Protect vs Cancel, etc

[From Fred Nickols (2015.04.09.0639 EDT)]

I finished up “Feedback: Beyond Behaviorism” and thought to pass along this short excerpt from Living Control Systems, p.67

“A system that meets these requirements behaves in a basically simple way, despite the complexities of design that may be required in order to achieve stable operation. It produces whatever output is required in order to cancel the effects of disturbances on the signal generated by the sensor. If the properties of the sensor remain constant, as we may usually assume, the result is to protect the controlled quantity against the effects of unpredictable disturbances of almost any origin.”

I take Bill’s statement to mean that the controlled variable is “protected” by virtue of cancelling, negating, offsetting, compensating, etc.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Distance Consulting LLC

Assistance at a Distance

The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room

“Be sure you measure what you want.”

“Be sure you want what you measure.”

A Model for Understanding the Mechanisms and Phenomena of Control" in the collection of papers entitled “Perceptual Control Theory: Science and Applications”, a book of readings edited by Dag Forssell (http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/readings/readings.html):

Â

···

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.09.1510)]

Fred Nickols (2015.04.09.0639 EDT)

Â

FN: I finished up “Feedback: Beyond Behaviorismâ€? and thought to pass along this short excerpt from Living Control Systems, p.67

Â

BP: “A system that meets these requirements behaves in a basically simple way, despite the complexities of design that may be required in order to achieve stable operation. It produces whatever output is required in order to cancel the effects of disturbances on the signal generated by the sensor. If the properties of the sensor remain constant, as we may usually assume, **the result is to protect the controlled quantity against the effects of unpredictable disturbances of almost any origin.**â€?

Â

FN: I take Bill’s statement to mean that the controlled variable is “protectedâ€? by virtue of cancelling, negating, offsetting, compensating, etc.

RM: Thanks Fred. Just for fun I also did a little search to find where Bill had described disturbance resistance as “protection” of a controlled variable from the effects of disturbance and I found this little gem in a paper entitled "Perceptual Control Theory:

BP: “The loop variables seen in the tracking task can be seen in any example of everyday behavior, from eating breakfast in the morning to brushing one’s teeth at night. In each of these behaviors there are controlled variables (like the distance between cursor and target in the tracking task), references for the state of these variables (corresponding to the cursor being aligned with the target), disturbances that would move these controlled variables from their reference states (corresponding to the random variations in target position) and actions that bring the controlled variables to these reference state and keep them there, protected from disturbance (as the mouse movements keep the cursor on target)”.

 RM: Clearly, Bill did not get Boris’s memo about “protection of a controlled variables from disturbance” being the wrong way to talk about control.Â

RM: In that same collection of papers is a paper entitled “PCT in 11 Steps” by Powers and the first section of that paper is headed: Â **Behavior as Control.**Â As that heading implies, that section is about how behavior is a process of control. So apparently Bill didn;t get Boris’s other memo about behavior no being control.

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thing; he seems to feel about me the way Republicans feel about President Obama, which actually makes me feel honored; maybe MDS (Marken Derangement Syndrome) will be added to ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) in the DSM-VI). I think debates about PCT should be won or lost based on demonstrations, models and tests; that is, science. But these Talmudic debates get so tiresome that I just wanted to try to put them to rest so that we can move on to the discussing (and working on) the beautiful science that Powers created.Â

Best regards

Rick


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thing; he seems to feel about me the way Republicans feel about President Obama, which actually makes me feel honored; maybe MDS (Marken Derangement Syndrome) will be added to ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) in the DSM-VI). I think debates about PCT should be won or lost based on demonstrations, models and tests; that is, science. But these Talmudic debates get so tiresome that I just wanted to try to put them to rest so that we can move on to the discussing (and working on) the beautiful science that Powers created.

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word. Buit you are using it as general principal. And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

See answer to Fred…

Best,

Boris

Best regards

Rick

···

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Fred Nickols (2015.04.10.0603 EDT)]

As it happens, I agree with you and with Boris. And I didn’t offer up the example to prove you correct. But that hinges on being very careful with words. So let me try to be very specific here.

I think Boris is taking issue with your statement owing to different meanings of “disturbance.� That term refers to at least two things: (1) the thing “out there� that is having an effect on the controlled variable (e.g., the wind blowing against the left side of the car); and (2) the effect on the controlled variable, that is, changes in its value (e.g., the car moving sideways to the right as a result of the wind blowing against its left side).

In the quote I provided Bill wrote about protecting against the effects of a disturbance. In that regard, I agree with you, Rick. We can and do protect against the effects of a disturbance. And, as Bill pointed out in his statement, we do that by canceling those effects. On the other hand, I also agree with Boris when he says we can’t protect against disturbances (in the sense of those things out there). We can’t, for example, protect against the wind blowing against our car. What we can do is cancel or counter those effects by turning the steering wheel against the wind).

The driving example offers an interesting contrast. If I’m driving down the highway and the wind is blowing at a steady 20 mph against the driver’s side of my car then canceling or protecting against the effects of that disturbance more than likely results in the steering wheel being turned slightly more to the left than would otherwise be the case. Also important is this: because the wind is steady, the amount of turn to the left remains fairly steady, too, and the amount of drift of my car in the lane is probably close to negligible. Now, let’s suppose the wind isn’t blowing steadily but is instead blowing intermittently in 20 mph gusts. Now, the car starts to drift and I have to correct or compensate for that with intermittent turns of the wheel to the left in order to cancel or correct for the effects of the wind (i.e., protect against drift in the lane).

The word “protect� means to keep safe and it smacks of prevention. You can’t prevent the wind. You can’t prevent it from moving your car sideways. You can cancel or compensate for its effects and thereby keep your car in its lane. However, I would wager large sums of money at long odds that your car is not kept in the same position it would have been had the wind not been blowing.

While I’m at it, I don’t buy the notion of “instantaneous� correction, compensation or protection. I agree that the loop is closed. However, if a disturbance affects the controlled variable at time X then that effect cannot be sensed until time X plus some amount of elapsed time. Even in an electrical circuit where current flows anywhere from half to almost all of the speed of light, that isn’t “instantaneous.� It might be “instantaneous� for many practical purposes but I don’t think it is truly “instantaneous.� Some amount of reaction time is involved in sensing the movement of the controlled variable away from its reference condition and acting to move it back. So, while I get the notion of “protection� and I can agree with under certain stipulations, I’m more inclined to view what’s going on as cancelling, correcting for, or compensating for the effects of disturbances. “Disturbances� are things out there that “disturb� the value of a controlled variable and that change in value is also referred to as a “disturbance.� We need to keep those things straight.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 6:09 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.09.1510)]

Fred Nickols (2015.04.09.0639 EDT)

FN: I finished up “Feedback: Beyond Behaviorism� and thought to pass along this short excerpt from Living Control Systems, p.67

BP: “A system that meets these requirements behaves in a basically simple way, despite the complexities of design that may be required in order to achieve stable operation. It produces whatever output is required in order to cancel the effects of disturbances on the signal generated by the sensor. If the properties of the sensor remain constant, as we may usually assume, **the result is to protect the controlled quantity against the effects of unpredictable disturbances of almost any origin.**�

FN: I take Bill’s statement to mean that the controlled variable is “protected� by virtue of cancelling, negating, offsetting, compensating, etc.

RM: Thanks Fred. Just for fun I also did a little search to find where Bill had described disturbance resistance as “protection” of a controlled variable from the effects of disturbance and I found this little gem in a paper entitled "Perceptual Control Theory:

A Model for Understanding the Mechanisms and Phenomena of Control" in the collection of papers entitled “Perceptual Control Theory: Science and Applications”, a book of readings edited by Dag Forssell (http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/readings/readings.html):

BP: “The loop variables seen in the tracking task can be seen in any example of everyday behavior, from eating breakfast in the morning to brushing one’s teeth at night. In each of these behaviors there are controlled variables (like the distance between cursor and target in the tracking task), references for the state of these variables (corresponding to the cursor being aligned with the target), disturbances that would move these controlled variables from their reference states (corresponding to the random variations in target position) and actions that bring the controlled variables to these reference state and keep them there, protected from disturbance (as the mouse movements keep the cursor on target)”.

RM: Clearly, Bill did not get Boris’s memo about “protection of a controlled variables from disturbance” being the wrong way to talk about control.

RM: In that same collection of papers is a paper entitled “PCT in 11 Steps” by Powers and the first section of that paper is headed: Behavior as Control. As that heading implies, that section is about how behavior is a process of control. So apparently Bill didn;t get Boris’s other memo about behavior no being control.

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thing; he seems to feel about me the way Republicans feel about President Obama, which actually makes me feel honored; maybe MDS (Marken Derangement Syndrome) will be added to ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) in the DSM-VI). I think debates about PCT should be won or lost based on demonstrations, models and tests; that is, science. But these Talmudic debates get so tiresome that I just wanted to try to put them to rest so that we can move on to the discussing (and working on) the beautiful science that Powers created.

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.0910)

···

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thingÂ

Â

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

Â

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.Â

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as  he developed his skill at explaining control.Â

 BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.Â

HB: Buit you are using it as general principal.

RM: No, I’m using it as a verbal description of how control works. The “general principle” of control is embodied in the differential equations that describe the process of control.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

Â

See answer to Fred…

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Can you guys stop getting stuck in semantics and carry on modelling / practising / writing!

Warren

···

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thing

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as he developed his skill at explaining control.

BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.

HB: Buit you are using it as general principal.

RM: No, I’m using it as a verbal description of how control works. The “general principle” of control is embodied in the differential equations that describe the process of control.

Best

Rick

And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

See answer to Fred…

Best,

Boris

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

FN: The word “protectâ€? means to keep safe and it smacks of prevention. You can’t prevent the wind. You can’t prevent it from moving your car sideways. You can cancel or compensate for its effects and thereby keep your car in its lane. However, I would wager large sums of money at long odds that your car is not kept in the same position it would have been had the wind not been blowing.

Â

Barb P (the other BP): I’m agreeing with Fred and Rick so far.  I don’t believe “protect” smacks of prevention, so much as “safeguarding,” or simply "keeping." We all know how carefully Dad chose his words, and I’d venture to guess this was as close as he felt he could come with one word. I hear this as keeping oneself on track to maintain a goal, or protection one’s goal.

Â

best,

*barb

···

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.0910)

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thingÂ

Â

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

Â

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.Â

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as  he developed his skill at explaining control.Â

 BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.Â

HB: Buit you are using it as general principal.

RM: No, I’m using it as a verbal description of how control works. The “general principle” of control is embodied in the differential equations that describe the process of control.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

Â

See answer to Fred…/u>

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

oops, that was supposed to read:Â protection of one’s goal.

bp

···

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:36 AM, bara0361@gmail.com bara0361@gmail.com wrote:

FN: The word “protectâ€? means to keep safe and it smacks of prevention. You can’t prevent the wind. You can’t prevent it from moving your car sideways. You can cancel or compensate for its effects and thereby keep your car in its lane. However, I would wager large sums of money at long odds that your car is not kept in the same position it would have been had the wind not been blowing.

Â

Barb P (the other BP): I’m agreeing with Fred and Rick so far.  I don’t believe “protect” smacks of prevention, so much as “safeguarding,” or simply "keeping." We all know how carefully Dad chose his words, and I’d venture to guess this was as close as he felt he could come with one word. I hear this as keeping oneself on track to maintain a goal, or protection one’s goal.

Â

best,

*barb

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.0910)

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thingÂ

Â

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

Â

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.Â

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as  he developed his skill at explaining control.Â

 BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.Â

HB: Buit you are using it as general principal.

RM: No, I’m using it as a verbal description of how control works. The “general principle” of control is embodied in the differential equations that describe the process of control.

BestÂ

Rick

Â

And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

Â

See answer to Fred…/span>

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540)]

···

Fred Nickols (2015.04.10.0603 EDT)

FN: In the quote I provided Bill wrote about protecting against the effects of a disturbance. In that regard, I agree with you, Rick. We can and do protect against the effects of a disturbance. And, as Bill pointed out in his statement, we do that by canceling those effects.

RM: Right.Â

Â

FN: On the other hand, I also agree with Boris when he says we can’t protect against disturbances (in the sense of those things out there). We can’t, for example, protect against the wind blowing against our car. What we can do is cancel or counter those effects by turning the steering wheel against the wind).

RM: In PCT the term “disturbance” always refers to an environmental variable that has an effect on a controlled variable. There is nothing to “protect against” if a variable “out there” in the environment, like the wind, has no effect on a controlled variable. So the wind is a “disturbance” only if it affects a controlled variable; if it doesn’t affect a controlled variable then the wind is not a disturbance. So saying that you can’t protect against a variable like the wind that is “out there” makes no sense because there is nothing to protect against – there is no disturbance – unless the wind has an effect on a controlled variable.

FN: The driving example offers an interesting contrast. If I’m driving down the highway and the wind is blowing at a steady 20 mph against the driver’s side of my car then canceling or protecting against the effects of that disturbance more than likely results in the steering wheel being turned slightly more to the left than would otherwise be the case. Also important is this: because the wind is steady, the amount of turn to the left remains fairly steady, too, and the amount of drift of my car in the lane is probably close to negligible. Now, let’s suppose the wind isn’t blowing steadily but is instead blowing intermittently in 20 mph gusts. Now, the car starts to drift and I have to correct or compensate for that with intermittent turns of the wheel to the left in order to cancel or correct for the effects of the wind (i.e., protect against drift in the lane).

RM: This is  an S-R view of control. The fact is that whether the wind is steady or gusting, the direction of the car (the controlled variable) is always being simultaneously affected by the wind (and other disturbances) and the driver’s output (such as steering wheel direction). Remember p = o + d, all the time. So any deviation of the car from its course is always a simultaneous result of the effects of the disturbance and the driver’s output.Â

Â

FN: The word “protectâ€? means to keep safe and it smacks of prevention.Â

RM: Yes, it means keeping the controlled variable “safely” near the reference specification for the state of that variable. The control system is continuously acting to keep the controlled variable in its reference (goal) state (and, equivalently, to keep the error signal – which drives these actions – at zero; so the control system is acting to keep itself from acting). In doing this the control system is protecting the controlled variable from disturbance (the net effect of all disturbances, to be precise) – or, if you prefer, it is compensating for the effect of these disturbances to the controlled variable. But this is a side effect of the system acting to keep the controlled variable at the reference (or, equivalently, the error equal to zero).Â

Â

FN: You can’t prevent the wind.Â

RM: Right. It’s just a variable in the environment. When we are analyzing control of the position of a car on a windy day the wind is considered a disturbance because it is a variable that has an effect on the controlled variable (position of the car), an effect that is independent of the effect that the driver has on the same variable.Â

Â

FN: You can’t prevent it from moving your car sideways.Â

RM: Of course you can. Preventing the wind from moving the car sideways is what you are doing when you control the position of the car. The prevention of sideways movement may not be perfect – especially when the wind is very gusty – but even in a very gusty wind the effect of the wind on the position of the car is far less than it would be if the system’s outputs were not continuously preventing the wind from having as much effect on the position of the car as it would have had if there were no control system acting to prevent it.

Â

FN: You can cancel or compensate for its effects and thereby keep your car in its lane. However, I would wager large sums of money at long odds that your car is not kept in the same position it would have been had the wind not been blowing.

RM: Yes, control is not perfect but it can be very close to perfect.

FN: While I’m at it, I don’t buy the notion of “instantaneous� correction, compensation or protection. I agree that the loop is closed. However, if a disturbance affects the controlled variable at time X then that effect cannot be sensed until time X plus some amount of elapsed time. Even in an electrical circuit where current flows anywhere from half to almost all of the speed of light, that isn’t “instantaneous.� It might be “instantaneous� for many practical purposes but I don’t think it is truly “instantaneous.� Some amount of reaction time is involved in sensing the movement of the controlled variable away from its reference condition and acting to move it back. So, while I get the notion of “protection� and I can agree with under certain stipulations, I’m more inclined to view what’s going on as cancelling, correcting for, or compensating for the effects of disturbances. “Disturbances� are things out there that “disturb� the value of a controlled variable and that change in value is also referred to as a “disturbance.� We need to keep those things straight.

RM: The problem with this analysis is that it fails to take into account the fact that a disturbance has its effect on the controlled variable while the output of the system is also having its effect on the controlled variable. That is, q.i = o + d; the state of the controlled variable, q.i, is at all times a joint result of the effect of the disturbance, d, and the system’s output,o. In your example of the car in a gusty wind, the direction of the car, q.i,  is always a joint result of wind velocity, d, and steering wheel position, o. So when there is a sudden, intense gust to the left, the effect of this gust on the controlled variable, q.i, depends on the position of the steering wheel (and the direction it is being turned) at the time of the gust. So the same gust, d, will have quite different effects on q.i depending on the value of o at the time of the gust. Â

RM: So while there is, indeed, a delay (called transport lag) between the effect of the gust on car position and the output that compensates for the effect of this gust, that output is not a compensating response to the gust (d) but, rather, to the combined effect of the gust plus output at the time of the gust (q.i). That it, the output of a control system is a compensating response to the change in the state of the controlled variable, not to the change in the disturbance… So the causal path is from delta (q.i) (which is delta (d + o)) to delta (o), not from delta (d) to delta (o).

RM: In the process of compensating for a change in q.i the outputs of the control system are compensating for the effect that the disturbance is having on the controlled variable. But these outputs are not a response to the effect of the disturbance; they are a response to the change in the controlled variable, a change produced by both the disturbance and the output of the system itself.Â

RM: The analysis of the control of car position that you give above is actually an S-R analysis. It assumes that the effect of the disturbance alone on the controlled variable is the stimulus that causes the “compensating” outputs of the control system. That is, it assumes that delta(d)–>delta(q.i) --> delta(o). But delta (q.i) is not solely the result of delta (d); delta (q.i) results from the simultaneous effect of d and o: delta(q.i) = delta(d+o). Â

RM: When you say that outputs compensate for the effect of disturbances it could be taken to mean that outputs are caused by the effect of disturbances to the controlled variable; in other words, it could be heard as an S-R explanation of how control works. That’s why I prefer to talk about control as involving “protection of a controlled variable from the effect of disturbance” because that’s more like what’s actually going on; outputs are aimed at “compensating” for changes in the state of the controlled variable; they are not aimed at compensating for the effects of disturbances because those effects are mixed with the effects of the systems own outputs.Â

RM: I think your S-R analysis of the behavior of a control system is a very common way of mistakenly analyzing the behavior of a control system. I think this is true because it looks so much like the output of a control system is a compensating reaction to an observed disturbance, especially when the disturbance is abrupt, as is the case with a gust of wind. It looks like you turn the wheel in response to the gust (after a short delay). This, of course, is the behavioral illusion.Â

RM: But even though the S-R analysis of control is wrong, I don’t think it hurts anything unless you are a behavioral researcher. It’s a problem if you are a researcher because this kind of analysis makes it seem like studying control systems using S-R type methods is still ok. What’s being ignored when you do this, of course, is the most important research question to be answered when you are studying a living control system: what variables are being controlled by the system (organism)? But for non-researchers the S-R analysis of control, while wrong, probably won’t cause problems,as long as you know that behavior is organized around the control of perceptual variables. Knowing how those variables are kept under control is less important for those doing applied work than knowing that they are there being controlled and that observed behavior is organized around keeping these variables in autonomously variable reference states.Â

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.0910)

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thing

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.

HB :

And you predicted right and you know what I’m contrrolling for ? Well I’d like to hear it ?

Are you seeking for a »controlled variable« in physical environment where you can do »TCV«. There isn’t any. What I’m really controlling for, is in my mind, and you will probably never know, because it’s my private thought. So you see that operating with »physical variables« as »perceptual correlates« can’t give you wished answer, because PCT is not only about that. And I think that is your basic mistake in PCT thinking.

Â

So Rick I think this our ongoing story that is not finished yet. Did you also predict this one too ?

I don’t know what you were »correctly« predicting in your mind (it’s your bussiness), but I’ll answer to any of your »deviations« from Bill’s theory which I think is right, and I’ll try to use as many scientific tools as possible. Not just those which you proposed. I understand that your wish, that all on CSGnet would work as you think it’s right. But how the world would look like if we would think »all the same«. As Rick wants.

And I still think that you are sometimes wrongly presenting Bill’s theory. I know you can present it in at least two forms.

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as he developed his skill at explaining control.

HB :

Yes you are right. Also I noticed when I was talking to Bill, that he »changed his mind« sometimes also under impressions of talkings to different members of the CSGnet group and made an allowance to change his criterium. It’s human characteristic. Who knows. Maybe you influenced his choice to accept the term »protect«.

BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.

HB :

Well thank you J. I’ll be glad to hear that I have limited understanding of PCT. But It would be nice if you show me, where in conversation on CSGnet I was limited. Â I’ll gladly correct my mistake.

But I hope you also will not mind if I show you where I think in past conversations we had oportunity to see and I hope in future we’ll see many times more about your limited understanding about PCT. We already saw some of your examples of limiting PCT to »Control of behavior« or »selfregulation theory«. Until you will stay with your »demos, models« and so on – thirrd class scientific experiments« - I don’t think that you’ll understand that PCT is not only about »protection« and it’s not only about »controlled variables« that have correlates in »perception« and it’s not only about »people controlling other people behavior«, like players in tennis controlling behavior of opponents or baseball cathers »controlled« by the flight of the ball, and so on.

Its’ much more and I doubt that you will ever understand the wholness of it. PCT is »General Theory« of how organisms function (50th Anniversary)«. But you know so little about this subject (how organisms function) specially in comparison to Bill, that I think you are really not competent to talk about who has limited understanding of PCT and who has not. What should I say : predictable »controlled behavior« of Rick ?

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 6:08 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

FN: The word “protect� means to keep safe and it smacks of prevention. You can’t prevent the wind. You can’t prevent it from moving your car sideways. You can cancel or compensate for its effects and thereby keep your car in its lane. However, I would wager large sums of money at long odds that your car is not kept in the same position it would have been had the wind not been blowing.

FN :

Some amount of reaction time is involved in sensing the movement of the controlled variable away from its reference condition and acting to move it back… I’m more incllined to view what’s going on as cancelling, correcting for, or compensating for the effects of disturbances.

Barb P (the other BP): I’m agreeing with Fred and Rick so far. I don’t believe “protect” smacks of prevention, so much as “safeguarding,” or simply “keeping.” We all know how carefully Dad chose his words, and I’d venture to guess this was as close as he felt he could come with one word. I hear this as keeping oneself on track to maintain a goal, or protection one’s goal.

HB :

I didn’t expect that you will agree with me J. But I’m glad that you agree with Fred, because he partialy agreed with me. So it seems that we partially agree J. But it is sommething as we already agreed with tennis players and with idea that PCT shouldn’t be a part of »self-regulation« theory. Â

But I’m interested whether you agree that scientific explanations should be provided on CSGnet ? I have no problem with understanding that your »hearing« of »definition of protection« is the only relevant for whether term will be used or not further in PCT conversations. But I see problem somewhere else.

Rick wanted scientific explanation from others. So I hope you agree also that everybody must equaly contribute with scientific evidence wherever they come from. They must be of scientific source.

But Rick is providing only his science, which seems to be  the only relevant. He even let out in conversation with Fed the only »evidence« that was leading to scientific explanation of word »protection«, which Fred started. Is this right ? Is Rick’s oppinion somehow favourite here on CSGnet? Is there any other reason for that, beside that he is moderator ?

Best,

Boris

best,

*barb

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.0910)

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thing

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as he developed his skill at explaining control.

BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.

HB: Buit you are using it as general principal.

RM: No, I’m using it as a verbal description of how control works. The “general principle” of control is embodied in the differential equations that describe the process of control.

Best

Rick

···

From:bara0361@gmail.com” (bara0361@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Richard Marken
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

See answer to Fred…

Best,

Boris

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

I don’t pretend to understand PCT at anything near the depth to which most of you are able to plunge. I interject sometimes with the intent to add to your conversation, hopefully in a useful way. Admittedly, it sometimes also is an attempt at distraction when the conversation gets particularly “lively.”

Â

Rick has taken on a monumental task as mediator. To be honest, I’m not sure how he wound up in the driver’s seat.  Many of you are qualified, but maybe he’s the only one crazy enough to actually volunteer! I value his knowledge, as I value each of you who also participates here. No one person has all the answers, and everyone make mistakes sometimes.Â

Â

Many in this group spent countless hours at Dad’s side, literally and figuratively, learning PCT first-hand.  Particularly meaningful to me are the explanations and follow-up responses with references to specific excerpts from Dad’s work. Unless I’ve missed something, I haven’t seen a lot of disagreement overall. The devil is in the details, and it makes sense in my mind that there will be sticking points needing this group’s attention, to work together to get unstuck. It’s not a personal thing, it’s a PCT thing… (T-shirt, anyone? lol)

Â

Â

As always, I appreciate the devotion of this group. It will be so exciting when Dad’s archives are neatly cataloged and available for your review. This is a treasure trove of information, and perhaps once it’s organized for you, it might provide answers to some of these more controversial questions.

Â

best,

*barb

Â

···

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:09 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

Â

From:bara0361@gmail.com” (bara0361@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Richard Marken
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

Â

FN: The word “protect� means to keep safe and it smacks of prevention. You can’t prevent the wind. You can’t prevent it from moving your car sideways. You can cancel or compensate for its effects and thereby keep your car in its lane. However, I would wager large sums of money at long odds that your car is not kept in the same position it would have been had the wind not been blowing.

Â

FN :

Some amount of reaction time is involved in sensing the movement of the controlled variable away from its reference condition and acting to move it back… I’m more inclined to view what’s going on as canccelling, correcting for, or compensating for the effects of disturbances.Â

Â

Barb P (the other BP): I’m agreeing with Fred and Rick so far.  I don’t believe “protect” smacks of prevention, so much as “safeguarding,” or simply "keeping." We all know how carefully Dad chose his words, and I’d venture to guess this was as close as he felt he could come with one word. I hear this as keeping oneself on track to maintain a goal, or protection one’s goal.

Â

HB :

I didn’t expect that you will agree with me J. But I’m glad that you agree with Fred, because he partialy agreed with me. So it seems that we partially agree J. But it is sommething as we already agreed with tennis players and with idea that PCT shouldn’t be a part of »self-regulation« theory. Â

Â

But I’m interested whether you agree that scientific explanations should be provided on CSGnet ? I have no problem with understanding that your »hearing« of »definition of protection« is the only relevant for whether term will be used or not further in PCT conversations. But I see problem somewhere else.

Â

Rick wanted scientific explanation from others. So I hope you agree also that everybody must equaly contribute with scientific evidence wherever they come from. They must be of scientific source.

Â

But Rick is providing only his science, which seems to be  the only relevant. He even let out in conversation with Fed the only »evidence« that was leading to scientific explanation of word »protection«, which Fred started. Is this right ? Is Rick’s oppinion somehow favourite here on CSGnet? Is there any other reason for that, beside that he is moderator ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

best,

*barb

Â

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.0910)

Â

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Â

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thingÂ

Â

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

Â

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

Â

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.Â

Â

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as  he developed his skill at explaining control.Â

Â

 BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

Â

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.Â

Â

HB: Buit you are using it as general principal.

Â

RM: No, I’m using it as a verbal description of how control works. The “general principle” of control is embodied in the differential equations that describe the process of control.

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

Â

See answer to Fred…

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Â

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.11.1010)]

···

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

 RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.Â

Â

HB :Â And you predicted right and you know what I’m contrrolling for ? Well I’d like to hear it ?

RM: One of the main things you are clearly controlling for is seeing me (and having others see me) as someone who is not an expert in PCT.Â

Â

HB: Are you seeking for a »controlled variable« in physical environment where you can do »TCV«.

RM: I (or anyone) can get a pretty good idea of what you are controlling for by looking at what you say in response to what I say. The same is true of me, by the way; you can pretty easily tell what I’m controlling for by looking at what I say in response to what you say.Â

HB: There isn’t any. What I’m really controlling for, is in my mind, and you will probably never know, because it’s my private thought.

RM: It’s really not very private. In order to control for your “private thought” you have to act by posting things on the net to protect that thought from disturbances, such as my posts. And what I am controlling for is not very private either since I have to protect those controlled perceptions from the disturbances that are your posts. So you should be able to tell what I am controlling for quite easily, just as I can tell what you are controlling for.Â

Â

HB: So you see that operating with »physical variables« as »perceptual correlates« can’t give you wished answer, because PCT is not only about that. And I think that is your basic mistake in PCT thinking.

RM: The “physical variables” that betray what you (and I) Â are controlling for are the words typed on the computer screen (and exist as perceptions in our brains). The fact that you are controlling for a perception that can be described as “Rick is not an expert in PCT” is revealed by typed comments like this:

HB: I’ll answer to any of your »deviations« from Bill’s theory which I think is right, and I’ll try to use as many scientific tools as possible. Not just those which you proposed. I understand that your wish, that all on CSGnet would work as you think it’s right. But how the world would look like if we would think »all the same«. As Rick wants.

HB: We already saw some of your examples of limiting PCT to »Control of behavior« or »selfregulation theory«. Until you will stay with your »demos, models« and so on – third class scienntific experiments« - I don’t think that you’ll understand that PCT is not only about »protection« and it’s not only about »controlled variables« that have correlates in »perception« and it’s not only about »people controlling other people behavior«, like players in tennis controlling behavior of opponents or baseball cathers »controlled« by the flight of the ball, and so on.

Â

HB: Its’ much more and I doubt that you will ever understand the wholness of it. PCT is »General Theory« of how organisms function (50th Anniversary)«. But you know so little about this subject (how organisms function) specially in comparison to Bill, that I think you are really not competent to talk about who has limited understanding of PCT and who has not.Â

RM: Since I know you are controlling for “Rick is not an expert in PCT” I can predict that you will act to protect that perception from disturbances, such as nearly anything I say about PCT. So when I showed you that Powers had described control just as I had – as “protection” from the effects of disturbance – it was easy to predict that you would react to that disturbance by not conceding that this was a legitimate way to describe control because it would make it seem like I did have some expertise in PCT.

RM: By the way, I’m sure that what I am controlling for is as publicly discernible as what you are controlling for. Indeed, I keep posting because I want people to see what I am controlling for.Â

RM: By the way, people can try to conceal what they are controlling for; the way to do it is to lie. So it is possible that you are lying and you actually respect me as an expert in PCT but just don’t want me or others on the net to know that you feel that way (for some higher level reason)t. If that’s the case then, indeed, I don’t know what you are “really” controlling for and I would be very happy about having been deceived in that way;-)

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Sorry Fred…J, I thought that you will answer Rick.

I think Rick that you are a victim of modeling and »thought experimenting« or sitting behind computer and abstracting, rather than experiencing and experimenting in »reality«.

So it’s hard to say that your analysis of Fred’s text is scientific, it looks like more »that you wrote about what you wanted to write« on the basis of model in the brain you created. It seems very similar to Bill’s theory but it is your own construct. So it seems that you created your model without checking it in »reality« or as you said in nature.

I proposed you many times that it’s good to match the model against the final arbiter and verify a »model«, before showing it on CSGnet.

If you would do so, your »model« of driving a car could be more scientific.

As I said. THIRD CLASS »scientific methods« like modeling, experimenting at home behind computer, abstracting, has it’s great weakness. It can give wrong explanations and enable possible rearanging of the »facts«, thus enabling manipulations of the author of the model. Paper can bear anything. But you can’t manipulate »facts« of nature and »Control of perception«. It can cause also terminological mess

So I put my experiences with »real« car drive in the wind, beside your text – on some places. It would bee really nice if in the future you would check your models in final arbiter – nature, so that there will be less possibility that you make misttakes.Â

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 12:42 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.1540)]

Fred Nickols (2015.04.10.0603 EDT)

FN: In the quote I provided Bill wrote about protecting against the effects of a disturbance. In that regard, I agree with you, Rick. We can and do protect against the effects of a disturbance. And, as Bill pointed out in his statement, we do that by canceling those effects.

RM: Right.

HB : Not quite. Can we use term »protect« when any kind of amount of disturbances and output is given ? Or in another words. Do people always »cancel« the effects of disturbances with counter-acting, what is described as »protection« ? Is this the only possibility of the way we make a description of  control ?

FN: On the other hand, I also agree with Boris when he says we can’t protect against disturbances (in the sense of those things out there). We can’t, for example, protect against the wind blowing against our car. What we can do is cancel or counter those effects by turning the steering wheel against the wind).

RM: In PCT the term “disturbance” always refers to an environmental variable that has an effect on a controlled variable. There is nothing to “protect against” if a variable “out there” in the environment, like the wind, has no effect on a controlled variable. So the wind is a “disturbance” only if it affects a controlled variable; if it doesn’t affect a controlled variable then the wind is not a disturbance. So saying that you can’t protect against a variable like the wind that is “out there” makes no sense because there is nothing to protect against – there is no disturbance – unless the wind has an effect on a controlled variable.

HB :

I understood Fred saying : that we can’t do anything if the cross-wind is affecting the course of the car but we can »counter« those effects by turning steering wheel against the wind. Maybe it’s not perfect desciption, but if I understood it, having difficulties with language, I think that you Rick could understood with far less problems then I. But if you didn’t want to understand just to »oppose« Fred’s oppinion, I understand why. We are LCS J. It’s probable that we will understand Fred’s text not »corresponding« to what is written, but to what we wanted in accordance to our references. Â

FN: The driving example offers an interesting contrast. If I’m driving down the highway and the wind is blowing at a steady 20 mph against the driver’s side of my car then canceling or protecting against the effects of that disturbance more than likely results in the steering wheel being turned slightly more to the left than would otherwise be the case. Also important is this: because the wind is steady, the amount of turn to the left remains fairly steady, too, and the amount of drift of my car in the lane is probably close to negligible. Now, let’s suppose the wind isn’t blowing steadily but is instead blowing intermittently in 20 mph gusts. Now, the car starts to drift and I have to correct or compensate for that with intermittent turns of the wheel to the left in order to cancel or correct for the effects of the wind (i.e., protect against drift in the lane).

RM: This is an S-R view of control. The fact is that whether the wind is steady or gusting, the direction of the car (the controlled variable) is always being simultaneously affected by the wind (and other disturbances) and the driver’s output (such as steering wheel direction). Remember p = o + d, all the time. So any deviation of the car from its course is always a simultaneous result of the effects of the disturbance and the driver’s output.

HB : Yes, but simultaneous effects of disturbances and output VARY. And in the case of driver they are not varying simultaneously, so the effects of varying disturbances would be canceled in the same moment. When the disturbances (wind) vary, output is constant (what can you perceive clearly if you focus for a moment on perception of hands on the wheel when you drive the car).

Or as you said :

RM : So while there is, indeed, a delay (called transport lag) between the effect of the gust on car position and the output that compensates for the effect of this gust…

So disturbances and driver’s output VARY with »TIME DELAY, what is causing different effects ON INPUT FUNCTION and CONTROLLED VARIABLE (PERCEPTUAL SIGNAL). If disturbances and output’s counter-action would change effect on input in the same moment that would be really some kind of »protection«. But that is not what is happening in »real« drive.

Bill P :

…the driver must be producing a varrying force that just cancels the sum of the external forces.

HB :

In the moment of »cross-wind« the amount of disturbances vary »d«, while the effect of output stay constant (o). So also perceptual signal (the controlled variable) vary with new quantity of distrubances and consequently »error« signal, after changed perceptual signal is matched to references.

You can see clearly that through the front wind-shield of the car. If you’ll drive you’ll perceive front part of the car being more or less aligned with wanted course of the car on the road with quite steady output. You can check the staeady output with focusing for a momemnt on hands on the wheel). Everything is quite steady. It’s exactly as Bill predicted in his theory. But he described in a little different way as you

Bill P :

…we can observe the driver continually making adjustments of the steering wheel angle, while the car continues in a straight, or very nearly straight line.

HB :

Bill used word »adjustment« for the desciption of control (slight varying perception arround references). And then when the sudden effect of cross-wind (disturbances) »move« or displace actual perception of the course of the car from references), drivers experience more »error«. After experienced »error«, ouput starts with counter action. It is exactly as you wrote. Time delay between different perceptions. We can clearly distinguish in continuity of control »sudden moment« of change of perceptions of the course of the car in repsect to reference, when disturbances (d), wind, vary effects on input.

FN: The word “protect� means to keep safe and it smacks of prevention.

RM: Yes, it means keeping the controlled variable “safely” near the reference specification for the state of that variable.

HB : Why not just keep the controlled varible near the reference. This would be enough. I never saw Bill specifying »safety«.

RM : The control system is continuously acting to keep the controlled variable in its reference (goal) state.

HB : Very good…But II don’t think that people are »continuously« acting. I think that control inside organism is continuous, but actions are more discreet as behavior (output) is just one of the effectors used in continuous control of homeostasis. Behavior (output) is used frequently but not continuously.

RM : ….(and, equivalently, to keep the error signal – which drives these actions – at zero; so the control system is acting to keep itself from acting). In doing this the control system is protecting the controlled variable from disturbance (the net effect of all disturbances, to be precise) – or, if you prefer, it is compensating for the effect of these disturbances to the controlled variable. But this is a side effect of the system acting to keep the controlled variable at the reference (or, equivalently, the error equal to zero).

HB : Perceptual signal (controlled variable) changes with varying in both variables (o+d). You said so. In the case of driver and wind, In the first moment when the effect of disturbances (wind gust) vary, output stay constant. So the action wil compensate the effect of disturbances on »controlled variable«(percpetual signal) with time delay (through comparator). And all this you can easily observe when you are driving in the wheather with wind gusts. Driving is not »protected«, because »error« maybe rarely and more conicidently reach zero. That’s probably why Bill used word adjustment.

Compensating effects follow after the new effect of disturbances took place, because also after comparing perception of »actual position and wanted position« took place.

The »controlled variable« - perceptual signal, was not »protected«, it was »exposed« to effects of disturbances, and muscles activated in accordance with »error« signal, starts compensating the new effect of disturbances on input with time delay. That was caused by variation in disturbance quantity which was compared as »analog perceptual signal« with reference.

So compesating effect came after the new amount (value) of disturbances (gust wind) took place, while the output effects were constant. Check it in »real« drive

Controlled variable (perception) was not »protected« from varying in values in I.Q. What could afterall mean if we say that »controlled variable« - perceptual signal, was »protected« against disturbances ? It would mean that perceptual signal was protected against effect of disturbances, because counter-action was applayed simultaneosly with effect of disturbances. But how could output knows for new effect of disturbances if it’s happening with no »time delay« ?Â

As you said. There is time delay. And TIME LINE has to be respected as that is what is happening in reality. If that wouldn’t be so, than perceptual signal would not change at all. It would be really »protected«. But it’s varying arround references, as references are. Also references (goals) are not protected from disturbances in organism.Â

This means that nothing is »protected« in the case of driver. It is controlled. And that’s the name of the theory »Perceptual Control Theory«, not »Perceptual Protection Theory«.

FN: You can’t prevent the wind.

RM: Right. It’s just a variable in the environment. When we are analyzing control of the position of a car on a windy day the wind is considered a disturbance because it is a variable that has an effect on the controlled variable (position of the car), an effect that is independent of the effect that the driver has on the same variable.

HB : O.K.

FN: You can’t prevent it from moving your car sideways.

RM: Of course you can. Preventing the wind from moving the car sideways is what you are doing when you control the position of the car. The prevention of sideways movement may not be perfect – especially when the wind is very gusty – but even in a very gusty wind the effect of the wind on the position of the car is far less than it would be if the system’s outputs were not continuously preventing the wind from having as much effect on the position of the car as it would have had if there were no control system acting to prevent it.

HB : How can you prevent effect of wind on the car if you don’t know when it will happen ? And you are contradicting yourself in the statements :

RM: Of course you can. Preventing the wind from moving the car sideways is what you are doing when you control the position of the car.

HB : I understand here that you are saying that you »CAN PREVENT THE WIND« from moving your car sideways, whem you control  This statement is exclusive and unreal. How can you prevent »natural event« from affecting the course of the car ? Are you god ?

RM : …but even in a very gusty wind tthe effect of the wind on the position of the car is far less than it would be if the system’s outputs were not continuously preventing the wind from having as much effect on the position of the car

HB : So in first statement you said that you can absolutely prevent the wind from moving the car sideways with controlling. And in the second statement you said that the moving of the car sideways happens (so you can’t prevent it) but FAR LESS than it would be without control. The final result is that you can’t prevent it. Fred was right. But you can reduce it or limit the effects of sudden change in distrubances (wind gust). But you can’t prevent natural event o having effect on the perceptual control.

By saying that : The prevention of sideways movement may not be perfect - especially when the wind is very gusty … you also admitt that you can’t prevent the »wind disturbances« affecting the position of the car moving sideways. By your words : the more gusty wind the less you can prevent the car side movements.You can’t prevent the actual perception move from reference (»error«). This is what you will clearly perceive if you sit in the car and drive in the final arbiter – nature.

In the AA cars I foumd this quote :

Wind rarely blows steadily, and sudden gusts can catch you out no matter how experienced driver you are…

So I can conclude that you can’t predict when »cross-wind« will have an »effect on the car while you are driving, no matter how expert driver you are. Because it is »sudden« and you can’t predict when it will distrurb your actual perceptual control, no matter how good you are at »continuously« controlling, unless you are a »fortune teller«.

You’ll never predict preciously enough when it will happen to you. That’s why insurance companies exist and they »turn« hudge amount of money.

HB :

You can reduce the effects of the »cross wind« by »continuous controll«, if you :

  1.   Keep your hands firmly on the wheel.
    
  2.   Slow your speed
    
  3.   And so on…..
    

…but you can’t prevent it. There is no »protection« against disturbances in this case, but there is more or less succesfull »compnesation« or »counter-action« which is reducing the effects of »cross-wind«. That’s where experts could have advantage. The problem with succesfull control (compensation) in the case »driver- wind« could be if you compensate with too long time delay, which is caused by other things you could be also controlling.

You can control myriad other »perceptions« in the same time as you are driving, You can talk to your fellow passenger, seek for stations on radio… and sso on. »Multi-control« can focus your attention to other »controled variables« and encreas carelesness and that means that you can end in the ditch beside road, because compensation or counter-action will follow too late in time-line of control events. This is how can you can encrease the unwanted  consequences of effects of »cross-wind«.

Sit in the car and feel all those perceptions and surprises. People are dying because they are careless about wind or if they drive with »split« control. I hope you imagine how it looks like sitting in the car and perceiving the drive. Because that’s what’s happening. All is perception and Bill was right. When you are experiencing nature (real world) only perceptions count.

When I’m talking about »pure« drive it is clearly that driver is controlling for the aligned actual perception of the car in the lane adsjusting it to references, and when disturbances (gust of wind) »move« that actual perception away from the references, counter-action take place And there are time-dealys in perceptions, how ever you take it. You can check it with focusing on perception of your hands on the wheel how counter-action« looks like, not »protection«. When unexpected effect of disturbance took place (gust of wind), you will not counter act immediately but as you said with time delay after matching the actual perception with references, experiencing »error«.

All this events can be experienced in »real« drive. All is perception. When you are in the car, all there will be, are only perceptions. No »control of the position of the car«, no I.Q, and no »simultaneous continuous prevention of the system’s output on the wind from having as much effect….«. Firstt the perception of actual position of the front car in respect to wanted perception of the position of the front part of the car will be changed when effects of wind took place. So the »error« in perceptions will be noticed and compensating-action will follow. The more gusty wind will »bump« into your car, the more »error« in perceptual position of the car you will feel, the more desperate could your actions be. Did you ever see in »real life« what Living Control System do when they drive and something »unexpectedly« happens ? Better you don’t, because you could loose your hair J. But sure their actions are not so elegant as »imagined« in the chair behind computer screen.

HB :

My oppinon Rick is that you are loosing in your abstractions and »abstact« models. So I propose to you that you try every of your models in nature (as you said). In the final arbiter.

Sit in the car, go on the windy street and try it. And I’ll be glad if you try it also with very gusty wind (for example Tornado) how easily you will be »protected«, because you are »continuously« controlling… Â

People as control systems are not so clearly and abstractly controlling when a »real situation« is going on as when they are sitting in the chair behind computer and being smart with their models. Nature is the final arbiter. So go and try and value your models.

FN: You can cancel or compensate for its effects and thereby keep your car in its lane. However, I would wager large sums of money at long odds that your car is not kept in the same position it would have been had the wind not been blowing.

RM: Yes, control is not perfect but it can be very close to perfect.

Bill P.

…the driver mustt be producing a varying force that just cancels the sum of the external forces. Indeed, we can observe the driver continually making adjustments of the steering wheel angle, while the car continues in a straight, or very nearly straight line.

HB : At last we can maybe agree about something.

If you noticed Bill used some different word for »explaning« control of the driver. He used two terms. I think there are many terms that are expressing control in different situation. But I also think that they can be used just in special cases, where one term or another is maybe better. Also »protect« can br be used in some cases of control as suitable. But not in every case.

So overasll term that can descibe what is happening, is not »protection«. So can we make AN AGREEMENT and we use terms as Bill used them moew frequently for describing different cases of control. So terms CANCEL and »ADJUSTMENT« seems to be more GENERALY used than  term »protection«.

By controlling »the position of the car« without any significant variations in amount of »d+o«, Bill used trem »adjusting« the perception of perceived position of the front part of the car with wanted (imagined) course of the front part of the car. In the case of »gusty« wind we can use »cancel«, »counter«, and so on…

It seems to me perfect as each term is describing what is happening with perception. For example : we are adjusting actual perceptions with references. The effet of actions are »adjusting« effect of disturbances in I.Q. and in comparator is adjusted »error« signal.

What do you say ? I’ll break up analysis of your text, and wait for your answer.

Best,

Boris

FN: While I’m at it, I don’t buy the notion of “instantaneous� correction, compensation or protection. I agree that the loop is closed. However, if a disturbance affects the controlled variable at time X then that effect cannot be sensed until time X plus some amount of elapsed time. Even in an electrical circuit where current flows anywhere from half to almost all of the speed of light, that isn’t “instantaneous.� It might be “instantaneous� for many practical purposes but I don’t think it is truly “instantaneous.� Some amount of reaction time is involved in sensing the movement of the controlled variable away from its reference condition and acting to move it back. So, while I get the notion of “protection� and I can agree with under certain stipulations, I’m more inclined to view what’s going on as cancelling, correcting for, or compensating for the effects of disturbances. “Disturbances� are things out there that “disturb� the value of a controlled variable and that change in value is also referred to as a “disturbance.� We need to keep those things straight.

RM: The problem with this analysis is that it fails to take into account the fact that a disturbance has its effect on the controlled variable while the output of the system is also having its effect on the controlled variable. That is, q.i = o + d; the state of the controlled variable, q.i, is at all times a joint result of the effect of the disturbance, d, and the system’s output,o. In your example of the car in a gusty wind, the direction of the car, q.i, is always a joint result of wind velocity, d, and steering wheel position, o. So when there is a sudden, intense gust to the left, the effect of this gust on the controlled variable, q.i, depends on the position of the steering wheel (and the direction it is being turned) at the time of the gust. So the same gust, d, will have quite different effects on q.i depending on the value of o at the time of the gust.

You are mostly dealing here with »external world as the controlled variables are out there. And then you will convert all this »stuff« into perceptual signal. This can be tricky, when you try to turn models into »real« fuctioning. I’ll talk about real controlled variable and that is perceptual signal, because you will hardly find evidence about »pure representation of i.q« in perceptual signal. It could be in some simple cases but not with »complex controlled perceptions«, bur generaly speaking it’s better to dela with real »controlled variables« which clear in PCT. That’s probably where comes the name of PCT.

The difference between i.q. (fake) and perceptual signal (real controlled quantity) can be so huge that is impossible to equatate »i.q.« and p. It can vary very mauch in experiments (psychophyisics) that some generalization, speccialy when controlled perception are very complex is very difficult. But the ratio is not precisley established yet. Maybe some statistical aproximation.

Whether I’m aware of the direction of the car is my imagination. But I’m perceiving the front part of the car and the road and I’m imagining the possible course of the car on the road (reference).

I don’t how you perceive the direction of the car (I suppose that is imagined course of the car on the road), but when I sit in the car I see only perceptions that I can get inside of the car, front shield window, front part of the car, and so on. Sit in the car and you’ll see. Get experiences. Don’t talk only about models. Deal wirh »reality« and real experiences. You said for yourself that nature is final arbiter.

RM: So while there is, indeed, a delay (called transport lag) between the effect of the gust on car position and the output that compensates for the effect of this gust, that output is not a compensating response to the gust (d) but, rather, to the combined effect of the gust plus output at the time of the gust (q.i). That it, the output of a control system is a compensating response to the change in the state of the controlled variable, not to the change in the disturbance… So the causal path is from delta (q.i) (which is delta (d + o)) to delta (o), not from delta (d) to delta (o).

HB : You said it many timeAre you saying again that events in control loop TAKE PLACE IN THE SAME TIME. »…output is not a compensating response to the gust (d) but, rather, to the combined effect of the gust plus output at the time of the gust (q.i). You must be joking. I’m sorry Rick but I call this manipulation.

First change in disturbance and change in input quantity, with constant value of output affecting the sensor (input function) in the same time and then the change in »error« signal. You said it for yourself that there is a lag between this events.

RM :

So while there is, indeed, a delay (called transport lag) between the effect of the gust on car position and the output that compensates for the effect of this gust

What’s else to say more. Time delay between the effect of distrubance (effect of the gust on car) and output that compansate for the effect of this gust is acknowledged. The gust of the wind (change in disturbance quantity) changes the i.q. (when constant output effects are present in i.q.) and that affect input function (time delay) and input function produce perceptual signal (time delay) and perceptual signal is matched to reference (time delay) and »error« signal is produced that enters output function (time delay) and so on and »output compansate for the effect of this gust«. And so on in the loop. Only quantities are changing,

So if the output is causing some specific amount of effects on input (feed-back) through environment and the disturbance specific amount, then the change in i.q, can be caused either by disturbance or by output.

So if there is a sudden change in amount of effects on input function caused by disturbance there is a »time delay« for output to change effects on input in respect to »error« signal which has to change if you want to have some changed effect on i.q. that will cancel the effect of new quantity in disturbance.

So if you’ll sit in the car and drive in wind you will perceive exectly what I experienced : first I perceived the change in the course of the car and then I perceived my hands truning the wheel and after that I percepived »correction« of perception in the course of the »actual perception matching wanted course of the car«. That’s the »time-line«. Andi f you don’t beleive go and try it. The problem wirh your models is that you manipulate with time as it’s abstraction. And »deltas«, what have on the end nothing to do with reality. So stop sitting in your chair behaind computer and start testing your models in reality. Â

RM: In the process of compensating for a change in q.i the outputs of the control system are compensating for the effect that the disturbance is having on the controlled variable. But these outputs are not a response to the effect of the disturbance; they are a response to the change in the controlled variable, a change produced by both the disturbance and the output of the system itself.

HB : You can stop phylosophing Rick. Input function is just symbolic. There is no such a place in external environment that you could »observe« the effects of disturbances and output function. I think that Kent gave a good description »mixed effects«. When one value changes (not to zero) and other stay constant there will be also change in input function and perceptual signal no matter if that is effect of output or disturbance.

If this is not so in delaya, also your statement has no value : a delay (called transport lag) between the effect of the gust on car position and the output that compensates for the effect of this gust… Perfect. This is exactly waht is happening if you sit in the car and perceive driving. First »effect of gust of the wind« and than »

All events in the control loop has to be in accrodance with this two events. No matter what you do and how you model it, it has to »match« the »reality« or nature, whatever.

RM: The analysis of the control of car position that you give above is actually an S-R analysis. It assumes that the effect of the disturbance alone on the controlled variable is the stimulus that causes the “compensating” outputs of the control system. That is, it assumes that delta(d)–>delta(q.i) --> delta(o). But delta (q.i) is not solely the result of delta (d); delta (q.i) results from the simultaneous effect of d and o: delta(q.i) = delta(d+o).

RM: When you say that outputs compensate for the effect of disturbances it could be taken to mean that outputs are caused by the effect of disturbances to the controlled variable; in other words, it could be heard as an S-R explanation of how control works. That’s why I prefer to talk about control as involving “protection of a controlled variable from the effect of disturbance” because that’s more like what’s actually going on; outputs are aimed at “compensating” for changes in the state of the controlled variable; they are not aimed at compensating for the effects of disturbances because those effects are mixed with the effects of the systems own outputs.

RM: I think your S-R analysis of the behavior of a control system is a very common way of mistakenly analyzing the behavior of a control system. I think this is true because it looks so much like the output of a control system is a compensating reaction to an observed disturbance, especially when the disturbance is abrupt, as is the case with a gust of wind. It looks like you turn the wheel in response to the gust (after a short delay). This, of course, is the behavioral illusion.

RM: But even though the S-R analysis of control is wrong, I don’t think it hurts anything unless you are a behavioral researcher. It’s a problem if you are a researcher because this kind of analysis makes it seem like studying control systems using S-R type methods is still ok. What’s being ignored when you do this, of course, is the most important research question to be answered when you are studying a living control system: what variables are being controlled by the system (organism)? But for non-researchers the S-R analysis of control, while wrong, probably won’t cause problems,as long as you know that behavior is organized around the control of perceptual variables. Knowing how those variables are kept under control is less important for those doing applied work than knowing that they are there being controlled and that observed behavior is organized around keeping these variables in autonomously variable reference states.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Hi Warren.

I think it’s not just semantics it’s how you approach to scientific investigation and understand PCT.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 6:27 PM
To: rsmarken@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

Can you guys stop getting stuck in semantics and carry on modelling / practising / writing!

Warren

On 10 Apr 2015, at 17:08, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.0910)

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thing

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as he developed his skill at explaining control.

BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.

HB: Buit you are using it as general principal.

RM: No, I’m using it as a verbal description of how control works. The “general principle” of control is embodied in the differential equations that describe the process of control.

Best

Rick

And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

See answer to Fred…

Best,

Boris

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

*barb,

thank you for your honest and thoughtfull answer. I agree wtih you. And I understand your position, and I also agree that Rick is doing »monumental« work, with moderating here on CSGnet. But I’'m sorry that I can’t agree with him J. Specially when he is trying to be »above« Bill or when he is degrading others or being sarcastic. But seems that you are right. Every human make mistakes and we have to accept him with his mistakes and virtues. And Rick has also virtues. But it’s hard to know all about others. I think that everyone has some »secret thoughts«.

I’m trying to quote Bill as much as possible. He deserves it. And I hope it will come into a habit on CSGnet. Bill was a really genious mind. As you said : »We all know how carefully Dad chose his words«… <

I’m really not trying to give an impression that I’m suggesting something. I try to give my oppinion although I admitt it’s not always sincere. But I try to stay in the course of PCT. And I don’t think that you are pretending to understand PCT, I beleive, that you understand it in some your specific common sense way of thinking, which by my oppinion fits quite well into PCT heuristics and it’s refreshing. You proved it quite some times. Â

Â

But in the case with »protection« I’d be cautious. I don’t beleive that we can protect references (goals). Also references could be »adjusted« in organism, where they are produced.

Maybe your suggestion of word »keeping« is good substitution for word »protection« in General meaning of Control. But if I understand right »keeping« and »protecting« don’t have the same meaning.

»Keeping« the room temprature doesn’t mean to me the same, as »protecting« it from heat disturbances. It more means to me, that »affecting« the room with heat so much time that »effect« of outer heat disturbances is reduced to some human wanted temperature. The room will be soon cold, if furnace will not switch again what shows that »disturbances« all the time affect the room temprature, so it’s not protected. It seems to me like a »struggle« of effects while »keeping« the room temperature at set point,

That could maybe also be valid for car driver : »keeping« the actual perception of the front side of the car aligned with perception of wanted course of the car.

It seems to be acceptable. Some interesting synonims of the word »keep«, came out : control, hold, maintain… soome well known terms that Bill was using.

Oh, I almost forget. When you were talking about how many members of this group spent hours with your Dad learning PCT from the first hand, I remebered why I could maybe have some advantage in understanding some themes of PCT.

I admitt that I was so ignorant in the beggining that I asked him to explain every word which I didn’t understand. And there were a lot of them. Because his scientific language is quite demanding. So I had to see for help also with some other eminent members of CSGnet. I beleive that sometimes Bill was tired of me, but he was really patient and very intelligent teacher.

Let me demonstrate what I mean :

BP (for *barb) : It’s not a personal thing, it’s a PCT thing… (T-shirt, anyone? lol)

HB :

Can you please translate to me ? …JJ

Best wishes,

Boris

···

From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 4:44 PM
To: Boris Hartman
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

I don’t pretend to understand PCT at anything near the depth to which most of you are able to plunge. I interject sometimes with the intent to add to your conversation, hopefully in a useful way. Admittedly, it sometimes also is an attempt at distraction when the conversation gets particularly “lively.”

Rick has taken on a monumental task as mediator. To be honest, I’m not sure how he wound up in the driver’s seat. Many of you are qualified, but maybe he’s the only one crazy enough to actually volunteer! I value his knowledge, as I value each of you who also participates here. No one person has all the answers, and everyone make mistakes sometimes.

Many in this group spent countless hours at Dad’s side, literally and figuratively, learning PCT first-hand. Particularly meaningful to me are the explanations and follow-up responses with references to specific excerpts from Dad’s work. Unless I’ve missed something, I haven’t seen a lot of disagreement overall. The devil is in the details, and it makes sense in my mind that there will be sticking points needing this group’s attention, to work together to get unstuck. It’s not a personal thing, it’s a PCT thing… (T-shirt, anyone? lol)

As always, I appreciate the devotion of this group. It will be so exciting when Dad’s archives are neatly cataloged and available for your review. This is a treasure trove of information, and perhaps once it’s organized for you, it might provide answers to some of these more controversial questions.

best,

*barb

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:09 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

From:bara0361@gmail.com” (bara0361@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Richard Marken
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

FN: The word “protect� means to keep safe and it smacks of prevention. You can’t prevent the wind. You can’t prevent it from moving your car sideways. You can cancel or compensate for its effects and thereby keep your car in its lane. However, I would wager large sums of money at long odds that your car is not kept in the same position it would have been had the wind not been blowing.

FN :

Some amount of reaction time is involved in sensing the movement of the controlled variable away from its reference condition and acting to move it back… I’m more inclined to view what’™s going on as cancelling, correcting for, or compensating for the effects of disturbances.

Barb P (the other BP): I’m agreeing with Fred and Rick so far. I don’t believe “protect” smacks of prevention, so much as “safeguarding,” or simply “keeping.” We all know how carefully Dad chose his words, and I’d venture to guess this was as close as he felt he could come with one word. I hear this as keeping oneself on track to maintain a goal, or protection one’s goal.

HB :

I didn’t expect that you will agree with me J. But I’m glad that you agree with Fred, because he partialy agreed with me. So it seems that we partially agree J. But it is sommething as we already agreed with tennis players and with idea that PCT shouldn’t be a part of »self-regulation« theory.

But I’m interested whether you agree that scientific explanations should be provided on CSGnet ? I have no problem with understanding that your »hearing« of »definition of protection« is the only relevant for whether term will be used or not further in PCT conversations. But I see problem somewhere else.

Rick wanted scientific explanation from others. So I hope you agree also that everybody must equaly contribute with scientific evidence wherever they come from. They must be of scientific source.

But Rick is providing only his science, which seems to be the only relevant. He even let out in conversation with Fed the only »evidence« that was leading to scientific explanation of word »protection«, which Fred started. Is this right ? Is Rick’s oppinion somehow favourite here on CSGnet? Is there any other reason for that, beside that he is moderator ?

Best,

Boris

best,

*barb

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.10.0910)

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:08 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

RM: I kind of hate to win debate points this way – by quoting scripture, where, in this case, Bill’s writings are treated as scripture.(Though I’m sure Boris won’t concede a thing

HB : I don’t understand why you think that YOU win anythihng, as for the »Control of perception« as General theory about human behavior is concerned. I didn’t say that Bill didn’t use this word. Bill did change his mind sometimes. He gave me this message a couple times.

HB: So if we go and count how many times he mentioned »protect« and how many times »counter-action«, »compensation«, opposing , »cancel the effects«, you will see that in 99 % of cases he used those terms and only in 1% cases »protection«. So you didn’t WIN anything. It the matter of »fact« you lost.

RM: Well, I correctly predicted that you would not concede. People are so predictable when you know what they are controlling for.

RM As far as your suggestion about textual analysis of Bill work, I think what is more important than the relative frequency of Bill’s use of “counteract” versus “control” is when he used each. If Bill decided that “protect” was the wrong way to talk about control then there should be fewer uses of “protect” in his later writings. But the incidence I found of Bill’s use of “protect” is from a paper written in 2011. Since Bill started this work in the 1950s I think he had plenty of time to change his mind about using “protect” to describe what’s going on in control by 2011. In fact, I think he decided that he liked talking about control as “protecting controlled variables from the effect of disturbance” as he developed his skill at explaining control.

BH: Even if he used »protection« some times it is not sure that he was right using this word.

RM: Yes, I think much of what Bill said would be seen as not right by you given your rather limited understanding of PCT.

HB: Buit you are using it as general principal.

RM: No, I’m using it as a verbal description of how control works. The “general principle” of control is embodied in the differential equations that describe the process of control.

Best

Rick

And I still think it’s not general principle of control and that is misleading when principle of »Control of perception« is concerned. And yes I think it’s right that »evidences« are put on the table as that is scientific discussion. The beautifull science that Bill created is not hidden only in »demonstrations and models and tests« which in your cases many times failed to explain »reality«, but in all kinds of scientific tools. So I tried to use one of those in your conversation with Fred. But it’s good that you start to read Bill’s literature again.

See answer to Fred…

Best,

Boris

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.18.2100)]

···

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:05 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

 HB: I think Rick that you are a victim of modeling and »thought experimenting« or sitting behind computer and abstracting, rather than experiencing and experimenting in »reality«.

 RM: Actually, I am the victim of reality experimenting rather than thought experimenting. You should try the reality experimenting done in my basic tracking experiment (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html) to see how control works in reality. It’s exactly the )same situation you’re in when you are trying to keep your car in its lane on a very windy day. The outputs of the model that accounts for your performance in that task are driven by (and drive) error, not the disturbance, even though it looks like the unseen disturbance is causing the output. It’s the behavioral illusion happening right before you eyes.

HB: So it’s hard to say that your analysis of Fred’s text is scientific, it looks like more »that you wrote about what you wanted to write« on the basis of model in the brain you created.

RM: Well, of course you have to describe my analysis as looking that way because you want it to be that way. Â

Â

HB: I proposed you many times that it’s good to match the model against the final arbiter and verify a »model«, before showing it on CSGnet.

If you would do so, your »model« of driving a car could be more scientific.

RM: My model of driving a car is a control model and it has been shown to match the actual driving behavior extremely well, not only by PCTer’s but by human factors engineers who have used control theory to model driving performance for decades. Â

HB: As I said. THIRD CLASS »scientific methods« like modeling, experimenting at home behind computer, abstracting, has it’s great weakness. It can give wrong explanations and enable possible rearanging of the »facts«, thus enabling manipulations of the author of the model. Paper can bear anything. But you can’t manipulate »facts« of nature and »Control of perception«. It can cause also terminological mess

RM: What you call THIRD CLASS scientific methods are exactly the methods Powers used as well: he did modeling and experimenting at home behind his computer; I know because I visited him in his home many times and we built models and experiments together at behind his computer. So while this approach i, indeed, is susceptible to all the problems you mention (after all, science is done by humans), it is a lot less susceptible to these problems then the approach you suggest (below) which is simply observing without testing models of why these observations occur.Â

Â

 HB: So I put my experiences with »real« car drive in the wind, beside your text – on some places. It would be really nice if in the future you would check your models in final arbiter – nature, so that there will be less posssibility that you make mistakes.Â

RM: I always check my models against nature; that’s what’s being done in the Basic Tracking demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html), for example, which is a precise analog of the “natural” behavior you would see when a person is driving a car. It turns out that the model that says that outputs reduce the difference between controlled variable and reference (error) that causes those outputs explains the observed behavior nearly perfectly while a model that says outputs are a response to disturbance caused deviations of the controlled variable from the reference fails.Â

Best

Rick

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.18.2100)]

HB: I think Rick that you are a victim of modeling and »thought experimenting« or sitting behind computer and abstracting, rather than experiencing and experimenting in »reality«.

RM: Actually, I am the victim of reality experimenting rather than thought experimenting. You should try the reality experimenting done in my basic tracking experiment (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html) to see how control works in reality. It’s exactly the )same situation you’re in when you are trying to keep your car in its lane on a very windy day.

HB : Sitting at home beside computer and being on the »field« experimenting in nature is not the same. In the »tracking case« you sit behind »screen« and as you said many times (maybe too many) that you are trying to »control the »DISTANCE« between »target and cursor« (what’s by the way outside in computer) and »protect« it from disturbances. It’s something like »Controlling behavior« by moving »real« mouse. Well in your home chair that is quite easy. Try to mud you screen or paint it and then try to »control the target and cursor«. It will be quite difficult and much more alike to the »real live circumstances«.

In »real driving« you perceive your driving through the windshield and you try to »keep« or »adjust« actual perception  with references (which are not physically availabel) like your »target and cursor«. So you must stay at »Control of perception«, if you want to keep on driving.

I don’t know what you wanted to say with switching »tracking experiment« for a »car drive« which you described to Fred, where it was quite obvious that you tried to manipulate with him, with contradictions and false statements. I really don’t see the resemblance between »control situations«.

As I said before : modeling in the chair allows you manipulating with demos in accordance with your goals. I think that your your »model« of car drive, where you arranged statements so to »look like« that »protection« is something like »control«. So you reorganized to get the result you wanted. But as I said you can fool »models« and demos, but you can’t fool the nature.

HB : Maybe it wouldn’t be bad if you read your statements again. Maybe you could learn something about yourself

RM : The outputs of the model that accounts for your performance in that task are driven by (and drive) error, not the disturbance, even though it looks like the unseen disturbance is causing the output. It’s the behavioral illusion happening right before you eyes.

HB : Well your »checked« manipulation with »behavioral ilussion«. Well I’m not falling on it. Show me where did you see it ?

HB: So it’s hard to say that your analysis of Fred’s text is scientific, it looks like more »that you wrote about what you wanted to write« on the basis of model in the brain you created.

RM: Well, of course you have to describe my analysis as looking that way because you want it to be that way.

HB : Well if you wouldn’t make it not scientific but manipulating, I wouldn’t have had reason to see it other way.

RM: What you call THIRD CLASS scientific methods are exactly the methods Powers used as well: he did modeling and experimenting at home behind his computer; I know because I visited him in his home many times and we built models and experiments together at behind his computer. So while this approach i, indeed, is susceptible to all the problems you mention (after all, science is done by humans), it is a lot less susceptible to these problems then the approach you suggest (below) which is simply observing without testing models of why these observations occur.

HB : Whatever did you see Bill doing in his life it was probably much later. If I’m informed right, he read Ashby in 50’ and wrote his first article with co-authors (in 1957 or 1959. I understodd also that was quite before you met hum. If I’m reading right (B:CP) , he He was working in »real« 1 CLASS institutions with »real« experiences about human organisms, where he started with »Control theory«. He had conversations with real physiologists….and he probably read all kind of books So my impression was that he has »FIRST CLASS KNOWLEDGE« as the ground for his modeling.

Maybe *barb could tell more about his enormous knowledge and others who knew him. I’ve talked to him a lot so I know that you can’t reduce his life or his knowledge to sitting »behind computer« or only on some »THIRD CLASS« experimenting. You need »FIRST CLASS KNOWLEDGE« to do that.

If you were and are using the same methods, I can say only that behind your »THIRD CLASS KNOWLEDGE« I don’t see the same knowledge as he has. But I saw your manipulations with demos and models. You can use it because Bill’s »methods« are behind models and his »FIRST CLASS KNOWLEDGE«.  But you are using it for other purposes and behind your using of »the methods« is who knows what . But my experiences in private conversations with you, I didn’t see any »wide knowledge« as I experienced it with Bill. He was genius mind. And by the way you will be never better than him.

I think also that he had much, much more knowledge than you’ll ever have. He read books with scientific approcah (neuroscience, anatomy, engeeners books, mathematics, and so on). What did you read ? At least I can’t perceive any.

I also remember Bill once reported here on CSGnet, that he went and experince the »baseball catch«.

Well I don’t know how others experienced Bill’s knowledge but I was simply fascinated.

RM: I always check my models against nature; that’s what’s being done in the Basic Tracking demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html), for example, which is a precise analog of the “natural” behavior you would see when a person is driving a car. It turns out that the model that says that outputs reduce the difference between controlled variable and reference (error) that causes those outputs explains the observed behavior nearly perfectly while a model that says outputs are a response to disturbance caused deviations of the controlled variable from the reference fails.

HB : You are again manipulating with words. You are good at that.…

Aren’t you tyred of tracking demo. I can garantee you, that with results of tracking exepriment you will wrongly explain many more »complex control« tasks what already happened : with »controlling behavior«, »basebal catch«, etc.

Let me see some experiment done in nature by you ? Or as Warren would say some practice. J. Show me, where you felt »real« perceptions. Let me hear you practicing »Control of perception« and tell us about experiences you had, beside »tracking task« and demos. And then you would maybe feel also somehing you never felt in your chair behind computer.

How you are improving yourself ?

So again his advice :

Bill P :

»If the effects of the model are just as hypothetical as the model, we don’t have a model, because we can’t check it against direct experience. The ultimate authority is always direct experience, the real reality we are incapable of doubting…« (LCSS II, p.185)

HB : It seems that we can’t make any agreement about »protection«. You don’t seem to be the guy for that.

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 5:30 PM
To: Boris Hartman
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

You just sent this to me. You probably want to re-post this to CSGNet.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 6:03 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Protect vs Cancel, etc

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:05 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Richard S. Marken

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

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.25.1410)]

···

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:52 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB :In »real driving« you perceive your driving through the windshield and you try to »keep« or »adjust« actual perception with references (which are not physically availabel) like your »target and cursor«.

RM: References are never physically available. The target in a tracking task is not the reference for the position of the cursor. The fact that you think so demonstrates a startling lack of understanding of PCT and how it relates to actual behavior. But you are so convinced that you are an expert in PCT that my efforts to explain this would just be treated as a disturbance. But this is such an egregious and fundamental misunderstanding of PCT you really have to have this explained to you. Perhaps someone on CSGNet who you admire could set you straight on this. Martin? Kent? Bruce? Adam? Rupert? Could one of you help out here?

RM : The outputs of the model that accounts for your performance in that task are driven by (and drive) error, not the disturbance, even though it looks like the unseen disturbance is causing the output. It’s the behavioral illusion happening right before you eyes.

HB : Well your »checked« manipulation with »behavioral ilussion«. Well I’m not falling on it. Show me where did you see it ?

RM: You can see the behavioral illusion in the tracking demo in the mirroring of disturbance and output (mouse movements); the illusion is that the disturbance variable is the cause of the mouse movements. In the case of driving a car on a windy day, the driver’s wheel turning in response to a sudden cross wind gust is the behavioral illusion; it looks like the gust is a stimulus causing the driver’s response; but PCT tells us that this is an illusion because it is not the wind gust but the deviation of the perception of the car’s direction from its reference that caused the response; that is, it is the error signal, not the disturbance, that causes the outputs that compensate for the effects of the disturbance.

HB : Whatever did you see Bill doing in his life it was probably much later. If I’m informed right, he read Ashby in 50’ and wrote his first article with co-authors (in 1957 or 1959. I understodd also that was quite before you met hum. If I’m reading right (B:CP) , he He was working in »real« 1 CLASS institutions with »real« experiences about human organisms, where he started with »Control theory«.

RM: Yes, and those first real experiences (the early data Bill collected on human controlling) were obtained in front of an analog rather than a digital computer. actually, many were collected using an oscilloscope display.

HB: Maybe *barb could tell more about his enormous knowledge and others who knew him. I’ve talked to him a lot so I know that you can’t reduce his life or his knowledge to sitting »behind computer« or only on some »THIRD CLASS« experimenting. You need »FIRST CLASS KNOWLEDGE« to do that.

RM: You may find this hard to believe (What am I saying? Of course you’ll find it hard to believe;Believing it would shatter your world view) but I consider knowledge obtained from the “behind the computer” demonstrations of control that Bill developed to be “first class knowledge” and Bill considered the “behind the computer” experiments that I developed, all inspired by his work, to also be first class knowledge (I think you can glean that from Bill’s Foreword to my book “Mind Readings”).

HB : Aren’t you tyred of tracking demo. I can garantee you, that with results of tracking exepriment you will wrongly explain many more »complex control« tasks what already happened : with »controlling behavior«, »basebal catch«, etc.

RM: I’m no more tired of the tracking demo than Bill was. Indeed, that demo is the first thing he discusses, in detail, in his final book, LCS III, because it illustrates the essential aspects of control so well.

HB: Let me see some experiment done in nature by you ?

RM: Apparently you don’t consider the computer display, the mouse and the person sitting at the computer doing the tracking task to be part of nature. The catching data was collected on a baseball field; does that count as part of nature, or does the catching have to be done in a National Park? Actually, I have played catch in Yosemite; does that count?

HB: Or as Warren would say some practice. J. Show me, where you felt »real« perceptions.

RM: So there’s real perceptions and unreal ones? How do you tell the difference? How do you know that your perception of the difference is real?

HB : It seems that we can’t make any agreement about »protection«. You don’t seem to be the guy for that.

RM: Apparently not.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken

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

[From Rick Marken (2015.04.25.1410)]

HB :In »real driving« you perceive your driving through the windshield and you try to »keep« or »adjust« actual perception with references (which are not physically availabel) like your »target and cursor«.

RM: References are never physically available. The target in a tracking task is not the reference for the position of the cursor. The fact that you think so demonstrates a startling lack of understanding of PCT and how it relates to actual behavior.

HB : I wouldn’t push it who understand and who don’t understand PCT. You demosntrated your »not understanding« PCT when you gave the »scientific« explanation to Fred. How would we call that »PCT disaster«. As the text above is concerned I accedentally left out »NOT«. So it’s not like your »target and cursor«, which you most of the time »measure« in distance between them as something happening outside.

But whatever, you have my answer to your Fred’s answer and you can always check it there who understand PCT and who doesn’t.

RM : But you are so convinced that you are an expert in PCT that my efforts to explain this would just be treated as a disturbance.

HB : It’s far that I would be an expert for PCT. Bill was the only expert. But you have problem with »seeing you as an expert« or even being better than Bill. You are leaving in the iluusion that your PCT knowledge is »perfect«. Well it’s not.Â

RM : But this is such an egregious and fundamental misunderstanding of PCT you really have to have this explained to you. Perhaps someone on CSGNet who you admire could set you straight on this. Martin? Kent? Bruce? Adam? Rupert? Could one of you help out here?

HB : You don’t need nobody’s help. Just read again what you wrote to Fred, and my answers, and you will understand what is wrong with your understanding of PCT. Whatever you are trying to do now is not argumenting but insulting.

I get used to this moments when you are out of arguments, and you start provoking. But I hope you understand that I have enough of »empty talkings« with no arguments. So if you have any further questions about our conversation about Fred’s text I’ll answer you, otherwise I will not.Â

RM: You can see the behavioral illusion in the tracking demo in the mirroring of disturbance and output (mouse movements); the illusion is that the disturbance variable is the cause of the mouse movements.

HB : »All there is, is perception«. And you’ll have no problems if you’ll understand this simple »fact«.

RM earlier :

You said it many times that the »distance between target and cursor« is what is »causing behavior, mouse movements«. You said it that »distance between dog and sheep« is what is causing behavior of the sheep«. In one period you went so far that you wanted to prove that »behavior is controlled«. Get youself »in line« Rick.Â

RM : In the case of driving a car on a windy day, the driver’s wheel turning in response to a sudden cross wind gust is the behavioral illusion; it looks like the gust is a stimulus causing the driver’s response; but PCT tells us that this is an illusion because it is not the wind gust but the deviation of the perception of the car’s direction from its reference that caused the response; that is, it is the error signal, not the disturbance, that causes the outputs that compensate for the effects of the disturbance.

HB : Good. You are learning. If you will go back to what I wrote to your »scientific explanation« to Fred, you will see almost the same explenation to you, because you were the one who went into manipulations, contradictions and so on with wind, turning wheels and so on. But O.K. its’ good that you are changing your oppinion. Match what you wrote hear with what I and you wrote in discussion to Fred. And I think you’ll clearly understand who is who and what is what. My explanation was pure »perceptual control«.But I could hardly estimate what kind was yours.

HB : Whatever did you see Bill doing in his life it was probably much later. If I’m informed right, he read Ashby in 50’ and wrote his first article with co-authors (in 1957 or 1959. I understodd also that was quite before you met hum. If I’m reading right (B:CP) , he He was working in »real« 1 CLASS institutions with »real« experiences about human organisms, where he started with »Control theory«.

RM: Yes, and those first real experiences (the early data Bill collected on human controlling) were obtained in front of an analog rather than a digital computer. actually, many were collected using an oscilloscope display.

HB : As I said before exposing »one moment of his life« will not give you the whole picture. Start looking wider on Bill’s knowledge. It will be usefull for your understanding of PCT. Whatever you are saying bellow is good. But I think that you must try with more improvement speccialy on »second order scientific knowledge«. Boks and so on.

And maybe wil get to agreement that Bill is the only expert for PCT. We are jsut more or less deviating »arround his (reference) knowledge«. Sooner you will understand this simple »fact« sooner you will have no problems with »seeing you not being an expert for PCT«. But if you see yourself in that way, it’s your problem if you percieve »errors. Again for further explanation just go and see our discussion with Fred, and ask if you have any question.

Best,

Boris

HB: Maybe *barb could tell more about his enormous knowledge and others who knew him. I’ve talked to him a lot so I know that you can’t reduce his life or his knowledge to sitting »behind computer« or only on some »THIRD CLASS« experimenting. You need »FIRST CLASS KNOWLEDGE« to do that.

RM: You may find this hard to believe (What am I saying? Of course you’ll find it hard to believe;Believing it would shatter your world view) but I consider knowledge obtained from the “behind the computer” demonstrations of control that Bill developed to be “first class knowledge” and Bill considered the “behind the computer” experiments that I developed, all inspired by his work, to also be first class knowledge (I think you can glean that from Bill’s Foreword to my book “Mind Readings”).

HB : Aren’t you tyred of tracking demo. I can garantee you, that with results of tracking exepriment you will wrongly explain many more »complex control« tasks what already happened : with »controlling behavior«, »basebal catch«, etc.

RM: I’m no more tired of the tracking demo than Bill was. Indeed, that demo is the first thing he discusses, in detail, in his final book, LCS III, because it illustrates the essential aspects of control so well.

HB: Let me see some experiment done in nature by you ?

RM: Apparently you don’t consider the computer display, the mouse and the person sitting at the computer doing the tracking task to be part of nature. The catching data was collected on a baseball field; does that count as part of nature, or does the catching have to be done in a National Park? Actually, I have played catch in Yosemite; does that count?

HB: Or as Warren would say some practice. J. Show me, where you felt »real« perceptions.

RM: So there’s real perceptions and unreal ones? How do you tell the difference? How do you know that your perception of the difference is real?

HB : It seems that we can’t make any agreement about »protection«. You don’t seem to be the guy for that.

RM: Apparently not.

Best

Rick

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 11:10 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Protect vs Cancel, etc

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:52 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Richard S. Marken

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

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble