# New Demo (was Re: Homage to CSGNet) **URL:** \ **Category:** CSG2017\ **Created:** [March 17, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588 "2017-03-17T21:54:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/1 "2017-03-17T21:54:40Z")
[Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.17.39] > ``` > ... > > ``` ``` What the demo seems to show is that when you perceive the "size" of ``` something in the environment (a patch of light on a screen in this case), the environmental property Qi is actually a complex function of a larger context, rather than what the naive instructor thinks it “should” be. But you don’t need to be a PCT psychologist to be careful about that. I was doing experiments on that before I got my degree, and my thesis was actually on that topic, though I didn’t describe it that way at the time (almost 60 years ago). ``` I don't see how the demo or the related on-line or off-line comments ``` about it are in any way relevant to the discussion of whether in the classical control diagram ``` ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png|120x80](upload://q7soC4Dkg0IKV6XxqVXaJRgEv8E.png) the little circle in the diagram where O adds to D to produce the ``` value Qi (called “S”) is in the environment or is inside the controller above the Perceptual Input Function (the yellow box). ``` That simple question has been the only thing we have been arguing ``` about, AFAIK, with no complication about other observers or instructions. Or about how many parallel channels any of the diagram lines represent in a real-life situation. ``` Martin ``` > **···** > > [From Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 > PDT)] > > ``` > RM: No matter how heated the > > ``` > > discussions on CSGNet have been, however, I have benefited > from them to the present day, as evidenced by the fact that > two recent discussion threads have led to the development of a > new demo and a new publication. The thread on the distinction > between Qi and p led to the development of a demo I call “Just > Following Instructions”, which is available at: > > [http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Instruct.html](http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Instruct.html) > > ``` > RM: The demo is described as a caution > > ``` > > about the possible pitfalls of doing performance evaluations > without an understanding of the fact that what a person is > controlling may not be exactly what they were instructed to > control. But it is actually a demonstration of the fact that > Qi is p from the observer’s perspective (and, conversely, that > p is Qi from the controller’s perspective). Of course, > comments or suggestions about the demo and/or the write-up > would be most welcome (especially if they leave out ad hominum > attacks;-). ---
**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 11:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/2 "2017-03-17T23:47:06Z")
[Bruce Nevin 2017.03.17.19:44 ET] Left out is where the disturbance D comes from; that is, where a perception of Q.i is controlled so as to create that disturbance. ![4mmt.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/1/14468544b93654a66728c3caa3add905dddf9381.jpeg) To the subject (upper loop), the green quadrangle is a projection of p within the subject (p.s), called whatever that perceptual signal is experienced to be, in a particular more or less desired state. Maybe it’s the degree that the vertical edge of a picture frame departs from parallel with the vertical edge of a nearby door frame, and the desired state is zero. The observing experimenter (lower loop) also experiences a perceptual signal p.e called the same thing that the subject calls the experience of p.s. (I omitted the experimenter’s unintended side effects from O.) To assert that Q.i is in the world is no more than to assert the veridicality of our controlled perception. I know it is possible to disturb a sensory receptor directly; it is possible in principle and maybe already in fact to disturb a perceptual input signal higher in the hierarchy, such as a perception that two edges are variably close to parallel. In such cases, Q.i is inside the hierarchy, but still in the environment of the control that is being disturbed. Because the environment for level n is level n-1 (and perhaps lower). > O tell me, where is Qi bred, > or in the world, or in the head? Q.i is a projection of the experimenter’s perception p.e. Because of success with the TCV, the experimenter is justified in saying that Q.i is a projection of the subject’s perception p.s. We all attribute reality to such projections. The vicissitudes and successes of control constitute ongoing continual empirical tests of these attributions that justify them. We never have proof. But the theory works in practice. Most of the time. And if there are exceptions, we generally maintain adequate control and move on. Is this a pseudo-problem? ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/b710586db6612dac86ba83baaa74f38e6f7477f4.png) > **···** > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote: > > > [Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.17.39] > > > > ``` > > > ... > > > > > > ``` > > > ``` > > What the demo seems to show is that when you perceive the "size" of > > > > ``` > > > > something in the environment (a patch of light on a screen in this > > case), the environmental property Qi is actually a complex function > > of a larger context, rather than what the naive instructor thinks it > > “should” be. But you don’t need to be a PCT psychologist to be > > careful about that. I was doing experiments on that before I got my > > degree, and my thesis was actually on that topic, though I didn’t > > describe it that way at the time (almost 60 years ago). > > > > ``` > > I don't see how the demo or the related on-line or off-line comments > > > > ``` > > > > about it are in any way relevant to the discussion of whether in the > > classical control diagram > > > > ``` > > the little circle in the diagram where O adds to D to produce the > > > > ``` > > > > value Qi (called “S”) is in the environment or is inside the > > controller above the Perceptual Input Function (the yellow box). > > > > ``` > > That simple question has been the only thing we have been arguing > > > > ``` > > > > about, AFAIK, with no complication about other observers or > > instructions. Or about how many parallel channels any of the diagram > > lines represent in a real-life situation. > > > > ``` > > Martin > > > > ``` > > ``` > [From Rick Marken (2017.03.15.1630 > > ``` > > PDT)] > > ``` > RM: No matter how heated the > > ``` > > discussions on CSGNet have been, however, I have benefited > from them to the present day, as evidenced by the fact that > two recent discussion threads have led to the development of a > new demo and a new publication. The thread on the distinction > between Qi and p led to the development of a demo I call “Just > Following Instructions”, which is available at: > > [http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Instruct.html](http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Instruct.html) > > ``` > RM: The demo is described as a caution > > ``` > > about the possible pitfalls of doing performance evaluations > without an understanding of the fact that what a person is > controlling may not be exactly what they were instructed to > control. But it is actually a demonstration of the fact that > Qi is p from the observer’s perspective (and, conversely, that > p is Qi from the controller’s perspective). Of course, > comments or suggestions about the demo and/or the write-up > would be most welcome (especially if they leave out ad hominum > attacks;-). ---
**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 3:07am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/3 "2017-03-18T03:07:46Z")
[Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.22.52] > [Bruce Nevin 2017.03.17.19:44 ET] > ``` > Left out is where the disturbance D comes from; that is, > > ``` > > where a perception of Q.i is controlled so as to create that > disturbance. ``` I don't see the relevance to the issue. PCT has never been concerned ``` with the source of the disturbance, which could be anything from gremlins or malicious Gods to the wind, a distant car, or one’s spouse. Bill P. frequently made a major point of saying that the source of the disturbance was not perceivable to the controller and was therefore entirely irrelevant to that controller. Only Qi (labelled “S” in both our diagrams) affected the perception. ``` You follow by a diagram ``` > > ![4mmt.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/1/14468544b93654a66728c3caa3add905dddf9381.jpeg) > > ``` and description of an observer who has already conducted a perfect ``` TCV. It’s not wrong, but it’s unnecessary to the core dispute. The only question at issue is and has been whether the circle you have replaced with a blue lozenge is inside the controller (and in your diagram in both the upper and lower controllers at the same time) or in the environment external to the controller(s). So far as I can see all your diagram does is present visually my original position, way back when, that started Rick’s tirade about moving Qi into the controller. I said then, thinking it self-evident, that one test of whether something is in the environment (as opposed to being a mirage or illusion) is whether other people can also perceive it and can influence it in ways that the original controller can oppose. ``` Martin ``` ---
**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 5:13am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/4 "2017-03-18T05:13:38Z")
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.17.2215)] ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/b710586db6612dac86ba83baaa74f38e6f7477f4.png) > **···** > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.17.17.39)– > > > ``` > > MT: What the demo seems to show is that when you perceive the "size" of > > > > ``` > > > > something in the environment (a patch of light on a screen in this > > case), the environmental property Qi is actually a complex function > > of a larger context, rather than what the naive instructor thinks it > > “should” be. > > RM: Exactly! > >  > > > ``` > > MT: I don't see how the demo or the related on-line or off-line comments > > > > ``` > > > > about it are in any way relevant to the discussion of whether in the > > classical control diagram > > > > ``` > >  > > > > the little circle in the diagram where O adds to D to produce the > > > > ``` > > > > value Qi (called “S”) is in the environment or is inside the > > controller above the Perceptual Input Function (the yellow box). > > RM: That’s because no one ever said the Qi is inside the controller; I certainly didn’t. What I have been saying is that Qi is inside the _observer_ of the controller; Qi is the observer’s perception of the variable that the controller is controlling. As Bruce Nevin has pointed out, Qi is perceived, by the observer, as being in the environment of the controller. But, like anything that we experience as being “out there” in the environment,Qi is a perception; a _function_ of the sensory effect of physical variables. > > RM: In the demo, Qi is a perception of the size of the target disk, a perception that is proportional to the ratio of context to target disk size, or, as you say " a complex function of a larger context". The variables that are the basis of this perception – the size of the context and target disks – exist in the environment but the ratio itself is a _function_ of these variables. The output of this function is Qi for the observer and, theoretically, p for the controller. The computation that carries out the function that produces Qi is done by the computer (in the demo) and by the neural nets that are the perceptual functions in the controller. > > RM: Finally, the demo shows that when you incorrectly identify Qi as a function simply of the size of the target disk, it will appear that Qi is poorly controlled when the context starts to vary in phase 2 of the demo. This could lead you to conclude that the controller’s perception of Qi is poor. This is a mistake that would be made by someone who thinks that Qi and the perception, p, of Qi, are two different variables; that p is a function of Qi. But when you correctly identify Qi as the ratio of target to context disk size you can see that the controller is controlling a perception that is equivalent to Qi. Qi is the observer’s view of the perception the controller controls; it is not a variable in the environment that the controller perceives with varying degrees of accuracy. > > Best > > Rick > >  > > > ``` > > MT: That simple question has been the only thing we have been arguing > > > > ``` > > > > about, AFAIK, with no complication about other observers or > > instructions. Or about how many parallel channels any of the diagram > > lines represent in a real-life situation. > > > > ``` > > Martin > > > > ``` > > – > > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery ---
**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/5 "2017-03-18T17:21:53Z")
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.18.1020)] > **···** > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.17.22.52) to Bruce Nevin (2017.03.17.19:44 ET)– > > > > ``` > > > MT: So far as I can > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > see all your diagram does is present visually my original position, > > > way back when, that started Rick’s tirade about moving Qi into the > > > controller. > > RM: I think in the spirit of making the discussions on CSGNet less “cringe worthy” you might consider trying to avoid referring to other people’s posts using disparaging terms such as “tirades”. It doesn’t bother me but it might be off-putting to onlookers. > > RM:  What does bother me is misrepresenting what I said in my “tirades”. Such misrepresentations may have been unintentional – a result of the ambiguity of language – but they are annoying nevertheless. I suggest that a good way to avoid making these kinds of misrepresentations is to refrain from asserting what someone else’s position is and, instead, simply ask the person what it is if you have any doubt. For example, to find out what you are arguing against, you might have said something like “Rick, are you saying that Qi should be moved into the controller?” and I could have said “no” and we could have avoided a lot of unnecessary disagreement. > > RM: I think this is the kind of thing Bruce N. is suggesting as a way to make the discussions on CSGNet more civil. Of course, the first step in making the discussions civil is to stop using pejoratives. But I think it would also help if we try to take a more “questioning” approach to each others’ arguments. If you are not sure of what someone is arguing don’t jump to conclusions about what their argument is. And if you think you are sure of what another person’s argument means, just reply based on what you think they mean; don’t argue by making assertions about what you think you know is meant. I think this would improve the civility – as well as the productivity – of CSGNet discussions considerably. > > Best > > Rick > > – > > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery ---
**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/6 "2017-03-18T18:25:00Z")
[Martin Taylor 2017.03.18.14.08] ``` Forget the potential observer for this round of questioning. The ``` answers to the questions do not depend on there being one. Question 1: Are you saying then that there is no such thing as Qi in the original controller’s control loop? Answer 1: [Yes] [No] Question 1a. if “Yes”, then why does “qi” historically appear in the equations for analysis of control loops both in print and on CSGnet (e.g. “Mind Readings” p73 diagram (which replicates the above except for adding the source of the disturbance and calling “S” “q”) ? And what is “S” in the diagram? In the Mind Readings diagram it is called q, but now you say it isn’t. Question 1b: If “No” (meaning Qi does exist somewhere in the controller’s control loop) where should the symbol be placed in the loop if it is not inside the controller above the Perceptual Function in the diagram? Is it “S” as it was in Mind Readings, or is it “O”? These seem to be the only possibilities. Martin Martin ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/b710586db6612dac86ba83baaa74f38e6f7477f4.png) > **···** > > Let’s follow the programme of asking > questions about one point at a time. > > > [From Rick Marken (2017.03.17.2215)] > > > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.17.17.39)– > > > > ``` > > > MT: What the demo seems to show is that when you > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > perceive the “size” of something in the environment (a > > > patch of light on a screen in this case), the > > > environmental property Qi is actually a complex function > > > of a larger context, rather than what the naive > > > instructor thinks it “should” be. > > > > > > RM: Exactly! > > > > ``` > > > MT: I don't see how the demo or the > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > related on-line or off-line comments about it are in any > > > way relevant to the discussion of whether in the > > > classical control diagram > > > > > > ``` > > > the little circle in the diagram where O adds to D to > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > produce the value Qi (called “S”) is in the environment > > > or is inside the controller above the Perceptual Input > > > Function (the yellow box). > > > > > > ``` > > RM: That's because no one ever said the Qi is inside > > > > ``` > > > > the controller; I certainly didn’t. What I have been > > saying is that Qi is inside the _observer_ of the > > controller; Qi is the observer’s perception of the > > variable that the controller is controlling. > > ii ---
**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:43pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/7 "2017-03-18T18:43:39Z")
[Martin Taylor 2017.03.18.14.41] ``` I should have referenced B:CP [Figure A.1 p 273 in the second ``` edition, of which the Mind Readings diagram is a copy. Sorry about that. Martin ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/b710586db6612dac86ba83baaa74f38e6f7477f4.png) > **···** > > Correction… > > > [Martin Taylor 2017.03.18.14.08] > > > ``` > > Forget the potential observer for this round of questioning. The > > > > ``` > > > > answers to the questions do not depend on there being one. > > Question 1: Are you saying then that there is no such thing as Qi > > in the original controller’s control loop? > > Answer 1: [Yes] [No] > > Question 1a. if “Yes”, then why does “qi” historically appear in > > the equations for analysis of control loops both in print and on > > CSGnet (e.g. “Mind Readings” p73 diagram (which replicates the > > above except for adding the source of the disturbance and calling > > “S” “q”) ? And what is “S” in the diagram? In the Mind > > Readings diagram it is called q, but now you say it > > isn’t. > > ``` > Let's follow the programme of asking > > ``` > > questions about one point at a time. > > > [From Rick Marken (2017.03.17.2215)] > > > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.17.17.39)– > > > > ``` > > > MT: What the demo seems to show is that when you > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > perceive the “size” of something in the environment (a > > > patch of light on a screen in this case), the > > > environmental property Qi is actually a complex > > > function of a larger context, rather than what the > > > naive instructor thinks it “should” be. > > > > > > RM: Exactly! > > > > ``` > > > MT: I don't see how the demo or > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > the related on-line or off-line comments about it are > > > in any way relevant to the discussion of whether in > > > the classical control diagram > > > > > > ``` > > > the little circle in the diagram where O adds to D to > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > produce the value Qi (called “S”) is in the > > > environment or is inside the controller above the > > > Perceptual Input Function (the yellow box). > > > > > > ``` > > RM: That's because no one ever said the Qi is inside > > > > ``` > > > > the controller; I certainly didn’t. What I have been > > saying is that Qi is inside the _observer_ of the > > controller; Qi is the observer’s perception of the > > variable that the controller is controlling. > > ii ---
**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/8 "2017-03-18T18:54:10Z")
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.18.1150)] > **···** > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.18.14.08) > > > ``` > > MT: Let's follow the programme of asking > > > > ``` > > > > questions about one point at a time. > > > ``` > > MT: Forget the potential observer for this round of questioning. The > > > > ``` > > > > answers to the questions do not depend on there being one. > > RM: Maybe. Maybe not.  > > > ``` > > MT: Question 1: Are you saying then that there is no such thing as Qi in > > > > ``` > > > > the original controller’s control loop? > > > > ``` > > Answer 1: [Yes] [No] > > > > ``` > > RM: No. > > > ``` > > MT:Question 1b: If "No" (meaning Qi does exist somewhere in the > > > > ``` > > > > controller’s control loop) where should the symbol be placed in the > > loop if it is not inside the controller above the Perceptual > > Function in the diagram? > > RM: It should be left where it is, in the environment of the controller. > >  > > > ``` > > MT: Is it "S" as it was in Mind Readings, or is > > > > ``` > > > > it “O”? These seem to be the only possibilities. > > RM: I don’t know what this refers to but S usually refers to what is seen as a “stimulus”, which corresponds to a disturbance variable in PCT. And O usually refers to an output variable. So Qi corresponds to neither of these. > > Best > > Rick > > – > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery ---
**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/9 "2017-03-18T20:42:38Z")
[Martin Taylor 2017.03.18.16.34] Follow-up questions. > [From Rick Marken (2017.03.18.1150)] ``` Question 2: Why does S, which used to mean "Semsory input" in a ``` control loop, now have to mean “Stimulus”. a concept that does not exist in a control loop? ``` Question 3. Since there are only two variables, qi and O, in the ``` environment in the diagrams of B:CP Figure A.1 and Mindreadings Page 73, and there are only two variables in the coloured diagram I used, S and O, and S is the label on the diagram “wire” exactly where qi is in the otherwise identical control loops of the Marken and Powers diagrams, what is the essential difference between S and qi? ``` ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png|120x80](upload://q7soC4Dkg0IKV6XxqVXaJRgEv8E.png) Martin ``` > **···** > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.18.14.08) > > > ``` > > MT: > > > > ``` > > > > Let’s follow the programme of asking questions about > > one point at a time. > > > ``` > > MT: Forget the potential observer for this round > > > > ``` > > > > of questioning. The answers to the questions do not > > depend on there being one. > > RM: Maybe. Maybe not. > > > ``` > > MT: Question 1: Are you saying then that there is no > > > > ``` > > > > such thing as Qi in the original controller’s control > > loop? > > > > ``` > > Answer 1: [Yes] [No] > > > > ``` > > RM: No. > > > ``` > > MT:Question 1b: If > > > > ``` > > > > “No” (meaning Qi does exist somewhere in the > > controller’s control loop) where should the symbol be > > placed in the loop if it is not inside the controller > > above the Perceptual Function in the diagram? > > ``` > RM: It should be left where it is, in the environment > > ``` > > of the controller. > > > ``` > > MT: Is it "S" as it > > > > ``` > > > > was in Mind Readings, or is it “O”? These seem to be the > > only possibilities. > > ``` > RM: I don't know what this refers to but S usually refers to > > ``` > > what is seen as a “stimulus”, which corresponds to a > disturbance variable in PCT. And O usually refers to an output > variable. So Qi corresponds to neither of these. ---
**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 9:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/10 "2017-03-18T21:14:39Z")
[Martin Taylor 2017.03.18.14.44] > ``` > [From Rick Marken (2017.03.18.1020)] > > ``` ``` Sorry about that. I didn't think of it as disparaging, but if you ``` perceive it as such, then it was. I hope others did not see it as such. ``` Offhand, I can't think of another one-word descriptor of the abrupt ``` change you made to the usually accepted description of a control loop . In [From Rick Marken (2016.12.07.1710)] we have this passage: > ``` > [From Bill Powers (961224.1145 MST)]Remember that as far as > > ``` > > the observer is concerned, what is controlled is ONLY the CV. > The idea that this CV is represented by a perceptual signal > inside the other system is theoretical. We can observe CV, but > not p. When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. > The action that opposes the effect of the disturbance acts on > CV, not p. … > ``` > RM: Note that CV in this discussion refers to the controlled > > ``` > > quantity, q.i, not p. ``` So last December, qi was not p, just as had been the case for the ``` quarter century I have known about PCT, and was the case in B:CP or Mind Readings. ``` At some later point everything changed, and qi, the value of a ``` variable I had for decades called the “CEV” (and Bill in the cited post called the “CV”) suddenly became p. What happened? I had pointed out that the CEV was the scalar environmental correlate of a perceptual function of possibly many variables, and suddenly, qi had to become p, in a stream of messages for which I thought I had chosen a neutrally descriptive word. I apologise for the word, but not for the thought behind it. ``` Martin ``` > **···** > > > ``` > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.17.22.52) to Bruce Nevin > > > > ``` > > > > (2017.03.17.19:44 ET)– > > > > ``` > > > MT: So far as I can see all your diagram does > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > is present visually my original position, way > > > back when, that started Rick’s tirade about > > > moving Qi into the controller. > > ``` > RM: I think in the spirit of making the discussions on CSGNet > > ``` > > less “cringe worthy” you might consider trying to avoid > referring to other people’s posts using disparaging terms such > as “tirades”. It doesn’t bother me but it might be off-putting > to onlookers. ---
**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 10:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/11 "2017-03-18T22:28:13Z")
[Bruce Nevin 2017.03.18.18:25 ET] Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.22.52– > I don’t see the relevance to the issue. The claim has been made that Q.i is the observing experimenter’s perception, which (by the usual projection of one’s subjective experience of a perception) is projected as a real attribute of the real environment–with some justification because of the TCV. Indeed, Q.i (a measured quantity) cannot be determined without the TCV. > PCT has never been concerned with the source of the disturbance, which could be anything from gremlins or malicious Gods to the wind, a distant car, or one’s spouse. There is another arrow labeled D to cover those cases. The one you are objecting to is a distal label on the experimenter’s control output. That arrow is labeled O at the proximal end and D at the distal end. This is because the experimenter is controlling disturbance to what the subject is first imagined, and then perceived, to be controlling. In the experimental situation, we can call it Q.i because it is a quantity measured by the experimenter. By the usual projection of the experimenter’s perception we attribute reality to it. You are generalizing in a perfectly ordinary and understandable way to attribute reality to it outside of any experimental situation. You are making an analogy without being aware of it. The analogy is quite reasonable, but it has led to this impasse about where Q.i really exists. The subject also projects his or her or its controlled perception p as a real angle or alignment or whatever is being protected from the experimenter’s disturbances (along with other disturbances, represented by the other D arrow, which the experimenter in all cases I know of treats as negligible). For that, the experimenter’s nomenclature Q.i is rarely apt for the subject’s point of view. The term Q.i in its literal sense is not justified unless the appropriate measurements have been made in an experimental setup in which all sources of disturbance have been either measured or controlled to zero. That is why the observing experimenter’s control loop generating the disturbances for the TCV and consequently recognizing and controlling a perception of Q.i, should be included. Equivocation over these distinctions can lead to confusion as to where the p is of which Q.i is a projection (see below), and could possibly cause the appearance of a more fundamental disagreement. Rick Marken (2017.03.17.2215) – > What I have been saying is that Qi is inside the _observer_ of the controller; Qi is the observer’s perception of the variable that the controller is controlling. Q.i is not inside the observer. What is inside the observer is a perception p which the observer calls Q.i and projects as being in the environment as that which the subject is controlling. To avoid confusion, the correlate from the subject’s point of view should properly have a different name. From the modeler’s point of view, these are all variable quantities, the conflation of Q.i from the experimenter with p within the subject is immaterial, and there is no reason to include the experimenter as part of the model unless you are modeling an experiment. ![4mmt.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/1/14468544b93654a66728c3caa3add905dddf9381.jpeg) > **···** > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Martin Taylor [mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net](mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net) wrote: > > > [Martin Taylor 2017.03.17.22.52] > > > > [Bruce Nevin 2017.03.17.19:44 ET] > > > > ``` > > > Left out is where the disturbance D comes from; that is, > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > where a perception of Q.i is controlled so as to create that > > > disturbance. > > > ``` > > I don't see the relevance to the issue. PCT has never been concerned > > > > ``` > > > > with the source of the disturbance, which could be anything from > > gremlins or malicious Gods to the wind, a distant car, or one’s > > spouse. Bill P. frequently made a major point of saying that the > > source of the disturbance was not perceivable to the controller and > > was therefore entirely irrelevant to that controller. Only Qi > > (labelled “S” in both our diagrams) affected the perception. > > > > ``` > > You follow by a diagram > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > and description of an observer who has already conducted a perfect > > > > ``` > > > > TCV. It’s not wrong, but it’s unnecessary to the core dispute. The > > only question at issue is and has been whether the circle you have > > replaced with a blue lozenge is inside the controller (and in your > > diagram in both the upper and lower controllers at the same time) or > > in the environment external to the controller(s). So far as I can > > see all your diagram does is present visually my original position, > > way back when, that started Rick’s tirade about moving Qi into the > > controller. I said then, thinking it self-evident, that one test of > > whether something is in the environment (as opposed to being a > > mirage or illusion) is whether other people can also perceive it and > > can influence it in ways that the original controller can oppose. > > > > ``` > > Martin > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:18am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/12 "2017-03-19T01:18:03Z")
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.18.1815)] ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/b710586db6612dac86ba83baaa74f38e6f7477f4.png) > **···** > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.18.16.34)– > > > ``` > > MT: Question 2: Why does S, which used to mean "Semsory input" in a > > > > ``` > > > > control loop, now have to mean “Stimulus”. a concept that does not > > exist in a control loop? > > RM: It can still mean sensory input. In your diagram below it certainly does. > >  > > > ``` > > MT: Question 3. Since there are only two variables, qi and O, in the > > > > ``` > > > > environment in the diagrams of B:CP Figure A.1 and Mindreadings Page > > 73, and there are only two variables in the coloured diagram I used, > > S and O, and S is the label on the diagram “wire” exactly where qi > > is in the otherwise identical control loops of the Marken and Powers > > diagrams, what is the essential difference between S and qi? > > RM: I take the blue dot to be Qi. So S is the sensory effects of the environmental variables that are the _basis of the variable Qi_. Qi is the observer’s perception of those sensory effects, a perception to which q is equivalent. > > RM: By the way, saying that Qi is equivalent to p is _not the same_ as saying that Qi _is_ p. Qi is the _observer’s_ perception of the variable being controlled; p is the _controller’s_ perception of the variable being controlled.\* \*In my new demo, Qi is the observer’s (in this case the computer’s) perception of the size of the target disk; in the coin game Qi is E’s perception of the pattern of coins being controlled by S; in the rubber band demo Qi is the position of the knot relative to the dot as seen by E; etc. In each case, p is the controller’s perception of the variable being controlled, and it is presumably equivalent to Qi, the variable the observer sees being controlled. Qi is a fact; p is a theory. > > Best > > Rick > > – > > ``` > RM: I don't know what this refers to but S usually refers to > > ``` > > what is seen as a “stimulus”, which corresponds to a > disturbance variable in PCT. And O usually refers to an output > variable. So Qi corresponds to neither of these. > > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery ---
**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:38am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/13 "2017-03-19T01:38:21Z")
[From Bruce Nevin 2017.03.18.21:29 ET)] > Rick Marken (2017.03.18.1815)– > RM: By the way, saying that Qi is equivalent to p is \*not the same \*as saying that Qi _is_ p. Qi is the _observer’s_ perception of the variable being controlled; p is the _controller’s_ perception of the variable being controlled.\* \*In my new demo, Qi is the observer’s (in this case the computer’s) perception of the size of the target disk; in the coin game Qi is E’s perception of the pattern of coins being controlled by S; in the rubber band demo Qi is the position of the knot relative to the dot as seen by E; etc. In each case, p is the controller’s perception of the variable being controlled, and it is presumably equivalent to Qi, the variable the observer sees being controlled. Qi is a fact; p is a theory. If  Qi is the label for the observer’s perception, then you have to place it inside the observer’s control loop, not in the environment. In that case, it is the observer’s perception of a variable aspect of the perceived environment that is defended from disturbance by the subject’s output If you place Qi in the environment, than it represents the observer’s projection of that perception into the environment, much as I presently project my perceptions of this screen and keyboard into my environment and take them to be real. ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/b710586db6612dac86ba83baaa74f38e6f7477f4.png) > **···** > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Richard Marken [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) wrote: > > > [From Rick Marken (2017.03.18.1815)] > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.18.16.34)– > > > ``` > > MT: Question 2: Why does S, which used to mean "Semsory input" in a > > > > ``` > > > > control loop, now have to mean “Stimulus”. a concept that does not > > exist in a control loop? > > RM: It can still mean sensory input. In your diagram below it certainly does. > >  > > > ``` > > MT: Question 3. Since there are only two variables, qi and O, in the > > > > ``` > > > > environment in the diagrams of B:CP Figure A.1 and Mindreadings Page > > 73, and there are only two variables in the coloured diagram I used, > > S and O, and S is the label on the diagram “wire” exactly where qi > > is in the otherwise identical control loops of the Marken and Powers > > diagrams, what is the essential difference between S and qi? > > RM: I take the blue dot to be Qi. So S is the sensory effects of the environmental variables that are the _basis of the variable Qi_. Qi is the observer’s perception of those sensory effects, a perception to which q is equivalent. > > RM: By the way, saying that Qi is equivalent to p is _not the same_ as saying that Qi _is_ p. Qi is the _observer’s_ perception of the variable being controlled; p is the _controller’s_ perception of the variable being controlled.\* \*In my new demo, Qi is the observer’s (in this case the computer’s) perception of the size of the target disk; in the coin game Qi is E’s perception of the pattern of coins being controlled by S; in the rubber band demo Qi is the position of the knot relative to the dot as seen by E; etc. In each case, p is the controller’s perception of the variable being controlled, and it is presumably equivalent to Qi, the variable the observer sees being controlled. Qi is a fact; p is a theory. > > Best > > Rick > > – > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery > > ``` > RM: I don't know what this refers to but S usually refers to > > ``` > > what is seen as a “stimulus”, which corresponds to a > disturbance variable in PCT. And O usually refers to an output > variable. So Qi corresponds to neither of these. ---
**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 4:06am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/14 "2017-03-19T04:06:02Z")
[Martin Taylor 2017.03.18.23.00] > [Bruce Nevin 2017.03.18.18:25 ET] > ``` > Martin Taylor > > ``` > > 2017.03.17.22.52– > > ``` > > I don't see the relevance to the > > > > ``` > > issue. > > ``` > The claim has been made that Q.i is the observing > > ``` > > experimenter’s perception, which (by the usual projection of > one’s subjective experience of a perception) is projected as > a real attribute of the real environment–with some > justification because of the TCV. Indeed, Q.i (a measured > quantity) cannot be determined without the TCV. ``` Yes, of course I agree that everyone's control loops, all of them at ``` every level of the hierarchy, have a “p” and a “Qi”. I don’t know if you and/or Rick are questioning that. To me, the mystery is why you seem to assert that for Qi to exist, someone has to be doing an experiment to determine its value. ``` Let's keep it simple, without getting into "If a tree falls in the ``` forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound". An insistence on having an observer in order for there to exist an environmental variable the subject can influence when controlling a perception makes it seem as though the answer to that question is necessarily “No”. I don’t think we need that question answered in order to understand how control works. ``` Throughout, I have always been talking about one control loop that ``` controls one scalar variable perception. The issue has always (since December 14 2016) been whether qi in this diagram (B:CP p 286 in the 2005 edition) is in the environment as a function of environmental variables (in this case a simple multiplier ki ) or is simply equivalent to (or more strongly “is equal” to) “p”. (And it seemed to me to be even worse, in that there were what seemed to be claims that Qi is p. Maybe I misinterpreted that, but it’s what led to my last round of questions to Rick.) ``` ![PowersBasicControlLoop.jpg|735x775](upload://oXuhcH3aIcmaQ4CS0sLyPBocKXc.jpeg) In [From Rick Marken (2017.02.27.1200)], Rick says, as though ``` contradicting something, “Powers is obviously using q.i to represent what may be a very complex function of environmental variables, v.” and “I think Bill took it for granted that people would understand that q.i was a variable that represented a possibly very complex function of environmental variables and , moreover, that they would understand that q.i would not be computed by the environment itself.” ``` I can't remember anyone disputing either of these statements. They ``` are purely red herrings drawn across the trail, and I have throughout this and earlier threads wondered why they have been made and repeated in various paraphrases. All we know for sure is what we perceive, as Bill often pointed out. But we do have theories that purport to explain why we perceive what we perceive, and one of them is based around this simple control loop diagram. ``` In this diagram, if "p" is a single scalar value (a variable with ``` only one degree of freedom, its magnitude), then there is only one degree of freedom for each loop variable everywhere around the loop, including qo and qi , no matter how many variables that could be perceived by other control systems each of them might be a function of. It’s useful sometimes to point out the fact that every perception at any level can be described as some combination of other variables. It’s also useful to point out that the existence of a perceptual function in the control loop incorporates no claim that the environment has some kind of processor that creates inverse functions that present variables to the sensors or vice-versa (I’m not sure exactly how to interpret those red herrings). ``` My gedanken experiment [Martin Taylor 2016.12.13.12.09] was intended ``` to take the multiple variable point to an extreme, by showing that even internally these single-degree-of-freedom “wires” might be implemented in the form of many variables (Powers’s “bunch of nerve fibres” on which the firings add to be treated in the theory as a “neural current”). None of it allows qi to be anything other than the magnitude of a variable that has no properties except its magnitude. If action on the environment can affect that magnitude, then the variable, which Bill P called “CV” and I call “CEV” (which was originally an acronym for “Complex Environmental Variable” to acknowledge that it is constructed as a function of many component variables) must be at least partially in the environment. > > > ``` > > PCT has never been > > > > ``` > > concerned with the source of the disturbance, which could > be anything from gremlins or malicious Gods to the wind, a > distant car, or one’s spouse. > > ``` > There is another arrow > > ``` > > labeled D to cover those cases. The one you are objecting > to is a distal label on the experimenter’s control output. > That arrow is labeled O at the proximal end and D at the > distal end. This is because the experimenter is > controlling disturbance to what the subject is first > imagined, and then perceived, to be controlling. ``` I wasn't objecting, merely pointing out a fact of PCT, that to ``` analyse control it is unnecessary to know anything about the source of the disturbing influence because the control system perceives only the effect of variation of the CEV, no matter what the cause or causes of this variation. > > In the experimental situation, ``` Here's where I really get into problems. Why is it necessary to ``` introduce an experimenter in order to talk about one simple control diagram? What does it gain you in understanding how control works? ``` Martin ``` ---
**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/15 "2017-03-19T18:25:21Z")
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.19.1125)] > **···** > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.18.14.44)– > > > ``` > > MT: Sorry about that. I didn't think of it as disparaging, but if you > > > > ``` > > > > perceive it as such, then it was. I hope others did not see it as > > such. > > > > ``` > > MT: Offhand, I can't think of another one-word descriptor of the abrupt > > > > ``` > > > > change you made to the usually accepted description of a control > > loop . > > RM: How about this: “So far as I can see, all your diagram does is present visually my original position, way back when, that started Rick’s apparent change of course, moving Qi into the controller”. > > > MT: In [From Rick Marken (2016.12.07.1710)] we have this passage: > > > > > ``` > > > [From Bill Powers (961224.1145 MST)]Remember that as far as > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > the observer is concerned, what is controlled is ONLY the CV. > > > The idea that this CV is represented by a perceptual signal > > > inside the other system is theoretical. We can observe CV, but > > > not p. When we apply a disturbance, we apply it to CV, not to p. > > > The action that opposes the effect of the disturbance acts on > > > CV, not p. … > > > > ``` > > > RM: Note that CV in this discussion refers to the controlled > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > quantity, q.i, not p. > > > ``` > > MT: So last December, qi was not p, just as had been the case for the > > > > ``` > > > > quarter century I have known about PCT, and was the case in B:CP or > > Mind Readings. > > > > ``` > > MT: At some later point everything changed, and qi, the value of a > > > > ``` > > > > variable I had for decades called the “CEV” (and Bill in the cited > > post called the “CV”) suddenly became p. What happened? > > RM: Perhaps you thought that when I said that Qi is a perception in the observer that is equivalent to p you took that to mean thatI was saying Qi _is_ p. > >  > > > ``` > > MT: I had > > > > ``` > > > > pointed out that the CEV was the scalar environmental correlate of a > > perceptual function of possibly many variables, and suddenly, qi had > > to become p, in a stream of messages for which I thought I had > > chosen a neutrally descriptive word. I apologise for the word, but > > not for the thought behind it. > > RM: I may have said that this description of a CEV is a description of a perceptual, not an environmental, variable.Which is true. Saying that “the CEV is the scalar _environmental_ correlate of a perceptual function of possibly many variables” implies that CEV = f(x.1,x.2,…x.n) where x.1,x.2,…x.n are many environmental variables. Let’s say that the CEV is the area of a rectangle, as in my “What is Size”" demo. Then CEV = Area = Height_Width. According to this equation, Area is indeed a scalar variable; it’s a single number that varies along with variations in Height and Width. But it is not an environmental correlate of a perceptual variable because that scalar variable does not exist in the environment. There is nothing in the environment that can multiply Height times Width to produce a scalar variable equal to Area. If the environment could produce a scalar variable that is the product of Height times Width there would be no need for organisms to have complex perceptual functions; they could just transduce the scalar variable produced by the environment, such as the Area variable, into a perception. That is, if p = f(Qi) then the perceptual function, f() need only be a constant of proportionality, so that p = k_ Qi. This would work because Area, which is Qi, has already been computed by the environment. > > RM: Thus, the idea that Qi is the scalar environmental correlate of a perceptual function makes perception a very simple process since all the work of perceiving Areas or Shapes or Relationships or Sequences or Programs, etc,  would have been done by the environment itself, producing the scalar variables – the Qi – that are the environmental correlates of the perception of these Areas, Shapes, Relationships, Sequences, Programs, etc. My argument is that the environment can’t do the computations necessary to produce scalar variables that correspond to the Areas, Shapes, Relationships, Sequences, Programs, etc, that we experience – that we project as being out there, as Bruce N. notes. That can only be done by a system that can compute the functions that produce scalar variables that correspond to variations in these aspects of the environment; that is, by a system that can perceive. > > Best > > Rick > > > ``` > > Martin > > > > ``` > > – > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery > > > > ``` > > > MT: So far as I can see all your diagram does > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > is present visually my original position, way > > > back when, that started Rick’s tirade about > > > moving Qi into the controller. > > ``` > RM: I think in the spirit of making the discussions on CSGNet > > ``` > > less “cringe worthy” you might consider trying to avoid > referring to other people’s posts using disparaging terms such > as “tirades”. It doesn’t bother me but it might be off-putting > to onlookers. ---
**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/16 "2017-03-19T18:32:37Z")
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.19.1230)] ![ctrl.logo.transp1.png](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/1X/b710586db6612dac86ba83baaa74f38e6f7477f4.png) > **···** > > > Bruce Nevin 2017.03.18.21:29 ET) > > > BN: If  Qi is the label for the observer’s perception, then you have to place it inside the observer’s control loop, not in the environment. In that case, it is the observer’s perception of a variable aspect of the perceived environment that is defended from disturbance by the subject’s output > > RM: Yes, to be completely accurate, what should be in the environment are just a bunch of x’s (or v’s as in Bill’s diagram in the Science paper) representing physical variables. The Qi woulld exist as a perceptual function of these variables in the observer and p would exist as a perceptual function of these variables in the controller. > >  > > > BN: If you place Qi in the environment, than it represents the observer’s projection of that perception into the environment, much as I presently project my perceptions of this screen and keyboard into my environment and take them to be real. > > RM: Yes. > > Best > > Rick > >  > > > > > > > > > > /Bruce Nevin > > > > > – > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Richard Marken [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) wrote: > > > [From Rick Marken (2017.03.18.1815)] > > > Martin Taylor (2017.03.18.16.34)– > > > ``` > > MT: Question 2: Why does S, which used to mean "Semsory input" in a > > > > ``` > > > > control loop, now have to mean “Stimulus”. a concept that does not > > exist in a control loop? > > RM: It can still mean sensory input. In your diagram below it certainly does. > >  > > > ``` > > MT: Question 3. Since there are only two variables, qi and O, in the > > > > ``` > > > > environment in the diagrams of B:CP Figure A.1 and Mindreadings Page > > 73, and there are only two variables in the coloured diagram I used, > > S and O, and S is the label on the diagram “wire” exactly where qi > > is in the otherwise identical control loops of the Marken and Powers > > diagrams, what is the essential difference between S and qi? > > RM: I take the blue dot to be Qi. So S is the sensory effects of the environmental variables that are the _basis of the variable Qi_. Qi is the observer’s perception of those sensory effects, a perception to which q is equivalent. > > RM: By the way, saying that Qi is equivalent to p is _not the same_ as saying that Qi _is_ p. Qi is the _observer’s_ perception of the variable being controlled; p is the _controller’s_ perception of the variable being controlled.\* \*In my new demo, Qi is the observer’s (in this case the computer’s) perception of the size of the target disk; in the coin game Qi is E’s perception of the pattern of coins being controlled by S; in the rubber band demo Qi is the position of the knot relative to the dot as seen by E; etc. In each case, p is the controller’s perception of the variable being controlled, and it is presumably equivalent to Qi, the variable the observer sees being controlled. Qi is a fact; p is a theory. > > Best > > Rick > > – > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery > > ``` > RM: I don't know what this refers to but S usually refers to > > ``` > > what is seen as a “stimulus”, which corresponds to a > disturbance variable in PCT. And O usually refers to an output > variable. So Qi corresponds to neither of these. > > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery ---
**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/new-demo-was-re-homage-to-csgnet/7588/17 "2017-03-19T19:26:08Z")
[From Rick Marken (2017.03.19.1225) > **···** > > > Martin Taylor 2017.03.18.23.00] > > > ``` > > MT: To me, the mystery is why you > > > > ``` > > > > seem to assert that for Qi to exist, someone has to be doing an > > experiment to determine its value. > > RM: Qi simply refers to any observer’s perception of a variable that another control system is controlling. So when you see that a pitcher is trying to throw the ball in a particular location in the strike zone, your perception of the location of the pitch is Qi; when you see a soloist varying the tempo during a cadenza your perception of the tempo is Qi. All that’s needed to determine Qi is a system that can perceive (calculate) it. > >  > > > ``` > > MT: In > > > > ``` > > > > [From Rick Marken (2017.02.27.1200)], Rick says, as though > > contradicting something, > > “Powers is obviously using q.i to represent what may be a very > > complex function of environmental variables, v.” and “I think Bill > > took it for granted that people would understand that q.i was a > > variable that represented a possibly very complex function of > > environmental variables and , moreover, that they would understand > > that q.i would not be computed by the environment itself.” > > > > MT: I can’t remember anyone disputing either of these statements. > >  RM: Then what are we disagreeing about?!?! > > > ``` > > MT: In this diagram, if "p" is a single scalar value (a variable with > > > > ``` > > > > only one degree of freedom, its magnitude), then there is only one > > degree of freedom for each loop variable everywhere around the loop, > > including qo and qi, > > RM: This seems to be the problem. I agree that q.i is a scalar variable, like p. But if it is taken to be the input to the perceptual function, then it implies that the perceptual function does nothing more than transduce q.i into p. If q.i is a variable more complex than an intensity, then that implies that the environment itself has computed the function that turns that complex aspect of the environment into a scalar variable, q.i. So what I think we disagree about is whether q.i – a scalar variable – is meant to represent the input to the perceptual function of the control system. I say q.i does not represent the input to the perceptual function. It represents the perceptual variable the control system is controlling, as seen from the point of view of an observer of the system. > > Best > > Rick > >  > > > ``` > > My gedanken experiment [Martin Taylor 2016.12.13.12.09] was intended > > > > ``` > > > > to take the multiple variable point to an extreme, by showing that > > even internally these single-degree-of-freedom “wires” might be > > implemented in the form of many variables (Powers’s “bunch of nerve > > fibres” on which the firings add to be treated in the theory as a > > “neural current”). None of it allows qi to be anything > > other than the magnitude of a variable that has no properties except > > its magnitude. If action on the environment can affect that > > magnitude, then the variable, which Bill P called “CV” and I call > > “CEV” (which was originally an acronym for “Complex Environmental > > Variable” to acknowledge that it is constructed as a function of > > many component variables) must be at least partially in the > > environment. > > > > > > > > > >  PCT has never been > > > > concerned with the source of the disturbance, which could > > > > be anything from gremlins or malicious Gods to the wind, a > > > > distant car, or one’s spouse. > > > > > > > > ``` > > > There is another arrow > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > labeled D to cover those cases. The one you are objecting > > > to is a distal label on the experimenter’s control output. > > > That arrow is labeled O at the proximal end and D at the > > > distal end. This is because the experimenter is > > > controlling disturbance to what the subject is first > > > imagined, and then perceived, to be controlling. > > > ``` > > I wasn't objecting, merely pointing out a fact of PCT, that to > > > > ``` > > > > analyse control it is unnecessary to know anything about the source > > of the disturbing influence because the control system perceives > > only the effect of variation of the CEV, no matter what the cause or > > causes of this variation. > > > > > > > > > In the experimental situation, > > > ``` > > Here's where I really get into problems. Why is it necessary to > > > > ``` > > > > introduce an experimenter in order to talk about one simple control > > diagram? What does it gain you in understanding how control works? > > > > ``` > > Martin > > > > ``` > > – > Richard S. Marken > > "Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you > have nothing left to take away.â€? >                 --Antoine de Saint-Exupery