# Negative feedback too simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536>\
**Category:** CSG2014\
**Created:** [January 25, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536 "2014-01-25T18:26:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/1 "2014-01-25T18:26:15Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.25.12.21]

> [From Matti Kolu (2014.01.25.1430 CET)]  
> ....  
> But I did find the "too simple" statement interesting. The same  
> objection seems to occasionally be raised against PCT. It was also  
> what Edward Ihnatowicz thought about his life-like robots, which he  
> created after first having dabbled with control systems and analogue  
> computers. "Negative feedback" does at a first glance seem trivial.  
> People who come in contact with e.g. servo-mechanisms often tend to  
> note the life-like effects that arise so easily... just to go on and  
> ignore that observation, because the underlying circuitry isn't  
> complicated enough.
> 
> This is something that is worth taking seriously by those who are  
> interested in promulgating the perceptual control perspective. It  
> seems to me that the objection can be neutralized or countered before  
> it arises in the mind of the reader or the audience member.

It is true that the \_idea\_ of negative feedback control is very simple. and may seem "too simple", and that this may be an aspect of the failure of PCT to be taken more seriously by the mainstream, despite that many researchers have studied negative feedback and even control as aspects of the way living things do what they do. It is also true that "control" is often confused with "negative feedback". All control systems are negative feedback systems, but lots of negative feedback systems are not control systems. The hard step is from from saying "negative feedback, and even control systems, are used by living things" to saying "control of input is the basis of all that life does". It is like taking the ornamentation off a building and using it to replace the foundation, and vice-versa.

But it is not true that the manifestations of negative feedback control are simple. Even Bill Powers asserted more than once that it was seldom easy to intuit what would happen when more than two control systems interacted, which was why he relied so heavily on simulation. Mathematical analysis of interacting linear systems is not too hard if there is no transport lag, but when you add transport lags and nonlinearities, the problems of getting an exact solution become more than most of us could handle, if there is any exact solution at all. As with Newtonian orbits, the solution is relatively easy when there are two orbiting bodies or interacting control systems, but not when there are three or more. Chaotic solutions abound, and where there is chaos there is complexity. It seems that most (all?) evolving systems approach the edge of chaos (where divergence is polynomial rather than exponential), whether they start in chaos or in predictable conditions. (I illustrated this conceptually for a PCT hierarchy with the "Bomb in the Machine" in 1992-3 (\<[http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/ParisTutorial.pdf&gt](http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/ParisTutorial.pdf&gt); pp25-6 or \<[http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/DFS93/DFS93\_8.html&gt;\](http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/DFS93/DFS93_8.html&gt;%5C)).

On the other hand, one can argue the absolute necessity of negative feedback for life on thermodynamic grounds, which washes the complexities of exact solutions under the bridge. Control systems reduce the variability of parts of the environment by bringing corresponding perceptions to and keeping them near reference values. This stabilization is the thermodynamic equivalent of cooling, and it happens at the expense of warming (increasing the variability of) other aspects of the environment. Internally, it protects life-relevant variables from excessive variation that would occur if the environmental variables were not stabilized. The external "thermodynamically warming" effects are what we call side-effects.

I don't know how one gets this across to people untrained in basic physics, and who have a coherent set of ideas about how the brain works. For the last week TVOntario has been presenting every evening a series of programs about the mind and brain. Some were very good because they were quite dramatic demonstrations of what you can learn to do, though of course "reorganization" was never mentioned. But some, especially the daily debates among experts, were pretty bad, often discussing difficult problems that are not problems at all when seen as issues of controlling input.

In a 1971 paper, J.G.Taylor discussed "axioms" of psychology, truths that are taken for granted, and how they need to be changed in light of the importance of feedback systems. But changing the axioms that underpin a science is a radical step, hard to do without destroying a whole structure of interrelated explanations and derivations. Lobachewski and Reimann could try out the idea of denying the axiom that through any point not on a particular line there is exactly one line that does not meet the original if both are infinitely extended, but it took Einstein to consider that the axiom might not apply to the space in which we live, and a lot longer than Einstein's lifetime that for the truth to become generally accepted.

PCT changes an axiom of psychology, that we control our actions and respond to what we perceive, by turning it inside out, saying we command our actions and control what we perceive. That's an easy thing to say, but an easy counter-answer is "OK, but so what?". All sorts of people have analyzed tracking studies by assuming people to act like servomechanisms. PCT isn't novel in that. What is novel is the shift of the axiom, and the breadth of the implications of that shift. People believed Einstein's relativity theory when a star could be observed to have shifted during an eclipse when it could be seen very near the sun, and to have shifted by exactly the amount Einstein predicted. Ptolemy and Newton both predicted planetary orbits very well (except for the precession of Mercury). Einstein viewed spce and tiem differently, and correctly predicted the orbit of Mercury. For PCT to be widely accepted, it should explain some equivalent totally unexpected phenomenon that is hard to explain using the other axiom even after the fact. Don't ask me what that phenomenon might be:-)

Negative feedback may be a simple idea, but it does not have simple consequences.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JohnK](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/johnk/32/3043_2.png) [@JohnK](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/JohnK)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/2 "2014-01-25T18:44:26Z")

</div>

[John Kirkland 2014 01 26]

I appreciate you comments and observations Martin.

There’s one small part I would like to seek clarification about. It is the last part of the first sentence of your penultimate paragraph:… we command our actions and control what we perceive

What happens when ‘to’ or ‘that’ is substituted for the conjunction ‘and’? If I might, the ‘and’ may imply independence of command and control, which may not be your intent.

Kind regards

> **···**
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.01.25.12.21]
> > 
> > > [From Matti Kolu (2014.01.25.1430 CET)]
> > > 
> > > …
> > > 
> > > But I did find the “too simple” statement interesting. The same
> > > 
> > > objection seems to occasionally be raised against PCT. It was also
> > > 
> > > what Edward Ihnatowicz thought about his life-like robots, which he
> > > 
> > > created after first having dabbled with control systems and analogue
> > > 
> > > computers. “Negative feedback” does at a first glance seem trivial.
> > > 
> > > People who come in contact with e.g. servo-mechanisms often tend to
> > > 
> > > note the life-like effects that arise so easily… just to go on and
> > > 
> > > ignore that observation, because the underlying circuitry isn’t
> > > 
> > > complicated enough.
> > > 
> > > This is something that is worth taking seriously by those who are
> > > 
> > > interested in promulgating the perceptual control perspective. It
> > > 
> > > seems to me that the objection can be neutralized or countered before
> > > 
> > > it arises in the mind of the reader or the audience member.
> > 
> > It is true that the _idea_ of negative feedback control is very simple. and may seem “too simple”, and that this may be an aspect of the failure of PCT to be taken more seriously by the mainstream, despite that many researchers have studied negative feedback and even control as aspects of the way living things do what they do. It is also true that “control” is often confused with “negative feedback”. All control systems are negative feedback systems, but lots of negative feedback systems are not control systems. The hard step is from from saying “negative feedback, and even control systems, are used by living things” to saying “control of input is the basis of all that life does”. It is like taking the ornamentation off a building and using it to replace the foundation, and vice-versa.
> > 
> > But it is not true that the manifestations of negative feedback control are simple. Even Bill Powers asserted more than once that it was seldom easy to intuit what would happen when more than two control systems interacted, which was why he relied so heavily on simulation. Mathematical analysis of interacting linear systems is not too hard if there is no transport lag, but when you add transport lags and nonlinearities, the problems of getting an exact solution become more than most of us could handle, if there is any exact solution at all. As with Newtonian orbits, the solution is relatively easy when there are two orbiting bodies or interacting control systems, but not when there are three or more. Chaotic solutions abound, and where there is chaos there is complexity. It seems that most (all?) evolving systems approach the edge of chaos (where divergence is polynomial rather than exponential), whether they start in chaos or in predictable conditions. (I illustrated this conceptually for a PCT hierarchy with the “Bomb in the Machine” in 1992-3 (\<[http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/ParisTutorial.pdf](http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/ParisTutorial.pdf)\> pp25-6 or \<[http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/DFS93/DFS93\_8.html](http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/DFS93/DFS93_8.html)\>).
> > 
> > On the other hand, one can argue the absolute necessity of negative feedback for life on thermodynamic grounds, which washes the complexities of exact solutions under the bridge. Control systems reduce the variability of parts of the environment by bringing corresponding perceptions to and keeping them near reference values. This stabilization is the thermodynamic equivalent of cooling, and it happens at the expense of warming (increasing the variability of) other aspects of the environment. Internally, it protects life-relevant variables from excessive variation that would occur if the environmental variables were not stabilized. The external “thermodynamically warming” effects are what we call side-effects.
> > 
> > I don’t know how one gets this across to people untrained in basic physics, and who have a coherent set of ideas about how the brain works. For the last week TVOntario has been presenting every evening a series of programs about the mind and brain. Some were very good because they were quite dramatic demonstrations of what you can learn to do, though of course “reorganization” was never mentioned. But some, especially the daily debates among experts, were pretty bad, often discussing difficult problems that are not problems at all when seen as issues of controlling input.
> > 
> > In a 1971 paper, J.G.Taylor discussed “axioms” of psychology, truths that are taken for granted, and how they need to be changed in light of the importance of feedback systems. But changing the axioms that underpin a science is a radical step, hard to do without destroying a whole structure of interrelated explanations and derivations. Lobachewski and Reimann could try out the idea of denying the axiom that through any point not on a particular line there is exactly one line that does not meet the original if both are infinitely extended, but it took Einstein to consider that the axiom might not apply to the space in which we live, and a lot longer than Einstein’s lifetime that for the truth to become generally accepted.
> > 
> > PCT changes an axiom of psychology, that we control our actions and respond to what we perceive, by turning it inside out, saying we command our actions and control what we perceive. That’s an easy thing to say, but an easy counter-answer is “OK, but so what?”. All sorts of people have analyzed tracking studies by assuming people to act like servomechanisms. PCT isn’t novel in that. What is novel is the shift of the axiom, and the breadth of the implications of that shift. People believed Einstein’s relativity theory when a star could be observed to have shifted during an eclipse when it could be seen very near the sun, and to have shifted by exactly the amount Einstein predicted. Ptolemy and Newton both predicted planetary orbits very well (except for the precession of Mercury). Einstein viewed spce and tiem differently, and correctly predicted the orbit of Mercury. For PCT to be widely accepted, it should explain some equivalent totally unexpected phenomenon that is hard to explain using the other axiom even after the fact. Don’t ask me what that phenomenon might be:-)
> > 
> > Negative feedback may be a simple idea, but it does not have simple consequences.
> > 
> > Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/3 "2014-01-25T19:03:55Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.25.14.00]

```
Thanks.

```

“to” is a considerable improvement on what I wrote. If I could edit  
my posting in retrospect, I would.  
Thanks again.  
Martin

> **···**
>
> > [John Kirkland 2014 01 26]
> 
> > I appreciate you comments and observations Martin.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > There's one small part I would like to seek clarification
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > about. It is the last part of the first sentence of your  
> > penultimate paragraph:… we command our actions and control  
> > what we perceive
> 
> > ```
> > What happens when 'to' or 'that' is substituted for the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > conjunction ‘and’? If I might, the ‘and’ may imply  
> > independence of command and control, which may not be your  
> > intent.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Kind regards
> 
> > ```
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > ```
> > > [Martin
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > Taylor 2014.01.25.12.21]
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > PCT changes an axiom of psychology, that we control our
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > actions and respond to what we perceive, by turning it  
> > > inside out, saying we command our actions [_and_]  
> > > **to** control what we perceive. That’s an easy thing to  
> > > say, but an easy counter-answer is “OK, but so what?”. All  
> > > sorts of people have analyzed tracking studies by assuming  
> > > people to act like servomechanisms. PCT isn’t novel in that.  
> > > What is novel is the shift of the axiom, and the breadth of  
> > > the implications of that shift. People believed Einstein’s  
> > > relativity theory when a star could be observed to have  
> > > shifted during an eclipse when it could be seen very near  
> > > the sun, and to have shifted by exactly the amount Einstein  
> > > predicted. Ptolemy and Newton both predicted planetary  
> > > orbits very well (except for the precession of Mercury).  
> > > Einstein viewed spce and tiem differently, and correctly  
> > > predicted the orbit of Mercury. For PCT to be widely  
> > > accepted, it should explain some equivalent totally  
> > > unexpected phenomenon that is hard to explain using the  
> > > other axiom even after the fact. Don’t ask me what that  
> > > phenomenon might be:-)
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Negative feedback may be a simple idea, but it does not have
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > simple consequences.
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Martin
> > > 
> > > ```
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/4 "2014-01-25T19:45:47Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (01.25.2014.1441 EST)]

Do we “command our actions” or do we set reference conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I “command” all the behaviors involved in that action or did I simply act in ways that reduced a gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?

Fred Nickols

> **···**
>
> > [John Kirkland 2014 01 26]
> 
> > I appreciate you comments and observations Martin.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > There's one small part I would like to seek clarification
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > about. It is the last part of the first sentence of your  
> > penultimate paragraph:… we command our actions and control  
> > what we perceive
> 
> > ```
> > What happens when 'to' or 'that' is substituted for the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > conjunction ‘and’? If I might, the ‘and’ may imply  
> > independence of command and control, which may not be your  
> > intent.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Kind regards
> 
> > ```
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Martin
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > ```
> > > [Martin
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > Taylor 2014.01.25.12.21]
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > PCT changes an axiom of psychology, that we control our
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > actions and respond to what we perceive, by turning it  
> > > inside out, saying we command our actions [_and_]  
> > > **to** control what we perceive. That’s an easy thing to  
> > > say, but an easy counter-answer is “OK, but so what?”. All  
> > > sorts of people have analyzed tracking studies by assuming  
> > > people to act like servomechanisms. PCT isn’t novel in that.  
> > > What is novel is the shift of the axiom, and the breadth of  
> > > the implications of that shift. People believed Einstein’s  
> > > relativity theory when a star could be observed to have  
> > > shifted during an eclipse when it could be seen very near  
> > > the sun, and to have shifted by exactly the amount Einstein  
> > > predicted. Ptolemy and Newton both predicted planetary  
> > > orbits very well (except for the precession of Mercury).  
> > > Einstein viewed spce and tiem differently, and correctly  
> > > predicted the orbit of Mercury. For PCT to be widely  
> > > accepted, it should explain some equivalent totally  
> > > unexpected phenomenon that is hard to explain using the  
> > > other axiom even after the fact. Don’t ask me what that  
> > > phenomenon might be:-)
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Negative feedback may be a simple idea, but it does not have
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > simple consequences.
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Martin
> > > 
> > > ```
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/5 "2014-01-25T21:33:43Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.25.16.30]

```
Those are not exclusive. They are the same thing. Setting a

```

reference condition is to command the value of a perception. So the  
answer is “Yes”. I thought it more dramatic and a better use of  
everyday speech to use “command”. Eventually, a muscle fibre takes  
on a certain tension, a tension that is perceived and comes to be  
near its commanded reference value.  
Yes. Both.  
Martin’

> **···**
>
> > [From Fred Nickols (01.25.2014.1441 EST)]
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > Do we "command our actions" or do we set reference
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > conditions?
> 
> > ```
> > I just took a sip of beer. Did I "command" all the behaviors
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > involved in that action or did I simply act in ways that reduced  
> > a gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> > 
> 
> > Fred Nickols
> > 
> > ```
> > Sent from my iPad
> > 
> > ```
> 
> > ```
> > On Jan 25, 2014, at 14:03, Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET >
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > wrote:
> 
> > > [Martin Taylor 2014.01.25.14.00]
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > “to” is a considerable improvement on what I wrote. If I could  
> > > edit my posting in retrospect, I would.  
> > > Thanks again.  
> > > Martin
> 
> > [John Kirkland 2014 01 26]
> 
> > I appreciate you comments and observations Martin.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > There's one small part I would like to seek
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > clarification about. It is the last part of the first  
> > sentence of your penultimate paragraph:… we command  
> > our actions and control what we perceive
> 
> > ```
> > What happens when 'to' or 'that' is substituted for the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > conjunction ‘and’? If I might, the ‘and’ may imply  
> > independence of command and control, which may not be  
> > your intent.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Kind regards
> 
> > ```
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM,
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net)  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > ```
> > > [Martin
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > Taylor 2014.01.25.12.21]
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > PCT changes an axiom of psychology, that we control
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > our actions and respond to what we perceive, by  
> > > turning it inside out, saying we command our actions [_and_]  
> > > **to** control what we perceive. That’s an easy  
> > > thing to say, but an easy counter-answer is “OK, but  
> > > so what?”. All sorts of people have analyzed tracking  
> > > studies by assuming people to act like  
> > > servomechanisms. PCT isn’t novel in that. What is  
> > > novel is the shift of the axiom, and the breadth of  
> > > the implications of that shift. People believed  
> > > Einstein’s relativity theory when a star could be  
> > > observed to have shifted during an eclipse when it  
> > > could be seen very near the sun, and to have shifted  
> > > by exactly the amount Einstein predicted. Ptolemy and  
> > > Newton both predicted planetary orbits very well  
> > > (except for the precession of Mercury). Einstein  
> > > viewed spce and tiem differently, and correctly  
> > > predicted the orbit of Mercury. For PCT to be widely  
> > > accepted, it should explain some equivalent totally  
> > > unexpected phenomenon that is hard to explain using  
> > > the other axiom even after the fact. Don’t ask me what  
> > > that phenomenon might be:-)
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Negative feedback may be a simple idea, but it does
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > not have simple consequences.
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Martin
> > > 
> > > ```
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 11:24am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/6 "2014-01-26T11:24:11Z")

</div>

FN:

Do we “command our actions” or do we set reference  
conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I “command” all the  
behaviors involved in that action or did I simply act in ways that reduced a  
gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?

HB :

It’s hard for me to understand what you  
meant with “command”. If you thought on how you can  
“control” the exact “amount” of signal (impulses) sent to  
the muscle, so to exactly do what you wanted, then my answer is NO. You can’t  
“command” your muscle" to do exactly what you wanted to do.

I see it as difference between  
“control of behavior” and “control of perception”.

By my oppinion you can control only  
perception, so reducing “a gap”. That’s the only way you can determine  
what effect happened with the muscle tension. Actions, behavior are consequences  
of “reducing the gap”, just means of control. Even if you know for  
the amount of the “error” you will never know how much muscle tension  
it really produces, so to say that you “command” the muscle to do  
exctla what you wanted to do. Go and try one sport that you haven’t done. You  
can see the sport on video and try to imitate the movements. Control will be  
awfull. Until you get right perceptions what impulses were sent to muscles and  
correct the perceptual “error”, nothing important will happen.

I don’t know the way how could you know  
for the exact amount of impulses send to the muscle, so to produce a certain  
tension or command the muscle, to do exactly what you wanted to do. If we could  
do exactly what we wanted to do, so to command muscels or actions then you  
would have no problems go to a tennis field and “shoot” all balls to  
a wanted point in the field. How unexact human movements are (trials and  
errors) you can see it on your own eyes when walking, talking… Even when  
you are talking are sure that tongue produce voices that you exactly wanted ?. By  
my oppinion : better control of perception (focus), better movements.

By my oppinion all is perception. Beer is  
perception and muscle tension is perception. If perception is wrong you will  
not control anything, no matter how “exactly” you “command”  
muscles to move to grab the bear. If you are drunk enough, you can try to grab  
the bottle. The perception is quite affected (maybe you’ll see 2 bottles) and  
comparing also. Whatever you are aware of is only perception. If I ever come to  
America, we can try it together J.

But it could be that I didin’t understand  
something right.

Best,

Boris

> **···**
>
> * * *
> 
> **From:** Control Systems Group  
> Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On Behalf Of** Fred Nickols  
> **Sent:** Saturday, January 25, 2014  
> 8:46 PM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: Negative feedback too  
> simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)
> 
> [From Fred Nickols (01.25.2014.1441 EST)]
> 
> Do we “command our actions” or do we set reference  
> conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I “command” all the  
> behaviors involved in that action or did I simply act in ways that reduced a  
> gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> Fred Nickols
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 14:03, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET](mailto:mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor  
> > 2014.01.25.14.00]
> 
> > > [John Kirkland 2014 01 26]
> 
> > > I appreciate you comments and observations Martin.
> 
> > Thanks.
> 
> > There’s one small part I  
> > would like to seek clarification about. It is the last part of the first  
> > sentence of your penultimate paragraph:… we command our actions and control  
> > what we perceive
> 
> > What happens when ‘to’ or ‘that’ is substituted for the conjunction  
> > ‘and’? If I might, the ‘and’ may imply independence of command and  
> > control, which may not be your intent.
> 
> > “to” is a considerable improvement on what I wrote. If I could edit  
> > my posting in retrospect, I would.
> > 
> > Thanks again.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> > Kind regards
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) \> wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor  
> > 2014.01.25.12.21]  
> > PCT changes an axiom of psychology, that we control our actions and respond to  
> > what we perceive, by turning it inside out, saying we command our actions [_and_] **to**  
> > control what we perceive. That’s an easy thing to say, but an easy  
> > counter-answer is “OK, but so what?”. All sorts of people have  
> > analyzed tracking studies by assuming people to act like servomechanisms. PCT  
> > isn’t novel in that. What is novel is the shift of the axiom, and the breadth  
> > of the implications of that shift. People believed Einstein’s relativity theory  
> > when a star could be observed to have shifted during an eclipse when it could  
> > be seen very near the sun, and to have shifted by exactly the amount Einstein  
> > predicted. Ptolemy and Newton both predicted planetary orbits very well (except  
> > for the precession of Mercury). Einstein viewed spce and tiem differently, and  
> > correctly predicted the orbit of Mercury. For PCT to be widely accepted, it  
> > should explain some equivalent totally unexpected phenomenon that is hard to  
> > explain using the other axiom even after the fact. Don’t ask me what that  
> > phenomenon might be:-)
> > 
> > Negative feedback may be a simple idea, but it does not have simple  
> > consequences.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> No virus found in this message.  
> Checked by AVG - [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com)  
> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7032 - Release Date: 01/25/14

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 12:33pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/7 "2014-01-26T12:33:15Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (2014.01.26.0731 EST)]

Not to worry, Boris. I was simply questioning Martin’s use of the word “command” in an earlier post. I think you and I are on the same page. See Martin’s response to me.

Fred Nickols

> **···**
>
> **From:** Boris Hartman [[mailto:boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET](mailto:boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET)]  
> **Sent:** Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:24 AM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: Negative feedback too simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)
> 
> FN:
> 
> Do we “command our actions” or do we set reference conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I “command” all the behaviors involved in that action or did I simply act in ways that reduced a gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> HB :
> 
> It’s hard for me to understand what you meant with “command”. If you thought on how you can “control” the exact “amount” of signal (impulses) sent to the muscle, so to exactly do what you wanted, then my answer is NO. You can’t “command” your muscle" to do exactly what you wanted to do.
> 
> I see it as difference between “control of behavior” and “control of perception”.
> 
> By my oppinion you can control only perception, so reducing “a gap”. That’s the only way you can determine what effect happened with the muscle tension. Actions, behavior are consequences of “reducing the gap”, just means of control. Even if you know for the amount of the “error” you will never know how much muscle tension it really produces, so to say that you “command” the muscle to do exctla what you wanted to do. Go and try one sport that you haven’t done. You can see the sport on video and try to imitate the movements. Control will be awfull. Until you get right perceptions what impulses were sent to muscles and correct the perceptual “error”, nothing important will happen.
> 
> I don’t know the way how could you know for the exact amount of impulses send to the muscle, so to produce a certain tension or command the muscle, to do exactly what you wanted to do. If we could do exactly what we wanted to do, so to command muscels or actions then you would have no problems go to a tennis field and “shoot” all balls to a wanted point in the field. How unexact human movements are (trials and errors) you can see it on your own eyes when walking, talking… Even when you are talking are sure that tongue produce voices that you exactly wanted ?. By my oppinion : better control of perception (focus), better movements.
> 
> By my oppinion all is perception. Beer is perception and muscle tension is perception. If perception is wrong you will not control anything, no matter how “exactly” you “command” muscles to move to grab the bear. If you are drunk enough, you can try to grab the bottle. The perception is quite affected (maybe you’ll see 2 bottles) and comparing also. Whatever you are aware of is only perception. If I ever come to America, we can try it together J.
> 
> But it could be that I didin’t understand something right.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Boris
> 
> * * *
> 
> **From:** Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On Behalf Of** Fred Nickols  
> **Sent:** Saturday, January 25, 2014 8:46 PM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: Negative feedback too simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)
> 
> [From Fred Nickols (01.25.2014.1441 EST)]
> 
> Do we “command our actions” or do we set reference conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I “command” all the behaviors involved in that action or did I simply act in ways that reduced a gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> Fred Nickols
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 14:03, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET](mailto:mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.01.25.14.00]
> 
> > > [John Kirkland 2014 01 26]
> 
> > > I appreciate you comments and observations Martin.
> 
> > Thanks.
> 
> > There’s one small part I would like to seek clarification about. It is the last part of the first sentence of your penultimate paragraph:… we command our actions and control what we perceive
> 
> > What happens when ‘to’ or ‘that’ is substituted for the conjunction ‘and’? If I might, the ‘and’ may imply independence of command and control, which may not be your intent.
> 
> > “to” is a considerable improvement on what I wrote. If I could edit my posting in retrospect, I would.
> > 
> > Thanks again.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> > Kind regards
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.01.25.12.21]  
> > PCT changes an axiom of psychology, that we control our actions and respond to what we perceive, by turning it inside out, saying we command our actions [_and_] **to** control what we perceive. That’s an easy thing to say, but an easy counter-answer is “OK, but so what?”. All sorts of people have analyzed tracking studies by assuming people to act like servomechanisms. PCT isn’t novel in that. What is novel is the shift of the axiom, and the breadth of the implications of that shift. People believed Einstein’s relativity theory when a star could be observed to have shifted during an eclipse when it could be seen very near the sun, and to have shifted by exactly the amount Einstein predicted. Ptolemy and Newton both predicted planetary orbits very well (except for the precession of Mercury). Einstein viewed spce and tiem differently, and correctly predicted the orbit of Mercury. For PCT to be widely accepted, it should explain some equivalent totally unexpected phenomenon that is hard to explain using the other axiom even after the fact. Don’t ask me what that phenomenon might be:-)
> > 
> > Negative feedback may be a simple idea, but it does not have simple consequences.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> No virus found in this message.  
> Checked by AVG - [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com)  
> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7032 - Release Date: 01/25/14

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/8 "2014-01-26T13:01:46Z")

</div>

Hi Fred,

sorry to bother you J. I see now the extension  
of the posts. I have so little time…so I read the shortest texts. And  
there are misunderstings. But I’m glad that we are on “the same page”…J.

Best,

Boris

> **···**
>
> * * *
> 
> **From:** Control Systems Group  
> Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On Behalf Of** Fred Nickols  
> **Sent:** Sunday, January 26, 2014  
> 1:33 PM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: Negative feedback too  
> simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)
> 
> [From Fred Nickols  
> (2014.01.26.0731 EST)]
> 
> Not to worry,  
> Boris. I was simply questioning Martin’s use of the word  
> “command” in an earlier post. I think you and I are on the  
> same page. See Martin’s response to me.
> 
> Fred Nickols
> 
> **From:**  
> Boris  
> Hartman [[mailto:boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET](mailto:boris.hartman@MASICOM.NET)]  
> **Sent:** Sunday, January 26, 2014  
> 6:24 AM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: Negative feedback too  
> simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)
> 
> FN:
> 
> Do we “command our actions” or do we set reference  
> conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I “command” all the  
> behaviors involved in that action or did I simply act in ways that reduced a  
> gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> HB :
> 
> It’s hard for me to understand what you  
> meant with “command”. If you thought on how you can  
> “control” the exact “amount” of signal (impulses) sent to  
> the muscle, so to exactly do what you wanted, then my answer is NO. You can’t  
> “command” your muscle" to do exactly what you wanted to do.
> 
> I see it as difference between  
> “control of behavior” and “control of perception”.
> 
> By my oppinion you can control only  
> perception, so reducing “a gap”. That’s the only way you can  
> determine what effect happened with the muscle tension. Actions, behavior are  
> consequences of “reducing the gap”, just means of control. Even if  
> you know for the amount of the “error” you will never know how much  
> muscle tension it really produces, so to say that you “command” the  
> muscle to do exctla what you wanted to do. Go and try one sport that you  
> haven’t done. You can see the sport on video and try to imitate the movements.  
> Control will be awfull. Until you get right perceptions what impulses were sent  
> to muscles and correct the perceptual “error”, nothing important will  
> happen.
> 
> I don’t know the way how could you know  
> for the exact amount of impulses send to the muscle, so to produce a certain  
> tension or command the muscle, to do exactly what you wanted to do. If we could  
> do exactly what we wanted to do, so to command muscels or actions then you  
> would have no problems go to a tennis field and “shoot” all balls to  
> a wanted point in the field. How unexact human movements are (trials and  
> errors) you can see it on your own eyes when walking, talking… Even when  
> you are talking are sure that tongue produce voices that you exactly wanted ?.  
> By my oppinion : better control of perception (focus), better movements.
> 
> By my oppinion all is perception. Beer is  
> perception and muscle tension is perception. If perception is wrong you will  
> not control anything, no matter how “exactly” you “command”  
> muscles to move to grab the bear. If you are drunk enough, you can try to grab  
> the bottle. The perception is quite affected (maybe you’ll see 2 bottles) and  
> comparing also. Whatever you are aware of is only perception. If I ever come to  
> America, we can try it together J.
> 
> But it could be that I didin’t understand  
> something right.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Boris
> 
> * * *
> 
> **From:** Control Systems Group  
> Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)]  
> **On Behalf Of** Fred Nickols  
> **Sent:** Saturday, January 25, 2014  
> 8:46 PM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: Negative feedback too  
> simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)
> 
> [From Fred Nickols (01.25.2014.1441 EST)]
> 
> Do we “command our actions” or do we set reference  
> conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I “command” all the  
> behaviors involved in that action or did I simply act in ways that reduced a  
> gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> Fred Nickols
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 14:03, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET](mailto:mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor  
> > 2014.01.25.14.00]
> 
> > > [John Kirkland 2014 01 26]
> 
> > > I appreciate you comments and observations Martin.
> 
> > Thanks.
> 
> > There’s one small part I  
> > would like to seek clarification about. It is the last part of the first  
> > sentence of your penultimate paragraph:… we command our actions and control  
> > what we perceive
> 
> > What happens when ‘to’ or ‘that’ is substituted for the conjunction  
> > ‘and’? If I might, the ‘and’ may imply independence of command and  
> > control, which may not be your intent.
> 
> > “to” is a considerable improvement on what I wrote. If I could edit  
> > my posting in retrospect, I would.
> > 
> > Thanks again.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> > Kind regards
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) \> wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor  
> > 2014.01.25.12.21]  
> > PCT changes an axiom of psychology, that we control our actions and respond to  
> > what we perceive, by turning it inside out, saying we command our actions [_and_] **to**  
> > control what we perceive. That’s an easy thing to say, but an easy  
> > counter-answer is “OK, but so what?”. All sorts of people have  
> > analyzed tracking studies by assuming people to act like servomechanisms. PCT  
> > isn’t novel in that. What is novel is the shift of the axiom, and the breadth  
> > of the implications of that shift. People believed Einstein’s relativity theory  
> > when a star could be observed to have shifted during an eclipse when it could  
> > be seen very near the sun, and to have shifted by exactly the amount Einstein  
> > predicted. Ptolemy and Newton both predicted planetary orbits very well (except  
> > for the precession of Mercury). Einstein viewed spce and tiem differently, and  
> > correctly predicted the orbit of Mercury. For PCT to be widely accepted, it  
> > should explain some equivalent totally unexpected phenomenon that is hard to  
> > explain using the other axiom even after the fact. Don’t ask me what that  
> > phenomenon might be:-)
> > 
> > Negative feedback may be a simple idea, but it does not have simple  
> > consequences.
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> No  
> virus found in this message.
> 
> Checked by AVG - [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com)
> 
> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7032 - Release Date: 01/25/14
> 
> No virus found in this message.  
> Checked by AVG - [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com)  
> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7033 - Release Date: 01/25/14

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/9 "2014-01-26T14:06:46Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.26.09.03]

> **···**
>
> > FN:
> 
> > ```
> > Do we "command our actions" or do we set
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > reference  
> > conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I  
> > “command” all the  
> > behaviors involved in that action or did I simply act  
> > in ways that reduced a  
> > gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> > HB :
> 
> > ```
> > It's hard for me
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > to understand what you  
> > meant with “command”. If you thought on how you can  
> > “control” the exact “amount” of signal (impulses) sent  
> > to  
> > the muscle, so to exactly do what you wanted, then my  
> > answer is NO. You can’t  
> > “command” your muscle" to do exactly what you wanted  
> > to do.
> 
> > 
> 
> ```
> My
> 
> ```
> 
> understanding of the words “Command” and “control” is that if  
> you command someone to do something, they may do it or  
> something like it, but if you control them it will happen as  
> you wish. Just like setting reference conditions (commanding)  
> and controlling perceptions (controlling).
> 
> ```
> Martin
> 
> ```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/10 "2014-01-26T14:41:55Z")

</div>

Knowing you Martin and your understanding  
of PCT, I beleive that clarification of the terms they were used is O.K. J

Best,

Boris

> **···**
>
> * * *
> 
> **From:** Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)  
> [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On  
> Behalf Of** Martin  
> Taylor  
> **Sent:** Sunday, January 26, 2014  
> 3:07 PM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: Negative feedback too  
> simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)
> 
> [ Martin  
> Taylor 2014.01.26.09.03]
> 
> > FN:
> 
> > Do we “command our actions” or do we set  
> > reference conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I  
> > “command” all the behaviors involved in that action or did I simply  
> > act in ways that reduced a gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> > HB :
> 
> > It’s hard for me to understand what you  
> > meant with “command”. If you thought on how you can  
> > “control” the exact “amount” of signal (impulses) sent to  
> > the muscle, so to exactly do what you wanted, then my answer is NO. You can’t  
> > “command” your muscle" to do exactly what you wanted to do.
> 
> My  
> understanding of the words “Command” and “control” is that  
> if you command someone to do something, they may do it or something like it,  
> but if you control them it will happen as you wish. Just like setting reference  
> conditions (commanding) and controlling perceptions (controlling).
> 
> Martin
> 
> No virus found in this message.  
> Checked by AVG - [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com)  
> Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7033 - Release Date: 01/25/14

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/bc79bd/32.png) [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/11 "2014-01-26T20:37:23Z")

</div>

You guys are basically trying to establish the difference between the control of perception and the control of behavior. But behavior is the control of perception and so the control of behavior is the control of the control of perception. So what’s this all about?

The exchange of the terms command, communication, perception, behavior etc won’t clarify much of anything. After all, these terms are basically the same thing : we are looking at the behavior of a perceptual signal in the brain and figuring out how to communicate command statements to establish a negative feedback condition which stabilizes the behavior of the perceptual signal. Now when you command yourself to take a sip of the beer, you will have to eventually acquaint yourself with the inevitability of the ensuing conscious experience. You don’t just say: I’m going to take a sip of beer, and then drift into a realm of unconsciousness with no perception, and then, at a later time remember that you’ve sipped the beer. No, no, that sort of experience would make no sense. As soon as you engage in behavior, you will feel every single feeling you focus on and you will remember these feelings for at least a short while - until you’ve tried to focus on so many different things at once that your working memory is exhausted and you are forced to come to terms with the fact that your brain has limited conscious capacity. Here you will have encountered the need to group related variables together and establish hierarchical classes of controlled perceptions. Most people, however, do not max out their conscious capacity with the task of sipping a beer. When consciousness is discussed in the context of PCT, it is equated to the reorganizing process - the reorganization of existing control systems to do new things. How often is this reorganization necessary? How quickly (at what rate) could the process of reorganization theoretically take place. In many experiments, pct researchers have shown that higher classes of perceptions take more time to control. Since we now know to expect this, we should consider the reorganization process as something to be optimized. Optimizing the hierarchy is easy, once the task is defined, since Bill articulately identified what the perceptual classes are. What is not easy is to understand is the ease with which a human

can decide at one moment to take a sip of beer, and then at the next moment to do something totally different - like drive a car. We always discuss: how is it possible to sip the beer. We say: well, if only the difference between the perceptual variables (position of cup, position of mouth) and the reference variable (distance of cup to mouth) was zero, then it would happen. But then we remind ourselves, well the reference doesn’t NEED to be zero. I could, for example, splash the beer into my check. It would be no problem at all - all I need to do is set the reference (distance of cup to mouth) to the value of 2 inches to the left or right and I could easily get it done. But why stop there, what if I changed to reference to 10 miles away and threw my cup at the wall. Then, after realizing the 10 mile distance has not been realized, I retrieve all the broken shards and drive them to a suitable distance and then drive back to my original location. Could anyone prove that I’ve been mistaken? Could anyone tell me that my actions were incorrect - that I had not actually done the correct thing in the absolute sense of the word? Well let’s look at it this way. I may think that all I’ve done is to set my reference. I decided to set it to 10 miles away. And then I made absolutely sure that I carried out my task. I did not hesitate to do it, nor did I care about the cops in pursuit of me as I drove. I just drove 10 miles away and did the deed. Nobody is going to change my intention, NOBODY. Even if the cops take me to jail for drunk driving I’ll escape and find the shards of glass and take them to their time-invariant reference location - 10 miles away from where I was sitting at the bar. How do we understand this task without having me repeatedly stress the fact that my reference is defined and it is not changing no matter what environmental change occurs, whether we consider the emotional environment in my head, with thoughts swirling every which way, or the physical environment consisting of variables like the rate of approach of oncoming police vehicles. How could we reinterpret this entire situation as a single event, as a single control task.  
So perception is maintained at a predefined reference condition, the difference between reference and perception converging to 0 at the end of the control behavior. The reference must always be zero. If you do not reduce it to zero, then you have not analyzed the task properly. In the situation above, we should imagine that a mess of events will result and the 10 mile distance will probably never be reached, especially since repeated, probably unsuccessful jail escapes are projected to occur. All because of a stupid decision - not a rash choice happening in a mere instant, but a stubbornly sustained intention with full blown control behavior at work.

Several concepts of conflict are essential to consider here. Why did the glass break against the wall and not pass through it, at least making the carrying of shards unecessary? Perhaps I should have stepped near a window before throwing the glass away. But why does gravity pull things down to earth - perhaps to prevent me from throwing them 10 miles away? Also, how do I lose these damn cops! They have brains and take hairpin turns with skill and precision - why couldn’t they just crash like they always do in the movies?!

Notice how conflict is all external here. We see walls and gravity. And we see humans too, cops. These cops are not necessarily aware of your intention, it just turns out that theirs seem to be in conflict with yours - the faster you attempt approach your destination, the more they want to take you to jail.

What is not present here is internal conflict. You are not changing your own mind. In fact, you are actively maintaining your intention. Whenever you think about pulling over, you immediately destroy the thought and keep barreling down the road.

Who here can identify that the controlled variable here is the actual purpose of my behavior? Who here realizes that this is a task of reducing the difference between the perception of my old reference of “glass to mouth” and the perception of my new reference as “glass 10 miles away” to 0.

> **···**
>
> On Sunday, January 26, 2014, Boris Hartman [boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net) wrote:
> 
> > Knowing you Martin and your understanding  
> > of PCT, I beleive that clarification of the terms they were used is O.K. J
> 
> > 
> 
> > Best,
> 
> > 
> 
> > Boris
> 
> > 
> 
> > * * *
> 
> > **From:** Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)  
> > [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On  
> > Behalf Of** Martin  
> > Taylor  
> > **Sent:** Sunday, January 26, 2014  
> > 3:07 PM  
> > **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> > **Subject:** Re: Negative feedback too  
> > simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital Archive)
> 
> > 
> 
> > [ Martin  
> > Taylor 2014.01.26.09.03]
> 
> > 
> 
> > > FN:
> 
> > > Do we “command our actions” or do we set  
> > > reference conditions? I just took a sip of beer. Did I  
> > > “command” all the behaviors involved in that action or did I simply  
> > > act in ways that reduced a gap between a reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> > >
> 
> > > HB :
> 
> > > It’s hard for me to understand what you  
> > > meant with “command”. If you thought on how you can  
> > > “control” the exact “amount” of signal (impulses) sent to  
> > > the muscle, so to exactly do what you wanted, then my answer is NO. You can’t  
> > > “command” your muscle" to do exactly what you wanted to do.
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > My  
> > understanding of the words “Command” and “control” is that  
> > if you command someone to do something, they may do it or something like it,  
> > but if you control them it will happen as you wish. Just like setting reference  
> > conditions (commanding) and controlling perceptions (controlling).
> > 
> > Martin
> 
> > No virus found in this message.  
> > Checked by AVG - [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com)  
> > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7033 - Release Date: 01/25/14

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 11:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/12 "2014-01-26T23:09:25Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.26.16.53]

```
Philip, Welcome to the discussion. It sounds as though you will

```

provoke some interesting threads. But there is one point of protocol  
that makes discussion just a little easier. We like to head every  
message with an ID stamp so we can refer back to it in months or  
years to come. The format is as my stamp at the head of this  
message: your name (however you want to identify yourself, short  
being easier to write) followed by the time in international format  
(yyyy.mm.dd.hh.mm). There are people from all continents on this  
mailing list, and most of the world does not use the US way of  
identifying the data, which is why we use the international format.

```
Now to your message.

[MT] That's an unusual take on PCT, isn't it? If you have read Bill

```

Powers’s main book (Behaviour, the control of perception), you know  
that the issue isn’t that at all. Bill spends some time pointing out  
a control systems (of any kind) can control only what it observes of  
the “plant”. A thermostat, for example, is set so that it commands a  
furnace to turn on if the temperature _it senses_ is lower than its  
set point. It controls the temperature it senses, not the output of  
the furnace. If the furnace doesn’t turn on when commanded. the  
thermostat can do nothing about it – nor can it control the  
temperature it senses. It’s not controlling the furnace by sending  
the switch-on signal (behaviour). The furnace does whatever it does  
when the signal to switch on comes from the thermostat. And it’s not  
controlling the switch-on signal because that’s just something that  
happens when the temperature goes below the set point (reference  
value).  
[MT] The point is that any control system controls only a _sensed_  
variable, that we call technically a “perception” or “perceptual  
signal”. It is indeed possible to control the behaviour of a control  
system, but it takes a separate system to do it. This second system  
has some way of sensing and influencing the behaviour of the first  
system, and controls what it senses by acting top change the  
behaviour of the first system. Doing so may well (probably will)  
interfere with the ability of the first system to control its sensed  
variable, because if the second system is controlling the behaviour  
of the first, the first can’t change its behaviour in a way  
appropriate to influence its own sensed variable.  
[MT] Hardly!!!  
[MT] You use the terms in a variety of ways. It doesn’t help the  
argument (though it may confuse the debating opposition sufficiently  
for you to win a debate) to do that. The “behaviour” of a control  
system is not the “behaviour” of its perceptual signal. An analyst  
might “figure out” how to communicate command statements, but the  
control system does not. It just produces output; that output is its  
only “behaviour”. If the output is connected to its environment in a  
particular functional way, the “behaviour” can be a “command”. The  
functional connection is what needs to be defined, and in a control  
hierarchy the functional relationship is that the output influences  
either the reference values of one or more other control systems, or  
the physical environment directly. Only if it does one of those  
things is the output a “command”.  
[MT] I do. But then I guess I’m peculiar. Remember that in PCT, the  
word “perception” has a technical meaning that includes the everyday  
meaning of the word – something of which you are conscious – but  
also includes much of which you are not conscious, and perhaps of  
which you are unable to become conscious without considerable  
training of the kind skilled athletes and performers do.  
[MT] Why not?  
[MT] There’s the key: “that you focus on”. The word “feel” also is a  
bit odd in this context. Is it equivalent to “perceive”, which  
allows for unconscious feeling, or is it to be defined as referring  
only to consciousness? And what is “focus” in this context? Usually  
it means at least “being conscious of” and perhaps a bit more,  
because one is usually at least marginally conscious of more than  
what one is focussed on. When I take a sip of beer, I certainly  
don’t focus on all the muscular tensions that are involved. I’m more  
likely to focus on what my friend across the table is saying, and  
not be conscious at all of sipping the beer or of any of its  
required controlled perceptions – at least until I spill it because  
I wasn’t focussing on it.  
[MT] Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It remains a bit of a mystery,  
rather outside of PCT, though various people have talked about  
different possibilities for where conscious experience might tie  
into PCT. Personally, I think consciousness relates to situations in  
which control is poor or impossible. There’s a correlation between  
these situations and the likelihood of reorganization, but it’s not  
a tight correlation. But that’s just my personal guess today, and  
something I think of tomorrow may change it. At present it simply  
isn’t an aspect of PCT, because there’s no science associated with  
it.  
[MT] Reorganization builds new control systems as well as changing  
the linkages of existing ones. The details of the reorganization  
mechanism is an active area of research. Bill Powers developed an  
algorithm based on his idea of how the e-coli bacterium approaches  
an optimum environment, but though this could be simulated, the  
physiological mechanism was always insecure or undefined. Also  
undefined was the degree of modularity of the reorganizing process  
within the control hierarchy. As for “how often” reorganization  
happens, one way of looking at it, since it is considered to be a  
probabilistic process, is that it is always happening. [MT] Microseconds to decades. Reorganization events probably happen  
every time a neuron fires, but whether they have any overt effect  
will depend totally on the physiological and functional context of  
each event. An overt reorganization even may be as subtle as a  
slight improvement in your accuracy in throwing a dart, or as large  
as the conversion on the road to Damascus. It’s rather like the size  
of the sandpile avalanche that is sometimes used to illustrate  
fractal phenomena.  
[MT] How do you get from “Bill defined what the perceptual classes  
are” (he didn’t, by the way) to “Optimizing the hierarchy is easy”?  
[MT] This is something with which I can agree. It hasn’t been well  
dealt with in my 20+ years of discussing and reading about PCT. It’s  
a good research topic, or should be.  
[MT] No, and most of the time, most reference values are not,  
because they are continually changing as a consequence of control at  
higher levels. To take a trivial example, a disturbance at level 3  
is opposed by an output of the level 3 controller. That output  
influences several level 2 reference values, which changes the error  
values and thus the outputs of those level 2 controllers. Those  
level 2 outputs affect the reference values of level 1 control  
units. Their changing output affect things in the physical  
environment, which is what actually implements the “opposing” of the  
level 3 disturbance. As the level 3 error is reduced by this  
opposition, its output changes, changing the level 2 reference  
values, and so forth, all of this happening simultaneously  
throughout the hierarchy. So no, a reference does not need to be  
zero, and most are not.  
[MT] Why not? Suppose you had a higher-level control unit that  
controlled a perception that your wife was happy with you, and she  
said “If you don’t throw those shards in the trash here and now, I’m  
going to be very angry”. Would that not perhaps alter your reference  
value for where the shards should go? Or would you cease controlling  
the perception of your wife being happy with you?  
[MT] How would we not? Isn’t that exactly the way you define it?  
[MT] No. Reference values are hardly ever zero. See above. I think  
you are actually talking about the error value, which tends to zero  
if control is good.  
[MT] Not as you defined it, because you refer always only to a  
single control system, the one with a reference value to put the  
shards 10 miles away. Internal conflict occurs only when you have  
two control systems in teh same body that can’t both bring their  
error values to zero. That’s why I brought in the “happy wife”  
control unit.  
[MT] Only you.  
[MT] However, the Test for the Controlled Variable is applicable in  
the case of a strongly maintained intention, even if the reference  
value changes over time. Check out some of Rick Marken’s demos for  
explanations, if your version of Java in your browser permits it.  
It might be difficult to use the  
TCV to find such an esoteric purpose as you describe, but the  
disturbances you also describe would be appropriate ones to use if  
the analyst had guessed an intention correlated with the actual one.  
Martin

> **···**
>
> On 2014/01/26 3:37 PM, PHILIP JERAIR  
> YERANOSIAN wrote:
> 
> > ```
> > You guys are basically trying to establish the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > difference between the control of perception and the control of  
> > behavior.
> 
> > ```
> > But behavior is the control of perception and so the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > control of behavior is the control of the control of perception.  
> > So what’s this all about?
> 
> > ```
> > The exchange of the terms command, communication, perception,
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > behavior etc won’t clarify much of anything. After all, these  
> > terms are basically the same thing :
> 
> > ```
> > we are looking at the behavior of a perceptual signal in the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > brain and figuring out how to communicate command statements to  
> > establish a negative feedback condition which stabilizes the  
> > behavior of the perceptual signal.
> 
> > ```
> > Now when you command yourself to take a sip of the beer, you
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > will have to eventually acquaint yourself with the  
> > inevitability of the ensuing conscious experience. You don’t  
> > just say: I’m going to take a sip of beer, and then drift into a  
> > realm of unconsciousness with no perception, and then, at a  
> > later time remember that you’ve sipped the beer.
> 
> > No, no, that sort of experience would make no sense.
> 
> > ```
> > As soon as you engage in behavior, you will feel every
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > single feeling you focus on
> 
> > ```
> > ...When consciousness is discussed in the context of PCT, it
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > is equated to the reorganizing process
> 
> > ```
> > - the reorganization of existing control systems to do new
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > things. How often is this reorganization necessary?
> 
> > ```
> > How quickly (at what rate) could the process of
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > reorganization theoretically take place.
> 
> > ```
> > In many experiments, pct researchers have shown that higher
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > classes of perceptions take more time to control. Since we  
> > now know to expect this, we should consider the reorganization  
> > process as something to be optimized. Optimizing the hierarchy  
> > is easy, once the task is defined, since Bill articulately  
> > identified what the perceptual classes are.
> 
> > ```
> > What is not easy is to understand is the ease with which a
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > human
> 
> > ```
> > can decide at one moment to take a sip of beer, and then at the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > next moment to do something totally different - like drive a car.
> 
> > ```
> > We always discuss: how is it possible to sip the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > beer. We say: well, if only the difference between the perceptual  
> > variables (position of cup, position of mouth) and the reference  
> > variable (distance of cup to mouth) was zero, then it  
> > would happen. But then we remind ourselves, well the reference  
> > doesn’t NEED to be zero.
> 
> > ```
> > I could, for example, splash the beer into my check.
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > It would be no problem at all - all I need to do is set the  
> > reference (distance of cup to mouth) to the value of 2 inches to  
> > the left or right and I could easily get it done. But why stop  
> > there, what if I changed to reference to 10 miles away and threw  
> > my cup at the wall. Then, after realizing the 10 mile distance has  
> > not been realized, I retrieve all the broken shards and drive them  
> > to a suitable distance and then drive back to my original  
> > location. Could anyone prove that I’ve been mistaken? Could anyone  
> > tell me that my actions were incorrect - that I had not actually  
> > done the correct thing in the absolute sense of the word? Well  
> > let’s look at it this way. I may think that all I’ve done is  
> > to set my reference. I decided to set it to 10 miles away. And  
> > then I made absolutely sure that I carried out my task. I did not  
> > hesitate to do it, nor did I care about the cops in pursuit of me  
> > as I drove. I just drove 10 miles away and did the deed. Nobody is  
> > going to change my intention, NOBODY.
> 
> > ```
> > Even if the cops take me to jail for drunk
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > driving I’ll escape and find the shards of glass and take them to  
> > their time-invariant reference location - 10 miles away from where  
> > I was sitting at the bar. How do we understand this task without  
> > having me repeatedly stress the fact that my reference is defined  
> > and it is not changing no matter what environmental change occurs,  
> > whether we consider the emotional environment in my head, with  
> > thoughts swirling every which way, or the physical environment  
> > consisting of variables like the rate of approach of oncoming  
> > police vehicles. How could we reinterpret this entire situation as  
> > a single event, as a single control task.
> 
> > ```
> > So perception is maintained at a predefined reference condition,
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > the difference between reference and perception converging to 0  
> > at the end of the control behavior. The reference must always be  
> > zero.
> 
> > What is not present here is internal conflict.
> 
> > ```
> > You are not changing your own mind. In fact, you are actively
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > maintaining your intention. Whenever you think about pulling  
> > over, you immediately destroy the thought and keep barreling  
> > down the road.
> 
> > ```
> > Who here can identify that the controlled variable here is
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > the actual purpose of my behavior? Who here realizes that this  
> > is a task of reducing the difference between the perception  
> > of my old reference of “glass to mouth” and the perception of my  
> > new reference as “glass 10 miles away” to 0.
> 
> [http://www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > On Sunday, January 26, 2014, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net >
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > ```
> > > Knowing
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > you Martin and your understanding  
> > > of PCT, I beleive that clarification of the  
> > > terms they were used is O.K. J
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Best,
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Boris
> 
> > >
> 
> > > * * *
> 
> > > **From:**  
> > > Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)  
> > > [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU) ]  
> > > \*\* On  
> > > Behalf Of\*\* Martin Taylor  
> > > **Sent:**  
> > > Sunday, January 26, 2014  
> > > 3:07 PM  
> > > **To:**  
> > > CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> > > **Subject:**  
> > > Re: Negative feedback too  
> > > simple (was Re: W. Ross Ashby: Digital  
> > > Archive)
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > [Martin Taylor
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > 2014.01.26.09.03]
> 
> > >
> 
> > > > FN:
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > Do we "command
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > our actions" or do we set  
> > > > reference conditions? I just took a sip  
> > > > of beer. Did I  
> > > > “command” all the behaviors involved in  
> > > > that action or did I simply  
> > > > act in ways that reduced a gap between a  
> > > > reference condition and my perceptions?
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > HB
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > :
> 
> > > > ```
> > > > It's
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > hard for me to understand what you  
> > > > meant with “command”. If you thought on  
> > > > how you can  
> > > > “control” the exact “amount” of signal  
> > > > (impulses) sent to  
> > > > the muscle, so to exactly do what you  
> > > > wanted, then my answer is NO. You can’t  
> > > > “command” your muscle" to do exactly  
> > > > what you wanted to do.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > My
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > understanding  
> > > of the words “Command” and “control” is that  
> > > if you command someone to do something, they  
> > > may do it or something like it,  
> > > but if you control them it will happen as  
> > > you wish. Just like setting reference  
> > > conditions (commanding) and controlling  
> > > perceptions (controlling).
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Martin
> > > 
> > > ```
> 
> > > ```
> > > No virus found in this
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > message.  
> > > Checked by AVG - [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com)  
> > > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7033 -  
> > > Release Date: 01/25/14

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/bc79bd/32.png) [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/13 "2014-01-26T23:58:03Z")

</div>

[Philip 2014.01.26.16.55]  
I accidentally sent this to myself earlier instead of CSG. Pretend I said this after where I left off and see if anything is clarified

Control of the reference perception occurs independently of whether or not the external reality will ultimately be matched to the reference. In other words, there is no automatic mechanism which error checks the universe and guides you against rash decisions based off perceptions or references which you don’t have yourself. You will not be prevented from changing your intention because of some universal constant or invariant. The laws of thermodynamics will not prevent you from becoming conscious and then literally controlling the perception you are controlling, thus controlling your behavior in its entirety.

Once consciousness is realized, you can make the purpose of your behavior whatever you want it to be, because the control loop is totally internal. The loop is closed inside the brain. It doesn’t depend at all on environmental conditions or evolutionary history or anything. That’s what makes you able to maintain a conscious awareness of the task at hand irrespective of anything else which has happened or will happen in the entire universe.

Anything can be a perceptual variable, even the reference perception itself. Consciousness is the controlled perception of the purpose of behavior (i.e. the reference value). Powers defined consciousness as the perception and awareness of the perception. But that is a redundant definition. We should realize that control over the reference condition is the proper definition.

I arrived at this conclusion over 6 months ago. Since then I had to strengthen the mathematical basis of PCT in order to incorporate the consciousness aspect to its full potential.

We should discuss this topic more. For now, l will finish formally writing my thoughts. Then I’ll show you how rediculously awesome yet how absolutely ignorant we are.

> **···**
>
> On Sunday, January 26, 2014, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [pyeranos@ucla.edu](mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu) wrote:
> 
> > You guys are basically trying to establish the difference between the control of perception and the control of behavior. But behavior is the control of perception and so the control of behavior is the control of the control of perception. So what’s this all about?  
> > The exchange of the terms command, communication, perception, behavior etc won’t clarify much of anything. After all, these terms are basically the same thing : we are looking at the behavior of a perceptual signal in the brain and figuring out how to communicate command statements to establish a negative feedback condition which stabilizes the behavior of the perceptual signal. Now when you command yourself to take a sip of the beer, you will have to eventually acquaint yourself with the inevitability of the ensuing conscious experience. You don’t just say: I’m going to take a sip of beer, and then drift into a realm of unconsciousness with no perception, and then, at a later time remember that you’ve sipped the beer. No, no, that sort of experience would make no sense. As soon as you engage in behavior, you will feel every single feeling you focus on and you will remember these feelings for at least a short while - until you’ve tried to focus on so many different things at once that your working memory is exhausted and you are forced to come to terms with the fact that your brain has limited conscious capacity. Here you will have encountered the need to group related variables together and establish hierarchical classes of controlled perceptions. Most people, however, do not max out their conscious capacity with the task of sipping a beer. When consciousness is discussed in the context of PCT, it is equated to the reorganizing process - the reorganization of existing control systems to do new things. How often is this reorganization necessary? How quickly (at what rate) could the process of reorganization theoretically take place. In many experiments, pct researchers have shown that higher classes of perceptions take more time to control. Since we now know to expect this, we should consider the reorganization process as something to be optimized. Optimizing the hierarchy is easy, once the task is defined, since Bill articulately identified what the perceptual classes are. What is not easy is to understand is the ease with which a human
> 
> > can decide at one moment to take a sip of beer, and then at the next moment to do something totally different - like drive a car. We always discuss: how is it possible to sip the beer. We say: well, if only the difference between the perceptual variables (position of cup, position of mouth) and the reference variable (distance of cup to mouth) was zero, then it would happen. But then we remind ourselves, well the reference doesn’t NEED to be zero. I could, for example, splash the beer into my check. It would be no problem at all - all I need to do is set the reference (distance of cup to mouth) to the value of 2 inches to the left or right and I could easily get it done. But why stop there, what if I changed to reference to 10 miles away and threw my cup at the wall. Then, after realizing the 10 mile distance has not been realized, I retrieve all the broken shards and drive them to a suitable distance and then drive back to my original location. Could anyone prove that I’ve been mistaken? Could anyone tell me that my actions were incorrect - that I had not actually done the correct thing in the absolute sense of the word? Well let’s look at it this way. I may think that all I’ve done is to set my reference. I decided to set it to 10 miles away. And then I made absolutely sure that I carried out my task. I did not hesitate to do it, nor did I care about the cops in pursuit of me as I drove. I just drove 10 miles away and did the deed. Nobody is going to change my intention, NOBODY. Even if the cops take me to jail for drunk driving I’ll escape and find the shards of glass and take them to their time-invariant reference location - 10 miles away from where I was sitting at the bar. How do we understand this task without having me repeatedly stress the fact that my reference is defined and it is not changing no matter what environmental change occurs, whether we consider the emotional environment in my head, with thoughts swirling every which way, or the physical environment consisting of variables like the rate of approach of oncoming police vehicles. How could we reinterpret this entire situation as a single event, as a single control task.  
> > So perception is maintained at a predefined reference condition, the difference between reference and perception converging to 0 at the end of the control behavior. The reference must always be zero. If you do not reduce it to zero, then you

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ross\_Bell](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/ac8455/32.png) [@Ross\_Bell](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Ross_Bell)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 12:30am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/14 "2014-01-27T00:30:43Z")

</div>

Oh boy! I can't hardly wait.

> **···**
>
> On 1/26/14, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN \<pyeranos@ucla.edu\> wrote:
> 
> > [Philip 2014.01.26.16.55]  
> > I accidentally sent this to myself earlier instead of CSG. Pretend I said  
> > this after where I left off and see if anything is clarified
> > 
> > Control of the reference perception occurs independently of whether or not  
> > the external reality will ultimately be matched to the reference. In other  
> > words, there is no automatic mechanism which error checks the universe and  
> > guides you against rash decisions based off perceptions or references which  
> > you don't have yourself. You will not be prevented from changing your  
> > intention because of some universal constant or invariant. The laws of  
> > thermodynamics will not prevent you from becoming conscious and then  
> > literally controlling the perception you are controlling, thus controlling  
> > your behavior in its entirety.
> > 
> > Once consciousness is realized, you can make the purpose of your behavior  
> > whatever you want it to be, because the control loop is totally internal.  
> > The loop is closed inside the brain. It doesn't depend at all on  
> > environmental conditions or evolutionary history or anything. That's what  
> > makes you able to maintain a conscious awareness of the task at hand  
> > irrespective of anything else which has happened or will happen in the  
> > entire universe.
> > 
> > Anything can be a perceptual variable, even the reference perception  
> > itself. Consciousness is the controlled perception of the purpose of  
> > behavior (i.e. the reference value). Powers defined consciousness as the  
> > perception and awareness of the perception. But that is a redundant  
> > definition. We should realize that control over the reference condition is  
> > the proper definition.
> > 
> > I arrived at this conclusion over 6 months ago. Since then I had to  
> > strengthen the mathematical basis of PCT in order to incorporate the  
> > consciousness aspect to its full potential.
> > 
> > We should discuss this topic more. For now, l will finish formally writing  
> > my thoughts. Then I'll show you how rediculously awesome yet how absolutely  
> > ignorant we are.
> > 
> > On Sunday, January 26, 2014, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN \<pyeranos@ucla.edu\> \> wrote:
> > 
> > You guys are basically trying to establish the difference between the  
> > control of perception and the control of behavior. But behavior is the  
> > control of perception and so the control of behavior is the control of the  
> > control of perception. So what's this all about?  
> > The exchange of the terms command, communication, perception, behavior etc  
> > won't clarify much of anything. After all, these terms are basically the  
> > same thing : we are looking at the behavior of a perceptual signal in the  
> > brain and figuring out how to communicate command statements to establish a  
> > negative feedback condition which stabilizes the behavior of the perceptual  
> > signal. Now when you command yourself to take a sip of the beer, you will  
> > have to eventually acquaint yourself with the inevitability of the  
> > ensuing conscious experience. You don't just say: I'm going to take a sip  
> > of beer, and then drift into a realm of unconsciousness with no perception,  
> > and then, at a later time remember that you've sipped the beer. No, no,  
> > that sort of experience would make no sense. As soon as you engage in  
> > behavior, you will feel every single feeling you focus on and you will  
> > remember these feelings for at least a short while - until you've tried  
> > to focus on so many different things at once that your working memory is  
> > exhausted and you are forced to come to terms with the fact that your brain  
> > has limited conscious capacity. Here you will have encountered the need to  
> > group related variables together and establish hierarchical classes of  
> > controlled perceptions. Most people, however, do not max out their  
> > conscious capacity with the task of sipping a beer. When consciousness is  
> > discussed in the context of PCT, it is equated to the reorganizing process  
> > - the reorganization of existing control systems to do new things. How  
> > often is this reorganization necessary? How quickly (at what rate) could  
> > the process of reorganization theoretically take place. In many  
> > experiments, pct researchers have shown that higher classes of perceptions  
> > take more time to control. Since we now know to expect this, we  
> > should consider the reorganization process as something to be optimized.  
> > Optimizing the hierarchy is easy, once the task is defined, since Bill  
> > articulately identified what the perceptual classes are. What is not easy  
> > is to understand is the ease with which a human  
> > can decide at one moment to take a sip of beer, and then at the next moment  
> > to do something totally different - like drive a car. We always discuss:  
> > how is it possible to sip the beer. We say: well, if only the difference  
> > between the perceptual variables (position of cup, position of mouth) and  
> > the reference variable (distance of cup to mouth) was zero, then it  
> > would happen. But then we remind ourselves, well the reference doesn't NEED  
> > to be zero. I could, for example, splash the beer into my check. It would  
> > be no problem at all - all I need to do is set the reference (distance of  
> > cup to mouth) to the value of 2 inches to the left or right and I could  
> > easily get it done. But why stop there, what if I changed to reference to  
> > 10 miles away and threw my cup at the wall. Then, after realizing the 10  
> > mile distance has not been realized, I retrieve all the broken shards and  
> > drive them to a suitable distance and then drive back to my original  
> > location. Could anyone prove that I've been mistaken? Could anyone tell me  
> > that my actions were incorrect - that I had not actually done  
> > the correct thing in the absolute sense of the word? Well let's look at it  
> > this way. I may think that all I've done is to set my reference. I decided  
> > to set it to 10 miles away. And then I made absolutely sure that I carried  
> > out my task. I did not hesitate to do it, nor did I care about the cops in  
> > pursuit of me as I drove. I just drove 10 miles away and did the deed.  
> > Nobody is going to change my intention, NOBODY. Even if the cops take me to  
> > jail for drunk driving I'll escape and find the shards of glass and take  
> > them to their time-invariant reference location - 10 miles away from where  
> > I was sitting at the bar. How do we understand this task without having me  
> > repeatedly stress the fact that my reference is defined and it is not  
> > changing no matter what environmental change occurs, whether we consider  
> > the emotional environment in my head, with thoughts swirling every which  
> > way, or the physical environment consisting of variables like the rate of  
> > approach of oncoming police vehicles. How could we reinterpret this entire  
> > situation as a single event, as a single control task.  
> > So perception is maintained at a predefined reference condition, the  
> > difference between reference and perception converging to 0 at the end of  
> > the control behavior. The reference must always be zero. If you do not  
> > reduce it to zero, then you

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:24am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/15 "2014-01-27T04:24:33Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.27.22.51]

> ```
> [Philip 2014.01.26.16.55]
> 
> I accidentally sent this to myself earlier instead of CSG. Pretend
> 
> ```
> 
> I said this after where I left off and see if anything is  
> clarified
> 
> ```
> Control of the reference perception occurs independently of
> 
> ```
> 
> whether or not the external reality will ultimately be matched to  
> the reference.

```
[MT] I'm not clear what you mean be "reference perception". In the

```

HPCT structure, each individual elementary control unit has a  
“perception” that is in the feedback loop and a “reference” that is  
not. When you use the words as though “reference” were a kind of  
“perception” you are outside the structure of PCT defined by Powers.  
The word pair may mean something in some other theory, but it means  
nothing to me.

> ```
> In other words, there is no automatic mechanism which
> 
> ```
> 
> error checks the universe and guides you against rash decisions  
> based off perceptions or references which you don’t  
> have yourself.

```
[MT] If you are saying that all you can know of the world is what

```

you get from your senses and your analysis of those data over your  
lifetime, I have to agree. But I don’t know if that is what you  
meant, and I have no idea to what “perceptions and references you  
don’t have yourself” could refer. Are you talking about control  
systems in other living things?

> ```
> You will not be prevented from changing your intention
> 
> ```
> 
> because of some universal constant or invariant. The laws of  
> thermodynamics will not prevent you from becoming conscious and  
> then literally controlling the perception you are controlling,  
> thus controlling your behavior in its entirety.

```
[MT] According to PCT, "literally controlling the perception you are

```

controlling" is what life is. It has nothing to do with  
consciousness, and we don’t even know where in the world of biology  
consciousness even exists, though perceptual control exists  
everywhere there is life. PCT is, after all, a necessary consequence  
of the laws of thermodynamics as they are currently understood.

> 

> ```
> Once consciousness is realized, you can make the purpose of
> 
> ```
> 
> your behavior whatever you want it to be, because the control  
> loop is totally internal.

```
[MT] This sounds like an article of faith, as stated. How would you

```

go about testing it? You may be right, but then again you may not.  
If I were to say that you are wrong, what evidence could you produce  
to contradict me?

> ```
> The loop is closed inside the brain. It doesn't depend at all
> 
> ```
> 
> on environmental conditions or evolutionary history or anything.  
> That’s what makes you able to maintain a conscious awareness of  
> the task at hand irrespective of anything else which has  
> happened or will happen in the entire universe.

```
[MT] Two questions: (1) how do you demonstrate that you are right?

```

and (2) If you are right, what does it have to do with PCT? The  
point of question 2 is not to limit the scope of PCT, but to ask  
whether you have a modelable of integrating consciousness into the  
PCT structure.

> 

> ```
> Anything can be a perceptual variable, even the reference
> 
> ```
> 
> perception itself.

```
[MT] Again, what do you mean by "the reference perception". Do you

```

mean the current value of the reference input? If so, when you are  
discussing PCT in this group of people familiar with a particular  
set of labels for the individual signals, it would ease the  
discussion if you were to use those conventional labels in  
preference to idiosyncratic ones with which the readers are  
unfamiliar.

> ```
> Consciousness is the controlled perception of the purpose of
> 
> ```
> 
> behavior (i.e. the reference value).

```
[MT] ??? At a loss to even guess at what you mean by this ???

```

> ```
> Powers defined consciousness as the perception and awareness
> 
> ```
> 
> of the perception.

```
[MT] Could you provide an article and page reference for this?

[MT] "Awareness" seems to entail being conscious of something, for

```

sure, but I don’t remember Powers ever defining “consciousness”.  
Earlier you said it had been defined as the process of  
reorganization, which doesn’t seem much like the definition here.

> ```
> But that is a redundant definition. We should realize that
> 
> ```
> 
> control over the reference condition is the proper definition.

```
[MT] According to PCT, there is no control of output, and hence no

```

control of reference values at the level below. Output is what it  
needs to be to bring and keep the controlled variable (the  
perception) near its reference value, a value supplied by the output  
of a higher system unless the control unit of concern is at the top  
of the hierarchy – in which case the reference value is taken to be  
a fixed zero because there is no corresponding input signal.

> 

> ```
> I arrived at this conclusion over 6 months ago. Since then I had
> 
> ```
> 
> to strengthen the mathematical basis of PCT in order to  
> incorporate the consciousness aspect to its full potential.

```
[MT] Please give us links to notes, publications, drafts, or other

```

material that describes this strengthened mathematical basis of PCT.  
At the moment, the best mathematical analyses we know are those  
provided by Richard Kennaway. It would be nice to supplement these  
with analyses done from a different viewpoint. And it would be even  
nicer to have a mathematical foundation for consciousness.

> 

> ```
> We should discuss this topic more. For now, l
> 
> ```
> 
> will finish formally writing my thoughts. Then I’ll show you how  
> rediculously awesome yet how absolutely ignorant we are.

```
[MT] I don't think that needs much showing! It is well known to

```

anyone old enough to have learned that for every new thing learned,  
a door opens to a further world as yet unknown. I think that happens  
around age 18 or so.

```
[MT] I think one problem we have is communication. You are using a

```

terminology that includes some of the words used in much discussion  
of PCT, but you seem to be using them to refer to different  
concepts, and that makes it hard to respond seriously and  
competently to what you write. Either you should try to guide us in  
learning how you use the words or you could try using them in ways  
that are standard in PCT discussions and writings. I would be  
fascinated to understand how you tie consciousness into PCT, as you  
obviously think of it as an integral factor for control of something  
or other, whereas most PCT analysis ignores entirely the question of  
consciousness.

```
Martin

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![COOMB\_TIMOTHY](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/65b543/32.png) [@COOMB\_TIMOTHY](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/COOMB_TIMOTHY)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 9:22am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/16 "2014-01-27T09:22:28Z")

</div>

Tim Coomb 2014.01.27.09.15

Hi Martin,

In your reply to Philip you said this:

[MT] “Awareness” seems to entail being conscious of something, for sure, but I don’t remember Powers ever defining “consciousness”. Earlier you said it had been defined as the process of reorganization, which doesn’t seem much like the definition here.

On page 202 of B:CoP Powers has a working definition of consciousness:

'Consciousness consists of perception (presence of neural currents in a perceptual pathway) and awareness (reception by the reorganising system of duplicates of those signals, which are all alike wherever they come from)…

Hope that jogs your memory.

Cheers

Tim

> **···**
>
> On 27 January 2014 04:24, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.01.27.22.51]
> > 
> > > ```
> > > [Philip 2014.01.26.16.55]
> > > 
> > > I accidentally sent this to myself earlier instead of CSG. Pretend
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > I said this after where I left off and see if anything is  
> > > clarified
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > Control of the reference perception occurs independently of
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > whether or not the external reality will ultimately be matched to  
> > > the reference.
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] I'm not clear what you mean be "reference perception". In the
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > HPCT structure, each individual elementary control unit has a  
> > “perception” that is in the feedback loop and a “reference” that is  
> > not. When you use the words as though “reference” were a kind of  
> > “perception” you are outside the structure of PCT defined by Powers.  
> > The word pair may mean something in some other theory, but it means  
> > nothing to me.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > In other words, there is no automatic mechanism which
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > error checks the universe and guides you against rash decisions  
> > > based off perceptions or references which you don’t  
> > > have yourself.
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] If you are saying that all you can know of the world is what
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > you get from your senses and your analysis of those data over your  
> > lifetime, I have to agree. But I don’t know if that is what you  
> > meant, and I have no idea to what “perceptions and references you  
> > don’t have yourself” could refer. Are you talking about control  
> > systems in other living things?
> > 
> > > ```
> > > You will not be prevented from changing your intention
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > because of some universal constant or invariant. The laws of  
> > > thermodynamics will not prevent you from becoming conscious and  
> > > then literally controlling the perception you are controlling,  
> > > thus controlling your behavior in its entirety.
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] According to PCT, "literally controlling the perception you are
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > controlling" is what life is. It has nothing to do with  
> > consciousness, and we don’t even know where in the world of biology  
> > consciousness even exists, though perceptual control exists  
> > everywhere there is life. PCT is, after all, a necessary consequence  
> > of the laws of thermodynamics as they are currently understood.
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > Once consciousness is realized, you can make the purpose of
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > your behavior whatever you want it to be, because the control  
> > > loop is totally internal.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] This sounds like an article of faith, as stated. How would you
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > go about testing it? You may be right, but then again you may not.  
> > If I were to say that you are wrong, what evidence could you produce  
> > to contradict me?
> > 
> > > ```
> > > The loop is closed inside the brain. It doesn't depend at all
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > on environmental conditions or evolutionary history or anything.  
> > > That’s what makes you able to maintain a conscious awareness of  
> > > the task at hand irrespective of anything else which has  
> > > happened or will happen in the entire universe.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] Two questions: (1) how do you demonstrate that you are right?
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > and (2) If you are right, what does it have to do with PCT? The  
> > point of question 2 is not to limit the scope of PCT, but to ask  
> > whether you have a modelable of integrating consciousness into the  
> > PCT structure.
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > Anything can be a perceptual variable, even the reference
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > perception itself.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] Again, what do you mean by "the reference perception". Do you
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > mean the current value of the reference input? If so, when you are  
> > discussing PCT in this group of people familiar with a particular  
> > set of labels for the individual signals, it would ease the  
> > discussion if you were to use those conventional labels in  
> > preference to idiosyncratic ones with which the readers are  
> > unfamiliar.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > Consciousness is the controlled perception of the purpose of
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > behavior (i.e. the reference value).
> 
> > 
> 
> > [MT] ??? At a loss to even guess at what you mean by this ???
> > 
> > > ```
> > > Powers defined consciousness as the perception and awareness
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > of the perception.
> 
> > 
> 
> > [MT] Could you provide an article and page reference for this?
> > 
> > ```
> > [MT] "Awareness" seems to entail being conscious of something, for
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > sure, but I don’t remember Powers ever defining “consciousness”.  
> > Earlier you said it had been defined as the process of  
> > reorganization, which doesn’t seem much like the definition here.
> > 
> > > ```
> > > But that is a redundant definition. We should realize that
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > control over the reference condition is the proper definition.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] According to PCT, there is no control of output, and hence no
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > control of reference values at the level below. Output is what it  
> > needs to be to bring and keep the controlled variable (the  
> > perception) near its reference value, a value supplied by the output  
> > of a higher system unless the control unit of concern is at the top  
> > of the hierarchy – in which case the reference value is taken to be  
> > a fixed zero because there is no corresponding input signal.
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > I arrived at this conclusion over 6 months ago. Since then I had
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > to strengthen the mathematical basis of PCT in order to  
> > > incorporate the consciousness aspect to its full potential.
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] Please give us links to notes, publications, drafts, or other
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > material that describes this strengthened mathematical basis of PCT.  
> > At the moment, the best mathematical analyses we know are those  
> > provided by Richard Kennaway. It would be nice to supplement these  
> > with analyses done from a different viewpoint. And it would be even  
> > nicer to have a mathematical foundation for consciousness.
> > 
> > >
> 
> > > ```
> > > We should discuss this topic more. For now, l
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > will finish formally writing my thoughts. Then I’ll show you how  
> > > rediculously awesome yet how absolutely ignorant we are.
> 
> > 
> 
> > ```
> > [MT] I don't think that needs much showing! It is well known to
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > anyone old enough to have learned that for every new thing learned,  
> > a door opens to a further world as yet unknown. I think that happens  
> > around age 18 or so.
> > 
> > ```
> > [MT] I think one problem we have is communication. You are using a
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > terminology that includes some of the words used in much discussion  
> > of PCT, but you seem to be using them to refer to different  
> > concepts, and that makes it hard to respond seriously and  
> > competently to what you write. Either you should try to guide us in  
> > learning how you use the words or you could try using them in ways  
> > that are standard in PCT discussions and writings. I would be  
> > fascinated to understand how you tie consciousness into PCT, as you  
> > obviously think of it as an integral factor for control of something  
> > or other, whereas most PCT analysis ignores entirely the question of  
> > consciousness.
> > 
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/bc79bd/32.png) [@PHILIP\_JERAIR\_YERANO](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 9:52am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/17 "2014-01-27T09:52:57Z")

</div>

[Philip 2014.01.28.1.20]

Wow,very interesting replies, Martin. I couldn’t be happier with the points you raise. It’s clear that I seem to have invented a type of PCT which is unique from Bill’s. Also, this is the first time I’m telling anybody in the PCT circle anything about my ideas (except for the one time I met Rick Marken about 8 or 9 months ago, right before Bill pased). It’s extremely unfortunate that I never got a chance to speak to Bill, but it’s extremely fortunate that you are all here to carry his torch.

You might be wondering why I’m a completely unknown person in the PCT realm. Generally, in science and math, people don’t purposefully proceed in isolation as I have; they usually work in groups and look for constant feedback in their writings and publishings. You might be wondering why I’m showing up here, all of a sudden, unannounced. The truth is, I’m not completely unannounced. Rick has known me (a little bit) for a while now, but he has never seen any of my actual work. There’s a solid reason I’ve waited this long to tell anybody anything…it’s literally almost impossibly difficult to answer the question of “what is consciousness”, giving an exquisitely appealing reasoning for exactly “why” the conscious experience should occur. I won’t tell you the details of my life story and of what I have subjected myself to for years in order to become intuitively familiar with this question, simply because its too energetic a message to convey at the moment, and because I have still been (until very recently) drowning in the midst of the energetic effects; I will tell you immediately that my emotions are just now stabilizing from long, ungodly episodes of fear and frustration. I have been working tirelessly on the central problem of consciousness in absolute isolation from the entire PCT crowd for quite some time now, and I believe I finally have enough understanding to proceed with unlimited patience, and no fear of failure.

Let’s begin…from the end.

\*\*\* [MT] I think one problem we have is communication. You are using a  
terminology that includes some of the words used in much discussion  
of PCT, but you seem to be using them to refer to different  
concepts, and that makes it hard to respond seriously and  
competently to what you write. Either you should try to guide us in  
learning how you use the words or you could try using them in ways  
that are standard in PCT discussions and writings. I would be  
fascinated to understand how you tie consciousness into PCT, as you  
obviously think of it as an integral factor for control of something  
or other, whereas most PCT analysis ignores entirely the question of  
consciousness.\*\*\*

Don’t worry, you have given me the most competent response I could have ever hoped for. So,

First off, the only PCT literature I have read is Bill’s original, B:CoP, as well as Rick Marken’s More Mind Readings (which was my only initial source of information about the existence of Bill’s work). I must admit, I am not at all familiar with Bill’s most recent works, but I am pretty sure I’m intuitively familiar with everything he was relating to, because I originally developed the biology-oriented applications of PCT before I came across the actual existence of PCT and learned it was originally geared toward psychology-oriented applications. I have a lot of background information about ALL the subjects, more than anyone would probably like to admit a person of my inclination would have. I’ve spent most of my time reading books that most people don’t even know exist. Most of the important ones were written between the 40’s and the 80’s.

As an aside: It surprises me how much information was known during the time Bill invented his theory and it also surprises me how little cross-polination has occured between Bill’s ideas and some of the seriously groundbreaking mathematical treatises which were available at the time. If I were to suggest the first point of unification of these theories, I would direct you towards the mathematical theories of communication as developed by Shannon in the 50’s. Truly excellent work. The tipping point which allowed me to eventually arrive at my definition of consciousness a few months later was Shannon’s definition of the information-channel capacity. I will try to show how you could seamlessly blend perceptual control theory with information theory. If this has already been done, please let me know so I can take a look at the work. But I don’t think anybody has tried to as of yet.

From now on, I will be sure to be more mindful of the fact that I have invented a lot of new concepts and word pairings that literally make no sense to you guys, yet. But rest assured, there is a ton of method to the madness. It took me many months, sometimes years, of sifting through all the possible phrase-permutations to arrive at these specific word pairings, but I will be glad to throw any of them out the window as soon as I find better ones.

> **···**
>
> > ```
> > Martin
> > 
> > ```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 10:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/18 "2014-01-27T22:57:23Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.27.17.36]

> Tim Coomb 2014.01.27.09.15  
> Hi Martin,  
> In your reply to Philip you said this:  
> [MT] "Awareness" seems to entail being conscious of something, for sure, but I don't remember Powers ever defining "consciousness". Earlier you said it had been defined as the process of reorganization, which doesn't seem much like the definition here.  
> On page 202 of B:CoP Powers has a working definition of consciousness:  
> 'Consciousness consists of perception (presence of neural currents in a perceptual pathway) and awareness (reception by the reorganising system of duplicates of those signals, which are all alike wherever they come from)...  
> Hope that jogs your memory.

That's not a definition in the sense I was hoping for. Philip said: " Consciousness is the controlled perception of the purpose of behavior (i.e. the reference value). Powers defined consciousness as the perception and awareness of the perception. But that is a redundant definition. We should realize that control over the reference condition is the proper definition." Earlier Philip had said:"When consciousness is discussed in the context of PCT, it is equated to the reorganizing process - the reorganization of existing control systems to do new things."

If the sentence you quote from Powers is the sum total of Bill's definitions of consciousness, then we have no definition other than the everyday one: "Consciousness is what you are aware of." In fact, the Powers quote doesn't even purport to be a definition so much as a speculation about what is happening when one is conscious of something. One is conscious of those perceptual signals that are received by the reorganizing system.

Now, the reorganizing system as I understand it is still very ill-defined and speculative. Even if we accept HPCT as holy writ (something Bill always urged us NOT to do), all we can be sure of about the reorganizing system is that it must be able to modify the perceptual control hierarchy in such a way that the actions that serve to control the perceptions in the hierarchy also enable the intrinsic variables to stay within viable limits. Reorganization might influence the nature of perceptual functions and the elaboration of output connections to lower-level reference inputs, but nothing about the requirement to keep intrinsic variables within viable limits suggests that perceptual signals are necessarily received by the reorganizing system. I don't remember Bill ever suggesting it in our conversations about reorganization over the last 20 years (and remember that B:CP was written 40 years ago, before Bill had ANY clear idea of how reorganization might work). His simulations of reorganization don't require perceptual signals to be fed to the reorganizing system. Error signals, yes, but not perceptual signals.

So I would discount that quoted sentence entirely.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 5:52am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/19 "2014-01-28T05:52:09Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2014.01.27.17.58]

> [Philip 2014.01.28.1.20]
> 
> ```
> As an aside: It surprises me how much information was known
> 
> ```
> 
> during the time Bill invented his theory and it also surprises  
> me how little cross-polination has occured between Bill’s  
> ideas and some of the seriously groundbreaking mathematical  
> treatises which were available at the time. If I were to  
> suggest the first point of unification of these theories, I  
> would direct you towards the mathematical theories of  
> communication as developed by Shannon in the 50’s. Truly  
> excellent work. The tipping point which allowed me to  
> eventually arrive at my definition of consciousness a few  
> months later was Shannon’s definition of the  
> information-channel capacity. I will try to show how you  
> could seamlessly blend perceptual control theory with  
> information theory. If this has already been done, please let  
> me know so I can take a look at the work. But I don’t think  
> anybody has tried to as of yet.

```
How long have you been reading CSGnet? If it is more than a few

```

months, you may have seen some of my attempts at tutorials on the  
application of information theory (Shannon, not later variants) to  
control. It’s simply not true that nobody has tried it yet. Richard  
Kennaway says that he has looked into it, but (a few years ago) had  
not come up with formal solutions in information-theoretic terms.

> * * *
> 
> ```
> [MT] Please give us links to notes, publications, drafts,
> 
> ```
> 
> or other material that describes this strengthened  
> mathematical basis of PCT. At the moment, the best  
> mathematical analyses we know are those provided by  
> Richard Kennaway. It would be nice to supplement these  
> with analyses done from a different viewpoint. And it  
> would be even nicer to have a mathematical foundation for  
> consciousness.
> 
> ```
> ***
> 
> ```

> ```
> I can provide you with strong mathematical proofs as soon
> 
> ```
> 
> as I complete my required study of the entire field of  
> mathematics. I am moving very fast, and will finish soon (but  
> math books are very hard to read, and we’re talking about pure  
> math here - were also talking about pure autodidaction, since  
> my old professors don’t seem to care much enough about PCT to  
> get involved with my work). But there’s good news: I have  
> already arrived at the basic solution strategy for every  
> single currently unsolved math problem in existence (including  
> the difficult ones which have eluded us since the time of the  
> ancients, as well as the modern day problems of quantum  
> mechanics).

```
I hadn't realized that we had the greatest mathematician of all

```

times among us. This is indeed a great honour. Resolving the Riemann  
Zeta problem will at least get you a Fields medal. Congratulations  
in advance.

> ```
> *** Consciousness is the controlled perception of the
> 
> ```
> 
> purpose of behavior (i.e. the reference value)  
> [MT] ??? At a loss to even guess at what you mean by this  
> ???\*\*\*

> ```
> This made me laugh. I always wondered how the PCT crowd
> 
> ```
> 
> would react when I tried to give them my exact definition of  
> consciousness.

```
When will you do that? The words quoted above say nothing. Perhaps

```

they mean something to you, but they don’t to me. “The controlled  
perception of the purpose of behaviour” uses words that have  
specific referents in PCT, but that cannot sensibly be put together  
in that way. It makes as much sense to me as “The door to the  
skylight of the basement floor”.

> ```
> This definition of is something which I developed in order
> 
> ```
> 
> to explain how it would be possible to control the purpose of  
> your behavior.

```
But what does that mean? "To control the purpose of your behaviour"

```

is word salad. I’ve tried to figure out what it could possibly mean,  
but the nearest I can come to it is time multiplexing across control  
systems that would otherwise be in conflict. You have to shift from  
controlling one variable to controlling another because you have  
only one pair of hands and can’t be in two places at once. But that  
seems too obvious and mundane to require months of deep thought, so  
you must mean something different and obscure.

> ```
> Now, I notice my definition has provoked genuine surprise
> 
> ```
> 
> and uncertainty.

```
No. Bewilderment and a request for translation or elaboration so

```

that it might come to mean something – anything. If it is  
translated into an intelligible form, then it might provoke surprise  
and/or uncertainty. Or it might not.

> ```
> I thought this definition of consciousness would be
> 
> ```
> 
> self-explanatory and would immediately make sense, because I  
> noticed that such a combination of phrasing had never even  
> been considered by Powers, even though it is generally of the  
> same form as the basic mantra of PCT, and so I thought it  
> would have an intuitive appeal.

```
Yes, you can make parallel mantras. PCT has two mantras "All

```

behaviour is the control of perception" and “You can’t tell what  
someone is doing by looking at what they are doing”. Yours seems to  
parallel neither of these, and I don’t see the metaphoric parallels  
either, so it remains mysterious.

> ```
> According to PCT, all behavior is the control of a
> 
> ```
> 
> perceptual variable.

```
So far, so good.

```

> ```
> In essence, the first thing I have done is to equate
> 
> ```
> 
> consciousness with behavior (referring to the general term  
> “consciouness” as “conscious behavior”).

```
What justifies this equivalence? It seems to me to be arbitrary and

```

indefensible. Arbitrary because it is by fiat, and indefensible  
because it would require every action we produce to be present in  
consciousness, which is clearly not the case.

> ```
> Then I equated the purpose of behavior with the reference
> 
> ```
> 
> variable, just as I had seen had been done before.

```
That's fair enough by itself. The current value of the reference

```

variable is often described as the current purpose of that  
particular elementary control unit.

> ```
> I then had to contend with the issue of how one could go
> 
> ```
> 
> about controlling this variable.

```
That would be a definite departure from Bill's HPCT, which is fine.

```

Bill never expected HPCT to be the full story. Personally, I have  
preferred to see how far we can go without deviating from HPCT,  
though I think of many ways in which it will probably need to be  
changed to explain all that we and other living things do. So if you  
want to create a structure in which one control system’s controlled  
perception is the reference value of another, that creates no  
problem for me. However, I think it would create a problem for the  
behaving structure of control systems.

```
Consider the example Bill uses, of steering a car. At one level the

```

driver is controlling a perception of where in the lane the car is  
at the moment. If it is further left than its reference value, that  
control system produces output that influences the reference value  
for the angle of the steering wheel. What would happen if there was  
another control system that actually perceived the reference value  
for the steering wheel angle and controlled its perception of that  
reference value? The control system that is controlling the  
perception of the position of the car in its lane can’t control that  
reference value, because it is already controlling the lane position  
perception, so it must be quite another control system controlling  
the wheel-angle reference value. The control system that controls  
the perception of where the car is in its lane could no longer  
influence the angle of the steering wheel because it is being  
controlled by the other control system, and the car would probably  
go off the road.

```
In HPCT, no reference value is controlled, and I find it hard to

```

envisage a viable construction in which it would be useful for  
reference values to be controlled. But you have envisaged such a  
structure. Maybe it would be helpful if you were to show a sketch of  
how such a structure would work without getting itself tied in  
knots. Better yet, make a simulation in some platform-independent  
code, to show that it would actually work.

> ```
> PCT essentially points out that the most any control system
> 
> ```
> 
> can do to control some variable is to control a perception of  
> that variable.

```
Not "the most any control system can do" -- it's what a control

```

system does, and the only thing it does.

> ```
> This is absolutely basic. So I figured the next question
> 
> ```
> 
> should be, what is it which allows you to actually have a  
> perception of something.

```
In the eye, rods and cones, then retinal ganglia and other neural

```

structures that produce signals in the optic nerve, and so on and so  
forth. At every stage, the patterns derived (at least in part) from  
the patterns of photons impinging on the retina are “perceptions” in  
PCT. Some of these are controlled. Most are not.

> ```
> This is a tough question, but I learned it becomes easier
> 
> ```
> 
> to ask the more specific question, what is it which allows you  
> to have a _controlled_ perception of something. That’s  
> when I incorporated information theory and Shanon’s  
> information channel capacity into the consideration and the  
> solution eventually became apparent, once we merge the concept  
> of perception and communication (I will provide you with this  
> explanation soon).

```
The sooner the better. At the moment, my information analysis is not

```

in closed form. Yes, channel capacity is important. So is the  
disturbance information rate, the reference information rate, the  
loop delay, the information loss rate over storage time (e.g. the  
leak – “slowing”-- rate in the Powers leaky integrator output  
stage), and a few other small details. In open form, one can at  
least say that the quality of control is limited by the disturbance  
information rate and the loop transport lag, but that’s a very loose  
kind of bound. It would be nice to have a formulation in which all  
the relevant aspects are taken into account, even for one elementary  
control loop.

> ```
> *** [MT] According to PCT, there is no control of output,
> 
> ```
> 
> and hence no control of reference values at the level  
> below. Output is what it needs to be to bring and keep the  
> controlled variable (the perception) near its reference  
> value, a value supplied by the output of a higher system  
> unless the control unit of concern is at the top of the  
> hierarchy – in which case the reference value is taken to  
> be a fixed zero because there is no corresponding input  
> signal.\*\*\*
> 
> ```
> Basically, this is the model of behavior without consciousness
> 
> ```
> 
> involved. In More Mind Readings, Rick explicitly points out  
> that control systems can be modeled without any incorporation  
> of consciousness into the system. This is true. But  
> remember, consciousness has never been properly defined.

```
Quite true. And unless you can make your definition both

```

intelligible and conforming to experience, it remains true so fa as  
I am concerned.

> ```
> ***
> [MT] "Awareness" seems to entail being conscious of
> 
> ```
> 
> something, for sure, but I don’t remember Powers ever  
> defining “consciousness”. Earlier you said it had been  
> defined as the process of reorganization, which doesn’t  
> seem much like the definition here.\*\*\*  
> \*\*\* [Me] Powers defined consciousness as the perception and  
> awareness of the perception.  
> [MT] Could you provide an article and page reference for  
> this?\*\*\*  
> In the 1973 edition of B:CoP, this definition is given as  
> the working definition of consciousness on pg 200:

> ```
> Consciousness consists of perceptions (presence of nural
> 
> ```
> 
> currents in a perceptual pathway) _and_ awareness  
> (reception by the reorganizing system of duplicates of those  
> signals).
> 
> ```
> Now here's what I say: what if we imagine turning the
> 
> ```
> 
> reference variable into the variable being controlled by  
> imagining a separate perceptual control loop (completely  
> internal to the organism) which receives duplicates of  
> REFERENCE signals as the perceptual signal then controls  
> these with a new set of references. Wouldn’t this give you  
> a picture of consciousness as the voice in your head saying  
> “now I see I’m doing this one thing, and now I’m going to  
> try to do this other thing…”. It also gives you a reason  
> for “why” the conscious experience occurs. This is one way  
> to look at it. But now that I think more of it, based off  
> what I was rereading today from Wiener’s cybernetics, this  
> explanation can also be summed up by considering what Wiener  
> refers to as “the best characteristic frequency of  
> filtration”. I will look into this.

```
I don't think you have the mechanism quite right, if what you want

```

to achieve is time multiplexing. What you have to do is influence  
the loop gains in such a way that the control unit with purpose you  
want to give up gets a low or zero loop gain and the control unit  
with the purpose you want to start pursuing begins to have an  
appreciable (negative) loop gain. For dynamical reasons, the switch  
can’t be instant, but it can be fast relative to the time scale of  
our shifts of consciousness. And for what it’s worth, I have long  
ago proposed on CSGnet that it is this shifting of control that is a  
large part of consciousness (another part of my proposal is related  
to states of poor control). But this is quite different again from  
your two previous definitions of consciousness.

> …Powers’ model is totally linear.

```
No it isn't. Powers has often used linear structures in his

```

simulations, but he has also used nonlinear ones. Powers and Marken  
have at least one paper (apparently unpublished, but I’m sure Rick  
would send it to you) about logarithmic perceptual functions and the  
behavioral illusion. Furthermore, since the HPCT perceptual  
structure is exactly a multi-level perceptron, it cannot work if the  
perceptual functions are linear. Linear loops are, however, easier  
to analyze, and quite often a linear approximation works quite well,  
at least for small excursion. So the units are quite often described  
in linear terms without any caveats, so it is easy to assume that  
linearity is an element of the theory.

> ```
> *** [MT] Two questions: (1) how do you demonstrate that you
> 
> ```
> 
> are right? and (2) If you are right, what does it have to  
> do with PCT? The point of question 2 is not to limit the  
> scope of PCT, but to ask whether you have a modelable of  
> integrating consciousness into the PCT structure.\*\*\*

> ```
> Take a person, stick him in the MRI. Run the experiment
> 
> ```
> 
> I’m developing.

```
When you describe it, we will know whether you have answered the

```

question.

> ```
> ...This stuff [MT: esoteric mathematics] is important
> 
> ```
> 
> because if we are ever to differentiate between the terms  
> “sensation” and “perception”, we need to understand more about  
> the mathematics of the Fourier and Laplace Transform.

```
Which both apply to linear systems. The form of the underlying

```

maths, though, is exactly what the perceptron structure does. All  
the transforms do is rotate the data from one basis space into  
another. Doing that with nonlinear scaling allows the multiple  
levels of perception to deal with different kinds of structures in  
the environment. So yes, understanding the maths of the Fourier  
transform helps in understanding how that happens. Different  
rotations, such as short-time Fourier transforms, do different  
things. But it is indeed good to understand that they are all  
squashed rotations.

> 

> \*\*\* [MT] I’m not clear what you mean be “reference  
> perception”. In the HPCT structure, each individual  
> elementary control unit has a “perception” that is in the  
> feedback loop and a “reference” that is not. When you use  
> the words as though “reference” were a kind of  
> “perception” you are outside the structure of PCT defined  
> by Powers. The word pair may mean something in some other  
> theory, but it means nothing to me.  
> \*\*\*

> ```
> One last thing to say: it's very interesting how you use
> 
> ```
> 
> the term “elementary” in this context.

```
Why? An "elementary control unit" in PCT is a precisely defined

```

entity. It has nothing to do with classes of functions. It is a  
structure with a scalar perceptual signal derived from variables in  
the environment of the unite that is compared with a scalar  
reference value to create a scalar error value that is transformed  
by an output function into a scalar output value that is distributed  
into the environment of the unit. An “elementary control loop” also  
includes the paths the output takes until its effects reach the  
process that creates the scalar perceptual signal. The perceptual  
signal is part of the loop, the reference signal is not. You didn’t  
explain what you meant by “reference perception”.

> ```
> May I point out that there are three major classes of
> 
> ```
> 
> geometric analysis having to do with “elementary”, “real”, and  
> “complex” functions. I’m sure we’ll be able to understand how  
> loops connect with things that are outside the loop once we  
> finally understand the concept of imaginary numbers and the  
> square root of -1 (relating to transformations in the complex  
> plane). This is not pure unadulterated speculation. Thoth’s  
> “sacred geometry” is powerful, and I’ve connected knowledge  
> which is at least over 12,000 years old with the very current,  
> only recently invented, realm of pure mathematics. If you  
> want to shove PCT down the entire world’s throat (as I do) and  
> also be a hero about it, you’d probably want to look more into  
> the claim that control systems of level 10-12 have to do with  
> humans performing mathematics. Literally controlling the  
> shapes we draw on the paper. But first, we need to have a  
> very good understanding of the number 9.

> That is all I have to say about that.

```
That's fine. An air of mystery is fun, however scientifically

```

unhelpful. Incidentally, was Thoth concerned with the megalithic  
construction at Gobekli Tepe? That was 12,000 years ago, but the  
Egyptian civilization most associated with Thoth wasn’t recording  
anything until some 6000 years later.

```
By the way, I don't want to shove anything down anyone's throat, but

```

I would like to find a way to make it easy for people to understand  
how control systems work and why it matters for psychology. Even on  
CSGnet, a lot of occasional contributors don’t seem to understand  
control very well, and these are people who already want to  
understand and possibly to use or to develop PCT.

```
Leaving that aside, when you have finished inventing all that you

```

are in process of inventing, and have demonstrated peer-reviewed  
solutions to all of Hilbert’s problems, it will be interesting to  
see how all this new math is applied to the very practical question  
of structure of PCT might best correspond to how different organisms  
actually work. Is the appropriate PCT structure the same in all  
organisms (apart from the sheer number of controlled perceptions),  
or is the structure different across different branches of the  
evolutionary tree? Do all living things have consciousness?

```
Martin

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![COOMB\_TIMOTHY](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/65b543/32.png) [@COOMB\_TIMOTHY](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/COOMB_TIMOTHY)\
**Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536/20 "2014-01-28T16:13:26Z")

</div>

Tim Coomb 2014.01.28.16.04

Thanks Martin. As someone only recently starting to understand PCT could you explain what you mean by the term ‘perceptual function’ you use in the third paragraph. If we take figure 2-3 on page 28 of LCSIII are you just referring to the input function or do you mean something wider.

Thanks

Tim

> **···**
>
> On 27 January 2014 22:57, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote:
> 
> > [Martin Taylor 2014.01.27.17.36]
> > 
> > > Tim Coomb 2014.01.27.09.15
> > > 
> > > Hi Martin,
> > > 
> > > In your reply to Philip you said this:
> > > 
> > > [MT] “Awareness” seems to entail being conscious of something, for sure, but I don’t remember Powers ever defining “consciousness”. Earlier you said it had been defined as the process of reorganization, which doesn’t seem much like the definition here.
> > > 
> > > On page 202 of B:CoP Powers has a working definition of consciousness:
> > > 
> > > 'Consciousness consists of perception (presence of neural currents in a perceptual pathway) and awareness (reception by the reorganising system of duplicates of those signals, which are all alike wherever they come from)…
> > > 
> > > Hope that jogs your memory.
> 
> > That’s not a definition in the sense I was hoping for. Philip said: " Consciousness is the controlled perception of the purpose of behavior (i.e. the reference value). Powers defined consciousness as the perception and awareness of the perception. But that is a redundant definition. We should realize that control over the reference condition is the proper definition." Earlier Philip had said:“When consciousness is discussed in the context of PCT, it is equated to the reorganizing process - the reorganization of existing control systems to do new things.”
> > 
> > If the sentence you quote from Powers is the sum total of Bill’s definitions of consciousness, then we have no definition other than the everyday one: “Consciousness is what you are aware of.” In fact, the Powers quote doesn’t even purport to be a definition so much as a speculation about what is happening when one is conscious of something. One is conscious of those perceptual signals that are received by the reorganizing system.
> > 
> > Now, the reorganizing system as I understand it is still very ill-defined and speculative. Even if we accept HPCT as holy writ (something Bill always urged us NOT to do), all we can be sure of about the reorganizing system is that it must be able to modify the perceptual control hierarchy in such a way that the actions that serve to control the perceptions in the hierarchy also enable the intrinsic variables to stay within viable limits. Reorganization might influence the nature of perceptual functions and the elaboration of output connections to lower-level reference inputs, but nothing about the requirement to keep intrinsic variables within viable limits suggests that perceptual signals are necessarily received by the reorganizing system. I don’t remember Bill ever suggesting it in our conversations about reorganization over the last 20 years (and remember that B:CP was written 40 years ago, before Bill had ANY clear idea of how reorganization might work). His simulations of reorganization don’t require perceptual signals to be fed to the reorganizing system. Error signals, yes, but not perceptual signals.
> > 
> > So I would discount that quoted sentence entirely.
> > 
> > Martin

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/negative-feedback-too-simple-was-re-w-ross-ashby-digital-archive/7536.md?page=2)