# Prigogine's Dissipative Structure

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114>\
**Category:** CSG2011\
**Created:** [November 27, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114 "2011-11-27T20:26:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 17\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/1 "2011-11-27T20:26:20Z")

</div>

(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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/2 "2011-11-28T16:20:06Z")

</div>

[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. So it would help if the explanation were given in _very_ simple English.

RSM

> **···**
>
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/3 "2011-11-28T20:28:56Z")

</div>

(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.

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/4 "2011-11-28T22:10:59Z")

</div>

[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

> **···**
>
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> 
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/5 "2011-11-28T23:26:23Z")

</div>

(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?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 1:53am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/6 "2011-11-29T01:53:00Z")

</div>

[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  
> 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. But I wonder if anyone else did. Anyone?

> 

> 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. 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](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 2:08am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/7 "2011-11-29T02:08:48Z")

</div>

(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

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 3:28am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/8 "2011-11-29T03:28:07Z")

</div>

[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](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:17am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/9 "2011-11-29T04:17:51Z")

</div>

(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.

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 6:02am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/10 "2011-11-29T06:02:23Z")

</div>

[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 don’t 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](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 7:26am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/11 "2011-11-29T07:26:05Z")

</div>

(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.

> **···**
>
> >

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/12 "2011-11-29T16:55:05Z")

</div>

[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: 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.

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](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/13 "2011-11-29T20:13:42Z")

</div>

(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](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.

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/14 "2011-11-29T20:52:32Z")

</div>

[

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 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 12:03am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/15 "2011-11-30T00:03:19Z")

</div>

(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.

> **···**
>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chadtgreen](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/chadtgreen/32/92_2.png) [@chadtgreen](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/chadtgreen)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/16 "2011-12-01T14:29:37Z")

</div>

[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](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](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)](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](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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chadtgreen](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/chadtgreen/32/92_2.png) [@chadtgreen](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/chadtgreen)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/prigogines-dissipative-structure/9114/17 "2011-12-02T17:00:32Z")

</div>

[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