[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.2035)]
Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1545)
Well, you keep _saying_ you do. If that counts, then I suppose we do.
Thanks for giving me, albeit grudgingly, the benefit of the doubt. I
think....
Rick,
Thanks for explaining how affordances don't fit with PCT, and it was very
valuable viewing the arguement of why this is the case. It actually makes my
thesis easier ... I don't have to encorporate it! PCT's ability to
intergrate many things within without 'ad-ons' is a becoming a very likeable
aspect to the theory.... ad-ons is pretty standardad in the Environment
Behaviour theory and ultimately stiffles integration of understanding.
Any references for some nice little spins of the 'The test'which I could
use. I have found it difficult to find many applications of the test at the
scale I am looking... and based on that it will most probably have to use an
interactive interview format. I've got a couple of books not held in our
library coming in which may have some clues, but any others from CSGnet.
Thanks greatly
Rohan Lulham.
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU]On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 8:46 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: PCT applied to research on the Physical Environment
[From Rick Marken (2001.09.04.1545)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0904.1737)--
If all you think in terms of is "potentially controllable perceptual
variables" you might have trouble telling a computer from an automobile
(or a baseball bat).
Controlled variables are perceptual variables. Some of the perceptual
variables you control when you drive a car are the same as those you
control when you use a computer but many are different so it's usually
very easy to tell the difference between using a computer and driving an
automobile. It's easy for me, anyway.
If you ever want to facilitate learning, you might think of how to
design an apparatus that encourages successful exploration. For example,
by providing the kind of rapid feedback that facilitates control...
I don't believe that inanimate systems can _encourage_ because
encouraging is a purposeful behavior. Teachers can encourage but
computers can't. The rapidity of feedback (either as loop slowing or
transport lag, two independent measures of the rapidity of feedback in a
control loop) doesn't encourage (or afford) or discourage anything; it
just _is_.
Me:
I think modeling produces the most valuable, interesting and satisfying
explanations of phenomena.
Ye:
Don't we all.
Well, you keep _saying_ you do. If that counts, then I suppose we do.
Best regards
Rick
-----
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2001.09.05.0740)]
Rohan Lulham wrote:
Any references for some nice little spins of the 'The test'which I could
use. I have found it difficult to find many applications of the test at the
scale I am looking... and based on that it will most probably have to use an
interactive interview format. I've got a couple of books not held in our
library coming in which may have some clues, but any others from CSGnet.
I think an interview format would be fine. Just ask people what they
want ("want" is just a fancy way of saying "reference state for a
controlled variable"); they'll probably be happy to tell you what they
are (and would like to be) controlling for. Since you're interested in
architecture you might build a model of the facility to be used to
determine what people might or might not want in their architectural
world. Just do what Bill Powers suggested a few days ago; show people a
model of something, like a cell, and ask "Is this what you want?" Then
start changing the model until the person keeps saying "yes". The state
of your model is then the reference state of one of the perceptions (of
cell ambiance) the person is controlling for.
Although this verbal interview approach to determining what people want
(what variables the are controlling) is not particularly precise, it's
probably fine for your purposes.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0905.1045)]
Marc Abrams (2001.0905.0105)
Sorry folks I left off the last part of my comment about the practicality of
trying to find CV'sSo given the fact that we control many CV's at once and they change over
time how do you know that the variable you tested for and found to be
controlled had anything to do with the behavior you were watching at a
particular point in time.
An excellent question. The answer is that you don't. As Rick would say, you
need a model. The question is, will a model based on the assumption that
you have identified the appropriate CV correctly predict the behavior you
observe?
By the way, do you notice any similarity between Rick and the Taliban? I
think of him of the Mullah of PCT. Ever vigilant for departures from
orthodoxy. Ever ready to slay the dragons of heterodoxy. If I'm in luck,
I'll only be banished. If I were a member of the True Faith who had
strayed... Well, let's not even think about that.
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0905.1047)]
Rick Marken (2001.09.05.0740)
I think an interview format would be fine. Just ask people what they
want ("want" is just a fancy way of saying "reference state for a
controlled variable");
Hmmm. I would have thought it was the other way around....
[From Rick Marken (2001.09.05.0750)]
Marc Abrams (2001.0905.0105)--
So given the fact that we control many CV's at once and they change over
time how do you know that the variable you tested for and found to be
controlled had anything to do with the behavior you were watching at a
particular point in time.
Because we tested and found it to be controlled at the time we were
watching the behavior. For example, baseball fielder's are not always
controlling for the horizontal and vertical optical velocity of the
image of a baseball; but now we know they are controlling these
variables when they are doing what we see as trying to catch a fly ball.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2001.09.05.1440)]
Marc Abrams (2001.0905.0105)--
So given the fact that we control many CV's at once and they change over
time how do you know that the variable you tested for and found to be
controlled had anything to do with the behavior you were watching at a
particular point in time.
Me:
Because we tested and found it to be controlled at the time we were
watching the behavior. For example, baseball fielder's are not always
controlling for the horizontal and vertical optical velocity of the
image of a baseball; but now we know they are controlling these
variables when they are doing what we see as trying to catch a fly ball.
Now that I have a second, let me try to expand on this a bit because I
think it may be important. I realized that one of the benefits of so
called basic PCT research is that it helps us understand what perceptual
variables are probably being controlled when we look at various everyday
behaviors. Basic research tells us what perceptions people are likely
to be controlling when we see them doing activities similar to those
studied in the research. For example, once we have discovered, by
rigorous testing, what perceptual variables are being controlled when a
person catches a fly ball then we have a pretty good idea of what people
are controlling when they perform similar kinds of behavior -- behavior
that involves moving to intercept a flying object. So it's a good bet
that people are controlling vertical and horizontal optical velocity
when they catch a football, return a volleyball, catch a Frisbee, etc.
So one study of controlled variables tells us about the control
processes that are likely to underlie a lot of behavior.
Similarly, if we have determined that people control their proximity to
others and orientation toward a destination when they move in a group
(as in the CROWD program) then it's a good bet that control of the same
variables is involved in similar group movements: flocking, walking down
a crowded New York sidewalk, etc. I think this shows the general value
of basic PCT research. Such research will identify the perceptual
variables that are being controlled when we see people performing
various, generic behaviors: catching, flocking, grouping, balancing,
grasping, talking (not yet, but someday) and so on. Then when we see
people doing things that look like catching, pointing, flocking,
balancing, grasping, talking, and so on we will have a pretty good idea
of what's being done from the actor's perspective. That is, we'll be
able to make a pretty good guess about the perceptual variables are
actually being controlled when we see people performing these
activities.
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2001.09.06.1538 MDT)
Bruce Gregory (2001.0905.1047)
Rick:
want ("want" is just a fancy way of saying "reference state for a
controlled variable");
Bruce:
Hmmm. I would have thought it was the other way around....
What do you think the answer will be if you see a man (a) holding nothing,
and (b) holding an apple, and ask "do you want an apple?" How about "Do you
want _that_ apple?" When you say people are in want, what does this mean in
PCT terms? I think the PCT terms are generally more precise than informal
ones.
With respect to this general thread, I would really like to see a list of
behaviors that are _not_ examples of control behavior. It seems to me that
those would be much harder to find -- in fact, I would really like to see
such a list. It might contain some fruitful ideas for research.
Mary and I leave for France tomorrow morning, so we'll be off the net for a
while. Happy September.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2001.09.06.1800)]
Bill Powers (2001.09.06.1538 MDT)
Mary and I leave for France tomorrow morning, so we'll be off
the net for a while. Happy September.
Bon voyage. Say hi to all my friends over there. I look forward
to hearing about what happens.
Love
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (20010907.0958)]
Bill Powers (2001.09.06.1538 MDT)
With respect to this general thread, I would really like to see a list of
behaviors that are _not_ examples of control behavior. It seems to me that
those would be much harder to find -- in fact, I would really like to see
such a list. It might contain some fruitful ideas for research.
It seems to me that there are many behaviors whose relationship to control
is likely to remain undecided for quite some time. I can certainly
_conjecture_ that they are control behavior, but modeling them may be
beyond Rick's current abilities given the other demands on his time.
[From Bill Powers (2001.09.25.0953 MDT)]
Here we are back at our daughter Allie's house from our bus tour of
northeran France and then the Third ECSG meeting in Germany, both very
satisfactory. 220 messages, which I will not try to deal with in detail.
Wolfgang Zocher spoke of his decision to continue the development of his
analog-computer simulation program, to be called SimPCT ("SimCon" belongs
to someone else now). Dick Robertson spoke further about the new edition of
Modern Psychology, now to include tutorials on the uses and applications of
SimPCT. I presented the square-circle program with the added feature of a
model that simulates the human performance. Christian Heider gave a talk on
his project for "Fractalizing a docedahedron," which turned out to have
considerable interest to me as a possible way of defining spaces for
multidimensional reorganization. Christian also presented a view of
Gibson's concepts of perception that was a real surprise: he saw Gibson as
a radical constructivist, not a naive realist. I didn't kn ow it was
possible to read Gibson that way. He also offered to translate some of our
demo programs into the language SmallTalk. Bjoern Simonsen spoke on his
plans for introducing PCT in Denmark. Stefan Balke outlined his way of
introducing PCT as a way of teaching Ed Ford's RTP program -- he said he is
getting about two enaquires from new school districts _every day_, strictly
as a result of word-of-mouth spread of descriptions by current users of the
school programs. Richard Kennaway showed a very advanced version of
"archie", the bug program, and demonstrated how he has used PCT control
principles to produce a rule-driven simulation of a person producing signs
in British Sign Language (for the deaf). Dag Forssell contributed several
"suppkementary commentaries" on other talks as well as his thoughts on
"what is PCT?" And of course he and Christine taped the whole meeting, so
at a laughably small cost you can have your own complete record, which will
include much that my very brief summary leaves out. Dag also gave Richard
Kennaway a suitacase full of tapes of previous meetings converted to the
European PAL format, for a lending library. A total of 12 people attended
the meeting (including Wolfgang's son Janosch), with the above 7 giving
more or less organized presentations. Wolfgang called the meeting a
"workshop," which was appropriate -- lots of useful interplay and
interaction. A highlight of the meeting occured Friday night when we all
went to the Zochers' house to see Wolfgang's working analog computing
setup, vintage 1968 or so. That's on tape, too.
···
========================================================================
Comments:
Bruce Gregory (20010907.0958)
Bill Powers (2001.09.06.1538 MDT)
With respect to this general thread, I would really like to see a list of
behaviors that are _not_ examples of control behavior.
It seems to me that there are many behaviors whose relationship to control
is likely to remain undecided for quite some time. I can certainly
_conjecture_ that they are control behavior, but modeling them may be
beyond Rick's current abilities given the other demands on his time.
Even so, it would be good to have a list to work on -- perhaps there are
people other than Rick who might also attempt models. Part of the reason is
to see how such behaviors are now being explained, and on what bases the
explanations have been accepted. If it turns out that the control
explanation can rather easily be shown to have an advantage over others, we
don't really have to wait for full-bore modeling to indicate a preference.
With regard to the thread on perception:
My definition of perception is independent of control theory. As one
inclined to the engineering persuasion, I accept the simplest observations
about how the brain knows about its world, and have constructed my models
accordingly. As far as any data I have ever seen in concerned, all
information about what lies outside the brain enters in the form of
chemical or neural signals, no other (normal) path of information transfer
from the external world being known. So all that is known to a brain (mine,
yours, anyone's) must come from sensory signals or from combining signals
to create higher-order signals. Even prior to that, I assume that what does
the perceiving is the brain, or some entity that detects brain signals
(leaving various possibilities open). I haven't seen any other proposals
concerning perception that don't rely on arm-waving and magic (and I really
don't care how many psychologists believe them).
The specific association of perceptions with afferent signals is less
secure. I noted early that I can't detect outgoing signals such as the
signals that activate my own muscles. Maybe others can, but I can't. Also,
when I worked out a way for outgoing signals to become perceptions
(imagination connection), I realized that I can't simultaneous imagine
something and perceive the same something in a different state. Hence those
switches, just to represent the phenomenon.
Not perceiving error signals is even iffier; sometimes it seems that we
actually do experience the error, though it's not clear whether we perceive
the error itself, or side-effects of the error-correction activies to which
they give rise.
The question of whether outputs or error signals (outgoing signals in
general) can be perceived does relate specifically to control theory, but
the main question about afferent signals is more general.
Finally, for now, uncontrolled perceptions:
Perceptions that are uncontrolled at one level may enter into the
definition of one or more perceptions at a higher level. Thus they provide
a way in which disturbances can act at higher levels without being
counteracted at a lower level. Consider the relationship involved in
"chasing." I can perceive my own position and the position of the person
I'm chasing. I can control the perception of my own position, but not my
perception of the other person's position. However, "chasing" is a
relationship between those two perceptions. I can influence the state of
the chasing perception by adjusting my own position so as to continue
chasing the other person no matter how he or she moves. The other person's
movements are then disturbances of the "chasing" perception.
Are there perceptions that are uncontrolled at _any_ level -- which never
become part of some higher-order perception? That doesn't seem likely to
me, but I wouldn't bet much against it.
An unscientific but considered opinion:
On the night before we flew from Hannover to Paris to Chicago to Denver, I
lay awake struggling with imagined hijacking scenes. Would I take part in a
Flight 93 passenger uprising? Probably yes. The most important thing we can
do is deny the hijackers their goals which they want to reach by killing as
many innocent people as possible. Even if the passengers revolt and die,
they will have saved many others from being destroyed. And they might win:
it's happened before. So I think that some "Flight 93 training" might be a
good idea, as well as a memorial.
The most important thing we can do, I repeat, is to prevent terrorist acts
from succeeding.
And once we have done that, the next most important thing is to change our
own behavior that is giving them a justification for what they do.
Best,
Bill P.
This is from Phil Runkel on 26 Sept 01.
Bill P: Thanks for the report from Germany. I am delighted to learn of
the activity, including the several projects that are advancing. -- Phil
R.