On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Fred,

I’m stil hoping to drink a little glass of wine with you. J

RCT is »Rick Control Theory«.

With all respect,

Boris

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 3:31 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.24.0930 ET)]

What is “RCT�?

Fred Nickols

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 8:26 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

I think it’s enough Rick.

Sooner or later you’ll have to decide whether you are behavioral selfregulation theorist or you’ll promote PCT as it’s presented in Bill’s theory.

In LCS III you have clear statement that »feed-back« are effects of output on input. There is nothing about output affecting some »controlled variable« in outer environment. It’s not general model although in some cases there can be some variables in outer environment that are affected by output. But they are not controlled.

RM :

I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

HB : As I said your RCT model which incorporate »controlled variables« in outer environment suggest that there is always some »controlled aspect« of outer environment, which must be »seen« by an observer so that he can perform TCV.

In our previous discussions we established that this is not what is generally happening. That’s what even you admitt it in your posts here on CSGnet and in your article. Go and read them again (our discussions and your article). So your RCT model with »controlled variable« outside is wrong. But you can make your own theory (RCT) and becaome independent »Control theory« theorist or you can join Carver and othe r self-regulation theorist. Because you are suggesting everything what they do. You have »controlled variable« in outer environment which should be brought into some reference (goal) state like for example you are hammering a nail until you put it into wanted position (reference, goal state).

As we seen that you don’t understand how PCT »organism« on p. 191 in B:CP works (what is not only your »fault«), you are mixing your dreams with reallity what people usually do. If they don’t have enough perceived material or knowledge they suplement the »whole« with imaginaton and so you see what usually people can make from innocent »facts«. I thjink that extreme examples are those who see »UFO« J.

Decide once for all Rick. Whether you stay with PCT diagram or you make your own diagram with »controlled variable« in outside environment if you »think that the focus of all analysis of behavior …should be on controlled variables> which are measured with TCV. We’ve discussed this so many times that I’m tired of repeating it. To human it’s usually enough to tell it once or twice… So what’s gone be…

Best,

Boris

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)

Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55

RM: I did read it. I didn’t see anything in the write up that suggested that atenfel was anything other than an unattractive and unnecessary name for “feedback function”.

MT: If you can’t tell the difference between the road surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get across town (feedback function), nothing I write will help you. So I don’t think there’s any point in making any further comment.

RM: I do know the difference between the surface of a road and the time it takes to get across town. But your comment made me realize what my problem was with your ideas about atenfels (and feedback functions). You seem to be saying that there are things out there in the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels. But I don’t think it’s always that clear. For example, you say that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But the “road surface” is just a property of the real world. Its role in controlling depends on what you are controlling. And even then what you call it can be ambiguous.

RM: For example, the surface of the road is the basis of a controlled variable for the people building the road; these people are controlling perceptual aspects of the surface of the road, such as its texture, bank angle, etc. The road surface could also be a disturbance to a variable, such as the perception of the direction of the car, controlled by a person driving a car on the road; changes in the slickness of the road surface are a disturbance to how much change of direction is produced by turning the steering wheel. And, finally, rather than a disturbance, the aspects of the surface of the road could be considered a component of the feedback function connecting the angular forces exerted by the driver on the steering wheel to the amount the car turns.

RM: So dividing up the world into controlled variables, feedback functions, disturbances and atenfels (whatever those are) is not always straightforward. When we study control, what matters is correctly modeling the situation. The most important aspect of this modeling is identifying controlled variables (the aspects of the environment that are under control) and the variables that affect the state of those variables – these are the environmental variables, starting with the forces exerted by the muscles, that connect neural output signals to the controlled variables. So in the example of controlling the direction of the car, one controlled variable, p, is the driver’s view of the angle of the car relative to the road; the output variable, o, is the efferent neural signal sent to the muscles of the arm that turns the wheel. A correct physical model would connect o to p using something like this set of physical relationships:

steering wheel angle = f(o)

car wheel angle = g(steering wheel angle)

car direction = h(wheel angle, road surface friction, tire quality, car speed, wind direction,…)

p = k(car direction, road direction)

RM: You might be able to see that some of the variables in the above equations are functionally disturbances; and you might be able to see that some of the functions are functionally feedback functions. But it’s not always clear at all. For example, is road surface friction a disturbance variable or is it part of the feedback function, h(), that gives the car wheel the purchase required to turn the car? I argue that it doesn’t matter whether you call variables disturbances or part of the feedback function once you have the model right; and it doesn’t matter to the control system itself either. The control system, if properly designed, will vary o so as to nearly perfectly compensate for variations in the variables and functions that influence the state of the controlled variable.

MT: I just ask others who are capable of reading to consider the points made in the tutorial posting. There may well be mistakes and conceptual errors, but they have not been exposed, nor even hinted at, by Rick.

RM: Well, the above is my idea of what I think is the conceptual error of trying to divide up any particular example of controlling into disturbance, feedback function and atanfel. I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

[bleach]

BL:Â From the common form of thinking, there is nothing in the
environment effected by the organism’s output that matters except
controlled variables. I am using the plural here since the fact
that even for a single organism, one of it’s control systems output
can effect more than one such controlled variable, (each which has
it’s own control loops). Assuming that the effect mentioned in the
previous sentence does not overwhelm any of the other control loops
then satisfactory control can still be achieved.
‘Controlled variable’ is the ‘control theory’ term whereas in PCT we
usually, but not always, call it a 'controlled perception.‘Â The
perception (as perceived by the subject internally) is of course not
the same as the variable in the environment since there is some
amount of ‘signal processing’ that occurs to turn that perception
into a signal form that is handled by neurons. In engineering
control systems, the controlled variable is actually the input to
the device even though the engineers know that it is the input to
the comparator that is actually controlled. It would border on
lunacy to alway be talking about volts, amps, pressure (for
hydraulic or pneumatic), etc in even simple control systems much
less complex ones. So when observing the behavior of these systems
we use the parameters that we can observe and measure as beings
external to the system of interest.
I would compare this to an electronic analog thermostatic
regulator. What everyone, even the design engineers, consider to be
the ‘controlled variable’ is the temperature (in degrees) of
something (room or whatever) that is external to the regulator.Â
What is actually controlled however, is the input voltage (or
current) to a comparator inside the regulator. The reference, again
presented to us humans in degrees of temperature is also actually a
voltage (or current) provided as a second input to the same
comparator.
The Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is always, at best, a
guess (or more likely a series of guesses) by the researcher(s). I
imagine that you have read a great deal of Bill’s and Ricks work and
thus know that both state that the validity of the guess can only be
confirmed by applying disturbances to the postulated controlled
variable and confirming that the subject acts to keep the postulated
controlled variable value constant. The ultimate confirmation is,
of course, building a model of the environment (if necessary) and a
model of the postulated control loop and measure how well the model
and the subject’s behavior match. Â The researcher(s)’ name identifying the TCV may or may not match the
subject’s identifying name but if sufficient ingenuity and effort
was used to apply disturbances to the state of the TCV and control
was maintained then the researcher(s) can be confident that they did
determine ‘what the subject was doing.’
I see that you are calling this 'RCT.‘Â Bills’ simplest control
example, the rubber band experiment demonstrates conclusively that a
‘controlled variable’ in the external environment (the knot over the
dot) is a controlled variable that can be identified by the
observer. I don’t recall seeing Bill do this, but the observer
could provide a disturbance by moving the dot itself to see if the
subject still acted to maintain the knot over the dot or was just
mirroring the movements of the disturbing agent.
If the CV in this case is the ‘knot over the dot’ then both the
observer and the subject will typically refer to the CV as being
such when actually internally it is something else entirely (and
different for each).
Boris, your previous sentence is a perfect PCT statement! I am at a
loss trying to understand what you are trying to claim.
Boris, if your only argument is with whether the CV is inside or
outside the organism then I don’t see any other difference between
you and Rick on this matter. What is ALWAYS controlled is the value
of the perceptual input to the comparator with respect to the value
of the reference signal for that same comparator. If the processing
pathway between the variable in the environment and the comparator
changes or is in some way faulty then the observer could have one
heck of a time understanding what the organism is ‘doing’ and a
discussion between them could well only add to the confusion.
At some point the TCV does rely upon the assumption that the
researcher and the subject internally interpret the CV in much the
same way.

···

On 06/24/2016 06:26 AM, Boris Hartman
wrote:

        I

think it’s enough Rick.

Â

        Sooner

or later you’ll have to decide whether you are behavioral
selfregulation theorist or you’ll promote PCT as it’s
presented in Bill’s theory.

Â

        In

LCS III you have clear statement that »feed-back« are
effects of output on input. There is nothing about output
affecting some »controlled variable« in outer environment.
It’s not general model although in some cases there can be
some variables in outer environment that are affected by
output. But they are not controlled.

Â

        RM

:

      I think that the focus of all analysis of

behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables .
Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what
perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then
you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical
environment, whether they be considered external disturbances
or part of the feedback function, will be related to
variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

Â

        HB

: As I said your RCT model which incorporate »controlled
variables« in outer environment suggest that there is always
some »controlled aspect« of outer environment, which must be
»seen« by an observer so that he can perform TCV.

Â

        In

our previous discussions we established that this is not
what is generally happening. That’s what even you admitt it
in your posts here on CSGnet and in your article. Go and
read them again (our discussions and your article). So your
RCT model with »controlled variable« outside is wrong. But
you can make your own theory (RCT) and becaome independent
»Control theory« theorist or you can join Carver and othe r
self-regulation theorist. Because you are suggesting
everything what they do. You have »controlled variable« in
outer environment which should be brought into some
reference (goal) state like for example you are hammering a
nail until you put it into wanted position (reference, goal
state).

Â

        As

we seen that you don’t understand how PCT »organism« on p.
191 in B:CP works (what is not only your »fault«), you are
mixing your dreams with reallity what people usually do. If
they don’t have enough perceived material or knowledge they
suplement the »whole« with imaginaton and so you see what
usually people can make from innocent »facts«. I thjink
that extreme examples are those who see »UFO« J.

Â

        Decide

once for all Rick. Whether you stay with PCT diagram or you
make your own diagram with »controlled variable« in outside
environment if you » think that the focus of all
analysis of behavior …should be on controlled variables
which are measured with TCV. We’ve discussed this so many
times that I’m tired of repeating it. To human it’s usually
enough to tell it once or twice… So what’s gone be…

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Â

From:
Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor
re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

Â

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)

Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55

                          RM: I did read it. I

didn’t see anything in the write up that
suggested that atenfel was anything other
than an unattractive and unnecessary name
for “feedback function”.

                MT: If you can't tell the

difference between the road surface of a city block
(atenfel) and the time it takes to get across town
(feedback function), nothing I write will help you.
So I don’t think there’s any point in making any
further comment.

Â

              RM: I do know the difference

between the surface of a road and the time it takes to
get across town. But your comment made me realize what
my problem was with your ideas about atenfels (and
feedback functions). You seem to be saying that there
are things out there in the world that are clearly
either feedback functions or atenfels. But I don’t
think it’s always that clear. For example, you say
that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But
the “road surface” is just a property of the real
world. Its role in controlling depends on what you are
controlling. And even then what you call it can be
ambiguous.Â

Â

              RM: For example, the surface of the

road is the basis of a controlled variable for the
people building the road; these people are controlling
perceptual aspects of the surface of the road, such as
its texture, bank angle, etc. The road surface could
also be a disturbance to a variable, such as the
perception of the direction of the car, controlled by
a person driving a car on the road; changes in the
slickness of the road surface are a disturbance to how
much change of direction is produced by turning the
steering wheel. And, finally, rather than a
disturbance, the aspects of the surface of the road
could be considered a component of the feedback
function connecting the angular forces exerted by the
driver on the steering wheel to the amount the car
turns.Â

Â

              RM: So dividing up the world into

controlled variables, feedback functions, disturbances
and atenfels (whatever those are) is not always
straightforward. When we study control, what matters
is correctly modeling the situation. The most
important aspect of this modeling is identifying
controlled variables (the aspects of the environment
that are under control) and the variables that affect
the state of those variables – these are the
environmental variables, starting with the forces
exerted by the muscles, that connect neural output
signals to the controlled variables. So in the example
of controlling the direction of the car, one
controlled variable, p, is the driver’s view of the
angle of the car relative to the road; the output
variable, o, is the efferent neural signal sent to the
muscles of the arm that turns the wheel. A correct
physical model would connect o to p using something
like this set of physical relationships:

Â

steering wheel angle = f(o)

Â

                car wheel angle = g(steering

wheel angle)

Â

                car direction = h(wheel angle,

road surface friction, tire quality, car speed, wind
direction,…)

Â

                p = k(car direction, road

direction)

Â

              RM: You might be able to see that

some of the variables in the above equations are
functionally disturbances; and you might be able to
see that some of the functions are functionally
feedback functions. But it’s not always clear at all.
For example, is road surface friction a disturbance
variable or is it part of the feedback function, h(),
that gives the car wheel the purchase required to turn
the car? I argue that it doesn’t matter whether you
call variables disturbances or part of the feedback
function once you have the model right ; and it
doesn’t matter to the control system itself either.
The control system, if properly designed, will vary o
so as to nearly perfectly compensate for variations in
the variables and functions that influence the state
of the controlled variable. Â

Â

                MT: I just ask others who are

capable of reading to consider the points made in
the tutorial posting. There may well be mistakes and
conceptual errors, but they have not been exposed,
nor even hinted at, by Rick.

Â

              RM: Well, the above is my idea of

what I think is the conceptual error of trying to
divide up any particular example of controlling into
disturbance, feedback function and atanfel. I think
that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on
PCT should be on controlled variables . Once you
know what people are controlling – exactly what
perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling –
then you can predict with accuracy how properties of
the physical environment, whether they be considered
external disturbances or part of the feedback
function, will be related to variations in output and
the controlled variable itself.

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

                            Author, with Timothy

A. Carey, of  Controlling
People: The Paradoxical Nature of
Being Human.Â

Â

[bleach]

BL:Â Rick’s Control Theory?

···

On 06/24/2016 07:31 AM, Fred Nickols
wrote:

        [From

Fred Nickols (2016.06.24.0930 ET)]

Â

        What

is “RCT�?

Â

        Fred

Nickols

[bleach]

Oops, I see that he answered it.

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Bill again,

It seems that you were quite a long time »off« the CSGnet and you are lacking informations.

Rick’s RCT was build in past years. Through conversations with me and sometimes with Martin he was slowly trying to change PCT into RCT. He even went so far that Martin concluded opposite meaning. So Ricke was talking about »Perception : Control of Behavior«. Something like »input defining output«. Please see discussions. They are all on CSGnet.

Now what are the elements of RCT (Rick’s Control Theory) that were emphasized through this yearsin our communication. You can check them through reading posts on CSGnet. So Rick made statements like:

1.   Behavior is control
   

2.   There is some »controlled variable« in outer environment (generally speaking)
   

3.   There is some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« formed in »Input finction« which latter matches reference. But Rick never explained how already »controlled« perceptual signal can be once again »controlled« in comparator. It seems like control is coming from outside into organism.
   

So RCT works something like this :

Controlled perceptual signal matches to reference (who knows how) and produce »error« signal, which somehow control the muscle tension (very misterious) which can be perceived as behavior outside organism Behavior controls (somehow) »controlled variable« in environment (general principle) and all this events are perceived by LCS. Physical variables coming from »controlled variable« somehow »carry« control and are transformed into »perceptual signal« which »cariries« also control and it’s called by Rick »Controled perceptual variable«.« Controlled perceptual variable« is matched with reference and so on.

I must say that Rick changed his mind often. Sometimes so quickly that I couldn’t follow. So I had to conclude that he is »totaly« confussed and he was transfering his confussion on CSGnet, and this is what he was doing in his new posts which I criticisized (mostly his RCT).

PCT is quite different. It says :

1.   Behavior is not controlled, perception is.
   

2.   There is no »controled variable« in outer environment (see diagram bellow), there are only effects of output on  input, to which disturbances are added, and they form a…
   

3.   …..«ordinary« perceptual signal which is matched to references.
   

4.   »Error signal« is formed, which is not »controlling« muscle tension and so on….
   

All these points are represented in diagram and described in LCS III.

All this can be confirmed also in B:CP, 2005.

In B.CP, 2005. You can get also physiological explanation why is this so. Increadible work. I advice you also to read Henry Yin’s article which you will find on CSGnet. Or I can send it to you if you would like. Real master piece. Henry Yin even upgraded PCT and what I’ve seen is first example of upgrading PCT after Bill’s published work. Also Henry Yin’s work is increadible, amazing.

So you see the difference between RCT and PCT is hudge. I hope I managed to present you in short news that you missed in these years. As i know you are great guy, I have a request for you. Could you watch Rick’s conversations while I’m away so that he will stay from his RCT and so stop confussing here people on CSGnet. I’d appreaciate also if you could watch that his opinion about autonomus organisms stay like it is momentally, although I’m afraid that he will change his oppinion very soon.

Thank you.

With all respect,

Boris

···

From: Bill Leach [mailto:wrleach@cableone.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:25 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

On 06/24/2016 06:26 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

I think it’s enough Rick.

Sooner or later you’ll have to decide whether you are behavioral selfregulation theorist or you’ll promote PCT as it’s presented in Bill’s theory.

In LCS III you have clear statement that »feed-back« are effects of output on input. There is nothing about output affecting some »controlled variable« in outer environment. It’s not general model although in some cases there can be some variables in outer environment that are affected by output. But they are not controlled.

BL: From the common form of thinking, there is nothing in the environment effected by the organism’s output that matters except controlled variables. I am using the plural here since the fact that even for a single organism, one of it’s control systems output can effect more than one such controlled variable, (each which has it’s own control loops). Assuming that the effect mentioned in the previous sentence does not overwhelm any of the other control loops then satisfactory control can still be achieved.

‘Controlled variable’ is the ‘control theory’ term whereas in PCT we usually, but not always, call it a ‘controlled perception.’ The perception (as perceived by the subject internally) is of course not the same as the variable in the environment since there is some amount of ‘signal processing’ that occurs to turn that perception into a signal form that is handled by neurons. In engineering control systems, the controlled variable is actually the input to the device even though the engineers know that it is the input to the comparator that is actually controlled. It would border on lunacy to alway be talking about volts, amps, pressure (for hydraulic or pneumatic), etc in even simple control systems much less complex ones. So when observing the behavior of these systems we use the parameters that we can observe and measure as beings external to the system of interest.

I would compare this to an electronic analog thermostatic regulator. What everyone, even the design engineers, consider to be the ‘controlled variable’ is the temperature (in degrees) of something (room or whatever) that is external to the regulator. What is actually controlled however, is the input voltage (or current) to a comparator inside the regulator. The reference, again presented to us humans in degrees of temperature is also actually a voltage (or current) provided as a second input to the same comparator.

The Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is always, at best, a guess (or more likely a series of guesses) by the researcher(s). I imagine that you have read a great deal of Bill’s and Ricks work and thus know that both state that the validity of the guess can only be confirmed by applying disturbances to the postulated controlled variable and confirming that the subject acts to keep the postulated controlled variable value constant. The ultimate confirmation is, of course, building a model of the environment (if necessary) and a model of the postulated control loop and measure how well the model and the subject’s behavior match.

The researcher(s)’ name identifying the TCV may or may not match the subject’s identifying name but if sufficient ingenuity and effort was used to apply disturbances to the state of the TCV and control was maintained then the researcher(s) can be confident that they did determine ‘what the subject was doing.’

RM :

I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

HB : As I said your RCT model which incorporate »controlled variables« in outer environment suggest that there is always some »controlled aspect« of outer environment, which must be »seen« by an observer so that he can perform TCV.

I see that you are calling this ‘RCT.’ Bills’ simplest control example, the rubber band experiment demonstrates conclusively that a ‘controlled variable’ in the external environment (the knot over the dot) is a controlled variable that can be identified by the observer. I don’t recall seeing Bill do this, but the observer could provide a disturbance by moving the dot itself to see if the subject still acted to maintain the knot over the dot or was just mirroring the movements of the disturbing agent.

If the CV in this case is the ‘knot over the dot’ then both the observer and the subject will typically refer to the CV as being such when actually internally it is something else entirely (and different for each).

In our previous discussions we established that this is not what is generally happening. That’s what even you admitt it in your posts here on CSGnet and in your article. Go and read them again (our discussions and your article). So your RCT model with »controlled variable« outside is wrong. But you can make your own theory (RCT) and becaome independent »Control theory« theorist or you can join Carver and othe r self-regulation theorist. Because you are suggesting everything what they do. You have »controlled variable« in outer environment which should be brought into some reference (goal) state like for example you are hammering a nail until you put it into wanted position (reference, goal state).

Boris, your previous sentence is a perfect PCT statement! I am at a loss trying to understand what you are trying to claim.

As we seen that you don’t understand how PCT »organism« on p. 191 in B:CP works (what is not only your »fault«), you are mixing your dreams with reallity what people usually do. If they don’t have enough perceived material or knowledge they suplement the »whole« with imaginaton and so you see what usually people can make from innocent »facts«. I thjink that extreme examples are those who see »UFO« J.

Decide once for all Rick. Whether you stay with PCT diagram or you make your own diagram with »controlled variable« in outside environment if you »think that the focus of all analysis of behavior …should be on controlled variables< which are measured with TCV. We’ve discussed this so many times that I’m tired of repeating it. To human it’s usually enough to tell it once or twice… So what’s gone be…

Best,

Boris

Boris, if your only argument is with whether the CV is inside or outside the organism then I don’t see any other difference between you and Rick on this matter. What is ALWAYS controlled is the value of the perceptual input to the comparator with respect to the value of the reference signal for that same comparator. If the processing pathway between the variable in the environment and the comparator changes or is in some way faulty then the observer could have one heck of a time understanding what the organism is ‘doing’ and a discussion between them could well only add to the confusion.

At some point the TCV does rely upon the assumption that the researcher and the subject internally interpret the CV in much the same way.

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: On atenfels and power (was Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT)

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.13.1905)

Martin Taylor 2016.06.12.19.55

RM: I did read it. I didn’t see anything in the write up that suggested that atenfel was anything other than an unattractive and unnecessary name for “feedback function”.

MT: If you can’t tell the difference between the road surface of a city block (atenfel) and the time it takes to get across town (feedback function), nothing I write will help you. So I don’t think there’s any point in making any further comment.

RM: I do know the difference between the surface of a road and the time it takes to get across town. But your comment made me realize what my problem was with your ideas about atenfels (and feedback functions). You seem to be saying that there are things out there in the world that are clearly either feedback functions or atenfels. But I don’t think it’s always that clear. For example, you say that the “road surface” is a feedback function. But the “road surface” is just a property of the real world. Its role in controlling depends on what you are controlling. And even then what you call it can be ambiguous.

RM: For example, the surface of the road is the basis of a controlled variable for the people building the road; these people are controlling perceptual aspects of the surface of the road, such as its texture, bank angle, etc. The road surface could also be a disturbance to a variable, such as the perception of the direction of the car, controlled by a person driving a car on the road; changes in the slickness of the road surface are a disturbance to how much change of direction is produced by turning the steering wheel. And, finally, rather than a disturbance, the aspects of the surface of the road could be considered a component of the feedback function connecting the angular forces exerted by the driver on the steering wheel to the amount the car turns.

RM: So dividing up the world into controlled variables, feedback functions, disturbances and atenfels (whatever those are) is not always straightforward. When we study control, what matters is correctly modeling the situation. The most important aspect of this modeling is identifying controlled variables (the aspects of the environment that are under control) and the variables that affect the state of those variables – these are the environmental variables, starting with the forces exerted by the muscles, that connect neural output signals to the controlled variables. So in the example of controlling the direction of the car, one controlled variable, p, is the driver’s view of the angle of the car relative to the road; the output variable, o, is the efferent neural signal sent to the muscles of the arm that turns the wheel. A correct physical model would connect o to p using something like this set of physical relationships:

steering wheel angle = f(o)

car wheel angle = g(steering wheel angle)

car direction = h(wheel angle, road surface friction, tire quality, car speed, wind direction,…)

p = k(car direction, road direction)

RM: You might be able to see that some of the variables in the above equations are functionally disturbances; and you might be able to see that some of the functions are functionally feedback functions. But it’s not always clear at all. For example, is road surface friction a disturbance variable or is it part of the feedback function, h(), that gives the car wheel the purchase required to turn the car? I argue that it doesn’t matter whether you call variables disturbances or part of the feedback function once you have the model right; and it doesn’t matter to the control system itself either. The control system, if properly designed, will vary o so as to nearly perfectly compensate for variations in the variables and functions that influence the state of the controlled variable.

MT: I just ask others who are capable of reading to consider the points made in the tutorial posting. There may well be mistakes and conceptual errors, but they have not been exposed, nor even hinted at, by Rick.

RM: Well, the above is my idea of what I think is the conceptual error of trying to divide up any particular example of controlling into disturbance, feedback function and atanfel. I think that the focus of all analysis of behavior based on PCT should be on controlled variables. Once you know what people are controlling – exactly what perceptual aspect of the world they are controlling – then you can predict with accuracy how properties of the physical environment, whether they be considered external disturbances or part of the feedback function, will be related to variations in output and the controlled variable itself.

Best regards

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.