(Gavin Ritz 2011.11.28.9.21.
[From Bill Powers
(2011.11,26,0925 MST)]
Gavin Ritz 2011.11.25.18.01 NZT –
Can you
tell me why you think Ilya Prigogine’s work is uninspiring? He has some powerful arguments and evidence
for his theory.
Regards
Gavin
[From Rick Marken (2011.11.28.0820)]
Gavin Ritz (2011.11.28.9.21.) re: Bill Powers
(2011.11,26,0925 MST)
Can you
tell me why you think Ilya Prigogines work is uninspiring? He has some powerful arguments and evidence
for his theory.
I’d like to know what Prigogine’s work has to do with understanding the behavior of living control systems (which is what PCT is about). What is the evidence for his theory (with respect to the behavior of living control systems, that is). I looked him up on Wikipedia and I don’t see how his work is relevant to understanding control, but then I don’t know the difference between a function and a variable. So it would help if the explanation were given in very simple English.
RSM
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(Gavin ritz
2011.11.29.9.14NZT)
[From Rick Marken
(2011.11.28.0820)]
Gavin
Ritz (2011.11.28.9.21.) re: Bill Powers (2011.11,26,0925 MST)
Can you
tell me why you think Ilya Prigogine’s work is uninspiring? He has some powerful arguments and
evidence for his theory.
I’d like to know what Prigogine’s work has to do with
understanding the behavior of living control systems (which is what PCT is
about). What is the evidence for his theory (with respect to the behavior of
living control systems, that is). I looked him up on Wikipedia and I don’t see
how his work is relevant to understanding control,
but then I don’t know the
difference between a function and a variable.
Well you said it not me.
So it would help if the
explanation were given in very simple English.
If someone was to ask you can you explain
PCT in very simple English could you do it? ( I doubt it, without all the modeling
tests, etc and a large chunk of time devoted to it)
Prigogine had dozens of technical books published on the subject of
Dissipative Structures with all their research at Brussels and in Texas.
Well simply
because his work is all about non-equilibrium systems (dynamical systems), feedback,
both negative and positive. That’s
what a living control system is right.
Sorry don’t
have the time to explain other theories to you. I battled to explain to you the
modern concept relativistic gravitation (you just didn’t get it) so this
is a no go for me now, I’m very busy moving my business.
···
[From Rick Marken (2011.11.28.1410)]
Gavin ritz
( 2011.11.29.9.14NZT)
RM: I’d like to know what Prigogine’s work has to do with
understanding the behavior of living control systems (which is what PCT is
about).
GR: If someone was to ask you can you explain
PCT in very simple English could you do it?
I’ll give it a try:
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) starts with the observation that the behavior of living organisms is a process of control, which involves the production of preselected results in a disturbance prone environment. According to PCT control occurs because organisms act to keep perceived aspects of their environment in reference states specified by the organisms themselves: behavior (the observable activity of the organism) is the control of perception. Observed behavior varies in order to bring perceptions into a match with variable references and protect these perceptions from varying disturbances. When the organism’s reference for a controlled perception is fixed, variations in behavior will appear to be caused by stimuli, which are visible disturbances to a controlled perception (as per the S-R view of behavior). When the organism’s reference for a controlled perception is variable and disturbances are fixed, variations in behavior will appear to be the result of programmed calculations (as per the cognitive view of behavior). Thus, PCT shows that the two main approaches to understanding behavior are based on two different perspectives on the same phenomenon: control. from a PCT perspective understanding the behavior of living organisms is mainly a matter of determining what perceptions these organisms are controlling.
How’s that. I tried to do it in fairly simple English and also make it short. I think it covers the essentials (though, of course, it leaves out some of the good stuff, like reorganization, imagination and emotion).
So could you do something like this describing the relevance of Prigogine’s work to behavior and/or PCT?
RSM
(gavin Ritz 2011.11.29.11.47NZT)
[From
Rick Marken (2011.11.28.1410)]
Gavin ritz ( 2011.11.29.9.14NZT)
RM: I’d like to know what
Prigogine’s work has to do with understanding the behavior of
living control systems (which is what PCT is about).
GR: If
someone was to ask you can you explain PCT in very simple English could you do
it?
I’ll give it a try:
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) starts with the observation that the behavior
of living organisms is a process of control, which involves the production of
preselected results in a disturbance prone environment. According to PCT
control occurs because organisms act to keep perceived aspects of their
environment in reference states specified by the organisms themselves: behavior
(the observable activity of the organism) is the control of perception.
Observed behavior varies in order to bring perceptions into a match with
variable references and protect these perceptions from varying
disturbances. When the organism’s reference for a controlled perception
is fixed, variations in behavior will appear to be caused by stimuli,
which are visible disturbances to a controlled perception (as per the S-R view
of behavior). When the organism’s reference for a controlled perception is
variable and disturbances are fixed, variations in behavior will appear to be
the result of programmed calculations (as per the cognitive view of
behavior). Thus, PCT shows that the two main approaches to understanding
behavior are based on two different perspectives on the same phenomenon:
control. From a PCT perspective understanding the behavior of living organisms
is mainly a matter of determining what perceptions these organisms are
controlling.
Perfect for someone who knows all about PCT and been looking
at it for 30 years, useless for someone who knows nothing of PCT concepts of perception, control, reference
states, variable references, disturbances, controlled perceptions etc etc etc
all PCT semantics.
If I gave the above paragraph to someone
who knows absolutely nothing of PCT it would mean zero to them.
If I pretend that I know nothing of these concepts
it’s actually all just gobble-de-gook. Let’s give it a try
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) starts with the observation that the
behavior of living organisms is a process of GOOK, which involves the
production of preselected results in a DOOK prone environment. According
to PCT GOOK occurs because organisms act to keep perceived aspects of their
environment in SOOK SOOK specified by the organisms themselves:
behavior (the observable activity of the organism) is the MOOK MOOK. Observed
behavior varies in order to bring OOK OOK into a match with GOOK GOOK and
protect these DOOK DOOKs from varying GOOK. When the organism’s TOOK TOOK
for a MOOK MOOK is fixed, variations in behavior will appear to be caused by stimuli,
which are visible DOOK to a ROOK ROOK (as per the S-R view of behavior). When
the organism’s GOOK for a MOOK MOOK is variable and DOOK are fixed, variations
in behavior will appear to be the result of programmed calculations (as per the
cognitive view of behavior). Thus, PCT shows that the two main approaches
to understanding behavior are based on two different perspectives on the same
phenomenon: GOOKl. From a PCT perspective understanding the behavior of living
organisms is mainly a matter of determining what DOOK DOOK these organisms are GOOKING
If I talk about entropy production or
Gibbs Free energy or Ostwald’s Ripening do you know what I’m talking about?
[From Rick Marken (2011.11.28.1750)]
gavin Ritz (2011.11.29.11.47NZT)
GR: If
someone was to ask you can you explain PCT in very simple English could you do
it?
RM: I’ll give it a try:
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) starts with the observation that the behavior
of living organisms is a process of control…
GR: Perfect for someone who knows all about PCT and been looking
at it for 30 years, useless for someone who knows nothing of PCT concepts of perception, control, reference
states, variable references, disturbances, controlled perceptions etc etc etc
all PCT semantics.
Gee, it didn’t seem that bad to me.
GR: If I pretend that I know nothing of these concepts
its actually all just gobble-de-gook. Lets give it a try
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) starts with the observation that the
behavior of living organisms is a process of GOOK, which involves the
production of preselected results in a DOOK prone environment.
But I define GOOK (control) in the next phase (The producion of preselected results in a disturbance prone world; and I think people know what a DOOK (disturbance) is; it’s something that disturbs. But I should have defined control as " the ability to consistently produce preselected results in a disturbance prone world that would make such consistency unlikely".
GR: According
to PCT GOOK occurs because organisms act to keep perceived aspects of their
environment in SOOK SOOK specified by the organisms themselves:
behavior (the observable activity of the organism) is the MOOK MOOK…
Well, OK, you didn’t understand it. But I wonder if anyone else did. Anyone?
GR: If I talk about entropy production or
Gibbs Free energy or Ostwalds Ripening do you know what Im talking about?
I know what entropy production means but I don’t know what the other two are. But I’m sure you could communicate the gist of the meanings of these things in a few sentences. Can’t you?
RSM
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(gavin ritz
2011.11.29.14.56NZT)
[From
Rick Marken (2011.11.28.1750)]
gavin Ritz (2011.11.29.11.47NZT)
GR: If
someone was to ask you can you explain PCT in very simple English could you do
it?
RM: I’ll give it a try:
Perceptual
Control Theory (PCT) starts with the observation that the behavior of living
organisms is a process of control…
GR:
Perfect for someone who knows all about PCT and been looking at it for 30
years, useless for someone who knows nothing of PCT concepts of perception, control,
reference states, variable references, disturbances, controlled perceptions etc
etc etc all PCT semantics.
Gee, it didn’t seem that bad to me.
Its not bad at all, I understand most of, it
not all. But to say a chemist, or a chaos theory person, or how about
cybernetics folks or complexity theory chums.
GR:
If I pretend that I know nothing of these concepts it’s actually all just
gobble-de-gook. Let’s give it a try
Perceptual Control Theory
(PCT) starts with the observation that the behavior of living organisms is a
process of GOOK, which involves the production of preselected results in a DOOK
prone environment.
But I define GOOK (control) in the next phase (The producion of preselected
results in a disturbance prone world; and I think people know what a DOOK
(disturbance) is; it’s something that disturbs. But I should have defined
control as " the ability to consistently produce preselected results in
a disturbance prone world that would make such consistency unlikely".
GR: According to PCT GOOK
occurs because organisms act to keep perceived aspects of their environment in SOOK
SOOK specified by the organisms themselves: behavior (the observable activity
of the organism) is the MOOK MOOK…
Well, OK, you didn’t understand it.
I never said I didn’t understand it.
But we are not going there now, I’m talking about other folks who have
never read PCT.
But I wonder if
anyone else did. Anyone?
We all understood it here on this list because
we have all made an effort to understand the definitions and concepts of PCT.
So it’s an irrelevant question for the purposes of our discussion.
GR: If I
talk about entropy production or Gibbs Free energy or Ostwald’s Ripening do you
know what I’m talking about?
I know what entropy production means but I don’t know what the other two are.
So it would be totally useless for me to
try describe it to you or any of its significance. It would be like me talking
mandarin and you French.
But I’m sure you could
communicate the gist of the meanings of these things in a few sentences.
Can’t you?
I doubt that.
Can you explain the gist of the meanings
of a controlled variable to someone just like that.
GR
···
[From Rick Marken (2011.11.28.1930)]
gavin ritz
2011.11.29.14.56NZT)
RM: I know what entropy production means but I don’t know what the other two are.
GR: So it would be totally useless for me to
try describe it to you or any of its significance. It would be like me talking
mandarin and you French.
This is ridiculous. You obviously haven’t any idea what these things are or how they relate to PCT. I was actually interested in how Prigigone’s ideas relate to PCT but I guess I will just have to wait until Bill tells me about it.
GR: Can you explain the gist of the meanings
of a controlled variable to someone just like that.
Of course. I’ve done it many, many times in discussions on CSGNet. That’s what teaching is about. If your ideas are so complex that you have to read thousands of pages of stuff before you can say you understand it – and still not be able to communicate what it is that you understand – then it doesn’t seem to me that it’s of much value. Geez.
RSM
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(gavin Ritz
2011.11.29.16.42NZT)
[From
Rick Marken (2011.11.28.1930)]
gavin ritz
2011.11.29.14.56NZT)
RM: I know what entropy
production means but I don’t know what the other two are.
GR: So
it would be totally useless for me to try describe it to you or any of its
significance. It would be like me talking mandarin and you French.
This is ridiculous.
I guess so for you.
You obviously haven’t any
idea what these things are or how they relate to PCT.
I know exactly.
I was actually interested
I doubt that, why now what’s
changed.
in how Prigigone’s ideas
relate to PCT but I guess I will just have to wait until Bill
tells me about it.
Great, let Bill TELL you, as I said I’m
just too snowed under at this stage, besides I have tried before to discuss it
and it gets absolutely no where. Go read the stuff yourself it may stimulate you but I doubt it.
GR: Can
you explain the gist of the meanings of a controlled variable to someone just
like that.
Of course. I’ve done it many, many times in discussions on CSGNet.
You really don’t get it. This list
is all about PCT. Do you actually read what I write or do u just want to fight?
Try another list with those who don’t
know PCT. Here try this on the FIS list or how about the Cybercom list or any
list you choose. I can guarantee you will not succeed. (you actually haven’t
by the way)
That’s what teaching is
about.
Really. I’m not here to teach you or
anyone anything. You are always on about teaching, I couldn’t care if you
want to teach or be TOLD, let Bill TELL you, you trust him not me.
If your ideas are so
complex that you have to read thousands of pages of stuff before you can say
you understand it – and still not be able to communicate what it is that you
understand – then it doesn’t seem to me that it’s of much value. Geez.
You assume a lot of stuff and get upset
very easily. Is this disturbing?
Your saying “tis all you need to
know all there is to know” re PCT. Sounds like a sect of Islam where
the Koran says to these guys, there is no more creativity this is IT.
There is an axiom in conceptual
mathematics called the subobject classifier its philosophical equivalent is
called the truth value object or the open paradigm, openness for short and a key
aspect in dynamical system ability for emergence and learning or creativity.
You seem to have no ability here whatsoever, not sure how you can call yourself
a teacher, then again I can call myself god but it won’t make me so.
Got to go, you really have no interest in
anything at all, you have shown this so many times I waste my time.
···
[From Rick Marken (2011.11.28.2200)]
gavin Ritz
(2011.11.29.16.42NZT)
GR: Can
you explain the gist of the meanings of a controlled variable to someone just
like that.
RM: Of course. I’ve done it many, many times in discussions on CSGNet.
GR: You really dont get it.
I sure don’t. You bring up Prigogine as a person who’s ideas are relevant to PCT. I ask how and you won’t tell me and get mad at me for asking. No, I don’t get it at all.
GR: Your saying tis all you need to
know all there is to know re PCT.
I was asking how Prigogine’s ideas related to PCT. That’s hardly saying that all you need to know is PCT. It’s more like saying “I’d like to know about Prigogine’s ideas”.
GR: There is an axiom in conceptual
mathematics called the subobject classifier its philosophical equivalent is
called the truth value object or the open paradigm, openness for short and a key
aspect in dynamical system ability for emergence and learning or creativity.
Have you tested that model empirically? The PCT model of learning uses an E. coli type random walk algorithm rather than a subobject classifier; it turns out to be quite efficient and has been tested empirically and seems to account for the data.
GR: You seem to have no ability here whatsoever
Or, perhaps, I do have that ability and your model is wrong.
GR: Got to go, you really have no interest in
anything at all, you have shown this so many times I waste my time.
Don’t think twice, it’s alright.
RSM
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(Gavin Ritz
2011.11.29.7.50NZT)
[From
Rick Marken (2011.11.28.2200)]
Gavin Ritz (2011.11.29.16.42NZT)
I was asking how Prigogine’s ideas related to PCT.
Actually
your summary of PCT was the best I have ever seen. I was just making a point
about communication of PCT to people other the PCT people.
That’s
hardly saying that all you need to know is PCT.
That’s
what you said in an earlier text. (there is nothing else to learn). These discussions
of ours have been going on for years you have never shifted your position so I accept
what I think is your position. Why change suddenly now.
It’s
more like saying “I’d like to know about Prigogine’s
ideas”.
It’s
about non-equilibrium systems, that’s you me and the entire complex
chemical world. Go read up about the Brusselator, the Belousov- Zhabotinsky chemical reactions, Ostwald’s Digestions with
Barium Sulphate solutions and crystal formation.
Everything
in the scientific world is related to PCT, everything in the non scientific
world is related to PCT, everything in our social world is related to PCT, everything
that humans can dream up is related to PCT.
Now ask
yourself this question what exactly is control?
Sorry I
am really busy I have a number of properties I am selling, it’s coming up
to Christmas and I have a wholesale consumer business and we are hellish busy
and I’m shifting countries.
···
[From Rick Marken (2011.11.29.0850)]
Gavin Ritz
2011.11.29.7.50NZT)
GR: These discussions
of ours have been going on for years you have never shifted your position so I accept
what I think is your position. Why change suddenly now.
No way! Years? My how the time flies when you’re having fun!
RM: It’s
more like saying “I’d like to know about Prigogine’s
ideas”.
GR: Its
about non-equilibrium systems, thats you me and the entire complex
chemical world. Go read up about the Brusselator, the Belousov- Zhabotinsky chemical reactions, Ostwalds Digestions with
Barium Sulphate solutions and crystal formation.
As the President who started the descent of the into a military-industrial plutocracy once said: “There you go again”
RM: Now ask
yourself this question what exactly is control?
I have asked myself that question and tried to answer it in many venues, including my recent one paragraph description of PCT. How about this: control exists when the variability of a variable is far less than what would be expected based on the variability of all influences on that variable and this reduction of expected variability can be traced to the output of a system that senses the state of the variable and produces outputs that are systematically opposed to the net effect of all other influences on it.
RSM
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
(Gavin ritz
2011.11.30.8.59NZT)
[From
Rick Marken (2011.11.29.0850)]
Gavin Ritz 2011.11.29.7.50NZT)
RM: Now ask yourself this question what exactly is control?
How about this:
control exists when the variability of a variable is far less than what would
be expected based on the variability of all influences on that variable and
this reduction of expected variability can be traced to the output of a system
that senses the state of the variable and produces outputs that are systematically
opposed to the net effect of all other influences on it.
Sorry I don’t understand this at
all. Put this in mathematical notation please. Draw the variables (states) (domain)
and the transformations (functions) and then the output states (variables)
(co-domain)
Let me put it another way, what is the
nature of control?
And what is control, what “Imperative
logic operator” makes it so. (Imperative logic is the logic of commands,
similar to deontic logic).
Have a look at this on bacteria http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHs
on the intelligence of bacteria and chemical logic gates and chemical switches in
bacteria. It takes some time to get to the meat of the presentation.
···
[
From Bill Powers (2011.11.29.1343 MST)]
(Gavin ritz
2011.11.30.8.59NZT)
GR: Sorry I dont
understand this at all. Put this in mathematical notation please. Draw
the variables (states) (domain) and the transformations (functions) and
then the output states (variables) (co-domain)
BP: Gavin, if you don’t understand what Rick said at all, and
insist on seeing it all stated as mathematical gobbledegook, there isn’t
much hope of communication. I think that by demanding that Rick or I
conform to what you are trying to sell as a superior level of
understanding, you are just showing off and have no real interest in
simple and clear ideas. It’s just one big bluff that you’re trying to
carry off. It won’t work.
In the interest of peace, I suggest that we shelve this whole discussion
and get on with more interesting things.
Bill P.
(gavin Ritz 2011.11.30.12.17NZT)
from Bill Powers (2011.11.29.1343 MST)]
(Gavin ritz 2011.11.30.8.59NZT)
GR: Sorry I don’t understand this at all. Put this in
mathematical notation please. Draw the variables (states) (domain) and the
transformations (functions) and then the output states (variables) (co-domain)
BP: Gavin, if you don’t understand what Rick said at all, and
insist on seeing it all stated as mathematical gobbledegook, there isn’t much
hope of communication. I think that by demanding
I’m
not demanding, it’s called asking.
that
Rick or I conform to what you are trying to sell
and I don’t
buy pups.
as a
superior level of understanding,
What
does this all mean, what really is your problem? (not that I really care two
hoots)
you
are just showing off and have no real interest in simple and clear ideas.
What on
earth are you on about? This is technical discussion; you go on about clarity of
explanations now you throw this in.
It’s
just one big bluff that you’re trying to carry off. It won’t work.
What!!!,
you’ve got to be joking with this comment.
In the interest of peace,
Peace, your
comments are appalling unprofessional and totally uncalled for.
suggest
that we shelve this whole discussion and get on with more interesting things.
This is
one of the reasons why respect in the cybernetics sector to you is not that
forthcoming.
You turn
personal and get nasty at a drop of hat.
I have never
once labeled you in any way, or called you a bluffer, a show off, or a superior
etc, anything like this.
You don’t
understand the meaning of respect, personal duty, trust or honesty.
You’re
right this is over.
Let me
tell you what will happen to PCT, if you acrry on like this, it will never be recognized,
never. Nobody will aid you.
···
[From Chad Green (2011.12.01.09.29 EST)]
Gavin, I'm not an expert in double bind theory, but what I've been
observing on this list over the past few weeks reminds me of Rene
Girard's notion of mimetic desire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind#Girard.27s_mimetic_double_bind
Girard explains:
"Whenever the disciple [e.g., Gavin] borrows from his [role] model
[Bill] what he believes to be the “true�? object [i.e., PCT], he
tries to possess that truth by desiring precisely what this [role] model
desires. Whenever he sees himself closest to the supreme goal, he comes
into violent conflict with a rival [e.g., Rick]. By a mental shortcut
that is both eminently logical and self-defeating, he convinces himself
that the violence itself is the most distinctive attribute of this
supreme goal! Ever afterward, violence will invariably awaken desire..."
(Violence and the Sacred, pp. 156-157).
In other words, according to this theory, your rivals are effectively
obstructing the fulfillment of your desire to interpret PCT personally,
as you have reiterated on this list. Recently, your initial desire to
know PCT is becoming superseded by the ongoing conflict with these
rivals!
As for me, I've since moved on. HPCT is displayed prominently on my
computer, but so are about 50 other ideas that I have added to my
cubicle environment. I update them from time to time.
As for understanding Prigogine's notion of dissipative structures, I
would encourage the members of this list to read Fritjof Capra's book
The Web of Life. This video below provides a good synopsis of the book
(e.g., 8:15):
Fritjof Capra: The Web of Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLiRXM2oZ_U&feature=related
Dissipative structure is one of the three conceptual dimensions
(process and pattern are the others) that Capra discovered in his
synthesis of living systems research. I have confirmed his findings
through independent research, mainly as a result of atomizing my
preferred conceptual tool (i.e., gyroscope metaphor) into a new, albeit
ephemeral, geometrical shape: the hypercube. His 3 conceptual
dimensions form a 3-vector for the hypercube at its origin.
Gavin, here's a question for you. Does mathematics have a dissipative
structure? I have shared with you before the hierarchy of mathematical
spaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)). What does
that look like to you?
Gavin, you had also requested to see a diagram depicting your
interaction with art and natural scenery in mathematical terms. Why not
use this hierarchy in lieu of HPCT? Because mathematics is a
philosophical construct, perhaps we could interpret it in human terms
using Diotima's genealogy of Platonic love
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diotima_of_Mantinea). For example, with
respect to your observation of the beauty of nature, your experience
would be identified with Level #2 below:
4. Love of Divinity
3. Consideration of Divinity, the source
2. Appreciation of Beauty as it exists apart from any individual (your
example)
1. Recognition of another's beauty
Perhaps from this frame of reference we can apply PCT mathematically?
Cheers,
Chad
Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
[From Chad Green (2011.12.02.12.00 EST)]
But there is an even more fundamental object that is beginning to emerge as a result of my application of the principle of incompleteness. It resembles the interconnectedness in particle physics between 3 world lines: photon, particle and observer.
Who or what is the modeler that developed this object? Could it be merely a reflection of ourselves as observers engaged in a continual process of rediscovery? Am I then my own worst enemy?
Best,
Chad
Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633