Observed reference value, inferred reference signal

This topic is initiated as a place to move some posts that digressed from the topic Powers’ Model of a PCT-Based Research Program

Rick,

this topics was once “chewed” on CSGnet. So I’ll just repeat the major points.

  1. If we want to do any research on PCT we have to understand what control in PCT means

W.T.Powers (B:CP, 2005):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

From perspective of definition of control in PCT there is no controlled varaibles in external environment that could be controlled by “controlled behavior” as Rcik.Marken (R.M.) wanted to show… There are just effects to environment that Liivng organisms produce (see definitions of control).

2, The beggining of the Cybernetic Model paper that is mentioned in R.M. contribution does not reflect the main point of the article as the conclussion of the Cybernetic Model paper explicitelly define :

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

  1. Experiments about “controlled variables” that R.M. presented in tabel has wrong concept as was explained later in mentioned Cybernetic Model paper.

If we look at the first example of the table : open door – grasp, pull – angle of door – 80 degrees we can see that it is contradicting to W.T.Powers concept of PCT :

W.T. Powers : (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) :
There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. The driver has, inside him, the intention that the door be open. He acts to achieve this purpose, doing whatever is required (if possible) to achieve it…

It’s obviuos that the driver’s intention is not to open the door for certain amount of angle (80 degrees) or to search any “controlled variable” outside as RM concept predicts, but is clearly tha driver will open the door that is defined by his internal states (control inside organism) which driver wants to experience not “bring” some external “controlled variables” into reference state. That’s also the main point in PCT diagram (LCS III, 2008).

  1. So how PCT as scientific theory essentially works :

W.T. Powers (1998) :
Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make the perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception…

The research work in PCT should be directed into exepriments that would show how PCT control loop works or how control in organisms is accomplished

W.T. Powers (B:CP, 2005, LCS III, 2008)

A. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

B. 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

  • the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

F. 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.

G. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

  1. The main goal in PCT.is to maintain organisms functioning with negative feedback control which is contained in definitions of PCT control loop above.

W.T.Powers (LCS III, 2008) :
In this book I have only one goal : to establish in the mind of the reader the literal reality of negative feed-back control as the basic organizing principle of human behavior. Human beings do not plan actions and then carry them out; they do not respond to stimuli according to the way they have been reinforced. They control. They never produce any behavior except for the purpose of making what they are experiencing become more like they intend or want to experience, and then keeping it that way even in a changing world. If they plan, they plan perceptions, not actions. If they respond to stimuli, they do so in order to prevent those stimuli from affecting variables they have under control. The root, the core, of the behavior of living systems is negative feedback control, at every level of organization from RNA and DNA to a spinal reflex to a mental concept of physics. Negative feedback control is the basic principle of life.

HB: this topics was once “chewed” on CSGnet. So I’ll just repeat the major points.

  1. If we want to do any research on PCT we have to understand what control in PCT means

RM: That is certainly true. But I would assume that anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion already knows what control is. You have to know this to be able to do research based on PCT.

RM: What I would like to discuss in this thread is the research program described by Powers in his 1979 Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development paper that is reprinted in LCS I and was also posted earlier in this thread by Bruce Nevin. I want to do this because I want to get a better understanding of what Bill meant by his proposal. So I just want to hear what people think Bill was proposing that people do as a PCT research program. On pages 216-218 Bill described a research program consisting of two main phases: Data Gathering and Classifying the Data. I would like to get people’s ideas about how would-be PCT researchers would carry out these components of Bill’s proposed PCT-based research program. Bill himself didn’t go into much detail on what these components of the program might involve, particularly the Classifying the Data component. So I am hoping that people who are interested in doing PCT research can join with me in trying to figure out what Bill’s had in mind when he described his vision of a PCT-based research program in the Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development paper.

HB: 3. Experiments about “controlled variables” that R.M. presented in tabel has wrong concept as was explained later in mentioned Cybernetic Model paper.

If we look at the first example of the table : open door – grasp, pull – angle of door – 80 degrees we can see that it is contradicting to W.T.Powers concept of PCT :

RM: Again, I would like to get people’s help with understanding what Bill was proposing as a PCT-based research program. So I would appreciate it if you would contribute to this thread only of you have some ideas about how would-be PCT researchers could carry out the Data Gathering and/or Data Classification phases of that program.

HB: this topics was once “chewed” on CSGnet. So I’ll just repeat the major points.

  1. If we want to do any research on PCT we have to understand what control in PCT means
    RM: That is certainly true. But I would assume that anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion already knows what control is. You have to know this to be able to do research based on PCT.

**HB : the truth is that I know what control in PCT is, as I offered relevant PCT source (W.T.Powers), but Rick Marken doesh’t know what control in PCT is as he didn’t “put on the table” sources for his control definition. **

The problem of discussions about PCT is usually in different understanding what control in PCT means. So everyone who wants to contribute to the discussion of researching in PCT has to understand basic definition of control in PCT what Rick Marken is rejecting…

If people understand the same scientific terms differently then there will be a confusson of worst kind. So people with wrong PCT understanding of control will produce research of other kind than PCT is. That means that they will produce wrong experiments with wrong interpretation of results which has nothing to do with PCT.

**For example : **

Rick Marken defined control deifferently as PCT defintion of control is about :

RM definition of control (CSGnet archives) :

RM :
And here is my corrected version:

CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment
– the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected
from disturbances.

HB : Again PCT definition of control (W. T. Powers, B:CP, 2005) :

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 : The difference **between RM definition of control (which is outside) and PCT definition of control (which is inside organism) **is so large that we can talk about different theories. So for better understanding of the problem I'll call Rick                  Marken definition of control **RCT (Rick's Control Theory).**

RCT define differently also other elements of control loop :

  1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : Function that converts an
    error signal into an output variable that has effects in the environment.
  2. FEED-BACK
    FUNCTION : Physical laws that determine effect of system outputs on a
    controlled variable.
  3. INPUT FUNCTION : Function that converts sensory or
    perceptual inputs into a perceptual signal that is an analog of the aspect
    of the environment – the controlled variable – defined by the nature of
    this function.
  4. COMPARATOR : Function that takes a perceptual and a
    reference signal as input and produces an error signal as output, the
    error signal being proportional to the difference between the inputs to
    this function.
  5. ERROR SIGNAL : The output of the comparator
    function.
  6. CONTROLLED VARIABLE (or CONTROLLED QUANTITY): The
    aspect of the environment, defined by the input function, that is
    controlled by a control system.

For comparison I’ll repeat definitions of control loop whcih can be found in PCT literature. Rick Marken never revealed scientific sources of his defintion of control and his definitions of control loop.

PCT
Definitions of control loop as the core part of Glossary in B:CP (2005) and LCS III (2008):

          1.      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

  • (LCS III):…the output function shown in
    it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s
    environment.
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that
    computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and
    reference signal.

  4. 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

  5. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of
    error.

HB : It’s obvious that RCT dfefinitions are presenting some other theoretical background for research as PCT is really about. So we can expect that also experiments and research done on wrong theoretical bases will give wrong results in respect to PCT aspect.

RM: What I would like to discuss in this thread is the research program described by Powers in his 1979 Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development paper that is reprinted in LCS I and was also posted earlier in this thread by Bruce Nevin. I want to do this because I want to get a better understanding of what Bill meant by his proposal. So I just want to hear what people think Bill was proposing that people do as a PCT research program.

HB : It seems that Rick Marken doesn’t see well enough what is the problem. The main problem is that he is reading partially what he wants to read not what W.T.Powers theory (PCT) as whole repesents, so the whole content of 1979 *Cybernetic *

Model for Research in Human Development paper which is in LCS I (1979) on pages 167 - 219. It’s necessary to read the whole Chapter if we want to understand the whole PCT. not just Rick Marken’s wanted piece. Research in PCT is about

better understanding of PCT, not just part of it.

This is usual Rick Marken strategy to hide informations in order to impose his Reality to others.

So if we want to see what was written on the first place as W.T. Powers oppinion about PCT and how research has to be done we have to read all about that is relevant for understanding of PCT.

**I’ll repeat the basic problem of research in PCT and RCT. **

**If we look at the first example of the table Rick Marken is proposing as the ** : open door – grasp, pull – angle of door – 80 degrees we can see that it is contradicting to W.T.Powers concept of PCT :

W.T. Powers : (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) :
There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. The driver has, inside him, the intention that the door be open. He acts to achieve this purpose, doing whatever is required (if possible) to achieve it…

HB : It’s obviuos that the driver’s intention is not to open the door for certain amount of angle (80 degrees) as “controlled variable” in environment or to search any “controlled variable” outside as RM concept predicts, It is clear that driver will open the door that is defined by his internal states (control inside organism) which driver wants to experience not “bring” some external “controlled variables” into reference state. That is what will really happen in reality. It’s hard to beleive that people will wear protractors to measure the angle (“controlled variable” in external environment) to which they will open the door. Who saw anything like that happened in Real Reality ? And research has to show what is happening in Real Reality not what is happening in someone’s imagination.

In PCT concept there is no “controlled variable” in external environment what PCT definitions of control loop clearly show. There are just effects that output function is producing on environment There is no controlled effects in the sense that “controlled behavior” would control “controlled variable” in external environment to some reference point.

Whatever PCT reseacrh is intended to be done it has to be done in accordance to PCT that was authorised by W.T.Powers as whole not just parts of it which could give wrong impression what W.T.Powers meant by his theory. And that’s exactly what Rick Marken is doing. He is trying to present a little part which suit his limited understanding of PCT which I call RCT understanding.

V V ned., 19. apr. 2020 ob 18:24 je oseba Richard Marken via IAPCT noreply@discourse.iapct.org napisala:

HB: this topics was once “chewed” on CSGnet. So I’ll just repeat the major points.

  1. If we want to do any research on PCT we have to understand what control in PCT means

RM: That is certainly true. But I would assume that anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion already knows what control is. You have to know this to be able to do research based on PCT.

HB : the truth is that I know what control in PCT is, as I offered relevant PCT source (W.T.Powers), but Rick Marken doesh’t know what control in PCT is as he didn’t “put on the table” sources for his control definition.

The problem of discussions about PCT is usually in different understanding what control in PCT means. So everyone who wants to contribute to the discussion of researching in PCT has to understand basic definition of control in PCT what Rick Marken is rejecting…

If people understand the same scientific terms differently then there will be a confusson of worst kind. So people with wrong PCT understanding of control will produce research of other kind than PCT is. That means that they will produce wrong experiments with wrong interpretation of results which has nothing to do with PCT.

For example :

      Rick Marken defined control deifferently as PCT defintion of control is about : 

RM definition of control ( CSGnet archives ) :

RM : And here is my corrected version:

CONTROL : Keeping of some aspect of outer environment – the controlled variable – in a reference state, protected from disturbances.

HB : Again PCT definition of control (W. T. Powers, B:CP, 2005) :

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 : The difference  **between RM definition of control (which is outside) and PCT definition of 
        control (which is inside organism)**  is so large that we can talk about different theories. So for 
       better understanding of the problem I'll call Rick Marken definition of control  **RCT (Rick's 
       Control Theory).**

RCT define differently also other elements of control loop :

  1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : Function that converts an error signal into an output variable that has effects in the environment.

  2. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : Physical laws that determine effect of system outputs on a controlled variable.

  3. INPUT FUNCTION : Function that converts sensory or perceptual inputs into a perceptual signal that is an analog of the aspect of the environment – the controlled variable – defined by the nature of this function.

  4. COMPARATOR : Function that takes a perceptual and a reference signal as input and produces an error signal as output, the error signal being proportional to the difference between the inputs to this function.

  5. ERROR SIGNAL : The output of the comparator function.

  6. CONTROLLED VARIABLE (or CONTROLLED QUANTITY): The aspect of the environment, defined by the input function, that is controlled by a control system.

HB : For comparison I’ll repeat definitions of control loop whcih can be found in PCT literature. Rick Marken never revealed scientific sources of his defintion of control and his definitions of control loop.

PCT Definitions of control loop as the core part of Glossary in B:CP (2005) and LCS III (2008):

  1. 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
  • (LCS III):… the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

  4. 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

  5. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

HB : It’s obvious that RCT dfefinitions are presenting some other theoretical background for research as PCT is really about. So we can expect that also experiments and research done on wrong theoretical bases will give wrong results in respect to PCT aspect.

RM: What I would like to discuss in this thread is the research program described by Powers in his 1979 Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development paper that is reprinted in LCS I and was also posted earlier in this thread by Bruce Nevin. I want to do this because I want to get a better understanding of what Bill meant by his proposal. So I just want to hear what people think Bill was proposing that people do as a PCT research program.

       HB : It seems that Rick Marken doesn't see well enough what is the problem. The main problem 
       is that he is reading partially what he wants to read not what W.T.Powers theory (PCT) as 
       whole repesents, so the whole content of  1979  *Cybernetic* 

Model for Research in Human Development paper which is in LCS I (1979) on pages 167 - 219. It’s necessary to read the whole Chapter if we want to understand the whole PCT. not just Rick Marken’s wanted piece. Research in PCT is about better understanding of PCT, not just part of it.

       This is usual Rick Marken strategy to hide informations in order to impose his Reality to others.

      So if we want to see what was written on the first place as W.T. Powers oppinion about PCT and how research has to be done we have to read all about that is relevant for understanding of PCT.

I’ll repeat the basic problem of research in PCT and RCT.

If we look at the first example of the table Rick Marken is proposing as the : open door – grasp, pull – angle of door – 80 degrees we can see that it is contradicting to W.T.Powers concept of PCT :

W.T. Powers : (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) :
There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism. The driver has, inside him, the intention that the door be open. He acts to achieve this purpose, doing whatever is required (if possible) to achieve it…

HB : It’s obviuos that the driver’s intention is not to open the door for certain amount of angle (80 degrees) as “controlled variable” in environment or to search any “controlled variable” outside as RM concept predicts, It is clear that driver will open the door that is defined by his internal states (control inside organism) which driver wants to experience not “bring” some external “controlled variables” into reference state. That is what will really happen in reality. It’s hard to beleive that people will wear protractors to measure the angle (“controlled variable” in external environment) to which they will open the door. Who saw anything like that happened in Real Reality ? And research has to show what is happening in Real Reality not what is happening in someone’s imagination.

In PCT concept there is no “controlled variable” in external environment what PCT definitions of control loop clearly show. There are just effects that output function is producing on environment There is no controlled effects in the sense that “controlled behavior” would control “controlled variable” in external environment to some reference point.

Whatever PCT reseacrh is intended to be done it has to be done in accordance to PCT that was authorised by W.T.Powers as whole not just parts of it which could give wrong impression what W.T.Powers meant by his theory. And that’s exactly what Rick Marken is doing. He is trying to present a little part which suit his limited understanding of PCT which I call RCT understanding.

RM: I started this topic because I wanted to get people’s thoughts about the PCT-based research program Powers described in his Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development paper. If you have some thoughts on this matter I would welcome your contribution to this topic. If, however, you are interested only in telling people that I don’t understand PCT and am misleading them when I discuss it I suggest you start a new topic on that subject. You could call it “Beware of Marken’s misleading ideas about PCT” or something like that. But if you want to post here in this topic please confine your comments to ones that are relevant to how a PCT-based research program - like the one Powers described in the Cybernetic Models paper – could be carried out.

RM: I started this topic because I wanted to get people’s thoughts about the PCT-based research program Powers described in his Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development paper. If you have some thoughts on this matter I would welcome your contribution to this topic. If, however, you are interested only in telling people that I don’t understand PCT and am misleading them when I discuss it I suggest you start a new topic on that subject. You could call it “Beware of Marken’s misleading ideas about PCT” or something like that. But if you want to post here in this topic please confine your comments to ones that are relevant to how a PCT-based research program - like the one Powers described in the Cybernetic Models paper – could be carried out.

HB : As far as I understand the topic you started is NOT about the PCT based research which was described in Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development paper which was reprinted in LCS I on pages 167 - 219. The whole article shows how PCT function. So whatever we talk about that paper as the whole not just part you chosed is about the topic Powers’ Model of a PCT-Based Research Program . It’s clear that I’m writing about this topic and you don’t. Shall we repeat all the evidences which clearly show who is writing about what. You don’t write about PCT topic but RCT topic. So your Title is wrong. And the research you want to do is wrong. The title should be : Rick Marken model of RCT-Based Reasearch progam. in that case I would not write in your topic.

You are trying to write (or do some kind of research) about PCT and I’m just telling that Title for this topic is a lie. and is misleading public. You are hiding RCT behind real
PCT what I proved for more than 100x on CSGnet forum (see CSGnet archives). Is there anything wrong with my PCT evidences ?

So you should change the Titel of the topics becasue I proved that I’m talking about PCT and you talk about RCT,

Again the example which is showing clearly that I’m talking about PCT research:

RM or RCT based research :

The first example of the table Rick Marken is proposing : open door – grasp, pull – angle of door – 80 degrees

We can see that this example is not W.T.Powers concept of PCT :

W.T. Powers based research : (LCS I, p. 176, para.2) :

There is one explanation for the existence of reference states that has been proposed over and over the centuries : they are determined by the intensions of the behaving organism.

The driver has, inside him, the intention that the door be open. He acts to achieve this purpose, doing whatever is required (if possible) to achieve it…

HB : It’s obviuos that the driver’s intention is not to open the door for certain amount of angle (80 degrees) as “controlled variable” in environment

or to search any other “controlled variable” outside as RM concept predicts,

It is clear that driver will open the door that is defined by his internal states (control inside organism) which driver wants to experience and he will act in accordance to that.

**W.T. Powers (B:CP, 2005, LCS III, 2008) **

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

  • the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
    Driver wiil produce just effects into environment, not controlled effects which will “bring” some external “controlled variables” into reference state (80 degress).

Intentional behavior which driver produces is in accordance to PCT control definition :

W.T. Powers (B:CP, 2005, LCS III, 2008)

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

So what is wrong with my evidences and thoughts about the PCT-based research program Powers described in his Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development paper LCS I on pages 167 - 219 ?

V V pon., 20. apr. 2020 ob 21:31 je oseba Richard Marken via IAPCT noreply@discourse.iapct.org napisala:

Here is a quotation from page 175 of Powers (1979):

Column 4 of Table 1, Reference State refers to the final condition to which the variable is brought despite any ordinary disturbance. The existence of these reference states is not conjectural; once behavior has been defined in terms of an appropriate variable, such reference states always exist. They can be discovered experimentally, and defined in terms of observable relationships. …

Here, Bill uses the phrase “reference state” for the variable position of the door because in his example the door reaches a static “open” condition. I will use the more general phrase "reference value* for variables, which is the terminology that he used and preferred elsewhere.

Here (and elsewhere) Bill clearly says that the reference value is discovered experimentally by the experimenter and is defined in terms of relationships that the experimenter observes. Relationships between what and what? Hold that thought; we will come to it. The reference value is the experimenter’s perception, as are the observed relationships and the variables that the experimenter perceives to be in those relationships. So you can see that this brief passage refers to quite a number of different perceptions, and they are all perceptions by the experimenter.

The TCV establishes the experimenter’s perception that his or her quantitative measurement of the reference value corresponds to the subject’s controlled perceptual signal. The experimenter ordinarily does not observe p directly. Even if the experimenter is a neuroscientist measuring rates of firing in nerve fibers those rates of firing cannot be determined to be controlled by the subject except in relation to the observed reference value in the experimenter’s perception of the environment.

Now a quotation from page 176 of Powers (1979):

There is one explanation for the existence of reference states [=values] … : they are determined by the intentions of the behaving organism. The driver has, inside him, the intention that the door be open. He acts to achieve this purpose, doing whatever is required (if possible) to achieve it.

The subject’s intention is represented in the model by a reference signal. Because of the TCV, the experimenter infers that the perceptual signal is controlled by the subject. The reference value is an empirical fact. The perceptual signal and the reference signal are theoretical entities that the experimenter (or modeler) infers from the empirically observed reference value. The model tells us that only the input perceptual signal is controlled, but we can only know this and verify it by observations of the reference value for that aspect of the environment which corresponds to it. Even when neural signals are physically detected and measured, their status as controlled perceptual signal or reference signal is inferred from their quantitative proportionality to the reference value that is perceived and measured in the perceived environment.

By its definition as a theoretical entity, the perceptual signal is a variable quantity which is always mathematically proportional to the quantity which results from the experimenter measuring the observed value of the corresponding variable aspect of the environment. Because of this necessary correspondence, to allege that the perceptual signal is controlled according to the *reference signal, but to deny that the perceived observed value to which it corresponds by definition is controlled according to the observed reference value for it, is to miss the point entirely. It denies the basis of theory in observation. Further, it deprives the study of conflict and of collective control of any basis in PCT, since the observed facts of conflict and collective control depend upon two control systems controlling the same variable.

Bruce,

we’ve chewed up this topic quite some times on CSGnet and guess what. I think that even Rick understood that there is no controlled “cannonical principle” in relation between perception and outer environment. Also there is no “controlled perceptual variable” in PCT. Show me where can we found in PCT “cannonical principle” which says that to the extend that perceptual signal is controlled also corresponding environmental variable is “mathematically precise” controlled and that there exist some “controlled perceptual signal”. What exactly is CPS ? Where in Powers literature can we find this ?

It seems that you are saying that any experimenter (all people the same) mathematically precisely transform observed value of the “corresponding variable aspect of the environment” into perceptual signal (variable quantity). So that people generally observe RR (Real Reality) as exact representation of RR. And because perceptual signal is controlled also RR (corresponding environmental variable) is controlled to the extend that perceptual signal is controlled. And you probably made conclussions on the bases of one experiment or maybe two. So it makes your generalization in the sense ONE EXPERIMENT --> ONE THEORY.

The beauty of PCT is that it proves that you are wrong as most kinds of “home made theory” which base on fast conclussions on one or few observations. that’s why science is for. ou much more or certain number of experiments (if they are from different point of view the better) which can show some generalization.

If all that what it seems that you are saying is true it’s again some of your philosophical constructs which is not “mathematical precise representation” of RR (Real Reality) but some subjective observation of the World around you on the basis of one exepriment or in W.T. Powers words you made your model of RR. In this case Bruce model of RR. No one can make the same construct again as it’s yours. And no one will perceive RR in the same way as you do. So general mathematical precission in transformations between perceptual signal and RR is illusion.

Wouldn’t it be better that you would go through CSGnet archives and carefully study what is written in posts about representations of RR and “cannonical principle” and come up with some less nosnsense “theory of observation”. Whatever you are talking about is essence of the problem between PCT and other sciences like psychology which follow common mind in the sesne “whatever I see is the only true”. Nothing is at seems to be.

And now you probbaly expect from me that I’ll explain to you again basics which we “chewed” up for I don’t know how many times. You returned 4 or 5 years back into discussions about PCT and other explenations of how people perceive and arrange perception in hierarchy.

It’s obviously that you are making the same mistake as many others did before, who probably as you made conclussions from one or two exepriments like tracking experiment. So you obviously made conclussions in the sense ONE EXPERIMENT - ONE THEORY…

PCT is GENERAL THEORY about how organisms (nervous system) function. so PCT MODEL AND EXPLANATIONS should EXPLAIN all kind of perceptions and behaviors that can occur in Life situations including : sleeping, walking, sitting and thinking, sunbathing, tennis, table tennis shots, basketbal throw etc. where the top problem is efficiency of control or why control does not work always as it is theorethically predicted or people expect control to work
perfectly. So kind of experiments I offer will show why people made so many mistakes and why perception is not mathematical precise representation of the RR and why behavior or actions of control system does not push perception toward references and of course how nervous system really function.

Explain how mathemathical precise representations of RR and “cannonical principle” works in all LIFE SITUATIONS if you want to get GENERAL THEORY which will explain any experiment and any perception and any behavior ETC.

Why don’t you read carefully what is happening on CSGnet.? I posted so many W.T.Powers citations and from Rupert Young etc. that you could learn something from them. But you obviously don’t read what I posted. What’s the use of our conversations.

I really have enough of nonsenses and explaining all over again what is PCT and what is not, If you want extra lessions, write to me personaly and I hope we could make some agreement, how lessions about PCT could take place.

You’re objecting to statements that I did not make.

Maybe I understood something wrong :

BN :

Because of this necessary correspondence, to allege that the perceptual signal is controlled according to the *reference signal, but to deny that the perceived observed value to which it corresponds by definition is controlled according to the observed reference value for it, is to miss the point entirely.

V V sre., 22. apr. 2020 ob 14:18 je oseba Bruce E. Nevin via IAPCT noreply@discourse.iapct.org napisala:

You wonder if maybe you misunderstood what I said here, for example:

Because of this necessary correspondence, to allege that the perceptual signal is controlled according to the *reference signal, but to deny that the perceived observed value to which it corresponds by definition is controlled according to the observed reference value for it, is to miss the point entirely.

This is not a correspondence to ‘Real Reality’. It is a correspondence of one perception to another. It is a correspondence of a measurement by the experimenter (a perception) to a quantity (another perception) in the model or in a simulation which is by definition proportional to that measurement.

Claims about Real Reality come in only because that is the nature of the claims that any science makes. The point of doing science is to make a description of Real Reality. We know that these descriptions (a.k.a. scientific theories) are provisional, incomplete, liable to be superseded in some domains (Newtonian physics) or in their entirety (phlogiston theory of heat, luminiferous theory of electromagnetic propagation). Every theory of any science is an avowedly defective claim about Real Reality. You could say that the point of doing science is to reduce the portion of time that our senses deceive us, though that is really the point of view of applied science and engineering.

But what I wrote said nothing about such claims about Reality. What I wrote is only about the correspondence of one set of perceptions (‘external’ quantities that an experimenter measures as observations of behavior) and another set of perceptions (‘internal’ quantities that a modeler implements in a simulation of that behavior). This is a necessary correspondence because the quantities employed in a simulation that is built according to the PCT model are defined so that the ‘internal’ quantities are proportional to the ‘external’ quantities measured in experiments.

When the simulation runs successfully, we say (according to the PCT model) that p, the ‘internal’ quantity identified as the perceptual signal, is the controlled variable. In the simulation, p is controlled so that its value stays near the internally maintained reference signal r. But p is defined as a function of the input quantity q.i; q.i is a measure of the environmental effect on the subject’s sensory organ(s) from an aspect of the environment as perceived by the experimenter and as determined by the TCV; and r is defined as a linear function of the reference value that the experimenter measures of the experimenter’s perception of that aspect of the environment which the experimenter specifies as q.i.

As a successful simulation numerically replicates the measured behavior of the subject, the interpretation of the model is that p represents a Really Real rate of firing in the subject’s Really Real brain, controlled relative to a Really Real rate of firing in the subject’s brain called r; that this rate of firing p is a linear function of the input quantity q.i that is a measure of a Really Real aspect of the environment, and that the rate of firing r is a linear function of the measured reference value for q.i. The interpretation of the model, just like the interpretation of any theory of any science, is that q.i and its reference value are measures of something Really Real in the environment and that the firing rates p and r postulated by the theory are proportional to actual firing rates that are really happening in the Really Real brain of the subject. The firing rates p and r are theoretical entities postulated by the theory, but the interpretation of the theory is that they correspond to Really Real realities.

To justify this interpretation, we rely on the findings of prior sciences including physics, chemistry, and physiology. These sciences also correlate perceptions of different kinds with each other in systematic ways, construct complex perceptions (theories, models, simulations, hypotheses, tests, methodologies, etc.) and then interpret their measurements, models, and so forth to be representations of Real Reality. Every science then involves more experiments to test the proposed correspondence of perceptions to Real Reality.

Because simulations built according to the PCT model control input numbers that disturbance numbers would cause to deviate from reference value numbers if there were no control, using the same numbers that the experimenter measures and (unproveably) perceives to be in the Really Real environment (disturbance, reference value, and input), the interpretation of the model is that the structure of the model, and the subject-internal variables that it postulates (p, r, e, weights, combinings in diverse input functions and output functions, etc.), all correspond to structures that could be perceived in the Really Real subject if and when we have the means to make direct in vivo operations. Such observations would still be no more than perceptions, of course. The weight of science–PCT and all prior sciences on whose shoulders it stands–would strengthen the interpretation that these perceptions represent Really Real Reality. But science proves nothing conclusively. Proof is possible only for a closed, essentially tautological system such as mathematics or logic.

PCT works with correlations of experimental perceptions with imagined perceptions postulated by the theory. A simulation quantifies these perceptions, and demonstrates that a simulation constructed according to the theoretical model or PCT ‘behaves’ in the same way as observed subjects do. (I put ‘behaves’ in scare quotes because the behavior of living subjects is abstracted to numerical quantities.) This close correspondence justifies the interpretation that the internal structure of the simulation represents really real structure inside the subject. The body of such work justifies the interpretation of PCT that it describes how really real organisms function in the really real world.

One could refuse to indulge in such interpretations of PCT. But then what’s the point of doing science?

The neoscholasticism arguments about the CV do not depend upon the interpretation that theory describes reality. The observational perception q.i co-varies directly with the imagined perception p because the latter is defined as a linear function of the former. In the model and in a simulation to say that p is controlled but q.i is not is simply wrong. The control loop keeps q.i at or near the reference value that was measured for it in the environment simultaneously as it keeps p at or near r, and this is necessarily so because p is defined as a linear function of q.i and r is defined as a linear function of the reference value for q.i that was determined by the TCV. These are all correlations of one perception with another. To say that q.i is controlled if p is controlled makes no claim that q.i is a Really Real Reality in the Really Real environment. That claim is an interpretation of PCT.

The fact that we routinely make that claim of our perceptions is what makes all our discussions of this sort laughable. Are quarks Really Real? Strings? Dark Matter? Dark Energy? Physics and Cosmology are interpreted to say that the theoretical entities that they posit must be Real. But that’s an interpretation of their correlations of observed and imagined perceptions. Such is science.

Bruce,

I agree, that is the way how scientific research generally goes: We have some theoretical variables in a theoretical model and we have to study them via observation and experimentation of some observable variables in our perceptual world.
From these empirical findings we infer to the theoretical model and its variables. There are however some conceptual problems, or questions about how some things should be named.

First a variable is a general name for any property which can change (or an object, of which some property can change). The
value of a variable expresses the state of that property at a certain time.

So the perceptual value means the current or a certain state of the
perceptual variable i.e. the strength (or other property) of the perceptual signal in the assumed neural current.

Control, as I have understood it, means causing or keeping the current value of some variable in or near the preset
reference value. (Any value of for any variable can set as a reference value.) In
perceptual control the controller tries to cause or keep the current value of some perceptual variable to be same or nearly same as the preset reference value which is assumed to be (determined by) the state of the reference signal.

Typical perceptual control (according to the theoretical model) takes place so that as a part of the process the output function of the controller affects some part of its external environment. For this control to be successful there are
two prerequisites. First, the part of the environment which is affected (directly or indirectly) by the output must be the same part which is perceived (again directly or indirectly) i.e. which affects the perceptual input function of the controller. We can
call this part of environment an (environmental) object of control. Second, the effect of the output must be such change in the object of control that consequently the perceptual value remains near or changes nearer to the reference value (in spite of disturbances).
The variable which refers to that affecting and affected changing property of the object of control is called CEV which is an abbreviation of
corresponding environmental variable (M.Taylor).

So there seems to be no reference values in a strong sense as a preset value for the CEV in the external environment but rather just a
corresponding (environmental) result value which could be abbreviated as CRV (or CEv - lower case letter for value and capita for variable). CRV could be calculated beforehand if the reference value were known as well as the character of the input function
but unfortunately those cannot be known (at least at the moment). So the observer can only guess what the CEV and its CRV could be inferring from (his or her perceptions about) the behavior of the controller and some available objects of their common
environment. If some property of some object seems to stabilize to some state as a consequence of the controller’s behavior then that could be the CRV. Now we could infer that the value of a perceptual variable inside the controller in the same or very nearly
same as the reference value. In addition to that guess the experimenter could also try to affect some disturbances to that object which change the value of CEV and see what then happens. If she had guessed right then the controller should change the
CEV back to the assumed CRV.

If the reference value would not be stable but changing then of course the CEV will not stabilize and the observer must infer from changing objects and the experimenter must infer from the phenomenon that her disturbance effects are consistently
cancelled by the controller.

Recap: The perception (value of perceptual signal) and especially the reference (value of reference signal) and their relationship are currently only theoretical and unobservable items and their existence must be inferred from empirical
findings which are researchers’ perceptions of some external objects in the environment of both the researcher and the controller. No references and perceptions outside – only corresponding objects and their states.

Have I understood this right?

Ha,ha,ha what the hell is this. It’s Bruce Nevin and his Wonderland of endless imagination, I have never see such a mess and confussion. I thought that Rick is the greatest danger to PCT but he is a fly in comaprison to you Bruce Nevin who can be compared to elephant.

I decided that I’ll wait a little to see what others have to say on this “Alice in Wonderland” discourse. You convinced me Bruce Nevin that you definitelly don’t understand PCT and I’ll not loose words about your understanding of how organisms function. You are total diletant.

Whatever you wrote has nothing to do with science but it’s full fantasy construct. PCT is scientifically based theory so from now on I want you to write in “mathematical proportionality” 50% + 20 % +30 % meaning :

  1. 50 % of physilogical and neurophysiological facts

  2. 20 % of experimental results

  3. 30 % of your phylosophy and imagination.

Do you understand that I have enough of your ignorancy and playing clown who thinks that he knows something about PCT and how organisms function. *It’s enough. You understand. You are shame for PCT. You arre the greatest damage maker not Rick. *

Whatever you try to do with your writings (probably to compensate your nosense writings in your previous post) it’s clear : your first post was clearl about “mathematically proportional correspondance between perceptual signal (quanitity) and
variable aspect of environment”(quanity) and “cannonical principle” between this quantities meaning that to the extend that perceptual signal si controlled also variable aspect of environment is controlled.

End of discussion.

BN : By its definition as a theoretical entity, the perceptual
signal
is a variable quantity which is always mathematically
proportional to the quantity which results from the experimenter measuring
the observed value of the corresponding variable aspect of the
environment. Because of this necessary correspondence, to allege that the perceptual signal is controlled
according to the *reference signal, but to deny that the perceived observed
value
to which it corresponds by definition is controlled according to
the observed reference value for it, is to miss the point
entirely.

V V sre., 22. apr. 2020 ob 18:34 je oseba Bruce E. Nevin via IAPCT noreply@discourse.iapct.org napisala:

Boris,

your first post was clearl about “mathematically proportional correspondance between perceptual signal (quanitity) and
variable aspect of environment”(quanity) and “cannonical principle” between this quantities meaning that to the extend that perceptual signal si controlled also variable aspect of environment is controlled.

No, that is not what I said. To claim that this is what I said, and then argue against it, is a straw man argument.

If you continue with insults, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and hijacking topics, you will be blocked.

Stop lying.
Bruce,

HB : I see that you deliberately let out you message where it is clear that you are talking about mathematical proportionality between perceptual signal and canonical principle. I’m not that dumm. It’s insulting me, because your message is so clear.

BN : By its definition as a theoretical entity, the perceptual signal is a variable quantity which is always mathematically proportional to the quantity which results from the experimenter measuring the observed value of the corresponding variable aspect of the environment. Because of this necessary correspondence, to allege that the perceptual signal is controlled according to the *reference signal, but to deny that the perceived observed value to which it corresponds by definition is controlled according to the observed reference value for it, is to miss the point entirely.

HB : Which ad hominem attacks. Is evaluation of somebody that doesn’t understand how organisms function and PCT insult or ad hominem attack ? If we are at the bussines you started tha game. To miss the point entirely without any physiological or neurophsiological evidence is not straw man argument. i felt that insult was directed to me, because I was the first who pointed out that there is no cannonical principle in PCT. So it was obviously to whom you meant the “insult”. And you are talking about straw man arguments ?

Anyway you shuld read what you wrote many times so that you would understand what you wrote. This is not your only writing about “controlled variable” in outer environment. Go through CSGnet archves and see what you were writing before.and what I answered. When the book will be out there will be many straw man analyses of your posts.

V V čet., 23. apr. 2020 ob 14:51 je oseba Bruce E. Nevin via IAPCT noreply@discourse.iapct.org napisala:

Yes, that seems a reasonable paraphrase.

This post from August 2015 points to some empirical investigations
Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)
I for one am equally bemused:

For a PCT devotee, grasping the insight that we control perceptual input (perceptual variables) to deny dogmatically that our control outputs affect aspects of the environment (perceived variables) so as to bring them under control and perceive them as we wish them to be, is no better than the old behaviorists denying that there can be such a thing as purpose, because a future state cannot have causative effect on present events. Yes, it’s true that we have no way of knowing about those environmental variables other than by perceiving them, but old Bishop Berkeley’s immaterialism does not follow.

Yes, other living things with sensory inputs and control hierarchies that may be radically different from ours must live in a universe of very different perceptual constructs, but we interact with them through our common environment. There are differences of this sort between human beings as well, a simplistic example being color blindness, and more subtly consider tyro vs. adept perceptions of music, dance, and other art forms. A walk across a public park in company with a military veteran with PTSD is a memorable experience. For examples we don’t even have to get into matters like politics, caste/class, and cultural disparities. Do these divergences lead often to conflict? Those conflicts are interactions along common environmental feedback paths, however differently we may place them among our perceptions.

I appreciate your care with equivocal words, such as ‘perception’. We do not experience perceptual signals; when we talk of perceptions almost always we refer to experience which we clothe in theoretical dress as rates of firing which could in principle be measured, except that doing so would be disruptively invasive. Henry has mice running around wearing skullcaps with optic fibers projecting into their brains. Not at all convenient. The only thing we can be quite certain of is perceptions as experienced now.