time 17:44
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.
[Martin Taylor 2018.04.30.23.47]
Why do you want someone to convince you? What is your intention in
asking for this to be done by an anonymous “someone” who reads
CSGnet? I won’t try to convince you, but I will suggest that context makes a
different, as does the kind of perception you might be controlling
when you make your word choice. Personally, in different contexts
and for different audiences I use one or the other, along with
“aim”, “goal” and “objective” among other words, all of which have
the same core meaning but different connotations. However, when I want to add the word “value”, to refer to the
specific value of a variable, I say “reference value”, and not
“intention value”, “goal value”, and so forth. Those words all
include the notion of a specific value without using the word
“value”. “Reference” has a specific meaning when talking about the
circuitry of control, a signal path from a specific source
(typically the output of a function that has as inputs one or more
higher-level outputs) to a specific sink (a specific input port of
a comparator function). In that context “goal”, “intention” et al.
do not serve, because they are not defined within the circuit
definitions of PCT. Just as in PCT “perception” has a particular
meaning derived from, but distinct from, the everyday meaning of the
word, so does “reference”. When you use a word, you probably control for having your intentions
understood, so you would probably want to use a word that you expect
your listener/reader to interpret in the way you want. You wouldn’t
use the word “reference” in a technical sense to someone who knows
nothing of PCT. You would use “intention(s)” or “objective(s)” or
some other word that means about the same thing in everyday speech,
which “reference” does not.
I suspect that many people would agree with your comment “”. But when you began to
understand PCT, and especially its hierarchical control structure, I
think a lot of people also would like to be more precise in their
communication with others about the nitty-gritty of the theory, and
then “reference” and “reference value” as two distinct concepts
would probably make communication clearer.
The probably isn’t any hard and fast rule here, other than “If it
works for you, go with it”.
Martin
On 2018/04/30 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:
time 17:44
Ifeel better when i see the word intention replace the word
reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have
preferred that the first book on PCT I read used the word
intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I
should use the word reference instead of intention.
I would
have preferred that the first book on PCT I read used the word
intention instead of reference*
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Philip,
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.
Many of our terms have both a technical meaning and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”, and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Philip,
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.
Many of our terms have both a technical meaning and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively, and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on one’s performance.)
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”, and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
/Bruce
–
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what
part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when
you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that
it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog, they
won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only
in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in
ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops
between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand you
so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will
understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map
similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together
you can improve the map.
Martin
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker
wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics...the mapis not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you
want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t
change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or the
meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from
an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least,
that’s the way I see it.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, BruceNevin bnhpct@gmail.com
wrote:[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Philip,
'Reference' is a technical term inherited frompre-existing science (actually two terms: reference
value for the input and reference signal). It was
established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps
earlier. We don’t use another common CT term,
‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.
Many of our terms have both a technical meaning and asubjective meaning, in particular perception and
behavior.
Perception means perceptual signal in its
experience of a perception is not identical with a
rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Behavior technically means what a control system
its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with
its preferences for them, which technically are
called its reference values for them. But
subjectively, and as observers of others, we often
apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs,
disregarding their purposes, and equally often we
apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of
those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell
example beginning on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf
illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and
in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such
as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we
avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of
misunderstanding, at least for that aspect of the
control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more
understanding of control systems is expected, we often
use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a
general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical
terms migrate into common usage, often with adapted
meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback,
positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from
cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the
1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying
commentary on one’s performance.)
Your placement of the word 'behavior' in your versionof the canonical simple control diagram introduces a
visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is
important there is the branch that loops back to the
node labeled “perception”, and the unintended side
effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study
of control might conclude that the arrow going off to
the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed
context of discussion, however, the unintended side
effects do assume more importance because they can cause
disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about
interactions between control systems, the unintended
side effects assume greater importance when the other
control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But
for your diagram to have that meaning it would have to
include at least one other autonomous control loop and
show the environmental effect of each on variables
controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes
a blind spot in our discussions.
/Bruce
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:time 17:44
Ifeel better when i see the word intention
replace the word reference. Intention is an
everyday word, and I would have preferred
that the first book on PCT I read used the
word intention instead of reference. Please
convince me why I should use the word
reference instead of intention.
–
Ed Heidicker828 274-5929
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate. It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidickerwrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics...the mapis not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you
want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t
change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or the
meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from
an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least,
that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know whatpart of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when
you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that
it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog, they
won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only
in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in
ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops
between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand you
so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will
understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map
similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together
you can improve the map.Martin
–
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce
Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Philip,
'Reference' is a technical term inherited frompre-existing science (actually two terms: reference
value for the input and reference signal). It was
established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps
earlier. We don’t use another common CT term,
‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.
Many of our terms have both a technical meaning and asubjective meaning, in particular perception and
behavior.
Perception means perceptual signal in its
experience of a perception is not identical with a
rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Behavior technically means what a control system
its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with
its preferences for them, which technically are
called its reference values for them. But
subjectively, and as observers of others, we often
apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs,
disregarding their purposes, and equally often we
apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of
those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell
example beginning on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf
illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and
in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such
as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we
avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of
misunderstanding, at least for that aspect of the
control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more
understanding of control systems is expected, we often
use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a
general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical
terms migrate into common usage, often with adapted
meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback,
positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from
cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the
1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying
commentary on one’s performance.)
Your placement of the word 'behavior' in your versionof the canonical simple control diagram introduces a
visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is
important there is the branch that loops back to the
node labeled “perception”, and the unintended side
effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study
of control might conclude that the arrow going off to
the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed
context of discussion, however, the unintended side
effects do assume more importance because they can cause
disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about
interactions between control systems, the unintended
side effects assume greater importance when the other
control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But
for your diagram to have that meaning it would have to
include at least one other autonomous control loop and
show the environmental effect of each on variables
controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes
a blind spot in our discussions.
/Bruce
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15
PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:
time 17:44
Ifeel better when i see the word intention
replace the word reference. Intention is an
everyday word, and I would have preferred
that the first book on PCT I read used the
word intention instead of reference. Please
convince me why I should use the word
reference instead of intention.
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.58]
Ed, it would help future contributors to back-reference your
postings if you would start with a unique ID header. Most of us
use our name and our local date and time as that header, but
archiving and reference maybe years later is the main reason you
see so many messages with similarly formatted headers.
Yes, that's pretty much what I meant by saying: "You want them to be
able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory,
perhaps so that together you can improve the map."
What you add to this is that the other person already has an idea
that the territory exists. You can use the analogy of the European
idea of the American continent before, say, 950 AD, and then before
1490 AD and then around 1600 AD. Before 950, there was no concept of
the existence of any territory. It was water all the way to Cathay.
Before 1450, there were stories of Vinland, but was it all a myth?
By 1600, one could talk about the Americas and your partner would
have some idea what you were talking about, and by pooling your
separate ideas of the territory you could improve your map, Before
1490, even if you had a good concept of Vinland as a real territory,
your partner probably didn’t, and your conversational issue would be
to convince them that a territory existed to be mapped.
Martin
On 2018/05/1 12:56 PM, Ed Heidicker
wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but if people areonly comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS
terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look
at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate. It
would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain
PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for
themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to
communicating our understanding of what is going on but one
needs to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s
happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so
that they have some sense of what they are looking for.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, MartinTaylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
On2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from GeneralSemantics…the map is not the territory and the
word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the
‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change
anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words
or the meaning of the words being used which takes
attention away from an aspect of the territory that
is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see
it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself.You know what part of the territory or of its mapped
representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but
when you explain to someone else that it’s all very
simple, and you just have to look at Phalog, they won’t
understand you. The reason for using particular words is
only in their ability to allow others to control their
perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of
negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language,
you want others to understand you so that when they
comment on what you are telling them, you will understand
their comments. You want them to be able to create a map
similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that
together you can improve the map.Martin
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
wrote:[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12ET]
Philip,
'Reference' is a technical term inheritedfrom pre-existing science (actually two
terms: reference value for the input and
reference signal). It was established in
control theory in the 1940s or perhaps
earlier. We don’t use another common CT
term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a
static value.
Many of our terms have both a technicalmeaning and a subjective meaning, in
particular perception and behavior.
Perception means perceptual signal in
subjective experience of a perception is
not identical with a rate of firing in a
nerve bundle.Behavior technically means what a
behavioral outputs as means to bring its
perceptions (both senses) into
conformity with its preferences for
them, which technically are called its
reference values for them. But
subjectively, and as observers of
others, we often apply the word behavior
to the behavioral outputs, disregarding
their purposes, and equally often we
apply it to what we perceive to be the
purposes of those outputs at one level
or another. The doorbell example
beginning on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf
illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical
usage, and in non-technical contexts
substituting other terms such as intention,
goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we
avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of
misunderstanding, at least for that aspect
of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this
forum where more understanding of control
systems is expected, we often use the
technical term in a broader sense. (This is
a general phenomenon in languages. This is
how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings.
Notoriously, the technical terms feedback,
positive feedback, and negative feedback
migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human
potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s,
whence today’s common usage signifying
commentary on one’s performance.)
Your placement of the word 'behavior' inyour version of the canonical simple control
diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a
description of control, what is important
there is the branch that loops back to the
node labeled “perception”, and the
unintended side effects are disregarded, but
a reader new to the study of control might
conclude that the arrow going off to the
right was the main thing. In a slightly
changed context of discussion, however, the
unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause
disturbances. In particular, if we are
talking about interactions between control
systems, the unintended side effects assume
greater importance when the other control
system(s) perceive them to be purposeful.
But for your diagram to have that meaning it
would have to include at least one other
autonomous control loop and show the
environmental effect of each on variables
controlled by the other. Failure to do this
is sometimes a blind spot in our
discussions.
/Bruce
On Mon, Apr 30,2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:time 17:44
Ifeel better when i see the word
intention replace the word
reference. Intention is an
everyday word, and I would have
preferred that the first book on
PCT I read used the word
intention instead of reference.
Please convince me why I should
use the word reference instead
of intention.
–
Ed Heidicker828 274-5929
–
Ed Heidicker828 274-5929
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
I take Martin’s point and I would go further. I’m troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the “semantic intention�, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
On Phillips’ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word — hhow does it go down?
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shop’s name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
……………………………………………………………€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.
Angus
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Philip,
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
/Bruce
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.   Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
Â
I take Martin’s point and I would go further. I’m troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the “semantic intention�, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
Â
On Phillips’ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word — how dooes it go down?
Â
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
Â
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shop’s name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
………€¦â€¦……………………………………………………… ¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.
Angus
Â
Â
Â
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
Â
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.Â
Â
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Â
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Â
Philip,
Â
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.Â
Â
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.Â
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Â
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Â
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
Â
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
Â
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Joh Orengo 2018.05.01 9:39 EEST]
I agree with Angus. While using a terminology specific to a discipline or sub-discipline is necessary for more precise communication by the scholars of that (sub)disicpline as well as by those being socialized into that (sub)discipline, it can be a major hindrance to people outside of that discipline or field, never mind those outside of academia.
Many times when ideas and terms make the jump to the mainstream it’s because they have been popularized by writers (in blogs, magazines, books, movie scripts, and so on) that are adept at making scientific/technological ideas more palatable ot the public. Sure, information is condensed, lost, distorted, or whatever in the process but the trade off is much more attention and other possible benefits like increased funding of projects, etc. Are these popularizers from within that discipline’s community that he/she brought attention to? I don’t think they are many times.
Well, IF the goal is to have PCT reach more people and the terminology used is a (major?) hindrance for people accepting it then perhaps the language can be made more ‘marketable’. Of course, I think the language is only a part of it, but it would be a big start. What if we as a community made a unified effort to make the theory more ‘marketable’ instead of letting a popularizer from outside the community do it for us? I’ve personally never heard of folks within a scientific community making a conscious decision to do something like this before (which is not to say that it can’t be done. Whether it should be done is a different story). I’m sure some of you have friends in the marketing business that wouldn’t mind giving some ideas on how this could be done IF this would be a thing to do. (I made a similar point when I first joined CSGNET many months ago in a post about changing the name of PCT, which someone else had started but I can’t remember who.)
My two cents.
Joh
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
â?â?â?â?â?â?â? Original Message â?â?â?â?â?â?â?
On May 1, 2018 8:27 PM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
I take Martinâs point and I would go further. Iâm troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the âsemantic intentionâ?, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
On Phillipsâ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word how does it go down?
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shopâs name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
¦â¦â¦â¦ .â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.
Angus
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Philip,
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
/Bruce
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_16:07:47 ET]
Philip Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM –
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.   Â
The word ‘trying’ cannot be substituted for the phrase ‘the control of perception’ when it means ‘succeeding’, which is what it means virtually all the time (and we don’t notice).
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.   Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
Â
I take Martin’s point and I would go further. I’m troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the “semantic intention�, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
Â
On Phillips’ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word — how dooes it go down?
Â
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
Â
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shop’s name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
………€¦â€¦……………………………………………………… ¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.
Angus
Â
Â
Â
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
Â
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.Â
Â
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Â
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Â
Philip,
Â
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.Â
Â
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.Â
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Â
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Â
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
Â
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
Â
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.15.43]
Philip, you can use whatever words you want when referring to
whatever you want. It all depends on who you intend to understand
the meaning that you want to convey. If you are successful, then you
have used the right words for the occasion. There’s really no more
to it than that. If you are writing for a readership that you think
will understand what a lot of people on this list would understand
“control of perception” to mean when you use the word “trying”, then
it is the right word. It wouldn’t mean for me, because I would
understand it as meaning that for some reason control was not
working. I would then perhaps ask you “why “trying”? What do you see
as preventing control of that perception?” It’s all a question of getting what you want when you control your
own perceptions by the action of producing words. Choose well, and
you are more likely to be controlling rather than trying than would
be the case if you choose badly. As others have pointed out, and as
I have experienced in face-to-face perception, some people
understand “control” to mean something quite different from what it
means within PCT. Martin
On 2018/05/1 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention cannot replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the
word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of
perception.   Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, AngusJenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com
wrote:AngusJenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
Â
Itake Martin’s point and I would go further. I’m
troubled by language that, whatever might be its
theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to
embed a meaning that is innately foreign to the
“semantic intention�, which must include its
emotional and broader associational reference. That
is, if you ever want to be in control of your own
understanding as well as more effectively
communicating to a wider population.
Â
OnPhillips’ excellent question and the responses so
far, I would say that one of the serious blockages
to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the
language of machine control systems to talk about
human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour.
People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent
a word — how does it go down?
Â
Forme this theory is intentional control theory. The
discourse is all about perception but the real issue
that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy
in my action and how do I control what I do to
achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road
from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London.
It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it
sells?
Â
Theanswer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting
systems. The shop’s name is technically correct, but
just imagine if the lighting industry had called
itself the electrical resistance industry.
…………¦â€¦â€¦……………………………………………………….
Angus
Â
Â
Â
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, "EdHeidicker" <heidicker@gmail.com >
wrote:
Â
I understand what you aresaying, but if people are only comparing maps
without going to the territory than in GS terms
they have adopted an intensional stance. One
‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is
dynamically accurate. It would be difficult for
one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in
such a way that they ‘understand’ it without
looking for themselves at what is being pointed
to. Language is crucial to communicating our
understanding of what is going on but one needs to
address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s
happening. Of course language can direct someone’s
attention so that they have some sense of what
they are looking for.Â
Â
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43PM, Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net >
wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Â
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM,Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing termsfrom General Semantics…the map is not
the territory and the word is not the
thing. Whatever you want to call the
‘it’ that you are pointing to, it
doesn’t change anything. One can argue
ad nauseum about the words or the
meaning of the words being used which
takes attention away from an aspect of
the territory that is being mapped. Or
at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking toyourself. You know what part of the
territory or of its mapped representation
you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but
when you explain to someone else that it’s
all very simple, and you just have to look
at Phalog, they won’t understand you. The
reason for using particular words is only in
their ability to allow others to control
their perceptions in ways that can permit
the generation of negative feedback loops
between you. In everyday language, you want
others to understand you so that when they
comment on what you are telling them, you
will understand their comments. You want
them to be able to create a map similar to
yours for the same territory, perhaps so
that together you can improve the map.Martin
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin <bnhpct@gmail.com >
wrote:
[Bruce Nevin2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Â
Philip,
Â
'Reference'is a technical term inherited
from pre-existing
science (actually two terms:
reference value for the input
and reference signal). It was
established in control theory in
the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We
don’t use another common CT
term, ‘setpoint’, because it
suggests a static value.Â
Â
Many of ourterms have both a and a subjective
meaning, in particular perception
and behavior.Â
Perception means perceptual
but clearly our subjective
experience of a perception is
not identical with a rate of
firing in a nerve bundle.ÂBehavior technically means
using its behavioral outputs
as means to bring its
perceptions (both senses) into
conformity with its
preferences for them, which
technically are called its
reference values for them. But
subjectively, and as observers
of others, we often apply the
word behavior to the
behavioral outputs,
disregarding their purposes,
and equally often we apply it
to what we perceive to be the
purposes of those outputs at
one level or another. The
doorbell example beginning on
p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf
illustrates this. Please do
look at it.
By
restricting ‘reference’ to its
technical usage, and in
non-technical contexts
substituting other terms such as
intention, goal, aim, target,
preference, etc., we avoid
ambiguity and its encouragement
of misunderstanding, at least
for that aspect of the control
loop. Nonetheless, in this forum
where more understanding of
control systems is expected, we
often use the technical term in
a broader sense. (This is a
general phenomenon in languages.
This is how technical terms
migrate into common usage, often
with adapted meanings.
Notoriously, the technical terms
feedback, positive feedback, and
negative feedback migrated from
cybernetics to the ‘human
potential movement’ in the 1950s
and 1960s, whence today’s common
usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Â
Yourplacement of the word ‘behavior’
in your version of the canonical
simple control diagram
introduces a visual ambiguity.
For a description of control,
what is important there is the
branch that loops back to the
node labeled “perception”, and
the unintended side effects are
disregarded, but a reader new to
the study of control might
conclude that the arrow going
off to the right was the main
thing. In a slightly changed
context of discussion, however,
the unintended side effects do
assume more importance because
they can cause disturbances. In
particular, if we are talking
about interactions between
control systems, the unintended
side effects assume greater
importance when the other
control system(s) perceive them
to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it
would have to include at least
one other autonomous control
loop and show the environmental
effect of each on variables
controlled by the other. Failure
to do this is sometimes a blind
spot in our discussions.
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
Â
On Mon,Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM,
PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN
<pyeranos@ucla.edu >
wrote:
time17:44
Â
Ifeel better when i
see the word
intention replace
the word reference.
Intention is an
everyday word, and I
would have preferred
that the first book
on PCT I read used
the word intention
instead of
reference. Please
convince me why I
should use the word
reference instead of
intention.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 21:38
Philip, I realise that I overlooked the second part of the question, which here Bruce has given an answer to. This is the question of “trying�.
To Bruce, I would say, if “control of perception� means “succeeding� most of the time, then I’m afraid that it is language that has been leading me astray. If it was as simple as
that, it would also mean that an awful lot of people get it. Well, in a funny way, I think they do. Sometimes I think we have intuitive understanding from which theories can lead us astray. Read on
Philip
If I say that I am
trying to catch a cricket ball (in some situation), then I convey a very general meaning and there is no insight into how that comes about. That insight matters, it is core to what PCT offers. But I think PCT offers it in more than one element. In the
first place, contrary to a large portion of contemporary scientists and how they think, it recognises the intentional aspect of control, that it is acting towards an outcome and not as a result of a prior causality. (c.f. Philip)
In that sense, if real emphasis is given to the word
trying, it gives a significant meaning. Meaning that is on the one hand such a cliché that it may be overlooked and on the other hand more accurate than the phrase “control of perception�.
Coaches may tell children to try harder. That speaks to PCT somewhat, as purpose. But it will not convey the how of PCT or directly improve (say) the skill of catching. Only, perhaps,
the effort. (what the children would observe is their own effort.)
To get to the PCT insight: What I do is watch the ball. Every coach in the world exhorts you to watch the ball. They use language that young children understand and it is in fact
precise and technically correct.
If you tell the children to
control their perception, they will not be able to. In fact only by practice does it come about as an unconscious activity, for the most part.
I am interested in the experience of the PCT researchers in actually having a first hand experiential encounter with the process of “controlling perception�. To what extent have
you been able to observe (not an abstract theory or mathematical models but as an actual observation in your own activity and mental life] the process of controlling perception as a means of achieving required outcomes. (Bruce’s succeeding). Across a range
of phenomena such as keeping balance, turning a key, combing your hair, or typing, I would say it involves acting and adjusting until the right sensation (sensory experience) is achieved. (cf Bruce).
We manage through our experience to achieve what we want.
This very ordinary language is nevertheless technically precise.
Or so it seems to me.
Before closing: Various comments have been rightly made about the choice of different language for different occasions. I think some people will find it denigrating to talk about
marketing language. But if you work at an academic and practical level amongst the marketing community, as I have, you will not find that that is what they aspire to. Rather it is language that fits the user. And business professors are often very good at
it. Their intellectual clientele are practically minded people who want language fit for purpose and is simple and clear as possible. I am probably not the best exponent.
Any value in this?
…………………………………………………………………………….
Angus Jenkinson
On 01/05/2018, 21:08, “Bruce Nevin” bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_16:07:47 ET]
Philip Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM –
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.
The word ‘trying’ cannot be substituted for the phrase ‘the control of perception’ when it means ‘succeeding’, which is what it means virtually all the time (and we don’t notice).
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control
of perception.
[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.01 17:18 EDT)]
To me the word “intention” seems to refer to a state of mind or thinking that is conscious whereas the word “reference” as used in PCT refers to a happening that is unconscious (i.e., neural signals) but that may sometimes be linked to conscious thoughts.
As a result, it seems that the word “intention” can not replace the term “reference”, since using the word "intention" would give a mistaken impression of how conscious we are of why we do the things we do.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.   Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
Â
I take Martin’s point and I would go further. I’m troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the “semantic intention�, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
Â
On Phillips’ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word — how dooes it go down?
Â
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
Â
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shop’s name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
…………………………… ¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦…………………………………….
Angus
Â
Â
Â
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
Â
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.Â
Â
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Â
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Â
Philip,
Â
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.Â
Â
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.Â
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Â
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Â
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
Â
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
Â
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Joh Orengo 2018.05.02 12:19 EEST]
“[L]anguage that fits the user…[that] is simple and clear as possible” and still technically precise. This is exactly what I’m referring to when I said to make the terminology of PCT more ‘marketable’. Thank you, Angus.
Joh
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
â?â?â?â?â?â?â? Original Message â?â?â?â?â?â?â?
On May 2, 2018 12:13 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 21:38
Philip, I realise that I overlooked the second part of the question, which here Bruce has given an answer to. This is the question of âtryingâ?.
To Bruce, I would say, if âcontrol of perceptionâ? means âsucceedingâ? most of the time, then Iâm afraid that it is language that has been leading me astray. If it was as simple as
that, it would also mean that an awful lot of people get it. Well, in a funny way, I think they do. Sometimes I think we have intuitive understanding from which theories can lead us astray. Read on
Philip
If I say that I am trying to catch a cricket ball (in some situation), then I convey a very general meaning and there is no insight into how that comes about. That insight matters, it is core to what PCT offers. But I think PCT offers it in more than one element. In the
first place, contrary to a large portion of contemporary scientists and how they think, it recognises the intentional aspect of control, that it is acting towards an outcome and not as a result of a prior causality. (c.f. Philip)
In that sense, if real emphasis is given to the word trying, it gives a significant meaning. Meaning that is on the one hand such a cliché that it may be overlooked and on the other hand more accurate than the phrase âcontrol of perceptionâ?.
Coaches may tell children to try harder. That speaks to PCT somewhat, as purpose. But it will not convey the how of PCT or directly improve (say) the skill of catching. Only, perhaps,
the effort. (what the children would observe is their own effort.)
To get to the PCT insight: What I do is watch the ball. Every coach in the world exhorts you to watch the ball. They use language that young children understand and it is in fact
precise and technically correct.
If you tell the children to control their perception, they will not be able to. In fact only by practice does it come about as an unconscious activity, for the most part.
I am interested in the experience of the PCT researchers in actually having a first hand experiential encounter with the process of âcontrolling perceptionâ?. To what extent have
you been able to observe (not an abstract theory or mathematical models but as an actual observation in your own activity and mental life] the process of controlling perception as a means of achieving required outcomes. (Bruceâs succeeding). Across a range
of phenomena such as keeping balance, turning a key, combing your hair, or typing, I would say it involves acting and adjusting until the right sensation (sensory experience) is achieved. (cf Bruce).
We manage through our experience to achieve what we want.
This very ordinary language is nevertheless technically precise.
Or so it seems to me.
Before closing: Various comments have been rightly made about the choice of different language for different occasions. I think some people will find it denigrating to talk about
marketing language. But if you work at an academic and practical level amongst the marketing community, as I have, you will not find that that is what they aspire to. Rather it is language that fits the user. And business professors are often very good at
it. Their intellectual clientele are practically minded people who want language fit for purpose and is simple and clear as possible. I am probably not the best exponent.
Any value in this?
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ .
Angus Jenkinson
On 01/05/2018, 21:08, “Bruce Nevin” bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_16:07:47 ET]
Philip Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM –
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.
The word ‘trying’ cannot be substituted for the phrase ‘the control of perception’ when it means ‘succeeding’, which is what it means virtually all the time (and we don’t notice).
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control
of perception.
[From: Robert Levy (2018.05.01 2:28 PST)]
The book Radicalizing Enactivism addresses this problem of “intention” saying too much by distinguishing “ur-intentionality”. The authors distinguish between basic agent control processes that are end-directed, but do not establish claims, content, or propositions, just capacities to influence and be affected by environments. In this case they use the term ur-intentionality to refer to this basic kind of end-directedness. In contrast with the teleosemantic philosophers like Milikan who ascribe unqualified intentions to basic agents, they use the term “telesemiotic” with respect to basic ur-intentional agency.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com wrote:
[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.01 17:18 EDT)]
To me the word “intention” seems to refer to a state of mind or thinking that is conscious whereas the word “reference” as used in PCT refers to a happening that is unconscious (i.e., neural signals) but that may sometimes be linked to conscious thoughts.
As a result, it seems that the word “intention” can not replace the term “reference”, since using the word "intention" would give a mistaken impression of how conscious we are of why we do the things we do.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.   Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
Â
I take Martin’s point and I would go further. I’m troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the “semantic intention�, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
Â
On Phillips’ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word — how dooes it go down?
Â
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
Â
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shop’s name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
…………………………… ¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦…………………………………….
Angus
Â
Â
Â
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
Â
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.Â
Â
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Â
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Â
Philip,
Â
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.Â
Â
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.Â
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Â
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Â
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
Â
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
Â
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18:Â 21:38Â –
To Bruce, I would say, if âcontrol of perceptionâ? means âsucceedingâ? most of the time, then Iâm afraid that it is language that has been leading me astray. If it was as simple as that, it would also mean that an awful lot of people get it. Well, in a funny way, I think they do.Â
I’m alluding in part to the fact that the vast majority of our perceptual inputs never come to awareness, and the vast majority of our control of perceptual variables proceeds successfully without awareness. We have talked about Bill’s observation of an apparent association of attention and error, with rather inspecific proposals about a further association with the onset of reorganization. However, the variable that comes to attention is not always the one for which control has lapsed. MOL hinges on this. The displacement is often by way of the interoceptive hierarchy that we have recently briefly discussed: error over here, interoceptive “feelings” elaborated as an emotion, associated with remembered variables over there, which then are the focus of attention. (As I have said sometimes to my wife, emotions are like water, they fill the available container.)
Richard Pfau (2018.05.01 17:18 EDT)Â –
Your point is excellent, Rich. Intention entails awareness. Aside from your observation that most controlled perceptions are out of awareness, there is the more specific problem that according to the model we are never aware of reference signals as such, though in imagination mode they are looped back to provide (imagined) perceptual input which can then come to awareness.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com wrote:
[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.01 17:18 EDT)]
To me the word “intention” seems to refer to a state of mind or thinking that is conscious whereas the word “reference” as used in PCT refers to a happening that is unconscious (i.e., neural signals) but that may sometimes be linked to conscious thoughts.
As a result, it seems that the word “intention” can not replace the term “reference”, since using the word "intention" would give a mistaken impression of how conscious we are of why we do the things we do.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.   Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
Â
I take Martinâs point and I would go further. Iâm troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the âsemantic intentionâ?, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
Â
On Phillipsâ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word how dooes it go down?
Â
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
Â
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shopâs name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
â¦â¦ â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ .
Angus
Â
Â
Â
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
Â
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.Â
Â
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Â
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Â
Philip,
Â
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.Â
Â
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.Â
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Â
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Â
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
Â
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
Â
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
PS: If you don’t like neologisms and the proliferation of newly coined technical terms you won’t like this book or its 2017 sequel “Evolving Enactivism”. Personally as a software engineer, defining new terms endlessly to better specify matters is something I’m alright with. 
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Robert Levy r.p.levy@gmail.com wrote:
[From: Robert Levy (2018.05.01 2:28 PST)]
The book Radicalizing Enactivism addresses this problem of “intention” saying too much by distinguishing “ur-intentionality”. The authors distinguish between basic agent control processes that are end-directed, but do not establish claims, content, or propositions, just capacities to influence and be affected by environments. In this case they use the term ur-intentionality to refer to this basic kind of end-directedness. In contrast with the teleosemantic philosophers like Milikan who ascribe unqualified intentions to basic agents, they use the term “telesemiotic” with respect to basic ur-intentional agency.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com wrote:
[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.01 17:18 EDT)]
To me the word “intention” seems to refer to a state of mind or thinking that is conscious whereas the word “reference” as used in PCT refers to a happening that is unconscious (i.e., neural signals) but that may sometimes be linked to conscious thoughts.
As a result, it seems that the word “intention” can not replace the term “reference”, since using the word "intention" would give a mistaken impression of how conscious we are of why we do the things we do.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.   Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
Â
I take Martin’s point and I would go further. I’m troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the “semantic intention�, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
Â
On Phillips’ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word — how dooes it go down?
Â
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
Â
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shop’s name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
…………………………… ¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦…………………………………….
Angus
Â
Â
Â
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
Â
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.Â
Â
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Â
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Â
Philip,
Â
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.Â
Â
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.Â
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Â
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Â
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
Â
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
Â
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_17:39:31 ET]
Robert Levy (2018.05.01 2:28 PST)Â –
I’m not sure there is benefit in substituting the technical vocabulary of a specialized branch of philosophy in place of the technical vocabulary of control theory.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Robert Levy r.p.levy@gmail.com wrote:
[From: Robert Levy (2018.05.01 2:28 PST)]
The book Radicalizing Enactivism addresses this problem of “intention” saying too much by distinguishing “ur-intentionality”. The authors distinguish between basic agent control processes that are end-directed, but do not establish claims, content, or propositions, just capacities to influence and be affected by environments. In this case they use the term ur-intentionality to refer to this basic kind of end-directedness. In contrast with the teleosemantic philosophers like Milikan who ascribe unqualified intentions to basic agents, they use the term “telesemiotic” with respect to basic ur-intentional agency.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Richard Pfau richardhpfau@gmail.com wrote:
[From: Richard Pfau (2018.05.01 17:18 EDT)]
To me the word “intention” seems to refer to a state of mind or thinking that is conscious whereas the word “reference” as used in PCT refers to a happening that is unconscious (i.e., neural signals) but that may sometimes be linked to conscious thoughts.
As a result, it seems that the word “intention” can not replace the term “reference”, since using the word "intention" would give a mistaken impression of how conscious we are of why we do the things we do.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
[10:47]
Please give me an example of when the word intention can not replace the term reference or reference value. Or when the word trying cannot be substituted for the phrase control of perception.   Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Angus Jenkinson angus@angusjenkinson.com wrote:
Angus Jenkinson: 1.5.18: 18:17
Â
I take Martin’s point and I would go further. I’m troubled by language that, whatever might be its theoretical technical meaning, has a tendency to embed a meaning that is innately
foreign to the “semantic intention�, which must include its emotional and broader associational reference. That is, if you ever want to be in control of your own understanding as well as more effectively communicating to a wider population.
Â
On Phillips’ excellent question and the responses so far, I would say that one of the serious blockages to the acceptance of PCT is that it uses the language of machine control
systems to talk about human cognition, intention, emotion, and behaviour. People do not want to be roboticized. See, I invent a word — how dooes it go down?
Â
For me this theory is intentional control theory. The discourse is all about perception but the real issue that human beings want to ask is, do I have autonomy in my action and
how do I control what I do to achieve what I want? There is a shop up the road from where I live in a nice neighbourhood in London. It is called Mr Resistor. What do you think it sells?
Â
The answer is lights. All kinds of lamps and lighting systems. The shop’s name is technically correct, but just imagine if the lighting industry had called itself the electrical
resistance industry.
…………………………… ¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦…………………………………….
Angus
Â
Â
Â
On 01/05/2018, 17:57, “Ed Heidicker” heidicker@gmail.com wrote:
Â
I understand what you are saying, but if people are only comparing maps without going to the territory than in GS terms they have adopted an intensional stance. One ‘must’ look at the territory to see if the map is dynamically accurate.
It would be difficult for one to sit in a room and try to explain PCT in such a way that they ‘understand’ it without looking for themselves at what is being pointed to. Language is crucial to communicating our understanding of what is going on but one needs
to address the non-verbal ‘world’ to ‘get’ what’s happening. Of course language can direct someone’s attention so that they have some sense of what they are looking for.Â
Â
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.01.12.38]
Â
On 2018/05/1 11:05 AM, Ed Heidicker wrote:
Introducing terms from General Semantics…the map is not the territory and the word is not the thing. Whatever you want to call the ‘it’ that you are pointing to, it doesn’t change anything. One can argue ad nauseum about the words or
the meaning of the words being used which takes attention away from an aspect of the territory that is being mapped. Or at least, that’s the way I see it.
Yes, that all works if yo are talking to yourself. You know what part of the territory or of its mapped representation you mean when you label it “Phalog”, but when you explain to someone else that it’s all very simple, and you just have to look at Phalog,
they won’t understand you. The reason for using particular words is only in their ability to allow others to control their perceptions in ways that can permit the generation of negative feedback loops between you. In everyday language, you want others to understand
you so that when they comment on what you are telling them, you will understand their comments. You want them to be able to create a map similar to yours for the same territory, perhaps so that together you can improve the map.Martin
Â
Â
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-01_09:22:12 ET]
Â
Philip,
Â
‘Reference’ is a technical term inherited from pre-existing science (actually two terms: reference value for the input and reference signal). It was established in control theory in the 1940s or perhaps earlier. We don’t use another common
CT term, ‘setpoint’, because it suggests a static value.Â
Â
Many of our terms have both a and a subjective meaning, in particular perception and behavior.Â
- Perception means perceptual signal in its technical sense, but clearly our subjective experience of a perception is not identical with a rate of firing in a nerve bundle.Â
- Behavior technically means what a control system does, using its behavioral outputs as means to bring its perceptions (both senses) into conformity with its preferences for them, which technically are called its reference values for them. But subjectively,
and as observers of others, we often apply the word behavior to the behavioral outputs, disregarding their purposes, and equally often we apply it to what we perceive to be the purposes of those outputs at one level or another. The doorbell example beginning
on p. 7 of http://pctweb.org/PCTunderstanding-2.pdf illustrates this. Please do look at it.
By restricting ‘reference’ to its technical usage, and in non-technical contexts substituting other terms such as intention, goal, aim, target, preference, etc., we avoid ambiguity and its encouragement of misunderstanding, at least for
that aspect of the control loop. Nonetheless, in this forum where more understanding of control systems is expected, we often use the technical term in a broader sense. (This is a general phenomenon in languages. This is how technical terms migrate into common
usage, often with adapted meanings. Notoriously, the technical terms feedback, positive feedback, and negative feedback migrated from cybernetics to the ‘human potential movement’ in the 1950s and 1960s, whence today’s common usage signifying commentary on
one’s performance.)
Â
Your placement of the word ‘behavior’ in your version of the canonical simple control diagram introduces a visual ambiguity. For a description of control, what is important there is the branch that loops back to the node labeled “perception”,
and the unintended side effects are disregarded, but a reader new to the study of control might conclude that the arrow going off to the right was the main thing. In a slightly changed context of discussion, however, the unintended side effects do assume more
importance because they can cause disturbances. In particular, if we are talking about interactions between control systems, the unintended side effects assume greater importance when the other control system(s) perceive them to be purposeful. But for your
diagram to have that meaning it would have to include at least one other autonomous control loop and show the environmental effect of each on variables controlled by the other. Failure to do this is sometimes a blind spot in our discussions.
Â
/Bruce
Â
Â
Â
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:15 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
time 17:44
Â
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
Â
Â
–
Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929
[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-05-02_07:59:37 UTC]
wow, that grew a mighty thread with interesting language political discussion!
But I want just shortly comment this original question.
First, you use an engineer version of the loop diagram and that seems for me like there is a device which produces something, for example it transforms the input current (marked as “perception�
here) to a certain kind of output current (marked as “behaviorâ€?) and there is the engineer’s “intentionâ€? what kind of end product she want to produce. Then there is that feedback control of the product which changes the input if needed – if the product is
nott like the engineer / controller / user wants. So for me this seems totally something else than the action of a living being which is tried to model with PCT.
Secondly I also first thought like Richard that “intention� is always conscious, but I am not sure. There could be and actually I believe there often are un- or subconscious intentions.
But what is the important difference between “reference� and “intention� is that intention is always a plan to do something specific. (According to my dictionary it means: “what a person plans or intents to do�.) This is not what reference means. It means
a goal, standard, model etc. how you think that things should be – in practtice what you want to perceive.
So first you must have a reference (goal, standard…) how something should be annd then you must have a perception (report, representation, measure…) how that something is. If they do
not match then you will have an error (problem, need…) and only then yoou will have an intention (plan, intent, design…) to do something.
Probably I could not manage to convince you?
I don’t think it is so much about language and words but about thinking and concepts. They are all that we have – we have only maps, we can never comppare maps with territory – so we
should usse them carefully.
Eetu
no matter how they are formulated.
time 17:44
I feel better when i see the word intention replace the word reference. Intention is an everyday word, and I would have preferred that the first book on PCT I read
used the word intention instead of reference. Please convince me why I should use the word reference instead of intention.