(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.21.16.51NZT)
Having just re-read J.C. Smuts Holism & Evolution for the 3rd or 4th time in the context of PCT I have realized that knowledge, information, language, conditions, religion etc are really just Perceptual Controlled Variables.
The more I explore PCT in relationship to other disciplines the more I like it. For me it’s beginning to make sense as a Gestalt type theory.
PCT is not a psychological discipline no wonder psychologists dislike it.
( Gavin
Ritz 2010.09.13.10.39NZT)
I’m going to try another angle.
Attached is a hand drawing of the PCT
Control System.
In this drawing I have placed the entire
CS Model inside the Perceptual Controlled Variable (PCV) bubble.
Because that is what feedback is?
I don’t think there should be too many
doubters on this issue. (Are there?).
So the math for the block model is only
part of the PCT model, fair enough and good enough as a part. But its only part
of the feedback for a human organism. Feedback is nested like in the attached diagram.
Any model of humans is required to model the entire network. (In short holism).
What type of math do we have that shows feedback
systems in their entirety. Luckily there is plenty.
The simple quadratic Iterator is a great
example of feedback. (See Peitgen, Chaos & Fractals, New Frontiers of Science,
page 585). One gets the well know Fig Tree Fractal or the Feigenbaum Diagram.
There is both chaos and order, and
bifurcations and it’s a fractal. This is my point when I say the very
central concept of any human mental model needs to show this.
This is also why Prigogine and others have been so
focused on the concept of a dissipative structure.
Regards
Gavin
Hand Drawn Pic of PCV1.pdf (837 KB)
{From Rick Marken (2010.09.12.2220)]
Gavin Ritz (2010.09.13.10.39NZT)
I�m going to try another angle.
Attached is a hand drawing of the PCT Control System.
Gavin, this diagram is beyond wrong. I was going to reply to your
earlier post on honesty (since I just finished up a little project and
have some time) but now I don't think there is any reason to. Your
interests and understandings of science and control theory seem to be
completely orthogonal to mine. Maybe there is someone else on this
list who knows how to communicate with you. But I'm afraid I'm not the
one.
Best
Rick
In this drawing I have placed the entire CS Model inside the Perceptual
Controlled Variable (PCV) bubble.Because that is what feedback is?
I don�t think there should be too many doubters on this issue. (Are there?).
So the math for the block model is only part of the PCT model, fair enough
and good enough as a part. But its only part of the feedback for a human
organism. Feedback is nested like in the attached diagram. Any model of
humans is required to model the entire network. (In short holism).What type of math do we have that shows feedback systems in their entirety.
Luckily there is plenty.The simple quadratic Iterator is a great example of feedback. (See Peitgen,
Chaos & Fractals, New Frontiers of Science, page 585). One gets the well
know Fig Tree Fractal or the Feigenbaum Diagram.There is both chaos and order, and bifurcations and it�s a fractal. This is
my point when I say the very central concept of any human mental model needs
to show this.This is also why Prigogine and others have been so focused on the concept of
a dissipative structure.Regards
Gavin
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.13.21.56NZT)
{From Rick Marken (2010.09.12.2220)]
Gavin Ritz (2010.09.13.10.39NZT)
I'm going to try another angle.
Attached is a hand drawing of the PCT Control System.
Gavin, this diagram is beyond wrong.
Oh Well, then I just give up. Maybe you are right I know absolutely nothing
at all.
I must be one helleva stupid individual, around every corner I'm wrong.
So be it.
Regards
Gavin
[Martin Taylor 2010.09.13.10.23]
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.13.21.56NZT)
{From Rick Marken (2010.09.12.2220)]Gavin Ritz (2010.09.13.10.39NZT)
I'm going to try another angle.
Attached is a hand drawing of the PCT Control System.
Gavin, this diagram is beyond wrong.
Oh Well, then I just give up. Maybe you are right I know absolutely nothing
at all.I must be one helleva stupid individual, around every corner I'm wrong.
So be it.
Gavin,
All Rick means is that your diagram looks unrelated to what around here is considered to be PCT, and therefore comments on it are very hard to make while seeming to be coherent. It doesn't mean (though it's what he says) that you are wrong, just that you haven't explained how your ideas could be related to PCT. I confess to having the same problem as Rick, though I word it differently.
I have a related question. what is "HPCT" in your nested diagram, and where are the connections made across the "bubble membrane" to the functioning elements inside the bubble?
As an aside to an earlier posting of yours, entropy generation is a consequence of any action that is not adiabatic and infinitely slow. The issue is not how to generate entropy, but how to export it to maintain a consistently low entropy within the organism. That's what the energy flow is for.
Martin
Oh Well, then I just give up. Maybe you are right
I know absolutely nothing
at all.
I must be one helleva stupid individual, around
every corner I’m wrong.
Martin says: All Rick means is that your diagram looks unrelated
No Martin, Rick has an agenda buddy. Only he
knows what that stuck controlled variable is. He’s been using it for 30 years.
Hence my comments about honesty.
If Ilya Prigogine has to read this stuff he would
immediately say. There is no structural (being) aspect to this model at a
certain level. And there is no connection in a transitive and asymmetrical
manner with functions (becoming- processes). It’s a totally functionally
based Theory.
Prigogine would say: So at a certain
level PCT is the emperor without any clothes.
Cheers Martin
[Martin Taylor 2010.09.13.17.05]
> Oh Well, then Ijust give up. Maybe you are right
I know absolutely nothing
at all.
> I must be onehelleva stupid individual, around
every corner I’m wrong.
Martin says: All Rick means is that your diagram looks unrelated
No Martin, Rick has an
agenda buddy. Only he
knows what that stuck controlled variable is. He’s been
using it for 30 years.
Hence my comments about honesty.
Forget Rick. He can speak for himself if he wants. For myself, I'd
like to understand how your diagram relates to PCT, specifically,
how do the connections link from outside the “bubble” to inside it,
and what is meant by “HPCT” in each nested bubble. If I understood
those things, I might be able to understand how what you are saying
relates to PCT, and perhaps be able to serve as an interpreter.
If Ilya Prigogine has to
read this stuff he would
immediately say. There is no structural (being) aspect to
this model at a
certain level. And there is no connection in a transitive
and asymmetrical
manner with functions (becoming- processes). It’s a
totally functionally
based Theory.
I'm not clear where Prigogine gets into the act. Clearly we are
talking about a self-organized system in a non-equilibrium energy
flow. I imagine everyone on this list who has heard of a
self-organized system would agree to that. But that isn’t where Bill
Powers came from in devising the highly structured process model
that we call HPCT. For Bill, the demonstrable fact of control came
first, and the demonstrations that multi-level control actually does
work followed. Unless something can be shown to work, in an
operating model, whether live or simulated in a computer, it’s just
an idea for Bill, perhaps worth following up to see if it can be
made to work, perhaps not. So I don’t see how you can distinguish
process and function in talking about HPCT. The problematic
functions are precisely the perceptual input functions – just what
is it that is perceived and possibly controlled at each level.
As for your earlier questions about "honesty", I think you answered
them yourself by listing several different things the word can mean.
As a controlled variable, what is controlled is whichever of those
meanings (and probably others) that person at that moment labels
“honesty”. It’s not possible to control one’s perception of someone
else’s “honesty”, or rather it’s very hard, involving (if you
believe HPCT) substantial reorganization on the part of the other. Acc ording to
HPCT, that reorganization will happen if the person is unable
for a sufficient time to control some variables that are
important, but how the reorganization proceeds is unpredictable
and may well not result in changing your perception of that
person’s “honesty”. So your control of their “honesty” is
unlikely to be quickly successful.
According to HPCT, control of your perception of your own
“honesty” is another matter. If you have a reference value for
that perception as “brutally honest”, you will cause error if
when your wife asks “Does this dress make me look fat” you say
“No, dear”, while thinking “yes”. But if your reference value
for your perception of your own honesty is “I can do what is
needed to get money”, then you can rob a bank without increasing
error in that control unit, but if you see a person drop a $100
bill on the street and chase the person to give it back, you
would increase the error in your control of your perception of
your own “honesty”.
Anyway, I don't like appealing to authority in the sense of
quoting what they would say if they were here, and I have no
idea what Prigogine would say. Or, for that matter, what Bill P.
would say if he chose to enter the discussion, which I do not
expect him to do.
Martin
PS. As I was about to send this, Rick's message about "honesty"
showed up. I agree with what he has to say, and it’s amusing
that he chose the same example of the wife’s dress.
On 2010/09/13 4:57 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.1416.48NZT)
[Martin Taylor
2010.09.13.17.05]
Oh Well, then
I just give up. Maybe you are right I know absolutely nothing
at all.
I must be one
helleva stupid individual, around every corner I’m wrong.
Martin says: All Rick
means is that your diagram looks unrelated
No Martin, Rick has an agenda buddy. Only he
knows what that stuck controlled variable is. He’s been using it for 30 years.
Hence my comments about honesty.
Forget Rick. He can speak for himself if he wants. For myself,
I’d like to understand how your diagram relates to PCT, specifically, how do
the connections link from outside the “bubble” to inside it, and what
is meant by “HPCT” in each nested bubble.
Martin
That is the nature of feedback systems.
They mirror themselves in a nested way. Like a fractal. This I’m afraid
is a fact of feedback systems. Don’t take my word for it, have a look at
Beers Viable Systems Model, or just about any multi level model on feedback systems.
Simple single level Control systems do not need to do so. But as soon as one is
dealing with a living organism or even a business organisation with multiple levels
it becomes an imperative fact.
PCT does allow for it through the “Controlled
variable”. If it doesn’t PCT is in big trouble. I think PCT does,
some have just not really realized that fact.
If I understood
those things, I might be able to understand how what you are saying relates to
PCT, and perhaps be able to serve as an interpreter.
If Ilya Prigogine has to read this stuff he would
immediately say. There is no structural (being) aspect to this model at a
certain level. And there is no connection in a transitive and asymmetrical
manner with functions (becoming- processes). It’s a totally functionally
based Theory.
. So I don’t see how you can distinguish process and function
You have just hit the nail on the head here
you can’t. Function and process is the same thing. I’m talking
about a processing-structure. This is an entirely different kettle of fish. The
human body is not made up of functions only. No living organism is (and the
same for organisations). It’s okay to talk like this when you are only
measuring simple functions (lower levels). But once you want to start
abstracting we are compelled to be talking about structure (being) and processing
(becoming). Prigogine wrote a whole treaty on this called “From Being to Becoming”.
There is always a FORM and a CONTENT. The
content is what PCT is measuring at the low levels.
You and I have talked past each other so
many times on
this issue. I don’t seem to be able to get across the issue. Maybe it’s
how I’m expressing this key issue.
Before we can converse on Complex Systems
we need to have a common ground of what each other implies. The higher the abstraction
the more complicated the logic.
in talking about HPCT.
The problematic functions are precisely the perceptual input functions
The name input “functions”
says it all. They can’t possibly be functions only. They are input physiological
structures (structure-functions). One side of the coin is missing.
Regards
Gavin
On 2010/09/13 4:57 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:
[From Dick Robertson,2010.09.14.0845CDT]
I think Gavin Ritz has a point when he raises his question about HPCT. That is his claim (if I understand correctly) about the difficulty of describing a proper model for higher levels of controlled variables. As I have followed this discussion my first reaction was to dismiss Gavin (in my own mind) as another in that long stream of guys who have affected to be interested in PCT and cliamed to have mastered it to where they were in a position to correct its many defects. In the end they went away, often with a rude outburst of picque – that their genius had been been recognized by the dolts who subscribed to Bill Powers’ theory. But i came to agree that there has to be some difficulty in developing HPCT.
That and the other recent thread highlighted the need for a definition of what a model is. My idea derives from the very literal models we looked at in grade school, the model of the solar system in which you could see the relationships between the sun and planets. You could see why – as long as you thought the earth the center – the planets would sometimes appear to move backwards. You could see the phases of the moon as it moved around the world (our model had a light bulb for the sun in the middle. There were other things that helped define the concept of model for me, model trains, for example. What all these “models” had in common was that they were physical objects that corresponded in essential ways to the larger objects – systems – to which they applied. I don’t recalll seeing Gavin’s definition of a true model, but I assumed it might be something like that too. So when he decried the lack of analogues to that concept in HPCT I had to agree.
However, I diverged on two areas of discussion. First, Gaven seemed to say that he didn’t find Bill’s tentative descriptory of higher order useful or accurate. I have found it very useful and have made applications based upon assuming that it is at least roughly right, i.e. corresponding to something that is real, even though it’s hard to find analogues in the physical world. That is the point, I think. The levels through Relationship" can be dirrectly experienced in the physical wolrd. Everybody agrees, I think, in calling a certain configuration of senstions a “corner,” or another one, a “circle,” etc. Likewise the word “Event” applies to something in the physical world we humans seem able to agree that we experience in an idential way. The batter, or tennnis player, hit the ball, or didn’'t. The fly sat on the wall, and was no longer moving, etc.
When we get above the level of relationships, the controlled variable of interest is wholly in one’s head. I believe. We do not automatically see the same categories as the next person. We can train each other to a point of considerable agreement. The Dewey decimal system, for example can be defined in words well enough that one person will classify a given book with the same numbers as another. But it isn’t perfect. I have found people to differ sometimes in how to classify a given work. Then they have to dispute, refine definitions, resort to authority, etc. in order to bring as much correspondence as possible between two or more individuals.
Likewise when we examine how to describe someone’s sequence controls, or strategies/programs it seems even more difficult to develop even the training by which two observers could be shown to perceive some class of others as controlling “the same thing.”
Gavin’s approach seemed to be that other people had alread solved problems of this sort, and their work should be incorporated into PCT to remedy the defects of Bill’s HPCT scheme. I asked whom he had in mind, and he referred me to Elliot Jacues. I googled Elliot Jacques and was sent first to Wikipedia. There I found that Elliot Jacques was, first of all, a psychoanalyst. “Aha” i reacted “Now I know that Elliot Jacques (and by extention Gavin’s idea of what a model is, is quite different from mine, or, I believe, Bill’s.”
So are we still without models for higher orders? Maybe they can’t all be simulated on a computer, but what about this example? I remember reading somewhere that the composer Modeste Mussorsky had a habit of composing little pieces on the spot that members of his friendship circle would agree as describing a certain one of their members. Apparently he reflected the given person’s rhythms in the composition, typical mood – in the ‘color’ of the notes, major or minor keys, etc. I would say the composition was a mddel of the person’s Self system. It corresponded in some major way to the behavior of the person well enough that other members of the group spontaneously identified the same person.
Actors also model other people at times, sometimes so effectively as to be identified by some audience as that other person.
If these are models of higher order systems, then, even if we haven’t yet found out how to construct them on computers it is obvious that that will come. After all robots are coming closer to simulating human behavior in many respects. When they do so aren’t they being models?
Best,
dick r
[From Bill Powers (2010.09.14.0655 MDT)]
Dick Robertson,2010.09.14.0845CDT –
DR: I think Gavin Ritz has a
point when he raises his question about HPCT. That is his claim (if I
understand correctly) about the difficulty of describing a proper model
for higher levels of controlled variables.
BP: Gavin is, of course, right about the difficulties with the higher
levels in the HPCT model. But he has misidentified the problem. There are
really two main problems: first to define what the higher levels do, and
second to explain how they do it. I have focused almost entirely on the
question of what the higher levels do, with only occasional glimpses of
answers to the other question: how they have to be organized to do it.
But this doesn’t make my approach different from anyone else’s: nobody
knows even how configuration perception works, much less any higher
level. The nearest anyone has come to artificial perception of
configurations is to develop systems that can classify and name
configurations: this is called “apple,” that is called
“zebra.” But that doesn’t explain how a person can recognize
and control a cube balanced on one corner and spinning, which doesn’t
require classifications or names.
We don’t need to know how perceptual input functions work to experience
their outputs. I’m glad to see that you have arrived at the same
conclusions.
We all know what a configuration is, and I think there’s little argument
about the general definition; something made of different sensations at
Level Two, but which is not itself a sensation.
This is true of all the other levels, as far as I’ve been able to find
consistent and mutually-coherent definitions. I don’t think anyone can
argue that we don’t perceive sequentiality (ordering), or relationships,
or logical functions (one if by land, two if by sea), and so on. I
haven’t yet heard from anyone who simply doesn’t perceive the types of
perceptions I’ve defined. Well, maybe one or two have expressed
puzzlement about what I mean by “principles.”
That doesn’t mean I’m sure I’m right, and I never encourage anyone
to memorize the levels as I have defined them, or to try to find those
levels in applications like the Method of Levels. The idea of relative
level is enough for now.
DR: That and the other recent
thread highlighted the need for a definition of what a model is. My idea
derives from the very literal models we looked at in grade school, the
model of the solar system in which you could see the relationships
between the sun and planets. You could see why – as long as you thought
the earth the center – the planets would sometimes appear to move
backwards. You could see the phases of the moon as it moved around the
world (our model had a light bulb for the sun in the middle. There were
other things that helped define the concept of model for me, model
trains, for example. What all these “models” had in common was
that they were physical objects that corresponded in essential ways to
the larger objects – systems – to which they applied. I don’t recalll
seeing Gavin’s definition of a true model, but I assumed it might be
something like that too. So when he decried the lack of analogues to that
concept in HPCT I had to agree.
Perhaps a better word than model would be simulation. A simulation is a
working representation of the relationships among variables in a physical
system. To simulate Newton’s Laws of Motion, for example, we would start
with the famous F = MA, which states that Acceleration is directly
proportional to applied Force, the constant of proportionality being
called Mass. A signal representing force/mass can be fed into an
integrator to produce an output corresponding to velocity; a velocity
signal can be fed into a second integrator to produce an output
corresponding to position. So without trying to include irrelevant
variables like price, odor, color, size, or shape, we can simulate the
behavior of a free-floating object when it’s subjected to an applied
force. The simulation will obey Newton’s laws of motion, and from its
behavior we can predict the behavior of a real physical system. That’s
the object of modeling: to construct a simulation which behaves in the
relevant ways as much like the real system as possible. By seeing how the
simulation has to be organized to achieve this end, we learn how the real
system is organized.
So modeling is not just minaturizing. If size made a difference in the
behavior we would have to give the model the correct size, too (for
example, if we want to take air resistance into account). But we don’t
have to construct an actual physical duplicate of the system. We can do
all this with computations: we can use numbers for F, M, and A, and
mathematical functions such as F = MA to represent the relationships
among these variables that are actually observed, measured. We don’t have
to make the computation weigh 10 kilograms to compute the acceleration of
a 10-Kg mass by a force of 10 Newtons.
DR: When we get above the level
of relationships, the controlled variable of interest is wholly in one’s
head. I believe. We do not automatically see the same categories as the
next person. We can train each other to a point of considerable
agreement.
BP: This is partially true, partially false. Consider how you manage to
enter a house through the front door. You reach out, grasp the knob, pull
the door open, and walk through. While this sequence may exist only in
your head, you will find that no other sequence will work; you can’t, for
example, walk through the door and then open it. While you can’t put your
finger on any actual material thing that corresponds to the sequence, it
nevertheless has an existence independent of you and you have to control
the perception of sequence in the right way if you want to enter the
house.
All of the levels I have defined have this nature: they are perceptions
that must be controlled in particular ways in order to have the effects
that are wanted. We have little choice in this: we learn the rules or we
fail to control. So there must be something objective about whatever
underlies these levels. That is what gives the definitions some degree of
reality. These levels are clues about our connections to whatever it is
that lies beyond the senses.
DR: So are we still without
models for higher orders?
BP: We are not without models of the behavior of higher orders of
control. You and David Goldstein used a model of self-concept in your
study – you used the principles of negative feedback control to predict
what a person would do when self-descriptions were contradicted, and
found that the predictions were nearly 100% correct.
What you didn’t have was a model of how a self-concept perception is
derived from lower-order perceptions. For that, you had to rely on your
own ability to perceive self-concepts in relationship to statements about
personal characteristics. You could perceive the lower-order elements and
you could perceive the effects on a higher-order perception, so even
though you couldn’t fill in the mechanism by which the higher-order
perception was generated, you could still predict from your own
experiences what the perception would be. In the same way, I can’t tell
you how a spinning cube is perceived in the midst of a huge collection of
changing sensations, but I can at least test to see if another person
perceives and controls the same thing under the same conditions in which
I perceive and control it. This shortcut seems, in fact, to work quite
well. You’ll notice that in LCS3, I predict quite confidently exactly how
a reader will behave in all the interactive demonstrations included in
the book – and I would be surprised if those predictions were ever
wrong.
DR: If these are models of
higher order systems, then, even if we haven’t yet found out how to
construct them on computers it is obvious that that will come. After all
robots are coming closer to simulating human behavior in many respects.
When they do so aren’t they being models?
BP: It’s not necessary to use a computer or build a robot to construct
and test models. The only real requirement is that the behavior of the
model follow strictly from the properties you give it, so you can’t reach
in and tweak it if it starts to misbehave. The main advantage of a
computer is that you can program it in advance so it can ONLY do what you
have specified that it does; this means you can’t cheat. But if you don’t
want to cheat, and really want an honest test of a model, all you have to
do is specify very carefully the properties you are giving the model,
using unambiguous language set down on paper so it can’t be changed after
you start to apply the model. You have to specify how to reason about the
model, how to make predictions. Then all you or anyone else needs to do
is apply the rules you have stated, without any deviations at all, even
when you can see that the predicted behavior is departing from the real
behavior.
That is really the hard part. Making a committment to a model sounds easy
until you start to have hopes that it will work. No model ever works
exactly as you thought it would the first time. You need the
self-discipline to avoid changing your premises or rules as you see
failure looming up. You have to avoid taking the easy way out by using
weasel-words whose meanings can be changed as needed without changing the
words, so it sounds as if you’re still making the same prediction as
before, only this time it’s right.
I’m pretty good at cheating like that, which is why I stick to computer
models. Deep down, I would really rather know the truth than be right.
Also, when you construct a computer model that you can’t possibly
interfere with once it’s running, there is no feeling in the world like
seeing the model do exactly what you thought it would do down to the last
significant digit. A few of us have experienced that; it doesn’t matter
that the models were simple, it’s still a miracle when you make contact
with actual reality in this way. It’s a rare experience and worth all the
effort to get there.
Best,
Bill P.
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.15.10.14NZT
[From Dick Robertson,2010.09.14.0845CDT]
Dick
I’m not going to answer your comments directly. However
a number of people have now contacted me off the list and ask me to elaborate
my interpretation of the HPCT.
First of all I’m not saying that HPCT is wrong or any
of those things, just the categories are not that useful for identification of “controlled
variables”
I’m not saying that PCT is wrong I’m SAYING it looks
CORRECT from my point of view.
There seems like so much mistrust on this list that’s
why I wanted to elaborate on the “controlled variable of Honesty”
I’m just articulating the many things that PCT implies
and trying to build pictures with it. Hence my nested “PCV”
diagram.
My addition of the CIAM model is a very detailed and
measurable version of the HPCT. I’m synthesizing models. I’m not changing
PCT in any way or form.
I think the work Bill and Rick and others have done with PCT is incredible.
I’ve have never had any tirade or made any disparaging remarks
to anyone on this list ever.
Your reading of Elliot Jaques is very inaccurate. You have condemned someone by an identity. (Psychiatrist).
But I will leave this at that.
The basis of the CIAM model is
this.
There is “one” core fundamental
that all organisms control for. That’s internal “Entropy Production”.
This can be mathematically shown as
Delta F is less than the work (Delta
F is the Helmholtz ** Free Energy). (or ΔF<W). Further that this has
a qualitative equivalent that has an identity (a number of key controlled
variables).**
Blockages of “These key
controlled variables” are the source of all human suffering. And we
endlessly “control for these controlled variables”
This why people think there is
such things as addictions (there isn’t) the organism is controlling for
one or more of these key controlled variables.
I’m not the first person by
any means who has written about this core fundamental concept, Galbraith, Mewes
are two that spring to mind. So many authors on the concept of Power have written
on this endlessly.
There is one further aspect I
would like to mention but don’t feel that there is enough trust on this
list to elaborate in detail. This is not just a wild idea that I picked up, I
have lived this problem in its severest form of a “key blocked Controlled
Variable” and come out on the other side. I have experienced this in the most
fundamental way.
Regards
Gavin
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.1515.37NZT)
[From Bill Powers
(2010.09.14.0655 MDT)]
Dick Robertson,2010.09.14.0845CDT –
BP: Gavin is, of course, right about the difficulties with the higher levels in
the HPCT model. But he has misidentified the problem.
I explained this.
There are really
two main problems: first to define what the higher levels do,
Produce Entropy Production (or Free Energy),
the foundation of evolution. (The core of CIAM model)
That is creativity (innovation, novelty or
whatever). Entropy production is necessary for creativity but not sufficient.
This is also the basis of true Learning, not rote spoon feeding.
and second to explain how
they do it.
Through PCT and HPCT (my explanation of HPCT,
I just called it CIAM).
PCT and evolutionary theory are perfectly aligned;
it’s just that nobody has said that yet. In my nested version of the Perceptual
Controlled Variable all your key problems have been solved in relating to
Evolutionary Theory. Natural Selection is “the Perceptual Controlled Variable”
in the mental realm
The actual structure-process in the living
organism is not known.
But you don’t seem to have the interest
to find out, you said you don’t have the bandwidth and pursing your own
models. Hey that’s fine, but don’t say mine are misidentified until
you know what I saying.
There seems to be a constant theme here,
everyone else is wrong and only a few people know. This is not healthy for open
dialogue. I do understand there have been some on this list that have been very
dysfunctional and are now no longer on the list. So I do get your concern.
This list is not one of mutual trust, the
very basis of non-conflict.
Regards
Gavin
[Martin Taylor 2010.09.15.01.20]
Gavin, do you intend to answer this at any point?
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.1416.48NZT)
[ Martin Taylor
2010.09.13.17.05]For myself,
I’d like to understand how your diagram relates to PCT,
specifically, how do
the connections link from outside the “bubble” to inside it,
and what
is meant by “HPCT” in each nested bubble.
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2010.09.14.2230)]
Martin Taylor (2010.09.15.01.20)
Gavin, do you intend to answer this at any point?
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.1416.48NZT)
[Martin Taylor 2010.09.13.17.05]
� For myself, I'd like to understand how your diagram relates to PCT,
specifically, how do the connections link from outside the "bubble" to
inside it, and what is meant by "HPCT" in each nested bubble.
This is a great question. It made me realize that what I would like to
know is how his diagram relates to actual behavior.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
Hello Gavin,
G.R. : There is �one� core fundamental that all organisms control for.
That�s internal �Entropy Production�.
This can be mathematically shown as :
Delta F is less than the work (Delta F is the Helmholtz Free Energy). (or
ΔF<W). Further that this has a qualitative equivalent that has an identity
(a number of key controlled variables).
This why people think there is such things as addictions (there isn�t) the
organism is controlling for one or more of these key controlled variables.
B.H. : I think Gavin that you are using another words for the same things.
That's what usually cause problems in conversations. People imagine the same
things under different notations or imagine different things under the same
notations. So I think it's not necessary that anybody is wrong (that's just
your subjective feeling that you are right others are wrong) because you are
using different notation system for describing the same things. If I
understand you right, we all talk about how organisms work.
Can we give another name for internal "Entropy Production" for example
Metabolism ? Can you tell me the names of "key controlled variables" ? Can
we call them "essential" or "intrinsic" variables ? We are talking about any
organism as Living Control System, aren't we ?
Best, Boris
( Gavin
Ritz 2010.09.15.18.40NZT)
[Martin Taylor
2010.09.15.01.20]
Gavin, do you intend to answer this at any point?
(Gavin Ritz
2010.09.1416.48NZT)
[Martin Taylor
2010.09.13.17.05]
For myself, I’d like to understand how your diagram relates to PCT,
specifically, how do the connections link from outside the “bubble”
to inside it, and what is meant by “HPCT” in each nested bubble.
Sorry Martin I thought I did.
It is the PCT diagram the only difference is
how one deals with any feedback system. It’s nested. The links are exactly
the same as before no differences there. I
There is no outside bubble “that is
the Controlled Variables”. It’s just layers. I’m not changing
PCT or controlled variables. It’s like saying its perception on a perception
on a perception.
Martin
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.15.18.48NZT)
[From Rick Marken
(2010.09.14.2230)]
Martin Taylor (2010.09.15.01.20)
Gavin, do you intend to answer this at any point?
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.1416.48NZT)
[Martin Taylor 2010.09.13.17.05]
For myself, I’d like to understand how
your diagram relates to PCT,
specifically, how do the connections link
from outside the “bubble” to
inside it, and what is meant by
“HPCT” in each nested bubble.
RM: This is a great question. It made me realize that
what I would like to
know is how his diagram relates to actual behaviour.
GR Behaviour is the control
of perception nothing else.
GR The controlled Variable
just like your “lips to cup or your fly ball” only it’s
abstracted, just like your comment in an earlier thread.
RM “Honesty” is a word that, like all words,
is a perception that points to other perceptions.”
GR: It can be abstracted
to eternity. So this makes PCT a closed control system but at the same time open
to eternity. This allows for creativity novelty and innovation.
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.15.21.38NZT)
Hi there Boris
Hello Gavin,
G.R. : There is
“one” core fundamental that all organisms control for.
That’s internal “Entropy
Production”.
This can be mathematically shown as :
Delta F is less than the work (Delta F is the
Helmholtz Free Energy). (or
ΔF<W). Further that this has a qualitative
equivalent that has an identity
(a number of key controlled variables).
This why people think there is such things as
addictions (there isn’t) the
organism is controlling for one or more of these key
controlled variables.
B.H. : I think Gavin
that you are using another words for the same things.
That’s what usually cause problems in conversations.
People imagine the same
things under different notations or imagine different
things under the same
notations.
Yes you are spot on. This
is most often the case.
So I think it’s not necessary that anybody is wrong
(that’s just
your subjective feeling that you are right others are
wrong)
I don’t recall ever
saying anybody was wrong. Not sure what you are referring.
because you are
using different notation system for describing the
same things. If I
understand you right, we all talk about how organisms
work.
Yes
Can we give another name for internal “Entropy
Production” for example
Metabolism ?
Well yes and no, but I’m
talking about abstract creativity (metabolism does have a role but that’s
not what I’m referring to). There is no other name for Entropy
production. It’s a very specific concept with a very specific formula for
near and far-from-equilibrium systems.
Can you tell me the names of “key controlled
variables” ? Can
we call them “essential” or
“intrinsic” variables ?
Yes we can call them
Essential. The one aspect of the model contains something called the 7E’s.
That stands for the 7 Essentialities of Creativity. Another levels of logic
another the differences in quality as a derivate of the Fundamental formula. So
there are many parts that could be construed as essential. But they are not separately
essential; on their own they don’t mean a hellava lot. They all imply
each other. I’m talking about a synthesis not an analysis.
We are talking about any
organism as Living Control System, aren’t we ?
No the human organism as
a Control System
Regards
Gavin
Best, Boris
[Martin Taylor 2010.09.15.10.10]
(Gavin Ritz 2010.09.15.18.40NZT)
[ Martin Taylor
2010.09.15.01.20]Gavin, do you intend to answer this at any point?
(Gavin Ritz2010.09.1416.48NZT)
[ Martin Taylor
2010.09.13.17.05]For myself, I'd like to understand how your diagram relatesto PCT,
specifically, how do the connections link from outside the
“bubble”
to inside it, and what is meant by “HPCT” in each nested
bubble.
SorryMartin I thought I did.
Here's your diagram with my question drawn onto it, to clarify what
I am asking.
Incidentally, in normal PCT, the variable that is controlled is the
perceptual variable, which you have labelled “p” in your outer loop.
Itis the PCT diagram the only difference is
how one deals with any feedback system. It’s nested. The
links are exactly
the same as before no differences there.
It's nested in normal HPCT, too. Every perceptual variable other
than those generated directly from sensory input is composed of
lower level perceptual variables. The difference is only that you
conceive of an infinite number of levels, whereas Bill has managed
to intuit eleven.
Thereis no outside bubble “that is
the Controlled Variables”. It’s just layers. I’m not
changing
PCT or controlled variables. It’s like saying its
perception on a perception
on a perception.
"Perception on a perception on a perception" is normal HPCT, except
that for “a perception” I would substitute “several perceptions” in
each case.
Martin
On 2010/09/15 2:47 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2010.09.15.10.16]
Gavin to Boris.
(Gavin Ritz
2010.09.15.21.38NZT)
Can we give anothername for internal “Entropy
Production” for example
Metabolism ?
Well yes and no, but I’mtalking about abstract creativity (metabolism does have a
role but that’s
not what I’m referring to). There is no other name for
Entropy
production. It’s a very specific concept with a very
specific formula for
near and far-from-equilibrium systems.
I think I begin to glimpse what you may be getting at. Your use of
the term “Entropy Production” is confusing, since entropy production
is what every physical process does, and entropy reduction (creating
or maintaining structure) is what control does, using the
non-equilibrium energy flow through the system. So your claim that
Entropy Production is what a creative system does seems like a
direct contradiction. But if I am right about what my “glimpse” has
produced, there’s no contradiction except one induced by
terminology.
I think what you are talking about is increasing the space of
variation, in the same way that the available space of variation for
physical entropy increases with the expansion of the Universe. But
the variation is not in the physical space of energy, which is where
you have been tying it. It’s in the space of available perceptions.
The confusion is the same as the confusion that occurred when
Shannon gave the label “Entropy” to what later writers often called
“Uncertainty”. He did that because the equations were the same. But
there’s only an indirect connection between Shannon’s Entropy and
the Entropy of the physical systems that implement Shannon’s
transmitter, receiver, and channel. I’m beginning to see that the
same kind of thing may be true here, whether or not it’s actually
what you mean…
If I understand you correctly, the possible space of variation is
defined by the existing perceptual functions and the ranges of their
possible output values. Let’s call that “P-space”. When a new
mathematically independent perceptual function is created from the
outputs of other perceptual functions, a new dimension is opened in
P-Space, which greatly increases the P-entropy limit, so that the
absolute value of P-entropy will increase while the relative value
of P-entropy is correspondingly decreased (at least it is if the new
perception is controlled). The system as a whole increases its
entropy while at the same time increasing its degree of structure.
This is what happens in natural maturation, and when apparently
different perceptions are linked to make some new “creative”
perception.
Does this come anywhere close to what you are thinking of?
We are talking aboutany
organism as LivingControl System, aren’t we ?
No the human organism asa Control System
Why only human?
Martin