[From Rick Marken (2001.09.06.0810)]
Rohan Lulham wrote:
Along the lines of 'want' as a way to tap the controlled variable what do
people think of some other words proposed by Austin and Vancouver(1995) and
others to look at Control System functioning such as;
When PCT experts are talking with one another I think we should try to
use language which already has a well understood technical meaning. The
vocabulary of PCT is already nicely laid out in the glossary of B:CP.
When we talk with lay people I think we should use non-technical
language that approximates the meaning od the PCT terms. So we should
ask lay people "What do you want?" rather than "What is your reference
for perceptual variable X?"
The essence of my proposed approach to testing for controlled
architectural variables in a detention facility was not that it's
verbal. It was that you show people a model of the facility which can be
changed (the model could be a rendering in a 3-D CAD program, for
example). My proposal was that you keep changing the model until the
testee keeps saying "yes, that's good". I don't know much about what you
are trying to find out but it might be interesting to do this with a
detainee and a guard simultaneously. I think it would quickly reveal
conflicts between the wants of these people. The detainee would probably
start saying "yes" when the rooms got large, with nice window views, a
desk, TV and an indoor/outdoor sports facility. The guard would probably
be saying "no" until the rooms got smaller, and the guards had better
self defense systems. You might be able to find a solution where both
were moderately happy (or unhappy, depending on how you look at it).
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 Jeff Vancouver (2001.09.06.1600 EST)]
I concur with Rick. But I think the other issue is that a lot of words are
used in the psychological literature that may (or may not) correspond with
each other (including PCT vocabulary). A major point of the Austin and
Vancouver (1996) paper was to highlight the possible overlap in what is
being studied within and between areas (subdisciplines) of psychology (and
management), but which is using different vocabularies. Of course the
opposite problem is possible: same word, different meaning.
Jeff
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:13 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: PCT, 'want' questions and other questions
[From Rick Marken (2001.09.06.0810)]
Rohan Lulham wrote:
> Along the lines of 'want' as a way to tap the controlled
variable what do
> people think of some other words proposed by Austin and
Vancouver(1995) and
> others to look at Control System functioning such as;
When PCT experts are talking with one another I think we should try to
use language which already has a well understood technical
meaning. The
vocabulary of PCT is already nicely laid out in the glossary of B:CP.
When we talk with lay people I think we should use non-technical
language that approximates the meaning od the PCT terms. So we should
ask lay people "What do you want?" rather than "What is your reference
for perceptual variable X?"
The essence of my proposed approach to testing for controlled
architectural variables in a detention facility was not that it's
verbal. It was that you show people a model of the facility
which can be
changed (the model could be a rendering in a 3-D CAD program, for
example). My proposal was that you keep changing the model until the
testee keeps saying "yes, that's good". I don't know much
about what you
are trying to find out but it might be interesting to do this with a
detainee and a guard simultaneously. I think it would quickly reveal
conflicts between the wants of these people. The detainee
would probably
start saying "yes" when the rooms got large, with nice window views, a
desk, TV and an indoor/outdoor sports facility. The guard
would probably
be saying "no" until the rooms got smaller, and the guards had better
self defense systems. You might be able to find a solution where both
were moderately happy (or unhappy, depending on how you look at it).
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 Bruce Gregory (2001.0906.1620)]
Jeff Vancouver (2001.09.06.1600 EST)
I concur with Rick. But I think the other issue is that a lot of words are
used in the psychological literature that may (or may not) correspond with
each other (including PCT vocabulary).
I suspect that the PCT use of the term "perception" might be baffling to
many people. In particular, the fact that this term is used to refer to:
(1) the input to a control circuit; and (2) a "traditional" perception,
e.g., the perception that it is daylight (along with the inference that the
sun, which I cannot see, must be above the horizon). Thus the phrase "it is
all perception", seems to say one thing (2), but actually says something
quite different (1).
[From Bill Powers (2001.09.06.1553 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0906.1620)--
I suspect that the PCT use of the term "perception" might be baffling to
many people. In particular, the fact that this term is used to refer to:
(1) the input to a control circuit; and (2) a "traditional" perception,
e.g., the perception that it is daylight (along with the inference that the
sun, which I cannot see, must be above the horizon). Thus the phrase "it is
all perception", seems to say one thing (2), but actually says something
quite different (1).
It says both, but more exactly. A perception is a signal in a perceptual
input channel leaving a perceptual input function (whether or not that
signal happens to be under control). The proposal is that _all_ that can be
experienced, at any level, consists of perceptual signals.
When you say "the sun is above the horizon" without being able to see the
sun, this is a special case of perceiving in which the signals are being
internally generated rather than depending on external circumstances in the
usual way (starting with sensors). Of course no perception of the sun, real
or imagined, need be involved: the statement "the sun is above the horizon"
could be a verbal consequence of a reasoning process, so while you would
perceive that sentence (in imagination if not actually saying or hearing
it) you might not also provide yourself with an imagined visual image to go
with it.
It's hard to say exactly what you mean in ordinary language.
Best,
Bill P.
i.kurtzer (2001.09.07.0000)
[From Bill Powers (2001.09.06.1553 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0906.1620)--
>I suspect that the PCT use of the term "perception" might be baffling to
>many people. In particular, the fact that this term is used to refer to:
>(1) the input to a control circuit; and (2) a "traditional" perception,
>e.g., the perception that it is daylight (along with the inference that
the
>sun, which I cannot see, must be above the horizon). Thus the phrase "it
is
>all perception", seems to say one thing (2), but actually says something
>quite different (1).
It says both, but more exactly. A perception is a signal in a perceptual
input channel leaving a perceptual input function (whether or not that
signal happens to be under control). The proposal is that _all_ that can
be
experienced, at any level, consists of perceptual signals.
I don't think that this proposal gets us very far. Of course, all
perceptions have to correlate to some signal, but why would this signal
correspond to any perception.
Does a signal acting as a reference make it "unperceivable", why, or a
signal that acts as an error signal, why? Or why are plenty of afferent
signals not perceived?
My five cent answer is "who cares". This is not presently testable and
anyone that would be drawn to PCT, or away, due to an untestable issue is
not very interesting to me.
i.
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0907.1000)]
i.kurtzer (2001.09.07.0000)
I don't think that this proposal gets us very far. Of course, all
perceptions have to correlate to some signal, but why would this signal
correspond to any perception.
Does a signal acting as a reference make it "unperceivable", why, or a
signal that acts as an error signal, why? Or why are plenty of afferent
signals not perceived?
My five cent answer is "who cares". This is not presently testable and
anyone that would be drawn to PCT, or away, due to an untestable issue is
not very interesting to me.
For what little it is worth, I concur.
[from Jeff Vancouver (2001.09.07.11:26)]
For what it is worth, I have so far only found one person who did not like
the perception label, and that was a chemist (although I thought he had an
interesting point, I do not remember what it was at this time). Perception
seems to have the fewest alternative labels in the PCT/psychology
interaction.
Jeff
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Bruce Gregory
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:00 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: PCT, 'want' questions and other questions
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0907.1000)]
>i.kurtzer (2001.09.07.0000)
>
>I don't think that this proposal gets us very far. Of course, all
>perceptions have to correlate to some signal, but why would
this signal
>correspond to any perception.
>Does a signal acting as a reference make it "unperceivable",
why, or a
>signal that acts as an error signal, why? Or why are plenty
of afferent
>signals not perceived?
>My five cent answer is "who cares". This is not presently
testable and
>anyone that would be drawn to PCT, or away, due to an
untestable issue is
>not very interesting to me.
For what little it is worth, I concur.
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0907.1227)]
Jeff Vancouver (2001.09.07.11:26)
For what it is worth, I have so far only found one person who did not like
the perception label, and that was a chemist (although I thought he had an
interesting point, I do not remember what it was at this time). Perception
seems to have the fewest alternative labels in the PCT/psychology
interaction.
I am not sure exactly what this means. Do psychologists in general agree
that "A perception is a signal in a perceptual
input channel leaving a perceptual input function (whether or not that
signal happens to be under control). The proposal is that _all_ that can be
experienced, at any level, consists of perceptual signals."
[From Rick Marken (2001.09.07.950)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0907.1227) to Jeff Vancouver (2001.09.07.11:26)
Do psychologists in general agree that "A perception is a signal in a
perceptual input channel leaving a perceptual input function (whether
or not that signal happens to be under control).
I'd say that nearly all psychologists agree with this. My view may be
biased by the fact that my training was in the field of perception and,
thus, the psychologists I knew were pretty sophisticated about
perception. But my impression is that most psychologists would agree
that perception is the result of a neural transformation of physical
variables into neural signals. Not all, of course, would agree that
perceptions are represented in terms of the magnitude (rate of firing)
of single neural signals, as in PCT. Some would say that perception is
represented as a neural _code_. Others (like Hubel and Weisel) would say
that perception is represented as the thresholded (detected or not
detected) output of a perceptual function. Still others would say that
the perception is represented in an array of neurons. But the idea
common to all of these models of perception is that perception is some
kind of neural event (code, rate, array) that is the _output_ of some
kind of perceptual input function (which may be simple transducers or
complex receptive fields, like those discovered by Hubel and Weisel).
That is, all would agree that p = f(X), where X is a vector of physical
variables, f() is the perceptual function and p is the neural
instantiation of f(X).
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 Bruce Gregory (2001.0907.1335)]
From Rick Marken (2001.09.07.950)
> "A perception is a signal in a
> perceptual input channel leaving a perceptual input function (whether
> or not that signal happens to be under control).
Seems to me to be different from the statement:
most psychologists would agree
that perception is the result of a neural transformation of physical
variables into neural signals.
However, I may be too picky. I would be happier if we talked in terms of
inputs and outputs, which are well-defined in PCT, and we avoided the term
"perception," which as far as I can tell is neither well-defined, nor
necessary for the model. Some inputs are associated with what most people
would call perceptions, but others are not. In addition some perceptions
are not inputs to control systems, as Bill explicitly states above.
I would have no objection to the statement, "It's all input control." It's
not as provocative as "It's all perception," but it seems to me to be a lot
more accurate, and that seems to be what we are striving for. Isaac might
even agree. But then again, he might not.
[from Jeff Vancouver (2001.09.07.1440)]
I am glad Rick waded in on this. I am not too familar with the perceptual
side of cognitive psychology. Most that I interact with are dealing with
"higher-order" phenomenon (e.g., decision making). In other words, most do
not give it much thought (which might be way there is not an explosion of
vocabulary).
More below:
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0907.1335)]
> From Rick Marken (2001.09.07.950)
> "A perception is a signal in a
> > perceptual input channel leaving a perceptual input
function (whether
> > or not that signal happens to be under control).
Seems to me to be different from the statement:
>most psychologists would agree
>that perception is the result of a neural transformation of physical
>variables into neural signals.
However, I may be too picky. I would be happier if we talked
in terms of
inputs and outputs, which are well-defined in PCT, and we
avoided the term
"perception," which as far as I can tell is neither well-defined, nor
necessary for the model. Some inputs are associated with what
most people
would call perceptions, but others are not. In addition some
perceptions
are not inputs to control systems, as Bill explicitly states above.
I would have no objection to the statement, "It's all input
control." It's
not as provocative as "It's all perception," but it seems to
me to be a lot
more accurate, and that seems to be what we are striving for.
Isaac might
even agree. But then again, he might not.
I think the input/output terms are less specific. To each function (input,
comparator, and output) there are inputs and outputs. The labels
(perception, error, reference signals) of the outputs help distinguish them.
Indeed, I find the input and output function labels cumbersome for this
reason (but I live with it).
Jeff
[From Bruce Gregory 92001.0907.1501)]
Jeff Vancouver (2001.09.07.1440)
I think the input/output terms are less specific. To each function (input,
comparator, and output) there are inputs and outputs. The labels
(perception, error, reference signals) of the outputs help distinguish them.
Indeed, I find the input and output function labels cumbersome for this
reason (but I live with it).
I don't think of it in quite that way. Any control circuit has two inputs,
only one of which is controlled by the output of the circuit. The
perception and the reference level are inputs. The controlled input is the
perception. The output is normally just called the output. The only problem
with the term perception is that there are perceptions that are not inputs
to control circuits, and there are inputs to control circuits that we don't
normally think of as perceptions because we are not aware of them.