[Rick Marken 2018-07-15_12:05:55]
[Bruce Nevin 2018-07-12_09:59:50 ET]
BN: ‘Prediction’ has become a loaded term in PCT discourse, apt to be a trigger for dismissal without further examination, but I agree with you, this looks worthy of closer consideration.
RM: Not at all. “Prediction” is clearly something people do so it’s a behavior that PCT should be able to explain. And this explanation will be in terms of the perceptual variables that are being controlled when people are doing the behavior that we see as “predicting”.
RM:Â Prediction is a problem for PCTers only when it is thought to be a necessary component of a control system. The control systems in the PCT model work sans prediction (of the future state of the controlled input or of disturbances to that input). There are situations where the fit of the PCT model to behavior can be improved by incorporating prediction into the model. For example, the behavior of tracking a “predictable” target, such as a target moving in a sinusoidal trajectory, is improved by incorporating prediction of future target position into the model. But this doesn’t mean that prediction is actually involved in the controlling done by the person doing the tracking. There is evidence that tracking a predictable target involves control of a higher level perception (an in-phase relationship between the harmonic motion of target and cursor), this explanation being consistent with the hierarchical control model of PCT. But this is still an area where research could clarify things.Â
BN: “Every want is a prophesy.”
RM: In PCT, every want is a reference signal, which best viewed as a demand (for a particular state of a perceptual variable), not a prophesy.Â
BN: In the same way, an expectation that no one understands PCT correctly, taken as a stable part of the perceived environment, can become a part of the environmental feedback function for controlling other perceptions, and its destabilization may actually be resisted.
RM: Actually, such an expectation becomes a reference specification, so that one with that “expectation” is actually controlling for having people not understand PCT. Or so said Bill about my expectation that someone who had been on CSGNet for years would never really get it. So I no longer expect that of anyone. I just see if what people say about PCT seems to be correct.
Looking back over the past almost 30 years I am wondering if this might sometimes have been an instance of collective control. I have no doubt that it has been sometimes an instance of individual control, because I have seen it in myself. Perceptions controlled by means of this perceived environmental stability (“others do not understand PCT correctly”) include perceiving myself (and perceiving myself being perceived) as part of the in-group rather than those “others”, and probably yes some of the ‘invigorating’ body states associated with conflict, so you are certainly not alone in that, Rick.
Warren has some remarkable skills in this area, which I admire and which I want to observe more closely in the hope of developing more refined and accurate perceptual input functions (‘recognizers’) for them, so that maybe I might improve my control of like perceptions. PCT learning theory applied–what a concept!
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:19 AM Bartley Madden firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I’ll try to make the Evanston conference.
HereÂ is an excellent summary of a trend in neuroscience to treat the brain as a prediction machine that minimizes error.
Screams out PCT.
Is anyone in PCT working with this stuff??
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â€?
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Bruce Nevin email@example.com wrote:
Ah, yes, I used the address that gmail pulled out of its memory, and I should have copied the one from Dag’s fwd.
The conference is earlier in October, the 12th and 13th. Hope you can make it. Good luck with your worthy legislative agenda.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Dag Forssell firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I forwarded your email but not your gmail address. Bruce Nevin must have
had an old yahoo address. Interestingly enough, you replied using the
With this mail, Bruce gets your gmail address.
I am glad I referred you to Bruce.Â I wish you could benefit from my
presentation. It is carefully structured to explain to a lay audience –
anyone – and get the significance of PCT across.
At 04:43 PM 4/27/2018, Bart Madden wrote:
This is helpful. Thank you.
I am not sure if I can make the PCT conference.
I am committed to a major campaign now to pass my Free To Choose Medicine
proposal in the U.S.
I know that I’ll be going to make presentations to large groups in late
Oct and Nov … don’t know exact
FTCM has some “control” aspects to it …
An early version of these ideas was translated into Japanese and
apparently played an important role
in Japan’s 2014 passage of FTCM-type legislation for regenerative
medicine drugs. This and other new
developments are reported in my new 3rd edition FTCM book
Finally, please use my gmail address noted above.
On Fri, 4/27/18, Bruce Nevin email@example.com wrote:
Â Subject: short non-technical summary
Â To: “Bart Madden” firstname.lastname@example.org
Â Cc: “Dag Forssell”
Â Date: Friday, April 27, 2018, 6:05 PM
Â Hi, Bart,
Â As Dag has told you, he passed your email on to
Â me. You say you need a one-sentence non-technical statement
Â about PCT. Your first cut:
Â Human behavior
Â is best understood, not as responses to stimuli, but as
Â taking actions to control the perceptions of variables that
Â are important in keeping us on track to achieve our
Â The best way to say it is the best way for your
Â reader to understand it, and that depends on who you’re
Â talking to. This talks to someone who presupposes that
Â behavior is responses to stimuli. But for your intended
Â “nontechnical” audience that might not be so. The
Â typical response to me is "well, isn’t that kind of
Â Your sentence above has the technical words
Â responses, stimuli, perceptions, variables, and (though the
Â reader doesn’t know it yet) control.
Â Where does the limit to one sentence come from?
Â Whether one sentence or six, “nontechnical” calls
Â for simple, direct, familiar language, and trying to
Â shrink-wrap too much in one bundle makes that harder to do.
Â Here are five sentences, for
Â example:Ã‚ To state
Â the blindingly obvious, when something isn’t the way we
Â want it to be, we act so as to fix that. Can you think of
Â any human purposes that don’t follow that general rule?
Â But all too often we get at cross purposes. We can even get
Â at cross purposes with ourselves. With PCT, learn how to see
Â the purposes behind behavior and resolve
Â I’m not proposing that you use this. You need
Â your own words that say what your book is about in a direct,
Â non-technical way.
Â I hope this is helpful, Bart. Are you planning on
Â coming to the conference at Northwestern in