# Perceptual Controlled Variables

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768>\
**Category:** CSG2010\
**Created:** [August 21, 2010, 5:19am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768 "2010-08-21T05:19:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 5:19am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/1 "2010-08-21T05:19:15Z")

</div>

(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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/2 "2010-09-12T23:12:20Z")

</div>

( 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](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/3Y5XNCv0yPHAcIhzNAEMA3bGkUR.pdf) (837 KB)

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:20am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/3 "2010-09-13T05:20:55Z")

</div>

{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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 9:59am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/4 "2010-09-13T09:59:59Z")

</div>

(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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/5 "2010-09-13T14:30:42Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/6 "2010-09-13T20:57:10Z")

</div>

> 

> 

> 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/7 "2010-09-13T21:28:30Z")

</div>

[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. 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:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 5:14am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/8 "2010-09-14T05:14:27Z")

</div>

(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:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 12:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/9 "2010-09-14T12:52:21Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/10 "2010-09-14T14:46:07Z")

</div>

[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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/11 "2010-09-14T23:18:59Z")

</div>

(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**

* * *

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:07am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/12 "2010-09-15T03:07:45Z")

</div>

(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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 5:21am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/13 "2010-09-15T05:21:53Z")

</div>

[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
> 
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 5:28am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/14 "2010-09-15T05:28:42Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 6:40am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/15 "2010-09-15T06:40:42Z")

</div>

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  
&#916;F\<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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 6:47am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/16 "2010-09-15T06:47:13Z")

</div>

( 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

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 6:59am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/17 "2010-09-15T06:59:12Z")

</div>

(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.

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 9:58am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/18 "2010-09-15T09:58:29Z")

</div>

(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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/19 "2010-09-15T14:15:51Z")

</div>

[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 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.

```
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.

> 

> ```
> 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.

```
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.

> 

> ```
> 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.

> 

```
"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:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768/20 "2010-09-15T14:34:09Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2010.09.15.10.16]

```
Gavin to Boris.

```

> (Gavin Ritz  
> 2010.09.15.21.38NZT)

> 

> 

> ```
> 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.

```
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 about
> 
> ```
> 
> any

> ```
> organism as Living
> 
> ```
> 
> Control System, aren’t we ?

> 

> ```
> No the human organism as
> 
> ```
> 
> a Control System

> 

```
Why only human?

Martin

```

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/perceptual-controlled-variables/8768.md?page=2)