watching the sunset

Location of sunset relative to center of field of view

Centered

Moving head, eyes, body

Obstructions such as trees, other people

Turning your head to see whether car is coming along the street

Angle of head relative to location of car

Zero degrees

Applying torque to head using the sternocleidomastoid and trapezius muscles

Movement of car, which way you are facing

Sitting in the park and observing

Position on bench

Seated position

Applying force with appropriate muscles

Gravity, Changing posture to observe whatever is being observed

Sleeping

Intrinsic variables

Close to Intrinsic references

Who knows?

Noise, jostling

Standing at cross walk, waiting to cross the street

Relationship between crossing and color of pedestrian cross light

Cross when green, wait when red

Walking or not walking

Color of pedestrian crossing light

HB : Well as I see it, your system of »spreadshiting« failed. You obviously explained behaviors in »old terms« or traditional cybernetic application of control. You placed the »controlled variable« and »comparison function« outside the system and you created an illussion that you are perceiving »error«… This iis typical »self-regulation« mistake… Now I understand whyy you want to introduce also »Controlled perceptual variable« instead of perceptual signal. Because it seems that you want to make an illusion that »control« is present in perceptual signal. Well Rick I think that

RM: Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.

HB : Bingo. Maybe you got it that sleeping behavior is not just »statistical noise« in your spreadshit, because you could loose 1/3 of people’s life activities.

As for the last example of »standing at cross street« is concerned, I’d bet on Martin’s explanation not yours. So I think your explanation is wrong.

RM : For the others I just picked the one controlled variable that seemed to be most clearly implied by the behavior description in the Behavior column.

HB : I think that this is not good approach to systematical knowledge about PCT.

Best,

Boris

RM: Doing this made me realize that rather than using verbal descriptions of behavior as the basis for a control analysis it would be much better to use short video snippets of people (or other animals) behaving and trying to come up with a list of several controlled variables for the behavior. So I’ve added a “Video” column to the spreadsheet and inserted a pointer to one of my favorite behavioral videos: the greylag goose rolling an egg into her nest.

RM: I’m going to start an all video version of the Behavior as Control spreadsheet. Once I get some videos I’ll make it public. If anyone has any suggested videos – nice, short videos of behaviors done by people or other organisms – please send me the URLs. That should make things a lot more interesting.

Best

Rick

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 1:19 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Richard Marken
Subject: More examples of behavior as control (was Re: The Hammer and Nail Example)

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.15.1410)]

···

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: Boris suggested analyzing some behaviors in terms of control and Fred came up with his own example so I thought I would give them a try in terms of the main categories in the “Behavior is control” spreadsheet. Here they are:

Behavior

Controlled Variable(s)

Reference State

Means

Disturbances

Â

Standing and watching the sunset

Location of sunset relative to center of field of view

Centered

Moving head, eyes, body

Obstructions such as trees, other people

Turning your head to see whether car is coming along the street

Angle of head relative to location of car

Zero degrees

Applying torque to head using the sternocleidomastoid and trapezius muscles

Movement of car, which way you are facing

Sitting in the park and observing

Position on bench

Seated position

Applying force with appropriate muscles

Gravity, Changing posture to observe whatever is being observed

Sleeping

Intrinsic variables

Close to Intrinsic references

Who knows?

Noise, jostling

Standing at cross walk, waiting to cross the street

Relationship between crossing and color of pedestrian cross light

Cross when green, wait when red

Walking or not walking

Color of pedestrian crossing lightÂ

HB : Well as I see it, your system of »spreadshiting« failed.

RM: I guess I’ll have to get some Excel laxatives;-)

HB: You obviously explained behaviors in »old terms« or traditional cybernetic application of control.

RM: I didn’t “explain” these behaviors; I analyzed them, in precisely the same way Powers did in LCS I (Table 1, p. 172).Â

HB: You placed the »controlled variable« and »comparison function« outside the system

RM: No, I placed the controlled variable, reference state for that variable, the means used to control that variable and disturbances to that variable outside the system, where the all “exist” (Powers, LCS I, p. 175, para. 2).

HB: and you created an illussion that you are perceiving »error«…

<

RM: Really?? How did I do that. There is no “error” in the table above becuase error is part of the theory of control; the table above describes the phenomenon of control as it is seen in various behaviors.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

This is typical »self-regulation« mistake… Now I understand why you want to introduce also »Conntrolled perceptual variable« instead of perceptual signal. Because it seems that you want to make an illusion that »control« is present in perceptual signal. Well Rick I think that

RM: Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.

HB : Bingo. Maybe you got it that sleeping behavior is not just »statistical noise« in your spreadshit, because you could loose 1/3 of people’s life activities.

As for the last example of »standing at cross street« is concerned, I’d bet on Martin’s explanation not yours. So I think your explanation is wrong.

RM : For the others I just picked the one controlled variable that seemed to be most clearly implied by the behavior description in the Behavior column.Â

HB : I think that this is not good approach to systematical knowledge about PCT.

Best,

Boris

Â

RM: Doing this made me realize that rather than using verbal descriptions of behavior as the basis for a control analysis it would be much better to use short video snippets of people (or other animals) behaving and trying to come up with a list of several controlled variables for the behavior. So I’ve added a “Video” column to the spreadsheet and inserted a pointer to one of my favorite behavioral videos: the greylag goose rolling an egg into her nest.

RM: I’m going to start an all video version of the Behavior as Control spreadsheet. Once I get some videos I’ll make it public. If anyone has any suggested videos – nice, short videos of behaviors done by people or other organisms – please send me the URLs. That should make things a lot more interesting.

BestÂ

Rick

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin (2015.11.21.20:30 ET)]

This discussion is equivocating over two terms, reference value and reference state.

The reference value r for the controlled perception p is a transform of the observed reference state of the environmental controlled variable (ECV), just as p is a transform of the input quantity qi.

···

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.21.1500)]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : The problem is that you wanted to represent how behaviors »control« in outer environment to some reference state which is outside. Well in PCT is not. Behaviors in PCT are just supporting the control inside organism. Nothing is controlled outside. Where I think is your mistake ?

RM: I think the problem, Boris, is that you do not understand that theories are developed to explain phenomena (you are apparently not alone in this). This accounts for why you think that the following quote form Powers supports your claim that there are no variables controlled in the environment:Â

Bill P LCS I, p. 175-176). : Reference state can not exist under the old cause-effect model…

RM: What Bill is saying here is that reference states are an observable phenomenon that can’t be explained by the cause effect model. So right off the bat Bill is saying that a theory (cause-effect model) cannot explain an observable phenomenon (reference states of controlled variables). What bill will show in the next sections of that chapter is that PCT can account for this phenomenon.Â

HB : And you are making the same mistake Rick (as founders of scientific psychology).

RM: The mistake the founders of psychology made was to ignore the existence of the phenomenon of reference states for controlled variables; that is, they ignored the fact that behavior is control. They ignored it because their cause-effect model couldn’t account for it. Powers is pointing out that reference states do exist – they can be seen out there in the environment; they are phenomena – and PCT explains their existence as the result of internal specifications for the state of perceptions. The fact is that you don’t recognize the existence of reference states puts you in the ironic position of making the mistake ignoring (or denying) the existence of reference states of controlled variables-- the same mistake made by the “founders of scientific psychology” Â ---- Â while fervently believing in the theory that accounts for their existence.Â

Bill P.: (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) : There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. 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…Â

HB : So purposes for behavior are inside organism and behavior has important but supporting role (50th Aniversary, 2011). This is what »control« is about. It’s about controlling in organisms.

RM: Here Bill is hinting that the explanation of the existence of reference states is control theory; intentions inside the behaving system are the explanation. These will turn out to be reference signals in the PCT model. Since reference states are part of the process of control, what Bill is saying here is that the PCT model, which contains reference signals that correspond to intentions or purposes, is the alternative to cause-effect theory that will provide the explanation of the phenomenon of controlling.Â

Bill P.: CONTROL :

RM: Yes, this is a definition of control from a control theoretic perspective. From an objective perspective you could substitute “reference state of an aspect of the environment” for “pre-selected perceptual state”.Â

HB : Here are also some thoughts of your friend Henry Yin :

HY : According to mainstream engineering control theory, a control system controls its outputs, not its input… This fallacy, an unfortunate legacy of cybernettics, is the result of imposing the perspective of the observer rather than using the perspective of the organism or controller. The mistake is to assume that what the engineer perceives and records, the “objectiveâ€? effect of the system, is the output of the system.

Â

HY : The common assumption that output is controlled ignores the perspective of the organism that is doing the controlling.

Â

HY : In traditional cybernetic applications of control theory to the study of behavior, the comparison between error and reference is placed outside of the organism,…

Â

HY : As a result of these conceptual confusions, in traditional models negative feedback is always misunderstood. Placing the comparator outside the organism has the unintended effect of inverting the inside and outside of the system.

Â

HY : In a biological organism, however, the reference signal is always internal to the organism.

RM: Yes, Henry really understands PCT.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.15.1410)]

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: More examples of behavior as control (was Re: The Hammer and Nail Example)

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: Boris suggested analyzing some behaviors in terms of control and Fred came up with his own example so I thought I would give them a try in terms of the main categories in the “Behavior is control” spreadsheet. Here they are:

Behavior

Controlled Variable(s)

Reference State

Means

Disturbances

Standing and watching the sunset

Location of sunset relative to center of field of view

Centered

Moving head, eyes, body

Obstructions such as trees, other people

Turning your head to see whether car is coming along the street

Angle of head relative to location of car

Zero degrees

Applying torque to head using the sternocleidomastoid and trapezius muscles

Movement of car, which way you are facing

Sitting in the park and observing

Position on bench

Seated position

Applying force with appropriate muscles

Gravity, Changing posture to observe whatever is being observed

Sleeping

Intrinsic variables

Close to Intrinsic references

Who knows?

Noise, jostling

Standing at cross walk, waiting to cross the street

Relationship between crossing and color of pedestrian cross light

Cross when green, wait when red

Walking or not walking

Color of pedestrian crossing light

HB : The problem is that you wanted to represent how behaviors »control« in outer environment to some reference state which is outside. Well in PCT is not. Behaviors in PCT are just supporting the control inside organism. Nothing is controlled outside. Where I think is your mistake ?

RM : No, I placed the controlled variable, reference state for that variable, the means used to control that variable and disturbances to that variable outside the system, where the all “exist” (Powers, LCS I, p. 175, para. 2).

HB : But if you would read Bill a little further (Powers, LCS I, p. 175, para. 3,4)….you could find out what he wanted to say. I’ve asked you to study all text and than make conclussions. But this is also a chance for you to see how differently people read the same text (reality), so there is hard to say that »absolute controlled variable« is in environment.

Bill P LCS I, p. 175-176). : Reference state can not exist under the old cause-effect model. They refer, as far as external observations are concerned only to future states of the organism or it’s environment. They cannot affect present behavior, and they must be treated simply as outcomes of events caused by prior events. The flaw of this reasoning is hard to understand if one does not know (as the founders of scientific psychology did not know) of organizations capable of complex internal activities that are essentially independent of current external events. By ruling out the possibility of significant causes of behavior inside the organism, where they could not be observed, early behavioral scientist in effect commited themselves to a whole chain of deductions following from the assumption that everything of significance with regard to behavior could be observed from outside of organism. They were betting everything on the assumption that such internal causes would never be found to exist.

HB : And you are making the same mistake Rick (as founders of scientific psychology). You read Bill as you want to read his literature (reality), and that you simply by-pass the »segments« which doesn’t suit you. Now you could know that you are HPCT and that you »vary« means to achieve your goals. You are not reading what it is in »reality« (Bill’s text) but only what you want to perceive. You are not perceiving »reality«. You are perceiving »wanted parts« of reality and constructing it into your own internal »reality«. So understanding yourself is the real advantage of understanding PCT.Â

Bill P.: (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) : There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. 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 : So purposes for behavior are inside organism and behavior has important but supporting role (50th Aniversary, 2011). This is what »control« is about. It’s about controlling in organisms.

Bill P.: CONTROL :

HB : Here are also some thoughts of your friend Henry Yin :

HY : According to mainstream engineering control theory, a control system controls its outputs, not its input… This fallacy, an unfortunate legacy of cybernetics, is tthe result of imposing the perspective of the observer rather than using the perspective of the organism or controller. The mistake is to assume that what the engineer perceives and records, the “objectiveâ€? effect of the system, is the output of the system.

HY : The common assumption that output is controlled ignores the perspective of the organism that is doing the controlling.

HY : In traditional cybernetic applications of control theory to the study of behavior, the comparison between error and reference is placed outside of the organism,…

HY : As a result of these conceptual confusions, in traditional models negative feedback is always misunderstood. Placing the comparator outside the organism has the unintended effect of inverting the inside and outside of the system.

HY : In a biological organism, however, the reference signal is always internal to the organism.

Best,

Boris

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.21.1500)]

···

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : The problem is that you wanted to represent how behaviors »control« in outer environment to some reference state which is outside. Well in PCT is not. Behaviors in PCT are just supporting the control inside organism. Nothing is controlled outside. Where I think is your mistake ?

RM: I think the problem, Boris, is that you do not understand that theories are developed to explain phenomena (you are apparently not alone in this). This accounts for why you think that the following quote form Powers supports your claim that there are no variables controlled in the environment:Â

Bill P LCS I, p. 175-176). : Reference state can not exist under the old cause-effect model…

RM: What Bill is saying here is that reference states are an observable phenomenon that can’t be explained by the cause effect model. So right off the bat Bill is saying that a theory (cause-effect model) cannot explain an observable phenomenon (reference states of controlled variables). What bill will show in the next sections of that chapter is that PCT can account for this phenomenon.Â

HB : And you are making the same mistake Rick (as founders of scientific psychology).

RM: The mistake the founders of psychology made was to ignore the existence of the phenomenon of reference states for controlled variables; that is, they ignored the fact that behavior is control. They ignored it because their cause-effect model couldn’t account for it. Powers is pointing out that reference states do exist – they can be seen out there in the environment; they are phenomena – and PCT explains their existence as the result of internal specifications for the state of perceptions. The fact is that you don’t recognize the existence of reference states puts you in the ironic position of making the mistake ignoring (or denying) the existence of reference states of controlled variables-- the same mistake made by the “founders of scientific psychology” Â ---- Â while fervently believing in the theory that accounts for their existence.Â

Bill P.: (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) : There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. 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 : So purposes for behavior are inside organism and behavior has important but supporting role (50th Aniversary, 2011). This is what »control« is about. It’s about controlling in organisms.

RM: Here Bill is hinting that the explanation of the existence of reference states is control theory; intentions inside the behaving system are the explanation. These will turn out to be reference signals in the PCT model. Since reference states are part of the process of control, what Bill is saying here is that the PCT model, which contains reference signals that correspond to intentions or purposes, is the alternative to cause-effect theory that will provide the explanation of the phenomenon of controlling.Â

Bill P.: CONTROL :

RM: Yes, this is a definition of control from a control theoretic perspective. From an objective perspective you could substitute “reference state of an aspect of the environment” for “pre-selected perceptual state”.Â

HB : Here are also some thoughts of your friend Henry Yin :

HY : According to mainstream engineering control theory, a control system controls its outputs, not its input… This fallacy, an unfortunate legaccy of cybernetics, is the result of imposing the perspective of the observer rather than using the perspective of the organism or controller. The mistake is to assume that what the engineer perceives and records, the “objectiveâ€? effect of the system, is the output of the system.

Â

HY : The common assumption that output is controlled ignores the perspective of the organism that is doing the controlling.

Â

HY : In traditional cybernetic applications of control theory to the study of behavior, the comparison between error and reference is placed outside of the organism,…

Â

HY : As a result of these conceptual confusions, in traditional models negative feedback is always misunderstood. Placing the comparator outside the organism has the unintended effect of inverting the inside and outside of the system.

Â

HY : In a biological organism, however, the reference signal is always internal to the organism.

RM: Yes, Henry really understands PCT.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

···

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.21.1800)]

Bruce Nevin (2015.11.21.20:30 ET)–

BN: This discussion is equivocating over two terms, reference value and reference state.Â

RM: These two phrases can be somewhat equivocal. In this discussion I have always used “reference state” to refer to the state in which the controlled variable – the aspect of the environment that is controlled – is maintained. It is a description of an observable phenomenon, like the temperature at which a room is maintained by a thermostat. “Reference value” typically refers to the value of the reference signal in a control system. It is the theoretical explanation of the reference state of the controlled variable.

BN: The reference value r for the controlled perception p is a transform of the observed reference state of the environmental controlled variable (ECV),

RM: It’s not really a transform of the reference state of the ECV; it is the value of the reference signal that is the theoretical cause of the reference state of the ECV.Â

Â

BN: just as p is a transform of the input quantity qi.

RM: The input quantity, q.i, is the observer’s “view” of the controlled perception, p. q.i is equivalent to the temperature reading of a thermometer in the thermostatically controlled room; it is what you are calling the ECV. The perceptual variable, p, is the system’s “view” of the ECV (q.i) – the aspect of the environment that is under control. It is equivalent to the circumference of the bimetallic strip that is the thermostat’s perception of the temperature in the room.

Best

Rick Â

/Bruce Nevin

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.21.1500)]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : The problem is that you wanted to represent how behaviors »control« in outer environment to some reference state which is outside. Well in PCT is not. Behaviors in PCT are just supporting the control inside organism. Nothing is controlled outside. Where I think is your mistake ?

RM: I think the problem, Boris, is that you do not understand that theories are developed to explain phenomena (you are apparently not alone in this). This accounts for why you think that the following quote form Powers supports your claim that there are no variables controlled in the environment:Â

Bill P LCS I, p. 175-176). : Reference state can not exist under the old cause-effect model…

RM: What Bill is saying here is that reference states are an observable phenomenon that can’t be explained by the cause effect model. So right off the bat Bill is saying that a theory (cause-effect model) cannot explain an observable phenomenon (reference states of controlled variables). What bill will show in the next sections of that chapter is that PCT can account for this phenomenon.Â

HB : And you are making the same mistake Rick (as founders of scientific psychology).

RM: The mistake the founders of psychology made was to ignore the existence of the phenomenon of reference states for controlled variables; that is, they ignored the fact that behavior is control. They ignored it because their cause-effect model couldn’t account for it. Powers is pointing out that reference states do exist – they can be seen out there in the environment; they are phenomena – and PCT explains their existence as the result of internal specifications for the state of perceptions. The fact is that you don’t recognize the existence of reference states puts you in the ironic position of making the mistake ignoring (or denying) the existence of reference states of controlled variables-- the same mistake made by the “founders of scientific psychology” Â ---- Â while fervently believing in the theory that accounts for their existence.Â

Bill P.: (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) : There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. 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…Â

HB : So purposes for behavior are inside organism and behavior has important but supporting role (50th Aniversary, 2011). This is what »control« is about. It’s about controlling in organisms.

RM: Here Bill is hinting that the explanation of the existence of reference states is control theory; intentions inside the behaving system are the explanation. These will turn out to be reference signals in the PCT model. Since reference states are part of the process of control, what Bill is saying here is that the PCT model, which contains reference signals that correspond to intentions or purposes, is the alternative to cause-effect theory that will provide the explanation of the phenomenon of controlling.Â

Bill P.: CONTROL :

RM: Yes, this is a definition of control from a control theoretic perspective. From an objective perspective you could substitute “reference state of an aspect of the environment” for “pre-selected perceptual state”.Â

HB : Here are also some thoughts of your friend Henry Yin :

HY : According to mainstream engineering control theory, a control system controls its outputs, not its input… This fallacy, an unfortunate legacy of cybernetics, is the result of imposing the perspective of the observer rather than using the perspective of the organism or controller. The mistake is to assume that what the engineer perceives and records, the “objectiveâ€? effect of the system, is the output of the system.

Â

HY : The common assumption that output is controlled ignores the perspective of the organism that is doing the controlling.

Â

HY : In traditional cybernetic applications of control theory to the study of behavior, the comparison between error and reference is placed outside of the organism,…<

Â

HY : As a result of these conceptual confusions, in traditional models negative feedback is always misunderstood. Placing the comparator outside the organism has the unintended effect of inverting the inside and outside of the system.

Â

HY : In a biological organism, however, the reference signal is always internal to the organism.

RM: Yes, Henry really understands PCT.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

There is no need to loose any energy more on the theme on »spread-shit«. The problem is clear. Neither in nature nor in PCT there is no »reference states« or »signals« outside. Bill is clear :

Bill P.: (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) : There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. 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’s obvious that all your behaviors in your »spread-shit« doesn’t match these criterium, because all are »chasing« reference state outside, which is supposed in your theory to guide a control loop (from outside). So it’s behavioristic or as Bill expressed himself

Bill P : The flaw of this reasoning is hard to understand if one does not know (as the founders of scientific psychology did not know) of organizations capable of complex internal activities that are essentially independent of current external events.

HB : Only reference states inside organism (genetic control) and reference signals (also inside organism, see Henry Yin) are »guiding« control loop in a control manner.

Bill P : …referrence signal (with active cooperation from the components in the control loop) very reliably changes…

HY : In a biological organism, however, the reference signal is always internal to the organism.

HB : So start working on real Spread-sheet that will follow reference signal (purpose) like in Bill’s example where »driver« controls from inside not from outside. You are not opening the car door to 80 degres (angle of door - reference), but driver is opening the door just enough to achieve purpose inisde him, whatever he is up to. The same is with pedestrian, and all other behaviors, speccially with sleeping…and so on…. So I expect PCT SPRED-SHEET, not ot BEHAVIORIST SPREAD-SHIT.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 12:02 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: More examples of behavior as control (was Re: The Hammer and Nail Example)

[From Rick Marken (2015.11.21.1500)]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : The problem is that you wanted to represent how behaviors »control« in outer environment to some reference state which is outside. Well in PCT is not. Behaviors in PCT are just supporting the control inside organism. Nothing is controlled outside. Where I think is your mistake ?

RM: I think the problem, Boris, is that you do not understand that theories are developed to explain phenomena (you are apparently not alone in this). This accounts for why you think that the following quote form Powers supports your claim that there are no variables controlled in the environment:

Bill P LCS I, p. 175-176). : Reference state can not exist under the old cause-effect model…

RM: What Bill is saying here is that reference states are an observable phenomenon that can’t be explained by the cause effect model. So right off the bat Bill is saying that a theory (cause-effect model) cannot explain an observable phenomenon (reference states of controlled variables). What bill will show in the next sections of that chapter is that PCT can account for this phenomenon.

HB : And you are making the same mistake Rick (as founders of scientific psychology).

RM: The mistake the founders of psychology made was to ignore the existence of the phenomenon of reference states for controlled variables; that is, they ignored the fact that behavior is control. They ignored it because their cause-effect model couldn’t account for it. Powers is pointing out that reference states do exist – they can be seen out there in the environment; they are phenomena – and PCT explains their existence as the result of internal specifications for the state of perceptions. The fact is that you don’t recognize the existence of reference states puts you in the ironic position of making the mistake ignoring (or denying) the existence of reference states of controlled variables-- the same mistake made by the “founders of scientific psychology” ---- while fervently believing in the theory that accounts for their existence.

Bill P.: (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) : There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. 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 : So purposes for behavior are inside organism and behavior has important but supporting role (50th Aniversary, 2011). This is what »control« is about. It’s about controlling in organisms.

RM: Here Bill is hinting that the explanation of the existence of reference states is control theory; intentions inside the behaving system are the explanation. These will turn out to be reference signals in the PCT model. Since reference states are part of the process of control, what Bill is saying here is that the PCT model, which contains reference signals that correspond to intentions or purposes, is the alternative to cause-effect theory that will provide the explanation of the phenomenon of controlling.

Bill P.: CONTROL :

RM: Yes, this is a definition of control from a control theoretic perspective. From an objective perspective you could substitute “reference state of an aspect of the environment” for “pre-selected perceptual state”.

HB : Here are also some thoughts of your friend Henry Yin :

HY : According to mainstream engineering control theory, a control system controls its outputs, not its input… This fallacy, an unfortunaate legacy of cybernetics, is the result of imposing the perspective of the observer rather than using the perspective of the organism or controller. The mistake is to assume that what the engineer perceives and records, the “objectiveâ€? effect of the system, is the output of the system.

HY : The common assumption that output is controlled ignores the perspective of the organism that is doing the controlling.

HY : In traditional cybernetic applications of control theory to the study of behavior, the comparison between error and reference is placed outside of the organism,…

HY : As a result of these conceptual confusions, in traditional models negative feedback is always misunderstood. Placing the comparator outside the organism has the unintended effect of inverting the inside and outside of the system.

HY : In a biological organism, however, the reference signal is always internal to the organism.

RM: Yes, Henry really understands PCT.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble