···
From: Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 5:07 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Subject: RE: paper
[From Fred Nickols (2018.05.18.1101 ET)]
Boris:
I have a question about something in your table below.
In the PCT column, you write that “there is no controlled variable in the environment.”
May I direct your attention to page 296 in the glossary in B:CP (2nd Edition), where Bill offers this definition: “Controlled Quantity: An environmental variable corresponding to the perceptual signal in a control system; a physical quantity (or a function of several physical quantities) that is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.”
HB : We already discussed this. Please see my answer to you. You didn’t reply. I’m sorry Fred. How many times do we have to discuss the same theme ?
FN : It seems to me that “Controlled Quantity” is pretty much the same as “Controlled Variable.”
HB : It would be good if you find conversation where you stopped answering.
FN : So, Boris, how do you distinguish between Controlled Quantity and Controlled Variable?
HB : I’ll answer you Fred if you promise that this is the last time we speak about this Theme ?
Boris
Fred Nickols
From: “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 10:41 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: FW: paper
Hi Warren
WM : Hi Boris, might I just add, Bill wasn’t a shy flower - if he had taken issue with any work Rick had done on PCT then he had had plenty of opportunities for 30 years or so the make that public. I just don’t see it. Rick can be a ‘challenge’ to debate in these forums a chooses to join in with trying to split the same hairs as many people here but in a different direction! - ….
HB : The problem is that I and sometimes Martin and probably some other members compalined against protection that Rick got from Bill. Rick could say or write whatever he wanted and Bill always covered him, because Rick was his friend. Bills’ weaknes was that he was mixing science with friendship. And this two categories don’t feet together. Check through archives our conversations about “baseball catch”, “school system”, “feedback”….
You can check through archives how I and Martin and probably some other members objected because mostly it was obvious that Rick was wrong and Bill was trying to prove that he was right.
Recent discussion (one or two years ago) about Bills’ protection to Rick was when Rick announced conversation between Bill and me about one of the most stupid statements in the history of CSGnet that Rick made : “people control people all the time”. Conversation between me and Bill was quite long when Bill wasted time “covering” Ricks’ stupidity.
But you are right. I’ll never understand why Bill didn’t act against Rick although he should. My only explanation is that they were good friends. But that doesn’t have value in scientific “waters”.
WM : ….but he’s not wrong about the essence of PCT!
HB : Rick is not only wrong about essence of PCT. He was and is trying to change PCT to RCT because he knew and he knows that his RCT is not plausible with PCT. That RCT is directly contradicting PCT.
RCT (Ricks Control Theory)
PCT (Perceptual Control Theory)
Behavior is control
Behavior is not control
Controlled variable in outer environment
There is no controlled variable in environment
Controlled Perceptual Variable
Ordinary perceptual signal
Please see the archives for evidences.
If you want to prove that Rick understands the essence of PCT than help him prove that :
-
Behavior is copntrolled
-
There exist "Controlled Perceptual Variable" or PCV
-
That "people can control people all the time" (stimulus-respons). He tried to prove the "fact" "control of people" with "rubber band game" but he didn't succed because he showed just behavioristic relation "stimulus-respons" among people
-
That "extrasensory" perception is possible
-
That Telekinesis is possible
-
That all events in the control loop happens at the same time
-
That nervous system is "computing" reality in two dimenssions
-
Nervous system is perceiving "x" ynd "y" dimenssion with two different control units. For example "left eye" x dimenssion, and "right eye" y dimenssion. But close your left eye and tell me whether you see everything in one "dimenssion".
-
"Controlled Perceptual variable" or "p" is compared to "actual tracking performance". This is the top new nonsense from Rick.
Rick is world champion in producing nonsenses. That’s because he doesn’t understand PCT. He understands behaviorism. Because his education is behavioristic.
How can we persuade Rick that “rubber band” game is not behavioristic illusion about “stimulus – respons” or that we can controll people with stimulus :
RM earlier (rubber band game) :
….if the controller’s (E’s) pulls on the rubber band are not too large or abrupt – the a person’s behavior can be controlled rather precisely.
HB : This is pure behaviorism that was described in Bills’ experiment “rubber band game”. Rick is behaviorist and he will probably never change. He can’t think is any other “coordinate system”.
The main problem Rick has is that he can’t prove that “Behavior is control” and that there exists “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. These are non existant features in PCT.
If you’ll look carefully to Ricks definition of “control loop” you’ll see that his “control loop” is controlling outside" and Bills “control loop” is controlling inside.
Bill P (B:CP) :
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Rick doesn’t understand essence of PCT… He understands essence of behaviorism.
HB : But really I don’t understand why are you complaining about my “attacks” on Rick and RCT if you think almost the same as I do. In your abstract (see below) you pointed to some main features of PCT :
-
You beleive that "fundamental properties of nervous system" shouls be operationalized. What you have to do is persuade Rick to start understading what nervous system is and how it "operates" in the light of PCT. It's not 2-dimenssional world that processing but 3-dimenssional.
-
… it does not control behavior per se. So its clear that there is no "Control of behavior" in PCT. How can we make Rick beleive in this "fact" ? Help me ?
-
behavior is dynamically adaptive to environmental disturbances, rather than being formed by, or superimposed upon, learned associations between stimulus and response.
Warren Mansel
Control of Perception Should be Operationalized as a Fundamental Property of the Nervous System
Abstract
This commentary proposes that “cognitive control” is neither componential nor emergent, but a fundamental feature of behavior. The term “control” requires an operational definition. This is best provided by the negative feedback loop that utilizes behavior to control perception; it does not control behavior per se. In order to model complex cognitive control, Perceptual Control Theory proposes that loops are organized into a dissociable hierarchical network (PCT; Powers, Clark, & McFarland, 1960; Powers, 1973a, 2008). In this way, behavior is dynamically adaptive to environmental disturbances, rather than being formed by, or superimposed upon, learned associations between stimulus and response.
Control of Perception Should be Operationalized as a…. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230075716_Control_of_Perception_Should_be_Operationalized_as_a_Fundamental_Property_of_the_Nervous_System [accessed May 16 2018].
All the best,
Boris
From: Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:13 AM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Subject: Re: paper
Hi Boris, might I just add, Bill wasn’t a shy flower - if he had taken issue with any work Rick had done on PCT then he had had plenty of opportunities for 30 years or so the make that public. I just don’t see it. Rick can be a ‘challenge’ to debate in these forums a chooses to join in with trying to split the same hairs as many people here but in a different direction! - but he’s not wrong about the essence of PCT!
All the best
Warren
HB : You know that what you are saying is not an argument. It’s just your naive oppinion. Bill did protect he was mixing friendship and science. So Rick never got any serious “feedback” about his RCT theory.
On 15 May 2018, at 22:32, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Hi Warren.
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:44 AM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Subject: Paper
Hi Boris, you tell me which it is as I genuinely still don’t know the difference between RCT and PCT!
All the best,
Warren
HB : I’m sorry to say it, but I posted differences so many times that I’m surprised that you didn’t see them. Differences are so obvious that you can’t miss them. It can be seen form the plane.
Here they are :
RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop
-
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
-
OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
-
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
-
COMPARATOR : ????
-
ERROR SIGNAL : ???
His diagram involves “controlled variable” in environment.
PCT Definitions of control loop :
Bill P (B:CP):
-
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):
-
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
Bill P (LCS III):
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
Bill P (B:CP)
-
ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.
PCT diagram :
<image001.jpg>
