Origins

Hello CSG-ers,

How is everyone? My name’s Andrew Willett. I’m currently a senior at Vassar College, studying Cognitive Science and German, and I am just beginning my undergraduate dissertation, in which I am exploring the value of PCT from a variety of angles (I’ve spent the past 3 years getting to know the theory and collaborating with a few of the folks who have been part of CSGnet–been grateful for these opportunities).

My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably? I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.

  2. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.

  3. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system

  4. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness

  5. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory

  6. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms

  7. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.

  8. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.

  9. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.

  10. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.

  11. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.11.1525 ET)]

Hello, Andrew.

To your list you might want to add Living Control Systems by Leonard Bayliss, a Brit, published posthumously in 1966 by W. H. Freeman & Co. You can probably find a copy it on Abebooks – that’s where I got mine.

From the Preface by A.V. Hill and A.F. Huxley:

“It is no new idea that living organisms contain numerous self-regulating control systems, but we are only beginning to understand the factors that govern the sensitivity, speed of response and stability of these elaborate mechanisms. An immense field still awaits exploration here, both by biologists who acquire a sufficient understanding of the theory of automatic mechanisms that has been developed by engineers, and by people trained as engineers or mathematicians who come to realise what a fascinating variety of ‘living control systems’ are waiting to be investigated.�

Bayliss worked on the control of anti-aircraft guns from 1940-1945 which is the same context in which I came across control systems when I was a fire control technicians in the United States Navy (1955-1974). I rather imagine Bayliss’ book is where Bill Powers got the term “living control systems.�

Fred Nickols

P.S. Note the from-date-time heading I use. Using such a heading is an accepted convention on CSGNet. It helps in tracking threads.

···

From: Andrew willett [mailto:anwillett@vassar.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Origins

Hello CSG-ers,

How is everyone? My name’s Andrew Willett. I’m currently a senior at Vassar College, studying Cognitive Science and German, and I am just beginning my undergraduate dissertation, in which I am exploring the value of PCT from a variety of angles (I’ve spent the past 3 years getting to know the theory and collaborating with a few of the folks who have been part of CSGnet–been grateful for these opportunities).

My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably? I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.

  2. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.

  3. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system

  4. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness

  5. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory

  6. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms

  7. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.

  8. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.

  9. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.

  10. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.

  11. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

[From Alex Gomez-Marin (2016.09.11.2200)]

Thanks for the list, Andrew. Very useful to trace the roots.Â

If I may add one that is a bit more philosophical, I would include Von Uexkull (the “strolls” book, then there is “a theory of meaning”, and the hard-core “theoretical biology”). A classic for anyone taking organisms seriously, namely, from their own point of view.

···

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.11.1525 ET)]

Â

Hello, Andrew.

Â

To your list you might want to add Living Control Systems by Leonard Bayliss, a Brit, published posthumously in 1966 by W. H. Freeman & Co. You can probably find a copy it on Abebooks – thatt’s where I got mine.

Â

From the Preface by A.V. Hill and A.F. Huxley:

Â

“It is no new idea that living organisms contain numerous self-regulating control systems, but we are only beginning to understand the factors that govern the sensitivity, speed of response and stability of these elaborate mechanisms. An immense field still awaits exploration here, both by biologists who acquire a sufficient understanding of the theory of automatic mechanisms that has been developed by engineers, and by people trained as engineers or mathematicians who come to realise what a fascinating variety of ‘living control systems’ are waiting to be investigated.â€?

Â

Bayliss worked on the control of anti-aircraft guns from 1940-1945 which is the same context in which I came across control systems when I was a fire control technicians in the United States Navy (1955-1974). I rather imagine Bayliss’ book is where Bill Powers got the term “living control systems.â€?

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

P.S. Note the from-date-time heading I use. Using such a heading is an accepted convention on CSGNet. It helps in tracking threads.

Â

From: Andrew willett [mailto:anwillett@vassar.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Origins

Â

Hello CSG-ers,

Â

How is everyone? My name’s Andrew Willett. I’m currently a senior at Vassar College, studying Cognitive Science and German, and I am just beginning my undergraduate dissertation, in which I am exploring the value of PCT from a variety of angles (I’ve spent the past 3 years getting to know the theory and collaborating with a few of the folks who have been part of CSGnet–been grateful for these opportunities).Â

Â

My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably? I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Â

Kind Regards,

Andrew

Two more real giants are John Dewey and Claude Bernard.

···

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

[From Alex Gomez-Marin (2016.09.11.2200)]

Thanks for the list, Andrew. Very useful to trace the roots.Â

If I may add one that is a bit more philosophical, I would include Von Uexkull (the “strolls” book, then there is “a theory of meaning”, and the hard-core “theoretical biology”). A classic for anyone taking organisms seriously, namely, from their own point of view.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.11.1525 ET)]

Â

Hello, Andrew.

Â

To your list you might want to add Living Control Systems by Leonard Bayliss, a Brit, published posthumously in 1966 by W. H. Freeman & Co. You can probably find a copy it on Abebooks – that’s whhere I got mine.

Â

From the Preface by A.V. Hill and A.F. Huxley:

Â

“It is no new idea that living organisms contain numerous self-regulating control systems, but we are only beginning to understand the factors that govern the sensitivity, speed of response and stability of these elaborate mechanisms. An immense field still awaits exploration here, both by biologists who acquire a sufficient understanding of the theory of automatic mechanisms that has been developed by engineers, and by people trained as engineers or mathematicians who come to realise what a fascinating variety of ‘living control systems’ are waiting to be investigated.â€?

Â

Bayliss worked on the control of anti-aircraft guns from 1940-1945 which is the same context in which I came across control systems when I was a fire control technicians in the United States Navy (1955-1974). I rather imagine Bayliss’ book is where Bill Powers got the term “living control systems.â€?

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

P.S. Note the from-date-time heading I use. Using such a heading is an accepted convention on CSGNet. It helps in tracking threads.

Â

From: Andrew willett [mailto:anwillett@vassar.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Origins

Â

Hello CSG-ers,

Â

How is everyone? My name’s Andrew Willett. I’m currently a senior at Vassar College, studying Cognitive Science and German, and I am just beginning my undergraduate dissertation, in which I am exploring the value of PCT from a variety of angles (I’ve spent the past 3 years getting to know the theory and collaborating with a few of the folks who have been part of CSGnet–been grateful for these opportunities).Â

Â

My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably? I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Â

Kind Regards,

Andrew

Sorry, one more: Merleau-Ponty’s “The Structure of Behavior”. It is really PCT-like (I would even there it is even more and better than PCT).

···

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

Two more real giants are John Dewey and Claude Bernard.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

[From Alex Gomez-Marin (2016.09.11.2200)]

Thanks for the list, Andrew. Very useful to trace the roots.Â

If I may add one that is a bit more philosophical, I would include Von Uexkull (the “strolls” book, then there is “a theory of meaning”, and the hard-core “theoretical biology”). A classic for anyone taking organisms seriously, namely, from their own point of view.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.11.1525 ET)]

Â

Hello, Andrew.

Â

To your list you might want to add Living Control Systems by Leonard Bayliss, a Brit, published posthumously in 1966 by W. H. Freeman & Co. You can probably find a copy it on Abebooks – that’s where I got mine.>

Â

From the Preface by A.V. Hill and A.F. Huxley:

Â

“It is no new idea that living organisms contain numerous self-regulating control systems, but we are only beginning to understand the factors that govern the sensitivity, speed of response and stability of these elaborate mechanisms. An immense field still awaits exploration here, both by biologists who acquire a sufficient understanding of the theory of automatic mechanisms that has been developed by engineers, and by people trained as engineers or mathematicians who come to realise what a fascinating variety of ‘living control systems’ are waiting to be investigated.â€?

Â

Bayliss worked on the control of anti-aircraft guns from 1940-1945 which is the same context in which I came across control systems when I was a fire control technicians in the United States Navy (1955-1974). I rather imagine Bayliss’ book is where Bill Powers got the term “living control systems.â€?

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

P.S. Note the from-date-time heading I use. Using such a heading is an accepted convention on CSGNet. It helps in tracking threads.

Â

From: Andrew willett [mailto:anwillett@vassar.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Origins

Â

Hello CSG-ers,

Â

How is everyone? My name’s Andrew Willett. I’m currently a senior at Vassar College, studying Cognitive Science and German, and I am just beginning my undergraduate dissertation, in which I am exploring the value of PCT from a variety of angles (I’ve spent the past 3 years getting to know the theory and collaborating with a few of the folks who have been part of CSGnet–been grateful for these opportunities).Â

Â

My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably? I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Â

Kind Regards,

Andrew

[Martin Taylor 2016.09.11.16.13]

Powers often referred to Dewey and Aristotle as precursors.

Martin

···

On 2016/09/11 4:10 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin
wrote:

      Two

more real giants are John Dewey and Claude Bernard.

      On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Alex

Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com
wrote:

                [From

Alex Gomez-Marin (2016.09.11.2200)]

                Thanks

for the list, Andrew. Very useful to trace the
roots.Â

                If

I may add one that is a bit more philosophical, I
would include Von Uexkull (the “strolls” book, then
there is “a theory of meaning”, and the hard-core
“theoretical biology”). A classic for anyone taking
organisms seriously, namely, from their own point of
view.

                On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:35

PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
wrote:

                          [From

Fred Nickols (2016.09.11.1525 ET)]

Â

                          Hello,

Andrew.

Â

                          To

your list you might want to add Living
Control Systems by Leonard Bayliss, a
Brit, published posthumously in 1966 by W.
H. Freeman & Co. You can probably
find a copy it on Abebooks – thatâ’s where
I got mine.

Â

                          From

the Preface by A.V. Hill and A.F. Huxley:

Â

                          “It

is no new idea that living organisms
contain numerous self-regulating control
systems, but we are only beginning to
understand the factors that govern the
sensitivity, speed of response and
stability of these elaborate mechanisms.Â
An immense field still awaits exploration
here, both by biologists who acquire a
sufficient understanding of the theory of
automatic mechanisms that has been
developed by engineers, and by people
trained as engineers or mathematicians who
come to realise what a fascinating variety
of ‘living control systems’ are waiting to
be investigated.�

Â

                          Bayliss

worked on the control of anti-aircraft
guns from 1940-1945 which is the same
context in which I came across control
systems when I was a fire control
technicians in the United States Navy
(1955-1974). I rather imagine Bayliss’
book is where Bill Powers got the term
“living control systems.�

Â

                          Fred

Nickols

Â

                          P.S. 

Note the from-date-time heading I use.Â
Using such a heading is an accepted
convention on CSGNet. It helps in
tracking threads.

Â

From:
Andrew willett [mailto:anwillett@vassar.edu ]
Sent: Sunday, September 11,
2016 3:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Origins

Â

Hello CSG-ers,

Â

                                  How is

everyone? My name’s Andrew
Willett. I’m currently a senior at
Vassar College, studying Cognitive
Science and German, and I am just
beginning my undergraduate
dissertation, in which I am
exploring the value of PCT from a
variety of angles (I’ve spent the
past 3 years getting to know the
theory and collaborating with a
few of the folks who have been
part of CSGnet–been grateful for
these opportunities).Â

Â

                                  My

question is simple: what source(s)
influenced PCT’s synthesis most
notably? I am aware of some
sources, which predated PCT, which
are cited in Powers, MacFarland,
and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~
[[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS
III section introductions as well
as Powers’ section in The
Cognitive Behavioral Therapist
(2009) as a possible literature
mentioning further influential
predating sources]].

                                  However, it is unclear which of

these played the biggest role (if
one can argue this
even~subjective, no?) in
Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early
synthesis of the theory. I would
love to hear what everyone thinks.

                                  Sources

mentioned in Powers, MacFarland,
Clark (1960):

                                  1) Ashby, W. R.

(1952). Design for a brain.

                                  2) Frank, L. K.

et al. (1948). Teleological
mechanisms.

                                  3) Fulton, J.F.

(1949). Physiology of the nervous
system

                                  4) Hebb (1954)

Brain mechanisms and Consciousness

                                  5) Hebb (1949).

Organization of Behavior: a
Neurophysiological Theory

                                  6) Hick &

Bates (1950). Human operator of
Control Mechanisms

                                  7) Korn &

Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue
Computers.

                                  8) Shannon

& Weaver (1949). The
Mathematical Theory of
Communication.

                                  9) Soroka

(1954). Analogue methods in
Computation and Simulation.

                                  10) Truxall

(1955). Control System Synthesis.

                                  11) Wiener

(1948). Cybernetics.

Â

Kind Regards,

Andrew

[From Adam Matic 2016.11.9]

From that list, I’d guess Weiner and a bunch of analog computing / control theory guys, like Soroka and Korn. Bill mentions Weiner as the first time he recognized that control theory could be applied to living organisms, so cybernetics was a major influence; but the quantitative models and experimental results are what makes PCT stand out, and they were developed on classical control theory and analog computing.

Also, this is a nice one:

How Perceptual Control Theory Began: A Personal History

by Mary A. Powers

http://www.iapct.org/festschrift/mary.html

Best,

Adam

···

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

And this… a little article that I ‘commissioned’ from Bill…

pct-and-mol-a-brief-history-of-perceptual-control-theory-and-the-method-of-levels.pdf (64 KB)

···

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Adam Matic adam.matic@gmail.com wrote:

[From Adam Matic 2016.11.9]

From that list, I’d guess Weiner and a bunch of analog computing / control theory guys, like Soroka and Korn. Bill mentions Weiner as the first time he recognized that control theory could be applied to living organisms, so cybernetics was a major influence; but the quantitative models and experimental results are what makes PCT stand out, and they were developed on classical control theory and analog computing.

Also, this is a nice one:

How Perceptual Control Theory Began: A Personal History

by Mary A. Powers

http://www.iapct.org/festschrift/mary.html

Best,

Adam

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

And this… a little article
that I ‘commissioned’ from Bill…
[From Dag Forssell (2016 09 12 17:35)]

Thanks Warren. Another statement by Bill is featured in the Book of
Readings

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/readings/readings.html
, The
Underpinnings of PCT, page 67.

Note that you don’t have to register to download this book. It features
articles and book chapters on so many angles on PCT.

Best, Dag

···

At 03:38 AM 9/12/2016, Warren Mansell wrote:

Hi Adrew,

I think that biggest influence on W.T. Powers had W.R.Ashby. Powers mentioned that he was studying Ashby for a long time, and you will understand why if you will start reading him. I neede quite some time to understand Powers and Ashby.

At least I’d say that there are many common things in heuristics betwee them. Beside that Powers rephrase Ashby’s »double feed-back« and »ultrastability« in his diagram on p.191 on B:CP (2005) almost literally. There is a lot of resemblance. Powers is mentioning Ashby on many occasions in his books (B:CP, Making sense of behavior 1998, LCS III,…). Ashby was a psychiatrist. He understood very well functioning of organism and nervous system. For me he was a real genious. By my oppinion Ashby also influenced Maturana and Varela not mentioning Carver and Scheier, Glassersfeld, von Ferster, and so on…

Best,

Boris

···

From: Andrew willett [mailto:anwillett@vassar.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Origins

Hello CSG-ers,

How is everyone? My name’s Andrew Willett. I’m currently a senior at Vassar College, studying Cognitive Science and German, and I am just beginning my undergraduate dissertation, in which I am exploring the value of PCT from a variety of angles (I’ve spent the past 3 years getting to know the theory and collaborating with a few of the folks who have been part of CSGnet–been grateful for these opportunities).

My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably? I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.

  2. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.

  3. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system

  4. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness

  5. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory

  6. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms

  7. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.

  8. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.

  9. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.

  10. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.

  11. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

This is the right way to promote PCT. Showing his work. Congratulations Dag.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Dag Forssell [mailto:csgarchive@pctresources.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:30 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Origins

[From Dag Forssell (2016 09 12 17:35)]

Thanks Warren. Another statement by Bill is featured in the Book of Readings http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/readings/readings.html, The Underpinnings of PCT, page 67.

Note that you don’t have to register to download this book. It features articles and book chapters on so many angles on PCT.

Best, Dag

At 03:38 AM 9/12/2016, Warren Mansell wrote:

And this… a little article that I ‘commissioned’ from Bill…

Adam,

I would not agree. First article in 1960 showed that Bill was working in hospital where he met physiologist. And his main part and his main diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) where the whole theory is shown was made on bases of Ashby. But he obviously went also into robotics and analog computing as these are fields closely connected to the way nervous system works. But his prior occupation was how organisms (nervous system) work (see 2011). And this is mostly the field of physiology. You need some live »pattern« for analog computing and robotics.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Adam Matic [mailto:adam.matic@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:36 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Origins

[From Adam Matic 2016.11.9]

From that list, I’d guess Weiner and a bunch of analog computing / control theory guys, like Soroka and Korn. Bill mentions Weiner as the first time he recognized that control theory could be applied to living organisms, so cybernetics was a major influence; but the quantitative models and experimental results are what makes PCT stand out, and they were developed on classical control theory and analog computing.

Also, this is a nice one:

How Perceptual Control Theory Began: A Personal History

by Mary A. Powers

http://www.iapct.org/festschrift/mary.html

Best,

Adam

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

AGM : Sorry, one more: Merleau-Ponty’s “The Structure of Behavior”. It is really PCT-like (I would even there it is even more and better than PCT).

HB : Alex I like your confidence and great knowledge when you are on your field. But it seems that sometimes you are walking on the field full of mines. I little take a look of the mentioned book and I’d say it’s more phylosophy of nervous system. It seems that it has little to do with physiological evidences that were provided by Ashby and Powers. So I’d say that »The structure of behavior« is just another book in the raw which is »shooting« into the fog.

But you can enlighten me where exactly do you think Merleau-Ponty is PCT like and where it is better than PCT ??? But I think that you should understand PCT first. Rick did mislead you. When you’ll understand real PCT than you can see how incredible insight he had into human organism (and specially into nervous system).

Boris

···

From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:15 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Origins

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

Two more real giants are John Dewey and Claude Bernard.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

[From Alex Gomez-Marin (2016.09.11.2200)]

Thanks for the list, Andrew. Very useful to trace the roots.

If I may add one that is a bit more philosophical, I would include Von Uexkull (the “strolls” book, then there is “a theory of meaning”, and the hard-core “theoretical biology”). A classic for anyone taking organisms seriously, namely, from their own point of view.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2016.09.11.1525 ET)]

Hello, Andrew.

To your list you might want to add Living Control Systems by Leonard Bayliss, a Brit, published posthumously in 1966 by W. H. Freeman & Co. You can probably find a copy it on Abebooks – that’s where I got mine.>

from the Preface by A.V. Hill and A.F. Huxley:

“It is no new idea that living organisms contain numerous self-regulating control systems, but we are only beginning to understand the factors that govern the sensitivity, speed of response and stability of these elaborate mechanisms. An immense field still awaits exploration here, both by biologists who acquire a sufficient understanding of the theory of automatic mechanisms that has been developed by engineers, and by people trained as engineers or mathematicians who come to realise what a fascinating variety of ‘living control systems’ are waiting to be investigated.�

Bayliss worked on the control of anti-aircraft guns from 1940-1945 which is the same context in which I came across control systems when I was a fire control technicians in the United States Navy (1955-1974). I rather imagine Bayliss’ book is where Bill Powers got the term “living control systems.�

Fred Nickols

P.S. Note the from-date-time heading I use. Using such a heading is an accepted convention on CSGNet. It helps in tracking threads.

From: Andrew willett [mailto:anwillett@vassar.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Origins

Hello CSG-ers,

How is everyone? My name’s Andrew Willett. I’m currently a senior at Vassar College, studying Cognitive Science and German, and I am just beginning my undergraduate dissertation, in which I am exploring the value of PCT from a variety of angles (I’ve spent the past 3 years getting to know the theory and collaborating with a few of the folks who have been part of CSGnet–been grateful for these opportunities).

My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably? I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.

  2. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.

  3. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system

  4. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness

  5. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory

  6. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms

  7. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.

  8. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.

  9. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.

  10. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.

  11. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

[From Rick Marken (2016.09.13.0900)]

···

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Andrew willett anwillett@vassar.edu wrote:

AW: My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably?

RM: Hi Andrew. Good question, although I don’t understand what you mean by “PCT’s synthesis”. I don’t see PCT as a synthesis of other ideas; I see it as a completely novel (and correct) application of control theory to understanding the behavior of living organisms.

RM: I would say that there were two main sources that influenced Powers’ development of PCT:

  1. Naval electronics school.

  2. Bill Powers’ own mind.

RM: Naval electronics school brought a practical understanding of control systems, what they do and how they work. Bill’s mind brought an understanding of physics and a curiosity about human behavior. These two influences combined to produce PCT. Bill’s curiosity about human behavior combined with an understanding of physics led Bill to the realization that what we call behaviors are controlled results of muscle forces. Bill’s understanding of control theory led him to the realization that only a control organization could behave in this way. And most important, he realized that the control system that produces these this behavior must be organized around the control of the organism’s sensory inputs relative to secularly (autonomously) adjustable reference specifications inside the organism itself.

RM: It was these realizations that led Powers to the cybernetic literature, under the assumption that those people already knew this stuff and he could join in the work. What he found, however, was that cyberneticists didn’t understand (or want to understand) human controlling at all. So the cybernetics literature was not really an"influence" on the development of PCT; more of a disturbance to it.

RM: Control theory had been applied to understanding human behavior well before PCT came along; I believe it’s first appearance was in about 1947 in the work of Craik. These applications used control diagrams that look much like the PCT diagram of a control system. So it’s not the diagram that distinguishes PCT from other applications of control theory to behavior; it’s how the diagram is mapped to behavior.

RM: The main difference between PCT and other applications of control theory is that the reference signal specifying the intended state of a controlled result is inside the behaving system. It’s put there to account for the fact (as noted above) that behaviors (like lifting a cup of tea to your lips) are controlled results of muscle actions. The reference signal accounts for the fact that these controlled results (represented to the system as perceptual variables) are kept in fixed or variable reference states.

RM: Variations in the reference signal are assumed to occur secularly (autonomously). So the reference signals are like an independent variable which, unlike the independent variables in conventional research, cannot be varied from outside the system. I think this is one of the things that gives conventional psychologists fits and is likely the reason my PCT model of movement was greeted with jeers.

RM: PCT says that variations in the reference state of a controlled variable are the result of secular variations in the reference for the state of that variable. That is clearly what is going on when people write in cursive or move their finger in an arbitrary pattern. But that means that the ultimate “cause” of that behavior is inside the behaving system; in a place to which an outsider has no access.

RM: The only way to study these internal “causes” is with modeling; and that seems like cheating to many scientific psychologists , who are used to finding the causes of behavior outside in the person’s environment. And it seems like they are out there, thanks to the disturbance resisting characteristics of control. But PCT shows that the appearance of external causality is an illusion, further pissing off conventional psychologists. Hence, the brohaha over the power law.

Best

Rick

I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

a synthesis can still be revolutionary.

···

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Andrew willett anwillett@vassar.edu wrote:

AW: My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably?

RM: Hi Andrew. Good question, although I don’t understand what you mean by “PCT’s synthesis”. I don’t see PCT as a synthesis of other ideas; I see it as a completely novel (and correct) application of control theory to understanding the behavior of living organisms.

RM: I would say that there were two main sources that influenced Powers’ development of PCT:

  1. Naval electronics school.

  2. Bill Powers’ own mind.

RM: Naval electronics school brought a practical understanding of control systems, what they do and how they work. Bill’s mind brought an understanding of physics and a curiosity about human behavior. These two influences combined to produce PCT. Bill’s curiosity about human behavior combined with an understanding of physics led Bill to the realization that what we call behaviors are controlled results of muscle forces. Bill’s understanding of control theory led him to the realization that only a control organization could behave in this way. And most important, he realized that the control system that produces these this behavior must be organized around the control of the organism’s sensory inputs relative to secularly (autonomously) adjustable reference specifications inside the organism itself.

RM: It was these realizations that led Powers to the cybernetic literature, under the assumption that those people already knew this stuff and he could join in the work. What he found, however, was that cyberneticists didn’t understand (or want to understand) human controlling at all. So the cybernetics literature was not really an"influence" on the development of PCT; more of a disturbance to it.

RM: Control theory had been applied to understanding human behavior well before PCT came along; I believe it’s first appearance was in about 1947 in the work of Craik. These applications used control diagrams that look much like the PCT diagram of a control system. So it’s not the diagram that distinguishes PCT from other applications of control theory to behavior; it’s how the diagram is mapped to behavior.

RM: The main difference between PCT and other applications of control theory is that the reference signal specifying the intended state of a controlled result is inside the behaving system. It’s put there to account for the fact (as noted above) that behaviors (like lifting a cup of tea to your lips) are controlled results of muscle actions. The reference signal accounts for the fact that these controlled results (represented to the system as perceptual variables) are kept in fixed or variable reference states.

RM: Variations in the reference signal are assumed to occur secularly (autonomously). So the reference signals are like an independent variable which, unlike the independent variables in conventional research, cannot be varied from outside the system. I think this is one of the things that gives conventional psychologists fits and is likely the reason my PCT model of movement was greeted with jeers.

RM: PCT says that variations in the reference state of a controlled variable are the result of secular variations in the reference for the state of that variable. That is clearly what is going on when people write in cursive or move their finger in an arbitrary pattern. But that means that the ultimate “cause” of that behavior is inside the behaving system; in a place to which an outsider has no access.

RM: The only way to study these internal “causes” is with modeling; and that seems like cheating to many scientific psychologists , who are used to finding the causes of behavior outside in the person’s environment. And it seems like they are out there, thanks to the disturbance resisting characteristics of control. But PCT shows that the appearance of external causality is an illusion, further pissing off conventional psychologists. Hence, the brohaha over the power law.

Best

Rick

I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

by the way, andrew et al, i wonder how much legacy about circular causality comes from charles sanders peirce. any ideas? who was the first philosopher/scientist to propose that the effect is part of its own cause in living systems?

···

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Andrew willett anwillett@vassar.edu wrote:

AW: My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably?

RM: Hi Andrew. Good question, although I don’t understand what you mean by “PCT’s synthesis”. I don’t see PCT as a synthesis of other ideas; I see it as a completely novel (and correct) application of control theory to understanding the behavior of living organisms.

RM: I would say that there were two main sources that influenced Powers’ development of PCT:

  1. Naval electronics school.

  2. Bill Powers’ own mind.

RM: Naval electronics school brought a practical understanding of control systems, what they do and how they work. Bill’s mind brought an understanding of physics and a curiosity about human behavior. These two influences combined to produce PCT. Bill’s curiosity about human behavior combined with an understanding of physics led Bill to the realization that what we call behaviors are controlled results of muscle forces. Bill’s understanding of control theory led him to the realization that only a control organization could behave in this way. And most important, he realized that the control system that produces these this behavior must be organized around the control of the organism’s sensory inputs relative to secularly (autonomously) adjustable reference specifications inside the organism itself.

RM: It was these realizations that led Powers to the cybernetic literature, under the assumption that those people already knew this stuff and he could join in the work. What he found, however, was that cyberneticists didn’t understand (or want to understand) human controlling at all. So the cybernetics literature was not really an"influence" on the development of PCT; more of a disturbance to it.

RM: Control theory had been applied to understanding human behavior well before PCT came along; I believe it’s first appearance was in about 1947 in the work of Craik. These applications used control diagrams that look much like the PCT diagram of a control system. So it’s not the diagram that distinguishes PCT from other applications of control theory to behavior; it’s how the diagram is mapped to behavior.

RM: The main difference between PCT and other applications of control theory is that the reference signal specifying the intended state of a controlled result is inside the behaving system. It’s put there to account for the fact (as noted above) that behaviors (like lifting a cup of tea to your lips) are controlled results of muscle actions. The reference signal accounts for the fact that these controlled results (represented to the system as perceptual variables) are kept in fixed or variable reference states.

RM: Variations in the reference signal are assumed to occur secularly (autonomously). So the reference signals are like an independent variable which, unlike the independent variables in conventional research, cannot be varied from outside the system. I think this is one of the things that gives conventional psychologists fits and is likely the reason my PCT model of movement was greeted with jeers.

RM: PCT says that variations in the reference state of a controlled variable are the result of secular variations in the reference for the state of that variable. That is clearly what is going on when people write in cursive or move their finger in an arbitrary pattern. But that means that the ultimate “cause” of that behavior is inside the behaving system; in a place to which an outsider has no access.

RM: The only way to study these internal “causes” is with modeling; and that seems like cheating to many scientific psychologists , who are used to finding the causes of behavior outside in the person’s environment. And it seems like they are out there, thanks to the disturbance resisting characteristics of control. But PCT shows that the appearance of external causality is an illusion, further pissing off conventional psychologists. Hence, the brohaha over the power law.

Best

Rick

I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[From Rick Marken (2016.09.13.1210)]

···

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: a synthesis can still be revolutionary.

RM: I suppose it can. But PCT is not the result of a synthesis.

Best

Rick

On Tuesday, 13 September 2016, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.09.13.0900)]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Andrew willett anwillett@vassar.edu wrote:

AW: My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably?

RM: Hi Andrew. Good question, although I don’t understand what you mean by “PCT’s synthesis”. I don’t see PCT as a synthesis of other ideas; I see it as a completely novel (and correct) application of control theory to understanding the behavior of living organisms.

RM: I would say that there were two main sources that influenced Powers’ development of PCT:

  1. Naval electronics school.

  2. Bill Powers’ own mind.

RM: Naval electronics school brought a practical understanding of control systems, what they do and how they work. Bill’s mind brought an understanding of physics and a curiosity about human behavior. These two influences combined to produce PCT. Bill’s curiosity about human behavior combined with an understanding of physics led Bill to the realization that what we call behaviors are controlled results of muscle forces. Bill’s understanding of control theory led him to the realization that only a control organization could behave in this way. And most important, he realized that the control system that produces these this behavior must be organized around the control of the organism’s sensory inputs relative to secularly (autonomously) adjustable reference specifications inside the organism itself.

RM: It was these realizations that led Powers to the cybernetic literature, under the assumption that those people already knew this stuff and he could join in the work. What he found, however, was that cyberneticists didn’t understand (or want to understand) human controlling at all. So the cybernetics literature was not really an"influence" on the development of PCT; more of a disturbance to it.

RM: Control theory had been applied to understanding human behavior well before PCT came along; I believe it’s first appearance was in about 1947 in the work of Craik. These applications used control diagrams that look much like the PCT diagram of a control system. So it’s not the diagram that distinguishes PCT from other applications of control theory to behavior; it’s how the diagram is mapped to behavior.

RM: The main difference between PCT and other applications of control theory is that the reference signal specifying the intended state of a controlled result is inside the behaving system. It’s put there to account for the fact (as noted above) that behaviors (like lifting a cup of tea to your lips) are controlled results of muscle actions. The reference signal accounts for the fact that these controlled results (represented to the system as perceptual variables) are kept in fixed or variable reference states.

RM: Variations in the reference signal are assumed to occur secularly (autonomously). So the reference signals are like an independent variable which, unlike the independent variables in conventional research, cannot be varied from outside the system. I think this is one of the things that gives conventional psychologists fits and is likely the reason my PCT model of movement was greeted with jeers.

RM: PCT says that variations in the reference state of a controlled variable are the result of secular variations in the reference for the state of that variable. That is clearly what is going on when people write in cursive or move their finger in an arbitrary pattern. But that means that the ultimate “cause” of that behavior is inside the behaving system; in a place to which an outsider has no access.

RM: The only way to study these internal “causes” is with modeling; and that seems like cheating to many scientific psychologists , who are used to finding the causes of behavior outside in the person’s environment. And it seems like they are out there, thanks to the disturbance resisting characteristics of control. But PCT shows that the appearance of external causality is an illusion, further pissing off conventional psychologists. Hence, the brohaha over the power law.

Best

Rick

I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

[From Andrew Willett (2016.09.13.15:10)]

I am grateful for this conversation that’s going around. A lot of different perspectives are being provided, suggesting everything from cybernetics to phenomenology as influential. Also, while I appreciate a healthy debate (how else will we figure out what matters to us as individuals, to the development of PCT in a collective sense, etcetera), I would like to suggest that the research of ideas, perspectives, and experiences, which will influence any human agent to consider and synthesize ideas (namely theories which contrast or consider what is lacking in other theories), is a scholarly endeavor. I hope we can treat this as such, leaving other conversations in their appropriate threads.

Also:
AGM: by the way, andrew et al, i wonder how much legacy about circular causality comes from charles sanders peirce. any ideas? who was the first philosopher/scientist to propose that the effect is part of its own cause in living systems?

AW: While I am sure that there is literature and ideas preceding this point, John Dewey’s article in (late 19th century or early 20th–cannot remember exact date) on the Reflex Arc is in the PCT archive and is the earliest source there that I am aware of (with my limited academic experience) referencing circular causality. I hope that helps.

Best,

Andrew

···

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

by the way, andrew et al, i wonder how much legacy about circular causality comes from charles sanders peirce. any ideas? who was the first philosopher/scientist to propose that the effect is part of its own cause in living systems?

On Tuesday, 13 September 2016, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

a synthesis can still be revolutionary.

On Tuesday, 13 September 2016, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.09.13.0900)]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Andrew willett anwillett@vassar.edu wrote:

AW: My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT’s synthesis most notably?

RM: Hi Andrew. Good question, although I don’t understand what you mean by “PCT’s synthesis”. I don’t see PCT as a synthesis of other ideas; I see it as a completely novel (and correct) application of control theory to understanding the behavior of living organisms.

RM: I would say that there were two main sources that influenced Powers’ development of PCT:

  1. Naval electronics school.

  2. Bill Powers’ own mind.

RM: Naval electronics school brought a practical understanding of control systems, what they do and how they work. Bill’s mind brought an understanding of physics and a curiosity about human behavior. These two influences combined to produce PCT. Bill’s curiosity about human behavior combined with an understanding of physics led Bill to the realization that what we call behaviors are controlled results of muscle forces. Bill’s understanding of control theory led him to the realization that only a control organization could behave in this way. And most important, he realized that the control system that produces these this behavior must be organized around the control of the organism’s sensory inputs relative to secularly (autonomously) adjustable reference specifications inside the organism itself.

RM: It was these realizations that led Powers to the cybernetic literature, under the assumption that those people already knew this stuff and he could join in the work. What he found, however, was that cyberneticists didn’t understand (or want to understand) human controlling at all. So the cybernetics literature was not really an"influence" on the development of PCT; more of a disturbance to it.

RM: Control theory had been applied to understanding human behavior well before PCT came along; I believe it’s first appearance was in about 1947 in the work of Craik. These applications used control diagrams that look much like the PCT diagram of a control system. So it’s not the diagram that distinguishes PCT from other applications of control theory to behavior; it’s how the diagram is mapped to behavior.

RM: The main difference between PCT and other applications of control theory is that the reference signal specifying the intended state of a controlled result is inside the behaving system. It’s put there to account for the fact (as noted above) that behaviors (like lifting a cup of tea to your lips) are controlled results of muscle actions. The reference signal accounts for the fact that these controlled results (represented to the system as perceptual variables) are kept in fixed or variable reference states.

RM: Variations in the reference signal are assumed to occur secularly (autonomously). So the reference signals are like an independent variable which, unlike the independent variables in conventional research, cannot be varied from outside the system. I think this is one of the things that gives conventional psychologists fits and is likely the reason my PCT model of movement was greeted with jeers.

RM: PCT says that variations in the reference state of a controlled variable are the result of secular variations in the reference for the state of that variable. That is clearly what is going on when people write in cursive or move their finger in an arbitrary pattern. But that means that the ultimate “cause” of that behavior is inside the behaving system; in a place to which an outsider has no access.

RM: The only way to study these internal “causes” is with modeling; and that seems like cheating to many scientific psychologists , who are used to finding the causes of behavior outside in the person’s environment. And it seems like they are out there, thanks to the disturbance resisting characteristics of control. But PCT shows that the appearance of external causality is an illusion, further pissing off conventional psychologists. Hence, the brohaha over the power law.

Best

Rick

I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited in Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers’ section in The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark’ early synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

  1. Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
  1. Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
  1. Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
  1. Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
  1. Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory
  1. Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
  1. Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
  1. Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
  1. Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
  1. Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
  1. Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,

Andrew


Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

Hello CSG-ers,

How is everyone? My name's Andrew Willett. I'm currently a senior at Vassar
College, studying Cognitive Science and German, and I am just beginning my
undergraduate dissertation, in which I am exploring the value of PCT from
a
variety of angles (I've spent the past 3 years getting to know the theory
and collaborating with a few of the folks who have been part of
CSGnet--been grateful for these opportunities).

My question is simple: what source(s) influenced PCT's synthesis most
notably? I am aware of some sources, which predated PCT, which are cited
in
Powers, MacFarland, and Clark (1960)~mentioned below~ [[Dr. Mansell also
mentioned LCS III section introductions as well as Powers' section in The
Cognitive Behavioral Therapist (2009) as a possible literature mentioning
further influential predating sources]].

However, it is unclear which of these played the biggest role (if one can
argue this even~subjective, no?) in Powers-MacFarland-Clark' early
synthesis of the theory. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Sources mentioned in Powers, MacFarland, Clark (1960):

1) Ashby, W. R. (1952). Design for a brain.
2) Frank, L. K. et al. (1948). Teleological mechanisms.
3) Fulton, J.F. (1949). Physiology of the nervous system
4) Hebb (1954) Brain mechanisms and Consciousness
5) Hebb (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neurophysiological Theory 6)
Hick & Bates (1950). Human operator of Control Mechanisms
7) Korn & Korn (1952). Electronic Analogue Computers.
8) Shannon & Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. 9)
Soroka (1954). Analogue methods in Computation and Simulation.
10) Truxall (1955). Control System Synthesis.
11) Wiener (1948). Cybernetics.

Kind Regards,
Andrew

untitled-[2]2 (2.02 KB)