[Rick Marken 2019-03-25_12:58:21]
Well Rick,
I think that more and more of us present on CSGnet understand that whatever you wrote as answers to my statements is far from PCT. It’s pure RCT.
But I somehow I don’t feel like “demolishing” you totaly again with my way of discussion and PCT evidences which I exposed so many times (probably 50x). I’m really wondering what could be that something what doesn’t understand when it is told once but it has to be repeated 50x. Usually people are told once or twice and they understand. Why can’t you ?
HB : This time you wrote so many nonsense on such a short place that you could be competing for World Record.
So I start asking myself whether you are again in troubles as you were once before, when you seek for psychoterapist help. I assume psychoterapist was Tim Carey. But it seemed that despite Therapy you didn’t come to solution of your problems :
RM : Don’t worry Boris. Since everyone on CSGnet has disagreed with me on virtually every topic that has come up since Bill passed away, you can relax knowing that I have been quite unsuccessful in my efforts to mislead.
HB : So it seems that your “psychological” problem endures. I understand that we can talk that this “unwanted” perceptual state of yours “spring” from times when Bill passed away, because you have no more strongest support on CSGnet for your RCT as Bill could offer you. You are alone now. Every child has to take responsability for his life destinity and slowly leave safety of home. So I think it’s really long time (now will be 6 years) that you can’t “survive” without Bill.
If I understand right, you can’t find organization of nervous system which will not cause any more disagreements with everyone on CSGnet. Do you think problem is in you or others ?
If I remember right Bruce Nevin tryed once to help you. He made a good course of solving your problem, but if I remember right you insisted that you are not a problem and that others are problem, what is odd considering that you don’t get along with everyone.
That’s usual answer of people with “psychological” problem. The easiest way to solve the problem is to seek for causes of troubles in environment arround, and sesrch for possible sources which are “guilty” for personal troubles. I think that the best way to solve a problem is when people try to find problems in themselves and reorganize so that optimal organization would be find which would eliminate “psychological” problem.
Do you need help ?
Since there are so many psychoterapist on CSGnet forum, I thought maybe all could help you overcome your troubles “disagreeing” with everyone. Probably first question would be who has problem here or who experience prolonged “error”. You or all others ?
My assumption that you could reorganize is based on experiences on CSGnet where mostly you have problem of understanding PCT. So the easiest way would be that you turn your RCT into PCT. It’s easy. You just have to leave RCT bases of how human function and adopt PCT bases of how human function :
RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
-
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
-
OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
-
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
-
COMPARATOR : ???
-
ERROR SIGNAL : ???
HB : This is of course totaly wrong theory of human functioning.
And now right theory about human functioning…
PCT Definitions of control loop :
Bill P (B:CP):
- CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):
- OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own boxx represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
Bill P (LCS III):
- FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P (B:CP)
- ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :
- ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
HB : You have to be focused on very wrong definition of CONTROL in RCT :
RM :
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances with control of behavior.
HB : This is a big nonsense because control is not happening in outer environment but in inner environment :
Bill P. (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Do you feel the difference ???
RM:
I like to say that control systems “protect controlled variables from the effects of disturbances” because it sounds less S-R than some other terms, like the ones you mention (you left out “resist”)
HB : Are you trying to say that Bill’s terms are showing on S-R theory ??? and your term “protection from disturbances” shows on PCT. Now I’m sure you need psychoterapist and psychiatrical help. Barb and Alison please help. Rick is obviously insulting your father.
When I described terms Bill used for showing control in organism as In 99% cases he used terms like : cancel, counteraction, compensation, opposing, adjustment… and you added resistant… it was obviously that we are taltalking about PCT and distrubances that take effects on organism and “input functions”. In the cas of “protection from disturbances” there is no effect on organism because organism is protected from stimulus (S). It’s “outside control” which is non existant in PCT. And terms that Bill used are showing on inside control, when disturbances take effect.
HB : All terms that Bill used so frequently (compensate, counteraction opposing adjustment…) are showing on internal process which happen when disturbances or “stimulus” from environment took effect on organism and perceptual signal appears in comparator to match reference. In your case of “protection” nothing appears in perceptual channel and nothing is matched to references. There is also no change in organism, because organism is “protected from disturbances” and “stimulus” from environmnet does not take effect.Â
Bill knew why he used other terms. Is there something you want to change about PCT as you treid 6 years ago ??? Rick. Remember. If nobody Rick I’ll stop you everytime you will try to inforce your nonsense RCT theory with organisms being protected from disturbances and behavior controling some controlled variable in external environment, causing some “Controlled Perceptual variable” or CPV.Â
I’ll stop you also any time when you’ll try to show that Bills’ PCT is S-R theory and insult Bill being behaviorist as you did with claiming that “protection from distrubances” sounds less S-R than some other terms.
Again. Do you want to change something about Bills’ theory ???
Term “protection” significantly deviate from other terms Bill used for his PCT normal control terms. And Bill sure had reason to do that.
HB : Show us how your RCT theory works with “protection from disturbances” in your case of sleeping…
RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.
HB : So what is here “protected from disturbances” ???
O.K. ANOTHER EXAMPLE : When you are sunshining “heat disturbances” took effects on the skin and penetrate into internal structure inside organism where they are compensated with internal effectors. There is no control of behavior that could “protect” organism “from light wave” disturbances. There is no “protection” from heat disturbances. They will always take effect on organism. The same goes for sleeping. You understand now why Bill used those terms for which you calimed that they are more S-R than your nonsens “protection from distrubances” which happens in outer environment and has nothing to do with PCT.
HB : So Rick. It seems that you are dreaming with opened eyes and that you don’t understand that you are not protected for.ex. from bullit “disturbance”.
So all psychoterapist on CSGnet please help Rick to recover. His accusations are not any more in the limits of normality.Â
Â
Boris
RM: I wouldn’t ordinarily reply to your posts, Boris, but I will reply to this one since it provides an opportunity for me to describe what I learned last week about the relevance of PCT to dentistry.
HB : Well here we go again. Rick you are still mixing PCT and RCT.
- The biggest difference between PCT and other theories is that other theories think that “behavior is process of control” and PCT thinks that “perception is process of control”.
RM: There is no psychological theory other than PCT that says that “behavior is a process of control”. And PCT doesn’t say that “perception is a process of control.” PCT says that the observed controlling done by living organisms is explained as the control of input perceptual variables relative to autonomously set reference specifications for those variables.
HB : Where do you see that PCT says that “Behavior is process of control”. In PCT is mantra that “output” or observed behavior is not controlled. It’s just producing effects on external environment. Not controlled effects. Give us some evidence that will support your RCT “Control theory”.
HB: That’s why PCT is “Control of perception” not “Control of behavior”.
RM: . Since PCT starts with the observation (made by no other theory of behavior) that behaving IS controlling
HB : Where do you see that PCT starts with “Behavior is controlling” ??? Show us in LCS III diagram and in "Definitions of conttol loop (B:CP) where PCT starts with “behavior is controlling” ???
RM : …and since PCT explains controlling as the control of perceptuual variables,
HB : Just a line before you calimed that PCT starts with “Behavior is controlling”. And now you are saying that PCT explains “control of perceptual variable” ??? What is going to be ??? PCT explains “Behavior as control” or “Control of perception”. “Control of perception” is process of controlling perception in comparator when reference neural signal is compared to perceptual neural signal.
HB : You are very dangerous manipulator Rick, who is trying to demolish PCT theory from the time Bill died. I can hardly stop you from talking nonsesne on CSGnet. I admitt taht help from real PCT’ers could be welcome. Not only Martin. But Fred surprised me this time. He made a good point about real PCT. I’ll explain this in his post.Â
RM : Bill put it all together in the title of his first book on PCT, Behavior: The control of perception.
HB : You are not just phylosopher Rick but you ARE A DREAMER, and VERY DANGEROUS DREAMER, who is seriously misleading all CSGnet forum with his imaginational constructs which has no connecttion what is happening in real organisms. As you will see from diagram LCS III, there is no “controlled variable in environment”, that behavior could control (it’s even not general) and there is no indicators that “Behavior is controlling” anything. Where do you see this in outer envrionment ? You have to show some PCT evidences what you are talking about ???
![/uploads/default/original/1X/d0c828c0981f50f8c54499d8d0ea0a9eee2b36dc.jpeg]()
HB: So where is “Control of behavior"Â or that behavior is controlling something ??? It’s obviously that “behavior” or “output” is result of “error” and “error” is result of “control of perception” in comparator. Output is producing just “effects” to external environment”. How many times do I have to explain to you how “control loop works”. What are you ? Usually it’s enough that people are told once not 50 x.
So “behavior is consequence of control in organism (control of perception in comparator”, it’s not “controlling perception”. Anyway how “behavior as control controls perception in sleeping” ?
RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.
HB : So explain to us how “Behavior is controlling” or “Behavior is control” or whatever works in sleeping ???
-
Controlling in PCT involves (generally) maintaining aspects of the organism's internal control – controlled variables – with no externally "controlled variables" (diagram LCS III). Generally speaking.
RM: Controlled variables are functions of variables in the environment of the organism’s nervous system.
HB : Where did you get this one ??? I see that you let out Bills’ definition of control (B:CP) so that you could manipulate. Â
You are maybe blind but we are not. PCT is clearly separating organism and external environment. See LCS III diagram. So “controlled variables” are celarly inside organism as nervous system is. That’s what defintion of control is clearly indicating.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances
Nervous system is not the only regulator of “intrinsic variables” or events in organism if you think of them as “controlled variables in environment”. But I’d rather beleive that you think of “controlled variable” in outer environment.
You are dangerous manipulator Rick, and that’s why it’s necesary to offer evidences for what you are talking about, because you don’t understand how organisms function and you don’t understand how PCT function.Â
RM : According to PCT they exist as neural (perceptual) signals in the organism, variations in these signals being analogs of the variations in the controlled variable.
HB : What this has to do with “Control of behavior” ??? Are you talkinng about internal “effectors” ??? Stil another dangeorus manipulation.
RM : Controlled variables do not necessarily exist as variables in the environment but they always are always functions of environmental variables.
HB : Which environment you are again talking about. Do you understand that there is internal environment which is controlled all the time (24/7) and external environment.
So generaly speaking there is not always “affected variables” in external environment, but there are all the time “controlled variables” kept near reference states in organism 24/7, so that organism survive.
What a confussion ??? You are Rick top ignorant guy about how organisms function.
HB :
- There is no “fixed” reference states, but these states can vary arround references. Everything in PCT is dynamic. Nothing is “fixed”. Usually intrinsic variables (essential variables) are kept in dynamical physiological limits not “fixed” states (values).
RM: This is correct and an important point that is too often ignored. It accounts for the fact reference states for variables, such as the position of limbs, typically vary over time.
HB : O.K. So you admitt that I’m correct about dynamics in control in organism. So you are admitting also that I’m correct also about all other controlled processes which are connected with
Adn you are also admitting that you were wrong about “fixed references in organism”. Everything what I wrote is correct because it’s supported with PCT evidences. What is supporting yoru RCT theory ???
HB :
There is generally speeking about PCT no “protection from distrubances”, because Bill used that terminology in “special situations”. In 99% cases he used terms like : cancel, counteraction, compensation, opposing, adjustment…
RM: I like to say that control systems “protect controlled variables from the effects of disturbances” because it sounds less S-R than some other terms,
HB : It doesn’t matter what you like to say. It matters what is right or wrong from aspect of PCT. We are on CSGnet forum and it’s about memory on Bill and Mary Powers and theory PCT. It’s not about you as main confused actor here on CSGnet who is confusing all others.
HB : It’s just opposite of what you are saying. Protection from distrubances sounds like S-R, because you try to show that control is happening outside, so that disturbances don’t take effect on organism.
In your RCT theory you operate exclusivelly outside. There is “Control of behavior”, there is some “controlled variable” that is protected from disturbances, and there is some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” which carries “control” into organism from “protected controlled variable” in outer environment.
HB : It’s total confussion and also statement about organism being “protected from disturbances” is nonsense, because Bill used it in some special cases, and mostly he used other terms which were used 1000 x more than term “protection”. Why do you think Bill didn’t used term “protection” ???
HB : Protection in your case means that control in organism does not take place, because stimulus from environment didn’t affect organism as your organism is “protected from disturbances (stimulus)”. How control in organism can work if environment is not affecting organism at all. How can you be protected from bullits ? How can you be protected from heat disturbances ?
So term “protection” is wrong as organism is not “protected from disturbances” what means that disturbances of all kind whcih are ussally taking effect on organism can enable organism’ normal control functioning.Â
All other terms (compensate, counteraction opposing adjustment…) are showing on internal process wwhich happen when disturbances or “stimulus” from environment took effect on organism and perceptual signal appears in comparator to match reference. In your case of “protection” nothing appears in perceptual channel and nothing is matched to references. There is also no change in organism, because organism is “protected from disturbances” and stimulus from environmnet does not take effect.Â
Bill knew why he used other terms. Is there something you want to change about PCT as you treid 6 years ago ??? Rick. Remember. If nobody I’ll stop you every time you will try to inforce your nonsense RCT theory with organisms being protected from disturbances and behavior controling some controlled variable in external environment, causing some “Controlled Perceptual variable” or CPV.Â
Term “protection” significantly deviate from other terms Bill used for his PCT normal control terms. And Bill sure had reason to do that.
HB : Your theory is about “Control of behavior” which assume that behavior, action is “destroying” dusturbances outside (control something outside) so that distrubances (stimulus) don’t take effect on organism.
But control is just opposite. It’s from the beggining of evolution of “living beings” some 4,5 bilion years into the past when organisms developed in the environment full of distrubances which could destroy organic matter if Living beings wouldn’t develope control mechanism for “counteracting” effects of distrubances when they cause some changes in organism. Organisms in any from were not protected from disturbances. That’s Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety talking about these evolution problems of control. Â
So Bill used right internal terms for not external. Effects of disturbances are not counteracted outside, they are counteracted in internal environment. So behavior (actions) does not stop (protect) disturbances from taking effect, but rather conuteract effects (changes) in organism. So to achieve and maintain homeostasis.
RM : like the ones you mention (you left out “resist”).
HB : There are three full stops which show that story about terms continues. You have to know to read. Keep training…
RM : For example, saying that a control system acts to resist or compensate for disturbances suggests that those actions are caused by the disturbance.
HB : No. There is no such relation as you are traying to show. Are you saying that Bill was wrong ??? I never saw relation of terms compensate foor disturbances or oppose distrubances. It’s always relation to “effects of disturbances” which are inside orgsnism not outside. Control is happening inside organism not outside. See LCS III diagram :
Bill P :
Feedback function…convverts action or behavior intoeffects on input quantity.
Bill P :
Disturbances…
Â
HB : So there is no direct connection between terms like counteract,
But you Rick are talking about direct “protection from disturbances”. There is no possible relation between “protection” and “effects of disturbances”. How could it sound "protection from effects of disturbances. There is no such a thing existing in processes of internal environment of organism.
Saying that control system acts to resist or compensate for effects of disturbances suggest that disturbances took effect on organism and effects will be opposed by actions in internal or external envrionment (internal and external effectors).
Depends from error.
In simple language it means that disturbances “disturb” organisms homeostasis, and control mechanism return organism back into state of homeostasis (almost constant conditiosn in internal environment). How can “protection from distrubances” do that in external environment ???
All those terms that Bill used in 99% cases are connected with internal processes in organism. Protection is directly connected with external environment as something that is disabling disturbances to take effects on organism from outside. In saying this nonsense you forgot that “compensation” or other “internal terms” does not prevent disturbances from acting on organism, but rather “resist” effects if organism is succesfull of course. If control mecahnisms in organism are not succesfull organism dies. Â
RM : But we know (from Bill’s 1978 Psych Review paper) that the actions of a control system are not caused by disturbances;
HB : If actions of a control system are not caused by disturbances, why you have to “protect” organism from disturbances ??? If actions are not caused by disturbances why control system has to produce actions at all ???
The point is that effects of disturbances cause “homeostatic unstability” of organism and control mechanisms return “homeostatic stablity”.
So how organism can produce actions if it is “protected” from outside disturbances ? Outside disturbances are part of overall disturbances that are produced in inside and outside environment and affect “input functions”. On the bases of all effects of distrubances organism
You are phylosopher and dreamer Rick. You are not scientist. With turning words arround and arround you can’t save your nonsense statements. Terms like counteracting effects of disturbances mean that effects are compensated in organism after disturbances took effect and actions can also oppose the effects of disturbances.
O.K. EXAMPLE : When you are sunshining “heat disturbances” took effects on the skin andpenetrate into internal structure inside organism where they are compensated with internal effectors. There is no control of behavior that xould “protect” organism “from light wave” disturbances. There is no “protection” from heat disturbances. They will always take effect on organism. The same goes for sleeping
RM : …they are caused by the error siignal, the size of which depends on the net effect of all disturbances acting on the controlled variable.
HB : It’s a mess again. Which “controlled variable” ??? Which net effect on what ??? You are talking about organism being “protected from disturbances” not about when disturbances take effect on organism and produce compensating or opposing effect with “Control of peerception” (see what it is from LCS III diagram). That’s what Bill is talking about in his PCT. In your RCT there is no terms Bill is using, because they have different meaning.Â
RM : Saying that control systems “protect controlled variables from disturbance” also calls attention to the important result of a control system’s opposition to disturbance,
HB : What a phylosophy. If you say that something is protected from disturbances there is no effects on organism, because disturbances (stimulus your case) didn’t take effect. That’s what protection means. No effects on organism.Â
RM : …which is that the controlled variable is kept in a reference state, “protected” from those pesky disturbances that would move it from that state.
HB : Rick stop phylosophing and do something constructive for PCT and open your own forum for your RCT phylosophy where “Behavior is control” which is “protecting” some cotnrolled variables in enviroment and producing some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” in afferent nerv.Â
HB : There is no “controlled variable” outside the system in PCT (see diagram LCS III) and there is no protection from disturbances…,
Explain how organism is protecting itself from disturbances with “Control of behavior” in the cases of sunshining and sleeping and observing….and so on…
RM: Which brings me to the dentist and an example of control where disturbance resistance is easy to see as “protection of a controlled variable from the effects of disturbance”.
HB : What is controlled variable here ? And how can you be “protected from disturbances” of the dentist ??? Disturbance resistance and “protection” are totaly different things. Resistance from effects of disturbances is equal to other terms which are treated by Bill Powers as process in organism which counteract, oppose and so on … EFFECTS OF DISTURBANCES ON ORGANISM. This processes are “turned” on when disturbances take some effect on organism. And you are talking about “protection from disturbances” in outer environment (even protection from disturbances of “controlled variable”) which even didn’t take any effect on organism. Do you understand the difference ???
RM : I was having a crown replaced on my lower rear molar and in the process of preparing the tooth for the temporary crown the dentist had to push what I think was some antiseptic tape into the tooth.
HB : How could he do that, if you were “protected from disturbances” ???
RM : This required exerting considerable downward pressure on the tooth which would have surely my pushed jaw into my chest if I hadn’t pushed back with an equivalent force using my jaw muscles.
HB : So what were you protecting here ? What was controlled variable ? But it seems that you are starting to understand Bills’ term for control. You admitt, that your organism was affected by disturbances of dentist ?
RM : The dentist didn’t have to tell me to do this; it was an automatic result of controlling the position of my jaw and head.
HB : Why you think organism automatically result in “adjusting” the position of your jaw ??? You think that “automat” in your body (which is controling for homestatics) fired “controlled behavior” to automatically adjust the jaw ??? Well you are wrong. But control in organism did
RM : The downward force exerted by the dentist was a disturbance to that variable
HB : Which variable ???
RM : …and the upward force exerted by my muscles compensated for that disturbance precisely.
HB : I thought you were talking about “protection” from disturbances as outside process. So what was “protected from disturbances” outside organism ???
RM : The result of this compensation was that the controlled variable – the position of my jaw – was maintained in a reference position – slightly open – protected from a disturbance – the constant downward force on the tooth; and this “protection” was literal since, without the compensation, the controlled variable would have been left “unprotected” and driven to a very disastrous value. Thinking about this while he was pressing down on my tooth I realized that a dentist depends on the operation of this jaw position control system to be operating when they do these very common procedures.
HB : It’s hard when somebody is living in illusions that everything about control is happening in outer environment. It’s just opposite. The whole control happens in internal anvrionmenr and effects of “effector” outside are just effects into envrionment that helps maintainig homeostasis.
Sorry Rick I feel sorry for you. What a mess… As I said many times before. With your RCT you will never undderstand how control works in organism. Start with your PCT knowledge.
Boris
HB: Rick your perception of PCT is turned on the head. You are misleading CSGnet forum again without any evidence that your RCT theory could be right.
RM: Don’t worry Boris. Since everyone on CSGNet has disagreed with me on virtually every topic that has come up since Bill passed away, you can relax knowing that I have been quite unsuccessful in my efforts to mislead.
Best
Rick
···
From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 8:59 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: [New post] Translating Predictive Coding Into Perceptual Control
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:38 PM “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Boris
EdH: One colleague told me that he’s working on explaining how art therapy works with Predictive Coding: “We don’t need your PCT, we’ve already got this Predictive Coding theory”.
RM: He or she is probably right. People know what works for them.
EdH: I have tried to understand Predictive Coding to see what they were talking about, but had the same experience as the writer of this article: you have to wrap your mind around a lot of improbable words.
RM: One of the nice things about PCT is that it limits the other theories that you have to try to understand. If you are interested understanding the controlling done by living systems then the only theories you have to understand are those that are aimed at accounting for that phenomenon. If predictive coding is such a theory then it might be worth learning it if it is actually a different theory. If it is actually the same as PCT then there is no need to learn it because, if you know PCT you know Predictive Coding theory.
EdH: At least these people looking for answers in predictive coding, are open to exploring a ‘new’ theory that goes beyond behaviorism and cognitive psychology.
RM: If one is just looking for a theory that goes “beyond behaviorism and cognitive psychology” then any theory will do as long as it doesn’t sound like behaviorism or cognitive psychology. But if one is looking for a theory that actually explains purposeful behavior – controlling – then only PCT (or it’s purported twin, Predictive coding theory) will do.
EdH: Although it sounds a bit sad, that’s already quite a step. I could then tell them (with the help of this blog post and the discussion): try PCT, it’s much less confusing, more enjoyable and at least as good as Predictive Coding.
RM: Well, this is based on the belief that Predictive Coding theory is just as “good” as PCT. But so far it’s seems to me that it is not nearly as “good” as PCT, for the reasons I gave above; mainly, because it is not about controlling (purposeful behavior). So in this sense Predictive Coding theory is equivalent to behaviorist and cognitive theories of behavior, which are also not theories of controlling.
RM: Hi Warren. I find essays like this extremely dispiriting.
EdH: Rick, why do you think this is extremely dispiriting?
RM: I think you can see some of the reasons in my replies above. But if I had to nail it down to one thing it would be this paragraph here:
I’d previously noticed that these theories had some weird similarities. But I want to go further and say they’re fundamentally the same paradigm. I don’t want to deny that the two theories have developed differently, and I especially don’t want to deny that free energy/predictive coding has done great work building in a lot of Bayesian math that perceptual control theory can’t match. But the foundations are the same.
RM: The theories are being compared here, not in terms of their relative ability to account for the same phenomena but, rather, in terms of the contents of the theories themselves. This is sophistry, not science. The most egregious example of this is where he tries to throw a bone to the fans of Predictive Coding theory fans by saying how great it was for Predictive Coding theory to build in a lot of Baysean math. What I found dispiriting is not that he said that PCT can’t match this accomplishment but that he would think that including a particular kind of math is a basis for comparing theories. And in an essay that was essentially trying to “talk up” PCT.
RM: Ah well. Have a great weekend.
Best
Rick
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:40 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Rick Marken 2019-03-22_09:37:46]
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:12 AM Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Subject: [New post] Translating Predictive Coding Into Perceptual Control
RM: Hi Warren. I find essays like this extremely dispiriting. Why did you post it?
Best
Rick
Scott Alexander posted: "Wired wrote a good article about Karl Friston, the neuroscientist whose works I’ve puzzled over here before. Raviv writes: Friston’s free energy principle says that all life…is driven by the same universal imperative…to act in ways that reduce the "
New post on Slate Star Codex
by Scott Alexander
Wired wrote a good article about Karl Friston, the neuroscientist whose works I’ve puzzled over here before. Raviv writes:
Friston’s free energy principle says that all life…is driven by the same universal imperative…to act in ways that reduce the gulf between your expectations and your sensory inputs. Or, in Fristonian terms, it is to minimize free energy.
Put this way, it’s clearly just perceptual control theory. Powers describes the same insight like this:
[Action] is the difference between some condition of the situation as the subject sees it, and what we might call a reference condition, as he understands it.
I’d previously noticed that these theories had some weird similarities. But I want to go further and say they’re fundamentally the same paradigm. I don’t want to deny that the two theories have developed differently, and I especially don’t want to deny that free energy/predictive coding has done great work building in a lot of Bayesian math that perceptual control theory can’t match. But the foundations are the same.
Why is this of more than historical interest? Because some people (often including me) find free energy/predictive coding very difficult to understand, but find perceptual control theory intuitive. If these are basically the same, then someone who wants to understand free energy can learn perceptual control theory and then a glossary of which concepts match to each other, and save themselves the grief of trying to learn free energy/predictive coding just by reading Friston directly.
So here is my glossary:
FE/PC: prediction, expectation
PCT: set point, reference level
And…
FE/PC: prediction error, free energy
PCT: deviation from set point
So for example, suppose it’s freezing cold out, and this makes you unhappy, and so you try to go inside to get warm. FE/PC would describe this as “You naturally predict that you will be a comfortable temperature, so the cold registers as strong prediction error, so in order to minimize prediction error you go inside and get warm.” PCT would say “Your temperature set point is fixed at ‘comfortable’, the cold marks a wide deviation from your temperature set point, so in order to get closer to your set point, you go inside”.
The PCT version makes more sense to me here because the phrase “you naturally predict that you will be a comfortable temperature” doesn’t match any reasonable meaning of “predict”. If I go outside in Antarctica, I am definitely predicting I will be uncomfortably cold. FE/PC obviously means to distinguish between a sort of unconscious neural-level “prediction” and a conscious rational one, but these kinds of vocabulary choices are why it’s so hard to understand. PCT uses the much more intuitive term “set point” and makes the whole situation clearer.
FE/PC: surprise
PCT: deviation from set point
FE/PC says that “the fundamental drive behind all behavior is to minimize surprise”. This leads to questions like “What if I feel like one of my drives is hunger?” and answers like “Well, you must be predicting you would eat 2000 calories per day, so when you don’t eat that much, you’re surprised, and in order to avoid that surprise, you feel like you should eat.”
PCT frames the same issue as “You have a set point saying how many calories you should eat each day. Right now it’s set at 2000. If you don’t eat all day, you’re below your calorie set point, that registers as bad, and so you try to eat in order to minimize that deviation.”
And suppose we give you olanzapine, a drug known for making people ravenously hungry. The FE/PCist would say “Olanzapine has made you predict you will eat more, which makes you even more surprised that you haven’t eaten”. The PCTist would say “Olanzapine has raised your calorie set point, which means not eating is an even bigger deviation.”
Again, they’re the same system, but the PCT vocabulary sounds sensible whereas the FE/PC vocabulary is confusing.
FE/PC: Active inference
PCT: Behavior as control of perception
FE/PC talks about active inference, where “the stimulus does not determine the response, the response determines the stimulus” and "We sample the world to ensure our predictions become a self-fulfilling prophecy.â€?. If this doesn’t make a lot of sense to you, you should read this tutorial, in order to recalibrate your ideas of how little sense things can make.
PCT talks about behavior being the control of perception. For example, suppose you are standing on the sidewalk, facing the road parallel to the sidewalk, watching a car zoom down that road. At first, the car is directly in front of you. As the car keeps zooming, you turn your head slightly right in order to keep your eyes on the car, then further to the right as the car gets even further away. Your actions are an attempt to “control perception”, ie keep your picture fixed at “there is a car right in the middle of my visual field”.
Or to give another example, when you’re driving down the highway, you want to maintain some distance between yourself and the car in front of you (the set point/reference interval, let’s say 50 feet). You don’t have objective yardstick-style access to this distance, but you have your perception of what it is. Whenever the distance becomes less than 50 feet, you slow down; whenever it becomes more than 50 feet, you speed up. So behavior (how hard you’re pressing the gas pedal) is an attempt to control perception (how far away from the other car you are).
FE/PC: The dark room problem
PCT: [isn’t confused enough to ever even have to think about this situation]
The “dark room problem” is a paradox on free energy/predictive coding formulations: if you’re trying to minimize surprise / maximize the accuracy of your predictions, why not just lie motionless in a dark room forever? After all, you’ll never notice anything surprising there, and as long as you predict “it will be dark and quiet”, your predictions will always come true. The main proposed solution is to claim you have some built-in predictions (of eg light, social interaction, activity levels), and the dark room will violate those.
PCT never runs into this situation. You have set points for things like social interaction, activity levels, food, sex, etc, that are greater than zero. In the process of pursuing them, you have to get out of bed and leave your room. There is no advantage to lying motionless in a dark room forever.
If the PCT formulation has all these advantages, how come everyone uses the FE/PC formulation instead?
I think this is because FE/PC grew out of an account of world-modeling: how do we interpret and cluster sensations? How do we form or discard beliefs about the world? How do we decide what to pay attention to? Here, words like “prediction”, “expectation”, and “surprise” make perfect sense. Once this whole paradigm and vocabulary was discovered, scientists realized that it also explained movement, motivation, and desire. They carried the same terminology and approach over to that field, even though now the vocabulary was actively misleading.
Powers was trying to explain movement, motivation, and desire, and came up with vocabulary that worked great for that. He does get into world-modeling, learning, and belief a little bit, but I was less able to understand what he was doing there, and so can’t confirm whether it’s the same as FE/PC or not. Whether or not he did it himself, it should be possible to construct a PCT look at world-modeling. But it would probably be as ugly and cumbersome as the FE/PC account of motivation.
I think the right move is probably to keep all the FE/PC terminology that we already have, but teach the PCT terminology along with it as a learning aid so people don’t get confused.
Scott Alexander | March 20, 2019 at 8:50 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://slatestarcodex.com/?p=5429
Comment
See all comments
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Slate Star Codex.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/20/translating-predictive-coding-into-perceptual-control/
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
