Program control

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Bruce Abbott (980722.1455 EST)]

Rick Marken (980721.1840) --

I realized that what Tom is doing with RTP
is not only wonderful -- it's _very_ difficult (more difficult
than getting Bruce Abbott to understand the concept of _controlled
variable_, if you can imagine _that_).

Nice to know that you're thinking of me. Actually, I've understood the
concept of controlled variable for a long time. But Bill warned that you
would never be able to grasp that fact. On that score, it appears he may be
right. (Sigh . . .)

Bruce Abbott (980714.2025 EST)

This doesn't seem to fit how I perceive myself to be operating
as I develop and carry out a course of action, with some parts
being filled in as conditions unfold. It would seem that in your
model, I would need to develop a reference signal that somehow
specified the variables to be controlled,

The setting of a reference for a program perception specifies only
that a particular program should be perceived as being carried
out. References for the lower level perceptions that make up
the program are being set as the _means_ of keeping the program
perception happening.

Yes, I know that. The question was, how do you set a reference for a
program perception if you do not know what the program is going to be at the
outset?

the reference values to be attained, the contingent points at
which choices and branching are to occur, and the sequencing,

The _lower level_ references are being set (as a function of
error at the program level) as the means of maintaining the
program percpeption. I think the "contingent points" are part
of the _perceptual function_ that defines the program perception;
sequencing is also a perception; what is specified is references
for the sequence perceptions that must occur (if they must) for
the program perception to be maintained.

Yes, but that still doesn't answer my question.

Do you really think that this is what we do as we carry out
what may be a rather nebulous and incomplete plan for, say,
meeting someone for dinner?

Yes. I think all behavior is the control of perception.

This is a politician's answer. "Senator, are you going to vote for
decreasing social security benefits?" Senator: Well, I'm glad you asked
that question. As you know, I believe that every American is entitled to a
financially secure retirement." [I didn't ask whether you think all
behavior is the control of perception, I asked whether you thought that we
normally create detailed specifications for a program (program references)
prior to carrying them out. This would seem a necessary step if things like
principles are attained by setting references for programs, as HPCT asserts.]

If we
control programs (and I have shown experimentally that at
least one person -- me -- can control programs)

Please describe said experiment. Also, the question was not whether we can
control programs. Certainly we can. The question was, is this the normal
course of business?

then what
is being controlled is _not_ a program of action; what is
controlled is a program _perception_.

Levels, Rick. If the program actions consist of setting references for
lower-level perceptions, and the lower-levels succeed keeping their
controlled perceptions nearly matching the (probably) time-varying
references, then the program-level system will perceive the successfull
completion of a series of actions (get out of chair, grab coffee cup, go to
break room, if coffee present then pour coffee into cup, else make fresh pot
. . . And again, the question was whether you typically have a
worked-out-in-advance plan, that is, a detailed program reference, against
which you monitor the specified perceptions, prior to beginning the
execution of the plan.

Regards,

The stupid one who can't understand the concept of controlled perceptions,
A.K.A. Bruce A.

2

[From Bruce Abbott (980723.0910 EST)]

Rick Marken (980722.2220) --

Bruce Abbott (980722.1455 EST)

Actually, I've understood the concept of controlled variable for
a long time.

Perhaps. I guess I get confused about this when you talk about
all the controlled variables that have been discovered by
conventional psychologists. I cannot find any (not even the
LOT variable discovered by McBeath et al in their baseball
study; they just didn't do the appropriate tests to determine
whether or not this variable was actually under control -- and
it's not).

This is an interesting argument. I don't understand the concept of a
controlled variable because I've talked about controlled variables
discovered in other research, and you don't find any. Well, my friend, you
are motivated NOT to find any, as you have demonstrated many times in the
past. (Now even the McBeath baseball study -- which you previously praised
-- fails to meet your criteria.) But as for your argument, I've said that
certain studies (some of my own included) constituted Tests for the
controlled variable; I didn't say that they were informed by control theory
or that their results were interpreted in its light, or that followup
studies were done to home in on the precise nature of the CV. In my studies
on preference for signaled over unsignaled shock, the rats definitely were
acting to oppose the disturbance created by the apparatus when it moved the
animals back into the unsignaled condition at the end of each changeover
period. They immediately pressed the lever to restore the signaled
condition. Simple as this demonstration is, for you refuse to recognize it
as a Test for the controlled variable. I think it pains you to admit it.

The question was, how do you set a reference for a program
perception if you do not know what the program is going to be
at the outset?

I don't understand this question. According to the PCT model
you set a reference for a program perception in the same way that
you set a reference for any perception. When you set a reference
for cursor position, for example, you don't have to know what
the cursor position is going to be when you set that reference
to a particular value. The point of setting a reference is
to specify the perception (position, program) you _will_ have
if you can control that perceptual variable.

To set such a reference (for a program), don't you have to have a detailed
specification for what is to occur at each step? Isn't that what a
"reference for a program) is?

I think that what we "normally" do when we control a program is
set a single specification (the value of the reference signal) for
the level of the program variable we want. I think the program
perception is represented by the time varying value of a perceptual
signal -- the output of a neural program perception function.

So there is a perceptual function dedicated to perceiving when a program is
present in the inputs? I'm having a hard time with this one. It sounds
like trying to force what is an inherently serial process into a
simultaneous model. And what do you mean by "the level of the program
variable we want"? A program isn't a continuous variable with quantitative
levels like position is.

At some point the sequence of numbers would start violating
the program; the numbers would be generated by a new program,
like "if N>5 then N = Even else N = Odd". The change to the
new program is a _disturbance_ that has an effect on the
sequence of numbers that is seen. The subject can press a button
to restore the original program (pressing the button always
changes the program to the one that is currently _not_ running).

It sounds to me like you were testing a logical function by observing a
series of its outputs. Depending on the complexity of the function, it
would take a certain amount of time to evaluate the function and compare the
answer to the one given on the screen. That would account for the time
required to detect the change.

I think the normal course of business is to set a reference
for a particular program perception (like a familiar recipe)
and control the perception of that program. I think what you
are describing as "planning in advance" is the planning that
occurs _in imagination_ before (or even during) trying to control
for unfamiliar programs.

[Aside: While it is apparent that we can do it, planning in imagination is
simply assumed by HPCT, which offers no hint of how it is accomplished.
"Then a miracle occurs" and a PLAN emerges from the imagination mode output
function.]

You suggest that the planning can occur (in imagination mode) _during_ the
execution of an "unfamiliar" program. This would suggest that the reference
specification is being constructed "on the fly" as the program is executing.
Is that what you have in mind?

. . . And again, the question was whether you typically have a
worked-out-in-advance plan

No. I don't think it's a worked out in advance plan; I think it's
a reference for a program perception.

What's the difference?

Regards,

Bruce of the Low Forehead

3

[From Oded Maler (980723 west coast time)]

   [From Bruce Abbott (980723.0910 EST)]

   >Rick Marken (980722.2220) --

   So there is a perceptual function dedicated to perceiving when a program is
   present in the inputs? I'm having a hard time with this one. It sounds
   like trying to force what is an inherently serial process into a
   simultaneous model. And what do you mean by "the level of the program
   variable we want"? A program isn't a continuous variable with quantitative
   levels like position is.

Maybe Rick means that program are encoded using their Goedel numbers -
but then the metric is a bit strange for controllers to work with...

--Oded

[this is a joke]