[Martin Taylor 2017.02.08.10.56]
[From Rick Marken (2017.02.07.1210][
Memory is a funny thing. It would be quite interesting if someone
who was not on CSGnet when Bill was seriously active there would go
back to the archives and see whether they would agree with that
characterization. My perception of the interactions on these (and
other) topics is quite different. I remember being in
quasi-permanent conflict with Rick, but not with Bill, despite
occasional scientific disagreements, most of which were settled
quite quickly.
But that was then and this is now. When reading the message to which
I am responding, let’s remember that there is (according to Rick
recently) no such thing as an environmental variable that
corresponds to the controlled perception.
[From Rick Marken(2017.02.02.1400)]
RM: Hopefully, you can see nowthat it makes no sense to talk about an “actual” environmental
variable, like distance, that corresponds to the perception that
the controller is controlling. Indeed, one could say that the
“actual” variable being controlled is the perceptual variable.
"One could say"? Isn't that what Bill Powers spent nearly 60 years
trying to get people to understand?
[From Rick Marken (2017.02.07.1210][
The main ones I remember are "control ofbehavior" (I said it was possible; everyone else said no),
“control of perception versus control of CEV” (I said control of
perception was the same as control of the aspect of the
environment defined by the perception; everyone else said it is
only perception that is controlled
There's a question either of language or of logic here. I doubt that
Bill would have let either pass without using his (usually) gentle
Socratic method of correction by asking questions that made the
other think. I have no intention of playing the “What would Bill
Powers have said” game, and am not good at his technique, so I make
do with what I can do, as follows.
As I use language, if "control of perception [is] the same as
control of the aspect of the environment defined by the perception",
then it is highly illogical to say that the " aspect of the
environment defined by the perception" doesn’t exist.
If we are talking in a community that assumes PCT to be basically
correct, as I understand a control loop, it can contain only one
controlled variable, and the variable that is controlled is
determined by the asymmetry between the input- and output-side gains
of the loop. This is the critical asymmetry that allows us to talk
about the “Behavioural Illusion”. It is what determines that the
output effect on the (non-existent) environmental variable is just
what is needed to counter the disturbance influence on that
variable, rather than the details of the internals of the control
unit inside the body of the organism.
On the other hand...
[From Rick Marken (2017.02.08.1050)] to Warren Mansell.
RM: Your comment has helped me understandwhy you see merit in Martin Taylor’s ideas about the relationship
between the controlled perception, p, and the controlled quantity,
q.i (which he calls the CEV). Both you and Martin seem to believe
that p, the perceptual signal, is controlled while q.i, the
environmental correlate of p, is only “apparently” controlled, as
a side effect of controlling p. In order to believe this, you have
to take the theory as fact and the fact to be explained – that
q.i is being controlled – as theory.
That's a rather interesting perception of the situation, which again
does not correspond to mine. The perception that q.i behaves
as if it were controlled is the fact. That it is controlled is a
theory. A perception in the desert of what appears to be a lake in
the distance is a fact. That it is a lake from which one could drink
water is a theory.
How qi is apparently controlled is a refinement of the theory. That
refinement is called PCT. PCT is a theory that shows why q.i appears
as though it is controlled, and why it is not controlled. Like the
lake in the desert, control of q.i is a convincing mirage until you
look at what must be the case if it is indeed controlled. For a
variable to be controlled, it must have a reference value and a
mechanism for comparing its actual value to its reference value. PCT
supplies those for the control of a related variable, which Powers
called the “perception” of the environmental variable that appears
to be controlled.
The counterpart of the "Behavioural Illusion" is, I think, the
“control illusion” in which an external observer perceives that an
environmental variable (that on Thursdays does not exist) is being
controlled when what is controlled is (according to PCT) a
perception of that (non-existent) environmental variable.
Both illusions depend on the quality of control, the Behavioural
Illusion more so than the Control Illusion. In the “Control
illusion”, the output appears to be determined by the Disturbance,
which is exactly the S-R view on the loop – in other words, it is a
manifestation of the Behavioural Illusion. From a PCT view of
“control”, the Disturbance seems to be acting as a reference value
for minus the output. When you analyze a well-functioning control
loop, however, the perception is influenced strongly by the
reference while the disturbance has little effect, whereas its
symmetrical counterpart, the output influence on the apparently
controlled variable, is influenced almost equally strongly by both.
When different statements are logically inconsistent, something has
to give. Either the language is being misused or misinterpreted or
at least one of the claims is false. In this case, I think “at
least” may be rather conservative. But I suppose it’s just Rick 1
arguing against Rick 2 again. If his two personae are treated as
different people, then I guess the inconsistency and illogicality
vanish. We just have to see which one, if either, is justified by
science.
Martin
···
RM: Since Bill passed away it seems to me like you
[Warren Mansell: MT] and everyone else on CSGNet has
disagreed with me on virtually every topic we’ve
discussed. The main ones I remember are “control of
behavior” (I said it was possible; everyone else said no),
“control of perception versus control of CEV” (I said
control of perception was the same as control of the
aspect of the environment defined by the perception;
everyone else said it is only perception that is
controlled) and, of course, the “power law”. I welcome the
criticism and the debate. But I do find it interesting
that these same topics (except for the power law, of
course) came up before Bill passed away and at that time
it was almost always everyone arguing against Bill and me.