Powers, 2007: I didn't apply control theory to homeostasis in B:CP

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.06.1255)]

···

Rupert Young (2015.08.06 20.00)–

RY: Yes, you manipulate variables in the environment, but I
don’t think that is the same as controlling an aspect of
the environment. To control the perception of the sweetness of your
lemonade you vary the amount of sugar until the desired
sweetness is realised.

RM: Well I’m clearly not going to bring you to my point of view. And you are clearly not going to bring me to yours. The main reason is that I couldn’t do my work in PCT if I adopted your point of view. None of the research described in Mind Readings, More Mind Readings_ and Doing Research on Purpose could (or would) have been done if it were true that people are not controlling an aspect of the environment when they control a perception. I couldn’t have done any testing for controlled variables – or build models of people controlling those variables – if people were not controlling aspects of the environment when they were controlling perceptions.

          RM: When you make lemonade --  control for the

perception of the taste of lemonade – you are
manipulating variables in the environment – the amount of
lemon juice (x.1), water (x.2) and sugar (x.3) that you
put in the pitcher – in such a way that they can be
constructed into a perception of the taste of lemonade. So
you are controlling an aspect of the environment – the
relative proportion of different chemicals in the pitcher
– when you control for the perception of “the taste of
lemonade”. This is why I say that when you control a
perception you are also controlling an aspect of the
environment – the aspect of the environment from which
that perception is constructed.

RM: The whole point of The Test for Controlled Variables(TCV) is to figure out what aspect of the environment a person is controlling. If, as you and others say, no aspects of the environment are being controlled when people are controlling their perceptions then it would be impossible to scientifically study control of perceptions. The perceptions people control would be completely private and there could be no science of living control systems because you could never figure out what they are controlling. But we are able to determine what perceptions people are controlling using the TCV because when people are controlling perceptions that are controlling aspects of the the environment occupied by the person doing the TCV.

RM: If you interpret PCT to mean that all that is controlled are perceptual variables that don’t correspond to variable aspects of the environment then you are taking PCT to be theory that denies the possibility of being tested. Not very scientific. So this interpretation of PCT seems to me to be not only patently ridiculous but flatly contradicted by all the PCT research I’ve done and all the demonstrations of PCT principles I have developed.

RM: So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[wmansell]

Maybe the only reason experimenters can test PCT is that they tend to derive similar perceptual variables from the environment as the participants. This helps the experimenter set up hypotheses for what the CV might be. The experimenter is not necessarily measuring the environment directly. I really like Rick’s explanation of what aspects of environment contribute to a perception, but I really like Rupert’s insistence that the aspects of the environment that are affected by behaviour as part of the closed loop are not controlled, but manipulated. They seem to disagree with one another, but I just see enormous value from both perspectives.

Warren

···

Rupert Young (2015.08.06 20.00)–

RY: Yes, you manipulate variables in the environment, but I
don’t think that is the same as controlling an aspect of
the environment. To control the perception of the sweetness of your
lemonade you vary the amount of sugar until the desired
sweetness is realised.

RM: Well I’m clearly not going to bring you to my point of view. And you are clearly not going to bring me to yours. The main reason is that I couldn’t do my work in PCT if I adopted your point of view. None of the research described in Mind Readings, More Mind Readings_ and Doing Research on Purpose could (or would) have been done if it were true that people are not controlling an aspect of the environment when they control a perception. I couldn’t have done any testing for controlled variables – or build models of people controlling those variables – if people were not controlling aspects of the environment when they were controlling perceptions.

          RM: When you make lemonade --  control for the

perception of the taste of lemonade – you are
manipulating variables in the environment – the amount of
lemon juice (x.1), water (x.2) and sugar (x.3) that you
put in the pitcher – in such a way that they can be
constructed into a perception of the taste of lemonade. So
you are controlling an aspect of the environment – the
relative proportion of different chemicals in the pitcher
– when you control for the perception of “the taste of
lemonade”. This is why I say that when you control a
perception you are also controlling an aspect of the
environment – the aspect of the environment from which
that perception is constructed.

RM: The whole point of The Test for Controlled Variables(TCV) is to figure out what aspect of the environment a person is controlling. If, as you and others say, no aspects of the environment are being controlled when people ar
e controlling their perceptions then it would be impossible to scientifically study control of perceptions. The perceptions people control would be completely private and there could be no science of living control systems because you could never figure out what they are controlling. But we are able to determine what perceptions people are controlling using the TCV because when people are controlling perceptions that are controlling aspects of the the environment occupied by the person doing the TCV.

RM: If you interpret PCT to mean that all that is controlled are perceptual variables that don’t correspond to variable aspects of the environment then you are taking PCT to be theory that denies the possibility of being tested. Not very scientific. So this interpretation of PCT seems to me to be not only patently ridiculous but flatly contradicted by all the PCT research I’ve done and all the demonstrations of PCT principles I have developed.

RM: So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.06.1415)]

···

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Maybe the only reason experimenters can test PCT is that they tend to derive similar perceptual variables from the environment as the participants.

RM: They don’t have to “tend” to derive similar perceptions from the environment as the participants. They have to be able to be able to derive the same perception as the one being controlled by participants. The “derivation” can be done by their own perceptual systems.But it is most often done in research by having the derivation done by a computer. That’s what I do in my research on object interception; for example. I have a computer model of the pursuer control different perceptions which are different aspects of the environmental variable – movement in 3 space of the target object. The model controls different aspects of this variable to see which results in the best match to the actual behavior.

WM: This helps the experimenter set up hypotheses for what the CV might be.

RM: Yes, our ability to perceive the same aspects of the environment as the participants in research can help us form initial hypotheses about what the CV might be. But in many cases, especially when the participants perceptual capabilities differ from those of the tester, that doesn’t help much. For example, our own perception couldn’t have helped us guess that bats control reflected high frequency sound.

WM: The experimenter is not necessarily measuring the environment directly.

RM: The experimenter has to have measured the relevant variables in the environment before he can develop hypotheses about the aspects of those variables that are controlled. You can see how this works in Ch. 4 of Doing Research on Purpose. Here I had to have measures of three relevant environmental variables – target (t) and cursor (c) position and the distance between t and c (s), in order to test two different hypotheses about the perception (aspect of the environment) controlled in that task. The two possibilities were p = k (t-c) and p = arcsine [(t-c)/s]. It turns out that people control the latter perception.

WM: I really like Rick’s explanation of what aspects of environment contribute to a perception,

RM: Aspects of the environment don’t “contribute” to a perception; they are the perception. In the above example, the environment is three variables: t, c and s. One aspect of that environment is k (t-c); another is arcsine [(t-c)/s]; still another (which I didn’t consider) is t-c+s. In other words, I view an “aspect of the environment” as a mathematical function of physical (environmental) variables. There are thus many different “aspects” of the same environment. The mathematical function of these environmental variables, which determines the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception, is presumably computed by the neural network that is the perceptual function.

WM: but I really like Rupert’s insistence that the aspects of the environment that are affected by behaviour as part of the closed loop are not controlled, but manipulated.

RM: I think you and Rupert mean something different than I do by “aspects of the environment”, something more like the environmental variables themselves. What you say here would make sense if the “aspects of the environment” in my tracking task example above were the environmental variables t, c and s. In this case, only c could be manipulated and it is manipulated (a better word is varied) in order to control what I call an aspect of the environment (of which c is a component). So the question in my tracking study was what aspect of the environment – k(t-c) or arcsine[t-c)/s] – was being controlled by variations in c.

WM: They seem to disagree with one another, but I just see enormous value from both perspectives

RM: And I am right and you are right and everything is quite correct;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[wmansell]

Hi Rick,

RM: ‘perceptions from the environment as the participants. They have to be able to be able to derive the same perception as the one being controlled by participants.’

WM: great that was what I wanted to say, just being a bit British and vague!

See below…

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.06.1415)]

Maybe or maybe not. We are gifted with t
he ability to think creatively and analogically…

Yep, all those measurements are carried out through the perceptual control apparatus of the experimenter - their brain, body and measuring devices.

I agree with you above but I also think this… The function of the environment is only controlled by people or machines that can make that computation because that computation is a perception itself. There is no way of knowing that that function of the environment is being controlled without that function being computed as a perception that is controlled by some system, whether man or machine. The environment itself is of course integral to the whole process but the functions of the environment cannot be pinned down accurat
ely without perception.

I just don’t like to think the experimenter should be able to ‘get out of the loop’ and not be part of the whole collective perceptual control system they they are trying to study and explain.

Well not quite but we are all working on it!

Cheers,

Warren

···

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Warren Manse
ll wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Maybe the only reason experimenters can test PCT is that they tend to derive similar perceptual variables from the environment as the participants.

RM: They don’t have to “tend” to derive similar perceptions from the environment as the participants. They have to be able to be able to derive the same perception as the one being controlled by participants. The “derivation” can be done by their own perceptual systems.But it is most often done in research by having the derivation done by a computer. That’s what I do in my research on object interception; for example. I have a computer model of the pursuer control different perceptions which are different a
spects of the environmental variable – movement in 3 space of the target object. The model controls different aspects of this variable to see which results in the best match to the actual behavior.

WM: This helps the experimenter set up hypotheses for what the CV might be.

RM: Yes, our ability to perceive the same aspects of the environment as the participants in research can help us form initial hypotheses about what the CV might be. But in many cases, especially when the participants perceptual capabilities differ from those of the tester, that doesn’t help much. For example, our own perception couldn’t have helped us guess that bats control reflected high frequency sound.

WM: The experimenter is not necessarily measuring the environment directly.

RM: The experimenter has to have measured the relevant variables in the environment before he can develop hypotheses about the aspects of those variables that are controlled. You can see how this works in Ch. 4 of Doing Research on Purpose. Here I had to have measures of three relevant environmental variables – target (t) and cursor (c) position and the distance between t and c (s), in order to test two different hypotheses about the perception (aspect of the environment) controlled in that task. The two possibilities were p = k (t-c) and p = arcs
ine [(t-c)/s]. It turns out that people control the latter perception.

WM: I really like Rick’s explanation of what aspects of environment contribute to a perception,

RM: Aspects of the environment don’t “contribute” to a perception; they are the perception. In the above example, the environment is three variables: t, c and s. One aspect of that environment is k (t-c); another is arcsine [(t-c)/s]; still another (which I didn’t consider) is t-c+s. In other words, I view an “aspect of the environment” as a mathematical function of physical (environmental) variables. There are thus many different “aspects” of the same environment. The mathematical function of these environmental variables, which determines the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception, is presumably computed by the neural network that is the perceptual function.

WM: but I really like Rupert’s insistence that the aspects of the environment that are affected by behaviour as part of the closed loop are not controlled, but manipulated.

RM: I think you and Rupert mean something different than I do by “aspects of the environment”, something more like the environmental variables themselves. What you say here would make sense if the “aspects of the environment” in my tracking task example above were the environment
al variables t, c and s. In this case, only c could be manipulated and it is manipulated (a better word is varied) in order to control what I call an aspect of the environment (of which c is a component). So the question in my tracking study was what aspect of the environment – k(t-c) or arcsine[t-c)/s] – was being controlled by variations in c.

WM: They seem to disagree with one another, but I just see enormous value from both perspectives

RM: And I am right and you are right and everything is quite correct;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of &nbsp
;Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[wmansell]

Hi Warren,

Nice message.

···

From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:09 PM
To: rsmarken@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Powers, 2007: I didn’t apply control theory to homeostasis in B:CP

Maybe the only reason experimenters can test PCT is that they tend to derive similar perceptual variables from the environment as the participants. This helps the experimenter set up hypotheses for what the CV might be. The experimenter is not necessarily measuring the environment directly.

HB : I I understand you right, you are talking that everyone ha sit’s own perceptual world and on that bases everyone is able to conclude or at least try to conclude what other people are controlling or thinking. It’s of course difficult to »see« into others head but beside introspection there are interviews as scientific method, qualitative researches, etc. So there are quite number of scinetific methods with which we can try to conclude what people really control inside or think. As this is what is important. People are very different. Some are very oppened and we can make fast conclussions about his personality. Some are very closed and it’s hard to get a single clue what he is thinking about. And one day he »explode« and kill half of the school. It’s difficult to predict amd research what people really think. They can lie, manipulate, and so on.

WM : I really like Rick’s explanation of what aspects of environment contribute to a perception, but I really like

HB : Sorry to disapoint you Warren but I can’t any argument or support for Rick in later books, shall we say from 1998. I can’t find »controlled aspect of environment« in his generic diagrams nor in his text. I can’t find any citation that could support what Rick is talking about. As I see it Bill’s literature is talking something else. There was quite the same situation with Martin and Rick, when Riick was promoting »Perception : control of behavior« or some »stimulus-respons theory«. I found imidiatelly a dozen of thougts from Bill’s literature that were supporting Martin view : »Behavior : Control of perception«. But I couldn’t find any argumetn in Bill’s book that could support Rick’s view. So maybe we can repeat the whole procedure.

RM : Rupert’s insistence that the aspects of the environment that are affected by behaviour as part of the closed loop are not controlled, but manipulated.

HB : I think there is no doubt that Rzpert id right. I can find thousands of citations from Bill’s literature which are suporting Ruperts view, including all Bill generic diagrams, which show »Control of perception«.

If you want, we can make a competition. Let us try to read B:CP, 2005 and LCS III and compare for whom we will find more Bill’s arguments, including diagrams and so on. I invite all the members to help in this judgement. This is the only way I see we can once for all solve the problem, whether Bill talked about »Control of perception« or »Control of behavior« or »controlled aspect of environment«.

I’ll start with »feed-back« function. Feed-back function is the only thing I see in Bill’s diagram in outer environment and it is as Rupert discribe it. It says :

FFEDBACK FUNCTION (LCS III, p. 28) : Physical properties that convert action or behavior into effect on input quantity.

That’s all what Bill is saying about events in external environment. I’m sorry Warren but I can’t find any comparator, reference or »error« signal that Bill would indicate that there is control process going on in environment and that Rick could be right. He is obviously wrong and he is using some RCT diagram with »controlled aspect of environment«, which is in Bill’s diagram non existant. It seems that he is imagining things that are not present.

And I hope Warren we agree that Bill is reference for who is talking PCT and who is not.

We see that only thing Bill told about anything happening in environment of organism is »feed-back« function or effect that output has on input. He is simply talking about effect, not controlled effect or »control of behavior«, simply effect. And I hope we agree that this is »GENERAL DIAGRAM«, not some »SPECIAL«. It’s modeling every behavior, not just some specific ones.

So he is not talking about »controlled aspect of environment« or »Control of behavior« or else. Just effect of output on input. That’s it. We don’t need to make »Control behavior« disertation.

And beside that he is also saying : »Notice that we clarify the controlled variable as an input variable, not an output variable« (LCS III, p. 32).

If »output variable« is not controlled, what is making then »controlled aspect of environment« ? What is controlling outside in environment ???

WM : They seem to disagree with one another, but I just see enormous value from both perspectives.

HB : Yes they seem to disagree, but the only arbiter here I see is Bill’s work. We are here to promote his work, to upgrade, to make interperetations and so on. Everything is suppose to be about Bill and his PCT theory. Not some personal propmotions in the sense RCT (Rick’s control theory) and his perosonal diagrams. Everything has to be argumented with Bill’s work or any other evidence from the final arbiter : nature.

Best

Boris

Warren

On 6 Aug 2015, at 20:54, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@li sts.illinois.edu> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.06.1255)]

Rupert Young (2015.08.06 20.00)–

RM: When you make lemonade – control for the perception of the taste of lemonade – you are manipulating variables in the environment – the amount of lemon juice (x.1), water (x.2) and sugar (x.3) that you put in the pitcher – in such a way that they can be constructed into a perception of the taste of lemonade. So you are controlling an aspect of the environment – the relative proportion of different chemicals in the pitcher – when you control for the perception of “the taste of lemonade”. This is why I say that when you control a perception you are also controlling an aspect of the environment – the aspect of the environment from which that perception is constructed.

RY: Yes, you manipulate variables in the environment, but I don’t think that is the same as controlling an aspect of the environment. To control the perception of the sweetness of your lemonade you vary the amount of sugar until the desired sweetness is realised.

RM: Well I’m clearly not going to bring you to my point of view. And you are clearly not going to bring me to yours. The main reason is that I couldn’t do my work in PCT if I adopted your point of view. None of the research described in Mind Readings, More Mind Readings_ and Doing Research on Purpose could (or would) have been done if it were true that people are not controlling an aspect of the environment when they control a perception. I couldn’t have done any testing for controlled variables – or build models of people controlling those variables – if people were not controlling aspects of the environment when they were controlling perceptions.

RM: The whole point of The Test for Controlled Variables(TCV) is to figure out what aspect of the environment a person is controlling. If, as you and others say, no aspects of the environment are being controlled when people ar e controlling their perceptions then it would be impossible to scientifically study control of perceptions. The perceptions people control would be completely private and there could be no science of living control systems because you could never figure out what they are controlling. But we are able to determine what perceptions people are controlling using the TCV because when people are controlling perceptions that are controlling aspects of the the environment occupied by the person doing the TCV.

RM: If you interpret PCT to mean that all that is controlled are perceptual variables that don’t correspond to variable aspects of the environment then you are taking PCT to be theory that denies the possibility of being tested. Not very scientific. So this interpretation of PCT seems to me to be not only patently ridiculous but flatly contradicted by all the PCT research I’ve done and all the demonstrations of PCT principles I have developed.

RM: So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2015.08.07 12.00)}

(Rick Marken (2015.08.06.1255)]

RM: The whole point of The Test for Controlled Variables(TCV) is to figure out what aspect of the environment a person is controlling. If, as you and others say, no aspects of the environment are being controlled when people are controlling their perceptions then it would be impossible to scientifically study control of perceptions.

Well, that's not what I am saying. I am just trying to understand the terminology you are using and what it means and what it doesn't mean. My main queries are in my other email so it would really useful if you could respond to them, particularly the one regarding q.i and q.i*g.

Regards,
Rupert

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Warren,

If I understood you right you are not recognizing Bill’s literature about PCT as reference. What do you recognize as a reference ? Rick’s selfregulation theory about »Control of behavior« ???

WM :

I think you are overinflating Rick’s point here. It is much more subtle than you portray and a legitimate issue to debate. Rick has done more to faithfully test and support PCT even in the last few years than most of us will ever do in a lifetime.

HB : I’m sorry Warren, but I see no subtile points in Rick’s writing. I see only great confussion in Rick’s head where he is deciding between two options : PCT or selfregulation, and he has stuck somewhere in the middle. But he was not always like that. He has some briliant PCT discourses. But his confussion was confirmed :

RM (earlier) : Since this is a rather verbal group I think it’s better to say that that perceptions (perceptual signals) are constructed, not derived, from lower level perceptual inputs and, ultimately, sensed effects of physical variables.

HB : My personal oppinion is that Rick as choice of moderator on CSGnet was a strategical mistake of owners. He is trying to drag PCT into selfregulation concept with »Control of behavior« and he is misleading PCT forum with his attempts to prove that »behavior is control«. But all of his attempts to prove the value of his »self-regulation« concept in practice failed : control of other people behavior, control of opponents behavior in sports, baseball catch, school system, wrong interpreation of input function in 1. level control system, etc.

His »self-regulation« theory is simply missed, so there are also failures in his demos and theoretical concepts. He is taking our time and energy while we are taking days to prove him that he is simply wrong.

Most of his words in conversation with Rupert (who briliantly done PCT job) were tending toward »behavior is control«. I realy don’t know what makes him think that we can eat with controlling our hands, that we can walk with controlling our legs, and so on, while »controlling some aspect of environment«. It’s counter all Bill’s efforts to prove that we control perception not behavior.

WM : We all still agree that the same function of the environment is being controlled; we all agree that the environment is integral to the closed loop (bar the imagination mode that is only possible once the controlled mode has built up the control hierarchy)

HB : I don’t know who are these »ALL« Warren. But I’m pretty sure that Martin, Kent, Rupert, Erling, Franklin, David, John, and so on recognize PCT and Bill as reference. I think I can put also Phillip on this side. I’m of course not sure. They have to confirm if I’m right. But cuncluding on the bases what they write, I’m guessing of their PCT understanding. And by my oppinion they understand it.

I don’t know who you meant with »ALL«. Who are those »all« who agree with what ? Can you name some of them ?

Environment is anyway integral part of closed control loop, but that doesn’t mean that in enviroment is being »controlled« anything. Effects of control (comparator) are »transfered« through MEANS OF CONTROL (muscles, glands, nerv ends) into effects of environment. They are transferring just consequence of control into internal or external environment. And one could perceive this act as »perceptual illusion« that »control« is also going on in environment.

As I said Warren. We have reference and that is Bill and after matching Bill’s concept and Rick’s concept we could clearly see, that Rick was mistaking. That was not his first mistake and it will not be last.

WM : Rather the question, as I understand it, about whether it is legitimate to call that function of the environment a perception or not; and whether it could be computed independently of perception. Rupert and I think it cannot, and Rick thinks it can

HB : Bill called it perception. What is legitimate ? What others tell it’s allowed ? I think that Bill’s definiton suits. I understand what it is. I think it should be enough for anybody who prefer PCT. I think that Bill called counter part or transformation of physical quantities into biological also »neural curent«. I don’t see so much importance how we call the result of transformation. I seems to me more important how transformation is done and how precise it is. Although this is also subjective.

About second part of the question I hope I understood you clearly but I’m not sure. Are you asking whether »physical quantity« can be computed into something without mediation of perception That somebody could have direct access to »reality« ?

Does Rick thinks that he can come somehow access directly to »physical quantities« in environment, somehow by-passing perception ?

In this case he is probably forgeting that he can come to them only with mediation of perception. That’s how nervous system works. All that we know about reality is perception. I really don’t know how he plans to avoid it ? How would he know anything about »physical quantities« if there wouldn’t be perception ?

Best,

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:50 AM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Powers, 2007: I didn’t apply control theory to homeostasis in B:CP

Hi Boris,

I think you are overinflating Rick’s point here. It is much more subtle than you portray and a legitimate issue to debate. Rick has done more to faithfully test and support PCT even in the last few years than most of us will ever do in a lifetime.

We all still agree that the same function of the environment is being controlled; we all agree that the environment is integral to the closed loop (bar the imagination mode that is only possible once the controlled mode has built up the control hierarchy)

Rather the question, as I understand it, about whether it is legitimate to call that function of the environment a perception or not; and whether it could be computed independently of perception. Rupert and I think it cannot, and Rick thinks it can.

So I seem to be stuck in the middle now between you and Rick…

Warren

On 6 Aug 2015, at 23:11, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Warren,

Nice message.

From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:09 PM
To: rsmarken@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Powers, 2007: I didn’t apply control theory to homeostasis in B:CP

Maybe the only reason experimenters can test PCT is that they tend to derive similar perceptual variables from the environment as the participants. This helps the experimenter set up hypotheses for what the CV might be. The experimenter is not necessarily measuring the environment directly.

HB : I I understand you right, you are talking that everyone ha sit’s own perceptual world and on that bases everyone is able to conclude or at least try to conclude what other people are controlling or thinking. It’s of course difficult to »see« into others head but beside introspection there are interviews as scientific method, qualitative researches, etc. So there are quite number of scinetific methods with which we can try to conclude what people really control inside or think. As this is what is important. People are very different. Some are very oppened and we can make fast conclussions about his personality. Some are very closed and it’s hard to get a single clue what he is thinking about. And one day he »explode« and kill half of the school. It’s difficult to predict amd research what people really think. They can lie, manipulate, and so on.

WM : I really like Rick’s explanation of what aspects of environment contribute to a perception, but I really like

HB : Sorry to disapoint you Warren but I can’t any argument or support for Rick in later books, shall we say from 1998. I can’t find »controlled aspect of environment« in his generic diagrams nor in his text. I can’t find any citation that could support what Rick is talking about. As I see it Bill’s literature is talking something else. There was quite the same situation with Martin and Rick, when Riick was promoting »Perception : control of behavior« or some »stimulus-respons theory«. I found imidiatelly a dozen of thougts from Bill’s literature that were supporting Martin view : »Behavior : Control of perception«. But I couldn’t find any argumetn in Bill’s book that could support Rick’s view. So maybe we can repeat the whole procedure.

RM : Rupert’s insistence that the aspects of the environment that are affected by behaviour as part of the closed loop are not controlled, but manipulated.

HB : I think there is no doubt that Rzpert id right. I can find thousands of citations from Bill’s literature which are suporting Ruperts view, including all Bill generic diagrams, which show »Control of perception«.

If you want, we can make a competition. Let us try to read B:CP, 2005 and LCS III and compare for whom we will find more Bill’s arguments, including diagrams and so on. I invite all the members to help in this judgement. This is the only way I see we can once for all solve the problem, whether Bill talked about »Control of perception« or »Control of behavior« or »controlled aspect of environment«.

I’ll start with »feed-back« function. Feed-back function is the only thing I see in Bill’s diagram in outer environment and it is as Rupert discribe it. It says :

FFEDBACK FUNCTION (LCS III, p. 28) : Physical properties that convert action or behavior into effect on input quantity.

That’s all what Bill is saying about events in external environment. I’m sorry Warren but I can’t find any comparator, reference or »error« signal that Bill would indicate that there is control process going on in environment and that Rick could be right. He is obviously wrong and he is using some RCT diagram with »controlled aspect of environment«, which is in Bill’s diagram non existant. It seems that he is imagining things that are not present.

And I hope Warren we agree that Bill is reference for who is talking PCT and who is not.

We see that only thing Bill told about anything happening in environment of organism is »feed-back« function or effect that output has on input. He is simply talking about effect, not controlled effect or »control of behavior«, simply effect. And I hope we agree that this is »GENERAL DIAGRAM«, not some »SPECIAL«. It’s modeling every behavior, not just some specific ones.

So he is not talking about »controlled aspect of environment« or »Control of behavior« or else. Just effect of output on input. That’s it. We don’t need to make »Control behavior« disertation.

And beside that he is also saying : »Notice that we clarify the controlled variable as an input variable, not an output variable« (LCS III, p. 32).

If »output variable« is not controlled, what is making then »controlled aspect of environment« ? What is controlling outside in environment ???

WM : They seem to disagree with one another, but I just see enormous value from both perspectives.

HB : Yes they seem to disagree, but the only arbiter here I see is Bill’s work. We are here to promote his work, to upgrade, to make interperetations and so on. Everything is suppose to be about Bill and his PCT theory. Not some personal propmotions in the sense RCT (Rick’s control theory) and his perosonal diagrams. Everything has to be argumented with Bill’s work or any other evidence from the final arbiter : nature.

Best

Boris

Warren

On 6 Aug 2015, at 20:54, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@li sts.illinois.edu> wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.06.1255)]

Rupert Young (2015.08.06 20.00)–

RM: When you make lemonade – control for the perception of the taste of lemonade – you are manipulating variables in the environment – the amount of lemon juice (x.1), water (x.2) and sugar (x.3) that you put in the pitcher – in such a way that they can be constructed into a perception of the taste of lemonade. So you are controlling an aspect of the environment – the relative proportion of different chemicals in the pitcher – when you control for the perception of “the taste of lemonade”. This is why I say that when you control a perception you are also controlling an aspect of the environment – the aspect of the environment from which that perception is constructed.

RY: Yes, you manipulate variables in the environment, but I don’t think that is the same as controlling an aspect of the environment. To control the perception of the sweetness of your lemonade you vary the amount of sugar until the desired sweetness is realised.

RM: Well I’m clearly not going to bring you to my point of view. And you are clearly not going to bring me to yours. The main reason is that I couldn’t do my work in PCT if I adopted your point of view. None of the research described in Mind Readings, More Mind Readings_ and Doing Research on Purpose could (or would) have been done if it were true that people are not controlling an aspect of the environment when they control a perception. I couldn’t have done any testing for controlled variables – or build models of people controlling those variables – if people were not controlling aspects of the environment when they were controlling perceptions.

RM: The whole point of The Test for Controlled Variables(TCV) is to figure out what aspect of the environment a person is controlling. If, as you and others say, no aspects of the environment are being controlled when people ar e controlling their perceptions then it would be impossible to scientifically study control of perceptions. The perceptions people control would be completely private and there could be no science of living control systems because you could never figure out what they are controlling. But we are able to determine what perceptions people are controlling using the TCV because when people are controlling perceptions that are controlling aspects of the the environment occupied by the person doing the TCV.

RM: If you interpret PCT to mean that all that is controlled are perceptual variables that don’t correspond to variable aspects of the environment then you are taking PCT to be theory that denies the possibility of being tested. Not very scientific. So this interpretation of PCT seems to me to be not only patently ridiculous but flatly contradicted by all the PCT research I’ve done and all the demonstrations of PCT principles I have developed.

RM: So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.07.0915)]

···

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Warren Mansell csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

WM: Rather the question, as I understand it, about whether it is legitimate to call that function of the environment a perception or not;

RM: I don’t think it’s a matter of “legitimacy” but of communication. In PCT the perceptual signal – the variable that is controlled – is ultimately a function of environmental variables: p = f(x.1, x.2…x.n). Since the perceptual signal is the perception that is controlled by a control system then it is clear that, in PCT, perceptions are a function of the environment.

WM: and whether it could be computed independently of perception.

RM: I’m not sure I understand what this means. But let me try to give you an answer in terms of one of my demos that seems relevant. In the “What is Size” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Size.html) the participant can control at least two different functions of two environmental variables. The environmental variables are the width (w) and height (h) of a rectangle. The two possible functions of these variables that can be controlled are 2*(w+h) —the perimeter of the rectangle-- and w * h – the area.

RM: When you do this demo and control, say, area, you are controlling a perception that corresponds to w * h. That is, your perception of area is the w * h function of the environmental variables w and h and it is presumably being computed by neural networks in your eye and brain. When you are perceiving and controlling area (w * h) the computer is computing w * h at the same time. So the computer is computing the same function of the environmental variables, w and h, as is your perceptual system. So what is happening in this demo is that a function of environmental variables, w*h, is being computed independently and simultaneously by both the computer and your perceptual system.

RM: The same applies, of course, if you decide to control a different perception, say perimeter (2*(w+h)) rather than area (w * h). Again, your perceptual system will be computing a function of the environmental variables w and h that is proportional to (2*(w+h)) while the computer is doing the same thing.

RM: Of course, when your perceptual system computes a function of the environmental variables w and h what you experience is not a neural firing rate but a perception of the area or perimeter of a rectangle. That to me is the great mystery of perception. The mystery is why we experience neural firing rates – the perceptual signals that are proportional to (2*(w+h)) or (w * h) – as the size of a rectangle rather than as varying magnitudes of neural firing rates. Why don’t all perceptual signals look the same? They are all just variations in the rate of neural impulses. But it sure doesn’t look that way.

W: Rupert and I think it cannot, and Rick thinks it can.

RM: If I’ve understood what you say you and Rupert think, I hope I have shown that it can, not because I think so, but because it is being done right before your eyes in the “What is Size” demo – and in the “Contorl of Perception” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html) as well.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.07.0920)]

···

RM: The whole point of The Test for Controlled Variables(TCV) is to figure out what aspect of the environment a person is controlling. If, as you and others say, no aspects of the environment are being controlled when people are controlling their perceptions then it would be impossible to scientifically study control of perceptions.
Rupert Young (2015.08.07 12.00)

RY: Well, that’s not what I am saying. I am just trying to understand the terminology you are using and what it means and what it doesn’t mean. My main queries are in my other email so it would really useful if you could respond to them, particularly the one regarding q.i and q.i*g.

RM: It’s kind of tough for me to keep the questions and threads straight. Could you remind me what you other queries were, particularly the one regarding q.i and q.i*g.

Thanks.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2015.08.07 19.15)]

(Rick Marken (2015.08.07.0920)]

Here she blows!

(Rick Marken (2015.08.05.1500)]

Surely q.i is the environmental aspect not q.i*g? It is q.i which is

on the environment side of the boundary not q.i*g.

q.i*g IS p, which, as you say, is being controlled to keep it to

match the reference. But q.i is not.

I can't speak for the others, but here's a few of my points.

•     The concept "aspect" of the environment seems a bit vague and
  

  could refer to many things; though you may be using it in a
  specific sense. For example, when we are about to have a shower
  we hold our hand under the water stream and turn the heat dial
  until we feel the heat is to our liking. The heat dial is an
  aspect of the environment but, I am sure you will agree, it is
  not that which is the controlled variable, even though it is an
  environmental variable. The heat dial is varied until the
  perceptual goal is reached, and is part of the feedback
  function, I would say. It is our perception which is being
  controlled, which is internal to our nervous system, and,
  therefore not an environmental variable or aspect. I think what
  you may identify as the aspect of the environment is the actual
  temperature of the water (which could be objectively measured)
  and this may come to a particular value which corresponds to our
  desired perception. However, it is not the temperature of the
  water that is the controlled variable, but our perception
  of the temperature of the water. (Incidentally I would be very
  interested to know if anyone here gets into a dry shower, stands
  under it and then turns on the water; without testing
  the temperature).

• The phrase "Behaviour is the control of
  variable aspects of the environment " suggests that it
  is something out in the environment that is controlled and
  neglects the fundamental point that it is internal perceptions
  that are controlled. It may be the case that variable
  aspects of the environment appear to be controlled, like the
  temperature of the water, but these are as a side-effect of
  the control of perceptions.

• Lower down in the hierarchy it does seem that variable
  aspects of the environment are involved in control (even if
  not actually controlled). However, as we go up the levels
  perceptions become more conceptual and abstract. At the
  higher levels it questionable whether
  variable aspects of the environment are even
  involved in control. How, for example, could someone’s
  control of their perception of god be said to be the same as

          control
  

  of variable aspects of the environment, or even

      involve
          control of variable aspects of the
  

  environment; likewise with justice or someone’s perception
  that Mexican migrants are rapists or that a woman’s word is
  worth half of that of a man’s. The statement

                "Behaviour is the control of perception" is a general
  

  principle applicable to all levels of behaviour; the
  statement “Behaviour is the control of variable
  aspects of the environment” may be applicable to some lower
  level systems but is not a general principle.

  Sure, at lower levels, but at higher levels they can be imagined
  representations of things that do not actually exist outside.

  Sure, a perceptual signal (q.i*g) may correspond to, or be a
  function of, variable aspects of the environment (q.i) but it is the
  perceptual signal that is controlled not the variable aspects of the
  environment.

  Rupert

···

RM: It’s kind of tough for me to keep the questions and
threads straight. Could you remind me what you other
queries were, particularly the one regarding q.i and
q.i*g.

            Rupert Young

(2015.08.05 20.00)

            RY: Yes, and if we look at the live block demo .....

However, if you set the input gain to something other
than 1 then the input quantity will change, but the only
the perception will remain equal to the reference. So,
even though the perception is a function of physical
variables it is only the perception that is the
controlled variable, so these two statements are not
equivalent.

            RY: Is this not the case?

          RM: It is the case that what a control system controls

is the perceptual signal, which I presume, based on your
analysis of the LiveBlock demo, is what you are referring
to as the perception. But when the system is controlling
the perceptual signal, keeping it matching the reference
signal, it is also controlling the aspect of the
environment to which that signal corresponds, which in the
LiveBlock demo is the input quantity times the gain
(q.i*g).

                        RY: I think I'm

coming down with a bad case of deja vu, but
could you clarify? Are you saying that these
two statements are equivalent:

                        "Behaviour is the control of perception"



                        "Behaviour is the control of variable

aspects of the environment"

RM: Yes.

            RY: Or am I missing

something?

          RM: I think so but it's hard to say what it is. For

some reason you (and several others) seem to think that
control of perception is in some way separate from control
of aspects of the environment. Actually, I don’t really
understand what your point is.

          RM: To me, "perception" refers to some kind of

representation inside of a device of a state of affairs
outside (in the environment of) the device. In PCT a
perception is a perceptual signal – an afferent neural
current – that varies as a function of variations
(ultimately) in physical variables: p = f(x.1,x.2…x.n),
where x.i are different physical variables.

          RM: What you may be "missing" is the fact that all

perceptual signals are the same – they are all just
variations in the rate of afferent neural firing. The only
difference between one perceptual signal and another is in
how it’s derived from lower level perceptual inputs and,
ultimately, sensed effects of physical variables. The
“derivation” is the perceptual function that defines
whether variations in a perceptual signal correspond to
variations in the size of a book, the shape of a letter,
the relationship between the book and a table top, etc.
That is, the only way to discriminate between the
different perceptual signals we control is in terms of the
(variable) aspect of the environment to which that
perception corresponds – or, better, the aspect of the
environment from which that perceptual signal is derived…

Thanks.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com

                    Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=zLs20T7M7sZu5xtlN5NX1nMUe3UySPPAB19Euv8EWMw&s=rYZCfB_Rg7tkLixfzbShMAIfuwdXJlcHuEHY1B5Nn9s&e=). 
                      Now available from Amazon or Barnes &

Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.07.1300)

···

Rupert Young (2015.08.07 19.15)

RY: Here she blows!

RM: Thanks. OK, this looks like one of your queries

RY: Surely q.i is the environmental aspect not q.i*g? It is q.i which is

on the environment side of the boundary not q.i*g.

RM: In the LiveBlock demo, q.i can be seen as a scalar environmental variable – equivalent to w (or h) in my "What is size? demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Size.html). I called q.i*g the aspect of that environmental variable that is being controlled. This was probably a confusing way for me to make my point because of the way q.i is represented in the LiveBlock demo. In PCT the symbol, q.i, refers to the Input Quantity, which is usually NOT a scalar environmental variable, as it seems to be in the LiveBlock demo. The Input Quantity, q.i, typically represents the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the controlled perception, p. But you can’t see this in the LiveBlock diagram because q.i looks like an environmental variable itself, rather than a function of those variables, since q.i is just a scalar variable.

RM: A better way to see that q.i is meant to represent the aspect of the environmental that corresponds to the controlled perception is by taking a look at Fig. 1 on p. 66 of LCS I. This diagram of a control loop is from Powers’ 1973 Science paper. The circle labeled Input Quantity is q.i. Inside this circle are a set of v’s which are the environmental variables. The circle around the v’s represents the fact that q.i is a function of these variables:

q.i = f(v.1,v.2, …vn)

RM: So q.i is a function of environmental variables v.1, v2, vn, just as area is a function of environmental variables w and h. Although the circle representing the Input Quantity, q.i, is shown to be in the environment of the control system, it is not actually “calculated” in the environment, of course. It can only be calculated by an observer of the control system just as the area of the rectangle, w * h, can only be calculated by an observer (such as the computer) in the “What is size” demo. But the Input Quantity circle in Fig. 1 is out in the environment to show that it is the aspect of the environment (the function of environmental variables) that is equivalent to the perception (called the “Sensor Signal” in the diagram) controlled by the control system. That is, the Input Quantity is the environmental correlate of the perception (Sensor Signal):

p = q.i = f(v.1,v.2, …vn)

RM: That is, the perceptual signal is the same function of environmental variables as the Input Quantity. So the Input Quantity can be considered the observer’s “view” of the perception controlled by the control system. Again, this is illustrated nicely (I think) in the “What is size” demo. The computer is computing two versions of the Input Quantity, 2(w+h) and w*h. These are two hypotheses about the Input Quantity – the aspect of the environment (w, h) that is being perceived and controlled by the participant. The version of the Input Quantity that gives the best fit to the controlling done by the participant can be considered to be equivalent (or nearly so) to the perception controlled by the participant (the control system).

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

          RM: It's kind of tough for me to keep the questions and

threads straight. Could you remind me what you other
queries were, particularly the one regarding q.i and
q.i*g.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.08.1830)]

RM: At the risk of further reinforcing Boris’ already rather low opinion of me I feel compelled to admit to having made a rather big mistake in my discussion with Rupert regarding the relationship between the environment and perception. Rupert used the LiveBlock demo (a copy of which can be downloaded from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31298693/LiveBlock.exe; don’t worry about the cautions you get on downloading; there are no viruses in the .exe file) to show that the environmental Input Quantity (q.i) does not correspond to the Perceptual Signal (p). I had been arguing the exact opposite: that q.i is the environmental correlate of p. So one could say that I was arguing that q.i = p and that Rupert was arguing that q.i <> p.

RM: Using the LiveBlock demo, Rupert “proved” his point by showing that when the input gain, g, (called Input Gain Factor in LiveBlock) of the control system is not equal to 1.0, q.i does not equal p (this is true only when p is brought to a reference other than 0, by the way; and I have no idea how Rupert changed the gain value; I can’t in my version of LiveBlock)… This looks a lot like proof that q.i <> p. In my rush to show that this is not the case I came up with what has to be the dumbest rebuttal of all time – outdoing even myself in stupidity;-) I claimed that it was q.i*g rather than q.i that is the Input Quantity in the LiveBlock demo. This was simply, utterly wrong.

RM: The correct rebuttal to Rupert’s proof is simply to point out that the mismatch between p and q.i when g is <> 1 results from the fact that the g parameter simply converts a measure of q.i, in physical units, into a measure of p, in neural firing rate units. A gain of 1 describes the very unlikely situation where q.i is measured in physical units (like newtons) that are equal to units of neural firing rate (spikes/sec) (this, of course, is not true of newtons and spikes/sec). So the actual value of g (in a real world situation) depends on the units in which q.i is measured; g will be different depending on whether q.i is measured in newtons or pounds, for example.If q.i is measured in units that are equal to neural firing rate units (so that g = 1) then q.i will always equal p; if the same q.i is measured in units that not equal to neural firing rate units (so that g<>1) then q.i will only equal p when the reference is 0. In reality g is probably never equal to 1 and moreover the relationship between measures of q.i and p is almost certainly non-linear (logarithmic), so teh relationship between p and q.i is probably more like p = g*log10(q.i)

RM: So the fact that q.i doesn’t equal p when g<>1 in the LiveBlock demo says nothing about whether q.i corresponds to the aspect of the environment that is controlled when p is controlled. The correct way to see that q.i corresponds to p is described in my earlier post (i Rick Marken (2015.08.07.1300). I’ll just copy the relevant part of that post here:

···

RM:A A better way to see that q.i is meant to represent the aspect of the environmental that corresponds to the controlled perception is by taking a look at Fig. 1 on p. 66 of LCS I. This diagram of a control loop is from Powers’ 1973 Science paper. The circle labeled Input Quantity is q.i. Inside this circle are a set of v’s which are the environmental variables. The circle around the v’s represents the fact that q.i is a function of these variables:
q.i = f(v.1,v.2, …vn)
RM: So q.i is a function of environmental variables v.1, v2, vn, just as area is a function of environmental variables w and h. Although the circle representing the Input Quantity, q.i, is shown to be in the environment of the control system, it is not actually “calculated” in the environment, of course. It can only be calculated by an observer of the control system just as the area of the rectangle, w * h, can only be calculated by an observer (such as the computer) in the “What is size” demo. But the Input Quantity circle in Fig. 1 is out in the environment to show that it is the aspect of the environment (the function of environmental variables) that is equivalent to the perception (called the “Sensor Signal” in the diagram) controlled by the control system. That is, the Input Quantity is the environmental correlate of the perception (Sensor Signal):
p = q.i = f(v.1,v.2, …vn)
RM: That is, [according to PCT] the perceptual signal is the same function of environmental variables as the Input Quantity. So the Input Quantity can be considered the observer’s “view” of the perception controlled by the control system. Again, this is illustrated nicely (I think) in the “What is size” demo. The computer is computing two versions of the Input Quantity, 2(w+h) and w*h. These are two hypotheses about the Input Quantity – the aspect of the environment (w, h) that is being perceived and controlled by the participant. The version of the Input Quantity that gives the best fit to the controlling done by the participant can be considered to be equivalent (or nearly so) to the perception controlled by the participant (the control system).

RM: I will just add that, in the LiveBlock demo all we know is q.i; we don’t know how q.i is derived from environmental variables, v.1, v.2…v.n. So the LiveBlock demo, though a great way to demonstrate the behavior of variables a control loop, cannot be used to demonstrate anything about the relationship between q.i and p.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.08.1830)]

RM: At the risk of further reinforcing Boris’ already rather low opinion of me I feel compelled to admit to having made a rather big mistake in my discussion with Rupert regarding the relationship between the environment and perception.

HB :

What it matters to me is that members of CSGnet forum get right information about PCT. So you are contributing. It’s your personal victory. My oppinion about you is higher and it’s rising.

Rupert used the LiveBlock demo (a copy of which can be downloaded from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31298693/LiveBlock.exe; don’t worry about the cautions you get on downloading; there are no viruses in the .exe file) to show that the environmental Input Quantity (q.i) does not correspond to the Perceptual Signal (p). I had been arguing the exact opposite: that q.i is the environmental correlate of p. So one could say that I was arguing that q.i = p and that Rupert was arguing that q.i <> p.

RM: Using the LiveBlock demo, Rupert “proved” his point by showing that when the input gain, g, (called Input Gain Factor in LiveBlock) of the control system is not equal to 1.0, q.i does not equal p (this is true only when p is brought to a reference other than 0, by the way; and I have no idea how Rupert changed the gain value; I can’t in my version of LiveBlock)… This looks a lot like proof that q.i <> p. In my rush to show that this is not the case I came up with what has to be the dumbest rebuttal of all time – outdoing even myself in stupidity;-) I claimed that it was q.i*g rather than q.i that is the Input Quantity in the LiveBlock demo. This was simply, utterly wrong.

HB :

Cheers Rupert…J

RM: The correct rebuttal to Rupert’s proof is simply to point out that the mismatch between p and q.i when g is <> 1 results from the fact that the g parameter simply converts a measure of q.i, in physical units, into a measure of p, in neural firing rate units. A gain of 1 describes the very unlikely situation where q.i is measured in physical units (like newtons) that are equal to units of neural firing rate (spikes/sec) (this, of course, is not true of newtons and spikes/sec). So the actual value of g (in a real world situation) depends on the units in which q.i is measured; g will be different depending on whether q.i is measured in newtons or pounds, for example.If q.i is measured in units that are equal to neural firing rate units (so that g = 1) then q.i will always equal p; if the same q.i is measured in units that not equal to neural firing rate units (so that g<>1) then q.i will only equal p when the reference is 0. In reality g is probably never equal to 1 and moreover the relationship between measures of q.i and p is almost certainly non-linear (logarithmic), so teh relationship between p and q.i is probably more like p = g*log10(q.i)

RM: So the fact that q.i doesn’t equal p when g<>1 in the LiveBlock demo says nothing about whether q.i corresponds to the aspect of the environment that is controlled when p is controlled. The correct way to see that q.i corresponds to p is described in my earlier post (i Rick Marken (2015.08.07.1300). I’ll just copy the relevant part of that post here:

RM:A A better way to see that q.i is meant to represent the aspect of the environmental that corresponds to the controlled perception is by taking a look at Fig. 1 on p. 66 of LCS I. This diagram of a control loop is from Powers’ 1973 Science paper. The circle labeled Input Quantity is q.i. Inside this circle are a set of v’s which are the environmental variables. The circle around the v’s represents the fact that q.i is a function of these variables:
q.i = f(v.1,v.2, …vn)
RM: So q.i is a function of environmental variables v.1, v2, vn, just as area is a function of environmental variables w and h. Although the circle representing the Input Quantity, q.i, is shown to be in the environment of the control system, it is not actually “calculated” in the environment, of course. It can only be calculated by an observer of the control system just as the area of the rectangle, w * h, can only be calculated by an observer (such as the computer) in the “What is size” demo. But the Input Quantity circle in Fig. 1 is out in the environment to show that it is the aspect of the environment (the function of environmental variables) that is equivalent to the perception (called the “Sensor Signal” in the diagram) controlled by the control system. That is, the Input Quantity is the environmental correlate of the perception (Sensor Signal):
p = q.i = f(v.1,v.2, …vn)
RM: That is, [according to PCT] the perceptual signal is the same function of environmental variables as the Input Quantity. So the Input Quantity can be considered the observer’s “view” of the perception controlled by the control system. Again, this is illustrated nicely (I think) in the “What is size” demo. The computer is computing two versions of the Input Quantity, 2(w+h) and w*h. These are two hypotheses about the Input Quantity – the aspect of the environment (w, h) that is being perceived and controlled by the participant. The version of the Input Quantity that gives the best fit to the controlling done by the participant can be considered to be equivalent (or nearly so) to the perception controlled by the participant (the control system).

RM: I will just add that, in the LiveBlock demo all we know is q.i; we don’t know how q.i is derived from environmental variables, v.1, v.2…v.n. So the LiveBlock demo, though a great way to demonstrate the behavior of variables a control loop, cannot be used to demonstrate anything about the relationship between q.i and p.

HB :

My primary interest is that your oppinion is at least equivalent to Bill’s and that it don’t contradict physiological facts. So if your algebra contain Bill’s explanations about organism and environment, and if your algebra contain his knowledge (at least main principles) about how nervous system operate, that’s for me ideal situation and huge victory for PCT. And it seems this is happening.

Best,

Boris

Best regards

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 3:28 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Powers, 2007: I didn’t apply control theory to homeostasis in B:CP

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2015.08.10 20.30)]

(Rick Marken (2015.08.06.1415)]

RM: ... in order to test two different hypotheses about the perception (aspect of the environment) controlled in that task.

RM: Aspects of the environment don't "contribute" to a perception; they _are_ the perception.

Then I am wondering why you use the phrase "Behaviour is the control of variable aspects of the environment" if it is perceptions we are talking about, which, I think, we all understand are (imagination aside) functions of physical (environmental) variables.

As I mentioned before it is a bit misleading as it suggests that the controlled variable is something in the environment. This may be what a newcomer to PCT might think, faced with this phrase, without even any appreciation that perceptions are involved. Also, as mentioned with my shower example you can have aspects of the environment which are not controlled, but are manipulated like the heat dial.

In the above example, the environment is three variables: t, c and s. One aspect of that environment is k (t-c); another is arcsine [(t-c)/s]; still another (which I didn't consider) is t-c+s. In other words, I view an "aspect of the environment" as a mathematical function of physical (environmental) variables.

What is the difference between this and a perception?

Rupert

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2015.08.10 20.31)]

Click on "Show" in "Parameter Slides"

I don’t have access to this figure is it on the internet somewhere?
Rupert

···

(Rick Marken (2015.08.08.1830)]

      RM: Using the LiveBlock demo, Rupert "proved" his point by

showing that when the input gain, g, (called Input Gain Factor
in LiveBlock) of the control system is not equal to 1.0, q.i
does not equal p (this is true only when p is brought to a
reference other than 0, by the way; and I have no idea how
Rupert changed the gain value; I can’t in my version of
LiveBlock)…

      RM: So the fact that q.i doesn't equal p when g<>1 in

the LiveBlock demo says nothing about whether q.i corresponds
to the aspect of the environment that is controlled when p is
controlled. The
correct way to see that q.i corresponds to p is described in
my earlier post (i Rick Marken
(2015.08.07.1300). I’ll just copy the relevant part of that
post here:

RM:A A better way
to see that q.i is meant to represent the aspect of
the environmental that corresponds to the controlled
perception is by taking a look at Fig. 1 on p. 66 of
LCS I. This diagram of
a control loop is from Powers’ 1973 Science paper.
The circle labeled Input Quantity is q.i. Inside
this circle are a set of v’s which are the
environmental variables. The circle around the v’s
represents the fact that q.i is a function of these
variables:

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.10.1530)

···

Rupert Young (2015.08.10 20.31) –

RM: I’ll answer this post first because I have more to say about your earlier post. So I’m still working on it.

RY: I don’t have access to this figure is it on the internet somewhere?

RM: I couldn’t scan it in (I have no scanner; I must get one) but here’s a copy that I found from another paper. All that’s left out from the version in Science is that the little circles inside the Input quantity circle have v’s in side them. So the little circles are the physical variables and the large circle that surrounds them indicates that the Input quantity is a function of these variables.

Best

RM:A A better way
to see that q.i is meant to represent the aspect of
the environmental that corresponds to the controlled
perception is by taking a look at Fig. 1 on p. 66 of
LCS I. This diagram of
a control loop is from Powers’ 1973 Science paper.
The circle labeled Input Quantity is q.i. Inside
this circle are a set of v’s which are the
environmental variables. The circle around the v’s
represents the fact that q.i is a function of these
variables:

Rick

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble