Purpose as a concept

[From MK (2017.01.23.1545 CET)]

Richard Pfau (2017.01.20 10:15 EST)--

Concepts such as self-efficacy, belief, and purpose are at "The Person/Individual Level" while PCT is at "The Sub-Personal Level."

Would you say that you are using the word purpose in the same manner
as it is used by Powers in the "The Origins of Purpose" and the way it
is used by Yin in "Restoring Purpose in Behavior"?

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/evolution_purpose.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277721485_Restoring_Purpose_in_Behavior

M

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.01.1000)–

···

 Richard Pfau (2017.02.01 10:33 am EST)–

MK: Would you say that you are using the word purpose in the same manner as it is used by Powers in the “The Origins of Purpose” and the way it is used by Yin in “Restoring Purpose in Behavior”?

RP: Yes, the word purpose used by Powers and Yin is at the Personal/Individual Level, although they are referring to the PCT model of nervous system processes at the Sub-Personal Level. Â

RM: I disagree, of course. When Powers, Yin or anyone else who understands PCT uses some form of the word “purpose” to describe behavior they are using it as is synonym for “control”. Purposeful behavior is control (see Chapter 1 of “Controlling People”). PCT is a model of the processes that can account for the observed phenomenon of purposeful behavior (control). Â

Â

RP: PCT is a model of neural processes at the Sub-Personal Level – processes of the nervous system. Those neural signals and processes have no “purpose” in themselves; they are just neural signals or
ganized in a loop that goes through the environment of that system.

RM: It’s not really correct to say that PCT is a model of neural processes (those models are the province of neurophysiology). It’s better to say that it is a model of the functional characteristics of the nervous system that can account for the observed phenomenon of control. The function in the PCT model are designed to be consistent with what is known of the functional capabilities of the nervous system. But how the nervous system actually carries out those functions is a job for neurophysiological psychologists, like Henry Yin. And that’s what Henry is doing; research aimed at figuring out how the nervous system actually produces purposeful behavior (control). PCT provides the “map” for that research.

Â

RP: “Purpose” is a descriptive word used by an observer who is a system at the Person/Individual Level – an observer who is observing certain regular relationships that he or she calls “purpose”. This word “purpose” is at a high level of abstraction compared to the neural signals and processes that it is intended to describe. Such is the case of all words, although some such as “neural signals” are closer to (presumed) reality than are other words such as “purpose”.

RM: I think it’s better to think of “purpose” as a  laymen’s term to describe some aspect of the phenomenon of control. For example, “purpose” is often used refer to the goal or reference state of a controlled variable (eg. “he caught the ball”) as well as to the theoretical mental events (intentions) that specify this goal state  (“his purpose was to catch the ball”) . The technical term “control” is preferred to the lay term “purpose” because the former explicitly includes a description of the fact that purposes (reference states of controlled variables) are achieved by varying actions appropriately to compensate for disturbances (a fact about purposeful behavior that, as far as I know, was first pointed out by William James in his “Principles of Psychology”). Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

See the attached [from my book Your Behavior which highlights PCT, publication date: 1 March 2017] for a discussion, based on Alfred Korzybski’s thinking, concerning the abstraction process involved when we sense “reality” and use words to describe those sensations, observations, and thinking.
Korzybski is the person responsible for the famous phrase, "The map is not the territory that it represents." Just as a map is an abstraction of a (presumed) reality of things like roads, cities, and other features, the word “purpose” is an abstraction of the (presumed) reality of observations made concerning the nervous system, its processes and neural signals, and environmental relationships observed.Â

In short, neural signals and processes (at the Sub-Personal Level) have no “purpose” in themselves. The concept of “purpose” is at a different level of analysis and explanation – that of the Person/Individual Level – with the abstract word "purpose" being used by Powers and Yin as a communication device in an attempt to describe processes and relationships at the Sub-Personal Level.


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.02.0940)]

···

Richard Pfau (2017.02.02 11:00 am EST)–

RP: Your points are noted and informative. Just one quibble. The following statement is not quite correct:

RM: When Powers, Yin or anyone else who understands PCT uses some form of the word “purpose” to describe behavior they are using it as is synonym for “control”.

RP: Powers in his paper “The Origins of Purpose” writes that “In a control-system model, a purpose is simply a reference signal.”

RP: And so, “purpose” is a synonym for “reference signal” or “reference state”, not for “control”.

RM: You are right. I should have said  "When Powers, Yin or anyone else who understands PCT uses some form of the word “purpose”* *to describe behavior they are using it as is synonym for “control” or some aspect of control.

RM: It’s true that “purpose” is often used as synonym for “reference signal” in PCT. But, as you note, it is also used as a synonym for “reference state”. I noted this fact in my earlier post to you:Â

RM: For example, “purpose” is often used refer to the goal or reference state of a controlled variable (eg. “he caught the ball”) as well as to the theoretical mental events (intentions [reference signals in PCT–RM]) that specify this goal state  (“his purpose was to catch the ball”) .Â

RM: But, as I noted, other forms of the word "purpose, like “purposive”, have been used in PCT to refer to the phenomenon of control itself. For example, this was what “purposive” referred to in what I think is the most important paper Bill ever wrote (for psychologists, anyway); the 1978 Psych Review paper entitled “Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology”. Note that the word “control” could be substituted for “purposive” in the title with no change in meaning at all.Â

RM: Anyway, my point about the word “purpose” was just in reply to your claim that “… the word purpose used by Powers and Yin is at the Personal/Individual Level, although they are referring to the PCT model of nervous system processes at the Sub-Personal Level.” I just wanted to make it clear that when the word “purpose” is used in PCT it is referring, not to “a model of nervous system processes”, but, rather, to the phenomenon or some aspect of the phenomenon that the PCT model explains: control

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Down in text…

image001121.jpg

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 6:40 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Purpose as a concept

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.02.0940)]

Richard Pfau (2017.02.02 11:00 am EST)–

RP: Your points are noted and informative. Just one quibble. The following statement is not quite correct:

RM: When Powers, Yin or anyone else who understands PCT uses some form of the word “purpose” to describe behavior they are using it as is synonym for “control”.

RP: Powers in his paper “The Origins of Purpose” writes that “In a control-system model, a purpose is simply a reference signal.”

RP: And so, “purpose” is a synonym for “reference signal” or “reference state”, not for “control”.

RM: You are right. I should have said "When Powers, Yin or anyone else who understands PCT uses some form of the word “purpose”**to describe behavior they are using it as is synonym for “control” or some aspect of control.

RM: It’s true that “purpose” is often used as synonym for “reference signal” in PCT. But, as you note, it is also used as a synonym for “reference state”. I noted this fact in my earlier post to you:

RM: For example, “purpose” is often used refer to the goal or reference state of a controlled variable (eg. “he caught the ball”) as well as to the theoretical mental events (intentions [reference signals in PCT–RM]) that specify this goal state (“his purpose was to catch the ball”) .

HB : This is selfregulation, used in Carver/Scheier and most of other selfregulation theorist. Usualy people as Rick are often refer to »purpose« as the goal state of a »controlled variable« ouside, what has nothing to do with PCT. Rick is obviously one of them.

The goal state is not something outside the system but inside. References are formed inside controlling system. So when perceptual signal »the controlled variable« enters the nervous system it will be controlled in comparator (difference between r-p). So control will be done in controlling system not outside.Â

Bill P :

cid:image002.png@01D13EC6.32E5C220

RM: But, as I noted, other forms of the word "purpose, like “purposive”, have been used in PCT to refer to the phenomenon of control itself. For example, this was what “purposive” referred to in what I think is the most important paper Bill ever wrote (for psychologists, anyway); the 1978 Psych Review paper entitled “Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology”. Note that the word “control” could be substituted for “purposive” in the title with no change in meaning at all.

HB : Yeah. It’s good that you didn’t mentioned something what Bill said when he was born. Bill did change his mind sometimes. …

RRM: Anyway, my point about the word “purpose” was just in reply to your claim that “… the word purpose used by Powers and Yin is at the Personal/Individual Level, although they are referring to the PCT model of nervous system processes at the Sub-Personal Level.” I just wanted to make it clear that when the word “purpose” is used in PCT it is referring, not to “a model of nervous system processes”, but, rather, to the phenomenon or some aspect of the phenomenon that the PCT model explains: control.

HB : Reference signal (goal) is just usual nerv signal. So PCT is reffering to it also as "a model of nervous system processes«. But not just the model of nervous system. As you said : It is the aspect of the phenomenon that the PCT model explains : control. What aspect you had in mind ?

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Down in text…

image001155.jpg

image00284.png

image001121.jpg

image001155.jpg

image00284.png

image001121.jpg

image001137.png

image001121.jpg

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 7:04 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Purpose as a concept

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.01.1000)–

Richard Pfau (2017.02.01 10:33 am EST)–

MK: Would you say that you are using the word purpose in the same manner as it is used by Powers in the “The Origins of Purpose” and the way it is used by Yin in “Restoring Purpose in Behavior”?

RP: Yes, the word purpose used by Powers and Yin is at the Personal/Individual Level, although they are referring to the PCT model of nervous system processes at the Sub-Personal Level.

RM: I disagree, of course. When Powers, Yin or anyone else who understands PCT uses some form of the word “purpose” to describe behavior they are using it as is synonym for “control”. Purposeful behavior is control (see Chapter 1 of “Controlling People”). PCT is a model of the processes that can account for the observed phenomenon of purposeful behavior (control).

RP: PCT is a model of neural processes at the Sub-Personal Level – processes of the nervous system. Those neural signals and processes have no “purpose” in themselves; they are just neural signals or ganized in a loop that goes through the environment of that system.

RM: It’s not really correct to say that PCT is a model of neural processes (those models are the province of neurophysiology). It’s better to say that it is a model of the functional characteristics of the nervous system that can account for the observed phenomenon of control.

HB : It’s not just a model of functional characteristic of the nervous system, but characteristic of functional model of whole organism which include also other subsystems beside nervous system. There is no such a thing in PCT like »the nervous system that can account for the observed phenomenon of control«. What an imagination you have Rick…But you could show us where Bill did say something like »the nervous system that can account for the observed phenomenon of control«

Bill P at all (2011) : Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms.

HB : Wrong understanding of Bills’ work spring also because I see rarely his word. But it’s his PCT and he should be citated all the time, because it’s the word of real PCT. Instead of that Ricks’ oppinion is prevailing. Rick thinks that he is succesor of Bill. Rick does not get even to Bill’s ankle. And I’m wondering when Powers ladies will stop this charade and demand scientific proves and citations from Bills’ literature which will prove identity with Bills’ PCT. In the way Rick is demonstrating PCT is losing it’s credibility.

RM : The function in the PCT model are designed to be consistent with what is known of the functional capabilities of the nervous system.

HB : You are dreaming with opened eyes Rick. You don’t have any clue what you are talking about or I’m mistaking….:). But you coulld show us where the hell did you find that »PCT model are designed to be consistent with what is known of the functional capabilities of the nervous system.

PCT model is designed or function in the PCT model are designed to :

Bill P : »…explain a fundamental expect of hoow every living thing works, from the tiniest ameba to the being who is reading these words«.

HB : When did you see that ameba has nervous system ??? PCT is more fundamental concept of how living beings control. And Bill did try to make a model of organization that could account any living being. It’s the model on p. 191 in B:CP (2005). The only trouble is that we already established for 100x that PCT model needs upgrade. PCT is good approximation but still it needs a lot of work to be done. It’s not just about fucntioning of nervous system but problem is how organisms function.

cid:image001.png@01D119FD.595FDCD0

RM : But how the nervous system actually carries out those functions is a job for neurophysiological psychologists,

HB : Most of how nervous system actually carries out »those functions« was done by Bill in B:CP. Now it has to be upgraded. And Henry Yin did it. But you don’t understand iether PCT (B:CP) neither Henry Yin. How can such an ignorant Rick lead the converastions on CSGnet which is supposed to be scientific forum. But with Rick CSGnet forum is approaching the high level of Parapsychology/Occultist forum…where »organisms are portected from disturbances«, »Behavior is Control« and so on…¦.Â

RM : ….like Henry Yin. And that’s what Henry is ddoing; research aimed at figuring out how the nervous system actually produces purposeful behavior (control). PCT provides the “map” for that research.

HB : The research of Henry Yin and his articles show at least to me that nervous system has nothing to do with »observed phenomenon of control«… But you can show me where Henry Yin wrote something waht you are saying.

RP: “Purpose” is a descriptive word used by an observer who is a system at the Person/Individual Level – an observer who is observing certain regular relationships that he or she calls “purpose”. This word “purpose” is at a high level of abstraction compared to the neural signals and processes that it is intended to describe. Such is the case of all words, although some such as “neural signals” are closer to (presumed) reality than are other words such as “purpose”.

RM: I think it’s better to think of “purpose” as a laymen’s term to describe some aspect of the phenomenon of control. For example, “purpose” is often used refer to the goal or reference state of a controlled variable (eg. “he caught the ball”)

HB : This is selfregulation. Carver/Scheier present a behavioristic theory about how goals can be presented as something outside organisms and they tend to realize them. This has nothing to do with PCT. Goals in PCT are in the organism… You are misleading again people on CSTGnet and I wonder when this will stop. Why don’t you read again what Mary Powers wrote about self-regulation ? Barb do something ???

Bill PÂ :

There is a difference, however, between the customary idea of a goal and the understanding that comes from the control-system model. It’s customary to think of a goal as something one sets and then slowly works toward, perhaps never coming close to achieving it.

In the control-system model, goal-directed behavior means behavior that maintains perception at the goal state all of the time….reference condition is exacctly what is meant by a goal, and the fact that is not connected to any observable physical phenomenon is what has cuased behaviorist to reject the notion of goal-directed behavior….

All of this leads to a conclusion about behavior. It we think of behavior as we normally do, in terms of perceived results of muscle forces, then every changing aspect of that behavior reflects a correspondning change in reference signal just slightly leading the perceptual results of action. If the reference signal stops changing, the perceived behavior freezes right there.

HB : It’s clear that the goal outside »he caught the ball« has nothing to do with the goal concept in the controlling system. »Catching the ball« is not controlling or directing the behavior. This is obvious also from the defintion of control :

Bill P :

cid:image002.png@01D13EC6.32E5C220

HB : So »external« goals are NOT the reference states of the »controlled variable«. It’s the wrong concept in RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory). The goals are reference states in the controlling system not outside it. The goal is to achieve or maintain a preselected state in controlling system not ouside it.

RM…./span>as well as to the theoretical mental events (intentions) that specify this goal state (“his purpose was to catch the ball”) .

HB : This is behavioristic terminology like goals outside the organism are »controlling«, directing behavior of Living System. It’s an ilussion.

References (goals) are internal not external concept. See above…

Bill P (LCS III) : The control system alters its own behavior according to the sign and size of the error signal, always in the direction tending to make the error signal smaller. By acting on the environment.

HB : The purposes that direct behavior are never outside the organism, they are always inside. »Catching the ball« is just a consequence (manifestation) of inside control. See B:CP and Henry Yins’ article. Â

HY : »Rather than the effect of some prior cause, behavior is the observable manifestation of control in teleological systems that act on the environment to make inputs match their internal reference values«.

HB : We could say that general defintion of control in PCT is about output affecting input until perceptual signal matches internal reference value. Not external. This should explain every behavior, even sleeping.

RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.

HB : Even Rick with his RCT thinks that sleeping behavior is »tough one« to explain. We can explain sleeping and all other human behavior easily with PCT. PCT generally explains how people control.

RM : The technical term “control” is preferred to the lay term “purpose” because the former explicitly includes a description of the fact that purposes (reference states of controlled variables) are achieved by varying actions appropriately to compensate for disturbances (a fact about purposeful behavior that, as far as I know, was first pointed out by William James in his “Principles of Psychology”).

HB : It’s not the reference state of the »controlled variable« outside controlling system. But inside the organism. Percpetual signal is controlled. Purposefull behavior works with no outside goals but inside. If W.James would solve the riddle, W.T Powers would have nothing to do. But W.James didn’t solve the whole riddle just part of it. Powers solved the whole riddle. And you will never solve anything if you will look behavioristically on problem of goals.

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

See the attached [from my book Your Behavior which highlights PCT, publication date: 1 March 2017] for a discussion, based on Alfred Korzybski’s thinking, concerning the abstraction process involved when we sense “reality” and use words to describe those sensations, observations, and thinking.
Korzybski is the person responsible for the famous phrase, “The map is not the territory that it represents.” Just as a map is an abstraction of a (presumed) reality of things like roads, cities, and other features, the word “purpose” is an abstraction of the (presumed) reality of observations made concerning the nervous system, its processes and neural signals, and environmental relationships observed.

In short, neural signals and processes (at the Sub-Personal Level) have no “purpose” in themselves. The concept of “purpose” is at a different level of analysis and explanation – that of the Person/Individual Level – with the abstract word “purpose” being used by Powers and Yin as a communication device in an attempt to describe processes and relationships at the Sub-Personal Level.

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Rick,

You didn’t need to trouble yourself with searching for rare cases where »protection is used«. This kind of search was made before by Matti. He also came to the similar conclussion. That sometimes Bill changed his mind and used some other term. It’s alao in Bill’s lietrature.

But this exception is not a general rule and it has no concequences on PCT where »Perception is controlled«.

On general Bill’s theory include terms such as : counteraction, cancel, aadjusting, compensating etc. This are much more frequently used terms what can you easily check searching the archive and Bill’s literature. My estimation is that mentioned terms occupy 99% of Powers legacy. So the ratio between terms »counteraction, compensation, cancel, adjust….« and »protection« inn about 99 : 1.

You operated with 1% terms and on that bases yu generalized that PCT is » protecting« theory instead of proving that PCT is »Perceptual Control Theory«. You play very dirty game Rick so I wonder if you are really a scientist or you bought your PhD. If you would be scientist the ratio of frequences would tell you immedialtely what terms are presenting real PCT. Mots frequent terms which are as we already mentioned : Cancel, counteraction, adjust, …… are pointing to »Perceptual Control Theory« as they provide control for disturbances which are affecting organism. Also Ashby knew that.

Your manipulation with searching rarerly used terms is just an attempt that you could support your wrong RCT. But you didin’t succed, as you didn’t act scientifically. You didn’t conclude on the bases of frequently used terms but on some manipulative bases of rarely used term. So your conclussions as usual are wrong.

“The CV” is the observer’s perception. However, if the observer happens

to be using a perceptual system closely similar to that in the behaving
system, it is possible for the observer’s perception to covary with the
behaving system’s perception. Then the observer will see that the CV is
protected from disturbances by the actions of the behaving system, and the
CV will pass all the parts of the Test.

HB :

I also stressed »it is possible« that members of CSGnet wouldn’t think that Bill was talking about general rule. You manipulativelly omitted this fact. Even if what Bill was talking about could happen, it would be very rarely so it’s not the general model. »The CV« is in inverted commas so it hasn’t any real significant meaning so I think that is just some kind of simbolic meaning. Anyway if mouse, elephant and some inhabitatnts of Africa would watch you going down the street they wouldn’t see any CV or any kind of control in environment in your moving. Mostly people don’t think in this way. BUT ITS’ POSSIBLE that some Rick and Ricky could.

As I said before Bill changed his mind some times and he could rarely explain something with »wrong« terms or maybe more simbolic.

The core terms of his theory present PCT (at least in his literature). Those core terms are as we mentioned before : counteraction, cancel, adjust, and so on which represent that distrubances are all the time affecting organism and organism »responds« with control. This is also what general definiton of control means :

Bill P.

cid:image002.png@01D13EC6.32E5C220

This is general definition of control and it is connected to »canceling the effects of disturbances« what enable controlling system to maintain perception near preselected state. There is no »system protected from disturbances« in his general definition.

Bill P :

It could be that this model-based control process might work satisfactorily for higher-level systems that are slow anyway, and that are somewhat protected against disturbances by the actions of lower-level systems.

HB : It is possible that higher levels might be somewhat »protected from disturbances« but it’s much more possible that higher levels adjust actions of lower-level sub-systems and cancel or counteract the effects of disturbances. There is too much »might« and » somewhat« in this Bills thought that could lead you to wrong conclussion that Bill is talking something about general rules. Maybe Bill was just experimenting. But you used it in manipulative way as usual. But whatever Bill was talking about can be used in some other discussions whcih I had with some other PCT’ers.

Bill P :

As with Lovelock’s concept of Gaia as a global control (well, equilibrium) system, it’s possible that we are seeing a composite system made of many individual control systems, but before I can go along with that I would need some evidence that GDP is protected against disturbances by some mean activity that depends on departures of GDP from its composite reference level.

HB : Again it is possible…. But unlikely…

All in all I think that you are misleading CSGnet as you always did with rare things in Bills’ legacy. You are a manipulator Rick of the worst kind.

If you want to prove opposite (so that you are not a manipulator) it’s important that you do the research for other terms that are used more properly in PCT : counteraction, compensation, cancel the effects, adjust and so on. Then try to conclude (it will not be hard as you have PhD, if you really made it) how scientifically term »protect from disturbances« is used in PCT to describe PCT as »protecting theory«. You’ll see that ratio is to high in favour of other terms, so that you’ll have to admitt that you were wrong about scientifically using term »protected« in PCT and that PCT is not »protecting theory« but »Perceptual Control Theory«…

So I want you to prove that Bill used term »proteced from disturbances« more often than other terms which are showing something else, so that we can be sure that we are talking about the same theory. I think that you are talking about RCT (Rick’s Control Theory).

Bill P :

Most behavioral scientists would lose interest even faster if I presented a paper showing how the internal part of the control loop works. They would say “What control loop?” If they don’t understand that behavior is control, why would they be interested in a model of how control works?

HB :

We’ve gone through this one many times (see our discusions) and we’ve seen form Bills’ definitions (B:CP, 2005) that he ddin’d used »Behavior and Control« more than once in B:CP definitions where he was ambiguous in meaning. In all othet cases he used other terms which are proving that PCT is about »Perception is Controlled«. See Bills definitions in B:CP. As I said before Bill did change his mind sometimes, and if the »Behavior is control« you have to prove that. Bill proved with physiogical knowledge that »Behavior can’t be controlled« directly. So can you prove that »Behavior is Control« ? If you can’t than I expect that you will stop misleading CSGnet forum for good.

I understand that you’ll hardly abandon your old terminology that you built over decades. But using it clearly shows that you don’t understand PCT.

Your RCT control loop is clear : behavior is control à there is CV in environment affected by controlled behavior à CV is protected from disturbances à efects of control on »Controlled Perceptual variable«.

So from controlled behavior, which is »protecting CV« in outer environment from disturbances, control enters though »Controlled perception« into comparator. This is a mess Rick. And similar mess is carried out by self-regulation theorist and probably by Jeff Vancouver.

The most important thing would be that you would understand how organisms function. This is reference. It’s what PCT is about. PCT is today probably the best model of organisms functioning if you use support of physiology. You’ll probably never understand it, but it can not be the excuse for what you are doing. Why don’t you use most frequently used PCT terminology, what you showed that you can. In this way you could contribute to development of PCT. Even you did some exceptions when you did write about PCT. I clearly showed the differences. You can aslo search that in archive.Â

The reason for not understanding PCT is simple. You don’t understand physiology or how organisms really work. That is the problem of most psychologist and Jeff Vancouver.

I understand that you want to change PCT into something called RCT because you have to »protect« all your worthless legacy of books and articles which are RCT.

It’s not important what you wrote or didn’t write, it’s important whether you understand PCT and how organisms function. And you don’t. Do you understand where the problem is ?

The most reliable way to understand PCT is Bill’s Book LCS III and the diagram inside. I think that It’s most comprehensive and incorporate most of his knowledge about »Perceptual Control Theory«, which has almost nothing to do with self-regulaton and of course nothing to do with RCT (Ricks Control Theory).

cid:image003.jpg@01D23694.7341FD90Â

Bills’ diagram shows clearly that :

  1.   Behavior is not control
    
  2.   There is no »CV« in outer environment
    
  3.   There is no »Controlled perceptual variable«
    

This diagram is fully supported with physiological explanations in B:CP and is very much supported by Henry Yins’s articles where he even upgraded PCT. Thanks Matti to show »url« where Henry Yin wrote :

»Rather than the effect of some prior cause, behavior is the observable manifestation of control in teleological systems that act on the environment to make inputs match their internal reference values«.

Rick I told you many times before, that behavior is the result of control or it’s consequence of control (manifestation). Diagram above is clearly showing this. And as I said many times before, Henry Yin deserves special place in PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:06 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Richard Marken
Subject: The Joy of the CSGNet Archives

[From Rick Marken (2016.12.12.1210)]

RM: I want to thank Rupert Young for encouraging me to install on my computer the CSGNet archives that are maintained by Dag Forssell at his “Living Control Systems” site. The whole megillah is there, with posts from the very beginning of CSGNet, in 1990. But what really makes this archive useful is that you can do keyword searchers through it using Eudora (for posts from 1992-present; posts from 1990-1991 are available only in PDF, rather than Eudora compatible, format). You can get to most of what you need to install it on your own computer here:

http://www.pctresources.com/CSGnet/Files/CSGnet_archive/Eudora_installed_with_mailboxes/

RM: And an explanation of how to install and use the archive is here:

http://www.pctresources.com/CSGnet/Files/CSGnet_archive/CSGnetReadMe.pdf

RM: I had some trouble installing it myself but then I’m not very good with computers. But once I got it installed it worked pretty well (ignoring the esoteric warning messages, probably a result of my early, apparently failed, attempts to install it). And I was able to do some fun things. For example, I was able to search through the archives to see whether Bill had ever used the dreaded phase “protected from disturbance”. And I managed to find one instance:

Bill Powers (990331.0033 MST) to Fred Nickols (990330.1820)–

“The CV” is the observer’s perception. However, if the observer happens

to be using a perceptual system closely similar to that in the behaving
system, it is possible for the observer’s perception to covary with the
behaving system’s perception. Then the observer will see that the CV is
protected from disturbances by the actions of the behaving system, and the
CV will pass all the parts of the Test.

RM: The nice thing about this quote is that it not only shows that Bill did talk about control as acting to protect a controlled variable (CV) from disturbance but also that he said what I’ve been saying about the controlled quantity – here called the CV – which is that it is a perception in the observer. It is the observer’s view of the perceptual variable controlled by the control system.

RM: But I was surprised to find that there was only one instance of Bill having used the phrase “protected from disturbance” in the whole of the CSGNet archives. But then, by accident, I found that what Bill said more frequently was that the controlled variable is protected against disturbance, which says essentially the same thing. Here they are:

Bill Powers (951124.1105 MST) to Martin Taylor 951124 11:00 –

CEV 1 is protected against disturbances of ACTION or LINK 1, and will follow the
reference signal given by LOOP 2’s output.

Bill Powers (2000.11.02.0351 MST) to Bruce Abbott (2000.12.01.1035 EST)-

Thus you can’t distinguish a reinforcement-operated system from a reorganizing control system if the controlled variable is protected against disturbances (independent influences that can change its value).

Bill Powers (2001.04.12.0514 MDT) to Bruce Gregory (2001.0411.1243)–

I agree that perceiving can occur without controlling, but if something more that perceiving is
involved we have to ask just what is different, and see whether it requires achieving some pretermined end that is protected against disturbances.

Bill Powers (2007.11.08.0714 MST)

It could be that this model-based control process might work satisfactorily for higher-level systems that are slow anyway, and that are somewhat protected against disturbances by the actions of lower-level systems.

Bill Powers (2009.09.25.1757 MDT) to Martin Taylor 2009.09.25.14.14 –

As with Lovelock’s concept of Gaia as a global control (well, equilibrium) system, it’s possible that we are seeing a composite system made of many individual control systems, but before I can go along with that I would need some evidence that GDP is protected against disturbances by some mean activity that depends on departures of GDP from its composite reference level.

Bill Powers (2011.12.08.1035 MST) to Boris Hartmann (12/8/2011)

But the Test for the Controlled Variable allows us to observe and measure the reference level toward which the behavior of a control system always urges the controlled variable, the variable we observe to be protected against disturbances by observable changes in the action of the system.

Bill Powers (2011.12.21.2245 MST)] to Ted Cloak (2011.12.16.1030 MST)

According to my World Futures essay, the most critical of these variables must be the ones that must be protected against disturbances in order for reproduction to remain

RM: And just for fun I thought I would see if Bill ever said the other terrible thing that I sometimes say, which is that “behavior is control”. I suspected that he had, since this is probably his most important observation, and sure enough:

Bill Powers 950630.2130 MDT) to Martin Taylor (950630.1730) –

Most behavioral scientists would lose interest even faster if I presented a paper showing how the internal part of the control loop works. They would say “What control loop?” If they don’t understand that behavior is control, why would they be interested in a model of how control works?

Bill Powers (951026.0530 MDT) to Chris Cherpas (951017.1113 Pacific) –

Right. Operant behavior is control behavior.

RM: The search function in Eudora has some quirks so there may be more instances of Bill saying “protected from (or against) disturbance” and “behavior is control” But, as Mercutio said about what turned out to be his mortal wound, 'twil serve.

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers

Rick,

You didn’t need to trouble yourself with searching for rare cases where »protection is used«. This kind of search was made before by Matti. He also came to the similar conclussion. That sometimes Bill changed his mind and used some other term. It’s alao in Bill’s lietrature.

But this exception is not a general rule and it has no concequences on PCT where »Perception is controlled«.

On general Bill’s theory include terms such as : counteraction, cancel, aadjusting, compensating etc. This are much more frequently used terms what can you easily check searching the archive and Bill’s literature. My estimation is that mentioned terms occupy 99% of Powers legacy. So the ratio between terms »counteraction, compensation, cancel, adjust….« and »protection« inn about 99 : 1.

You operated with 1% terms and on that bases yu generalized that PCT is » protecting« theory instead of proving that PCT is »Perceptual Control Theory«. You play very dirty game Rick so I wonder if you are really a scientist or you bought your PhD. If you would be scientist the ratio of frequences would tell you immedialtely what terms are presenting real PCT. Mots frequent terms which are as we already mentioned : Cancel, counteraction, adjust, …… are pointing to »Perceptual Control Theory« as they provide control for disturbances which are affecting organism. Also Ashby knew that.

Your manipulation with searching rarerly used terms is just an attempt that you could support your wrong RCT. But you didin’t succed, as you didn’t act scientifically. You didn’t conclude on the bases of frequently used terms but on some manipulative bases of rarely used term. So your conclussions as usual are wrong.

“The CV” is the observer’s perception. However, if the observer happens

to be using a perceptual system closely similar to that in the behaving
system, it is possible for the observer’s perception to covary with the
behaving system’s perception. Then the observer will see that the CV is
protected from disturbances by the actions of the behaving system, and the
CV will pass all the parts of the Test.

HB :

I also stressed »it is possible« that members of CSGnet wouldn’t think that Bill was talking about general rule. You manipulativelly omitted this fact. Even if what Bill was talking about could happen, it would be very rarely so it’s not the general model. »The CV« is in inverted commas so it hasn’t any real significant meaning so I think that is just some kind of simbolic meaning. Anyway if mouse, elephant and some inhabitatnts of Africa would watch you going down the street they wouldn’t see any CV or any kind of control in environment in your moving. Mostly people don’t think in this way. BUT ITS’ POSSIBLE that some Rick and Ricky could.

As I said before Bill changed his mind some times and he could rarely explain something with »wrong« terms or maybe more simbolic.

The core terms of his theory present PCT (at least in his literature). Those core terms are as we mentioned before : counteraction, cancel, adjust, and so on which represent that distrubances are all the time affecting organism and organism »responds« with control. This is also what general definiton of control means :

Bill P.

cid:image002.png@01D13EC6.32E5C220

This is general definition of control and it is connected to »canceling the effects of disturbances« what enable controlling system to maintain perception near preselected state. There is no »system protected from disturbances« in his general definition.

Bill P :

It could be that this model-based control process might work satisfactorily for higher-level systems that are slow anyway, and that are somewhat protected against disturbances by the actions of lower-level systems.

HB : It is possible that higher levels might be somewhat »protected from disturbances« but it’s much more possible that higher levels adjust actions of lower-level sub-systems and cancel or counteract the effects of disturbances. There is too much »might« and » somewhat« in this Bills thought that could lead you to wrong conclussion that Bill is talking something about general rules. Maybe Bill was just experimenting. But you used it in manipulative way as usual. But whatever Bill was talking about can be used in some other discussions whcih I had with some other PCT’ers.

Bill P :

As with Lovelock’s concept of Gaia as a global control (well, equilibrium) system, it’s possible that we are seeing a composite system made of many individual control systems, but before I can go along with that I would need some evidence that GDP is protected against disturbances by some mean activity that depends on departures of GDP from its composite reference level.

HB : Again it is possible…. But unlikely…

All in all I think that you are misleading CSGnet as you always did with rare things in Bills’ legacy. You are a manipulator Rick of the worst kind.

If you want to prove opposite (so that you are not a manipulator) it’s important that you do the research for other terms that are used more properly in PCT : counteraction, compensation, cancel the effects, adjust and so on. Then try to conclude (it will not be hard as you have PhD, if you really made it) how scientifically term »protect from disturbances« is used in PCT to describe PCT as »protecting theory«. You’ll see that ratio is to high in favour of other terms, so that you’ll have to admitt that you were wrong about scientifically using term »protected« in PCT and that PCT is not »protecting theory« but »Perceptual Control Theory«…

So I want you to prove that Bill used term »proteced from disturbances« more often than other terms which are showing something else, so that we can be sure that we are talking about the same theory. I think that you are talking about RCT (Rick’s Control Theory).

Bill P :

Most behavioral scientists would lose interest even faster if I presented a paper showing how the internal part of the control loop works. They would say “What control loop?” If they don’t understand that behavior is control, why would they be interested in a model of how control works?

HB :

We’ve gone through this one many times (see our discusions) and we’ve seen form Bills’ definitions (B:CP, 2005) that he ddin’d used »Behavior and Control« more than once in B:CP definitions where he was ambiguous in meaning. In all othet cases he used other terms which are proving that PCT is about »Perception is Controlled«. See Bills definitions in B:CP. As I said before Bill did change his mind sometimes, and if the »Behavior is control« you have to prove that. Bill proved with physiogical knowledge that »Behavior can’t be controlled« directly. So can you prove that »Behavior is Control« ? If you can’t than I expect that you will stop misleading CSGnet forum for good.

I understand that you’ll hardly abandon your old terminology that you built over decades. But using it clearly shows that you don’t understand PCT.

Your RCT control loop is clear : behavior is control à there is CV in environment affected by controlled behavior à CV is protected from disturbances à efects of control on »Controlled Perceptual variable«.

So from controlled behavior, which is »protecting CV« in outer environment from disturbances, control enters though »Controlled perception« into comparator. This is a mess Rick. And similar mess is carried out by self-regulation theorist and probably by Jeff Vancouver.

The most important thing would be that you would understand how organisms function. This is reference. It’s what PCT is about. PCT is today probably the best model of organisms functioning if you use support of physiology. You’ll probably never understand it, but it can not be the excuse for what you are doing. Why don’t you use most frequently used PCT terminology, what you showed that you can. In this way you could contribute to development of PCT. Even you did some exceptions when you did write about PCT. I clearly showed the differences. You can aslo search that in archive.Â

The reason for not understanding PCT is simple. You don’t understand physiology or how organisms really work. That is the problem of most psychologist and Jeff Vancouver.

I understand that you want to change PCT into something called RCT because you have to »protect« all your worthless legacy of books and articles which are RCT.

It’s not important what you wrote or didn’t write, it’s important whether you understand PCT and how organisms function. And you don’t. Do you understand where the problem is ?

The most reliable way to understand PCT is Bill’s Book LCS III and the diagram inside. I think that It’s most comprehensive and incorporate most of his knowledge about »Perceptual Control Theory«, which has almost nothing to do with self-regulaton and of course nothing to do with RCT (Ricks Control Theory).

cid:image003.jpg@01D23694.7341FD90Â

Bills’ diagram shows clearly that :

  1.   Behavior is not control
    
  2.   There is no »CV« in outer environment
    
  3.   There is no »Controlled perceptual variable«
    

This diagram is fully supported with physiological explanations in B:CP and is very much supported by Henry Yins’s articles where he even upgraded PCT. Thanks Matti to show »url« where Henry Yin wrote :

»Rather than the effect of some prior cause, behavior is the observable manifestation of control in teleological systems that act on the environment to make inputs match their internal reference values«.

Rick I told you many times before, that behavior is the result of control or it’s consequence of control (manifestation). Diagram above is clearly showing this. And as I said many times before, Henry Yin deserves special place in PCT.

Best,

Boris

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:06 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Cc: Richard Marken
Subject: The Joy of the CSGNet Archives

[From Rick Marken (2016.12.12.1210)]

RM: I want to thank Rupert Young for encouraging me to install on my computer the CSGNet archives that are maintained by Dag Forssell at his “Living Control Systems” site. The whole megillah is there, with posts from the very beginning of CSGNet, in 1990. But what really makes this archive useful is that you can do keyword searchers through it using Eudora (for posts from 1992-present; posts from 1990-1991 are available only in PDF, rather than Eudora compatible, format). You can get to most of what you need to install it on your own computer here:

http://www.pctresources.com/CSGnet/Files/CSGnet_archive/Eudora_installed_with_mailboxes/

RM: And an explanation of how to install and use the archive is here:

http://www.pctresources.com/CSGnet/Files/CSGnet_archive/CSGnetReadMe.pdf

RM: I had some trouble installing it myself but then I’m not very good with computers. But once I got it installed it worked pretty well (ignoring the esoteric warning messages, probably a result of my early, apparently failed, attempts to install it). And I was able to do some fun things. For example, I was able to search through the archives to see whether Bill had ever used the dreaded phase “protected from disturbance”. And I managed to find one instance:

Bill Powers (990331.0033 MST) to Fred Nickols (990330.1820)–

“The CV” is the observer’s perception. However, if the observer happens

to be using a perceptual system closely similar to that in the behaving
system, it is possible for the observer’s perception to covary with the
behaving system’s perception. Then the observer will see that the CV is
protected from disturbances by the actions of the behaving system, and the
CV will pass all the parts of the Test.

RM: The nice thing about this quote is that it not only shows that Bill did talk about control as acting to protect a controlled variable (CV) from disturbance but also that he said what I’ve been saying about the controlled quantity – here called the CV – which is that it is a perception in the observer. It is the observer’s view of the perceptual variable controlled by the control system.

RM: But I was surprised to find that there was only one instance of Bill having used the phrase “protected from disturbance” in the whole of the CSGNet archives. But then, by accident, I found that what Bill said more frequently was that the controlled variable is protected against disturbance, which says essentially the same thing. Here they are:

Bill Powers (951124.1105 MST) to Martin Taylor 951124 11:00 –

CEV 1 is protected against disturbances of ACTION or LINK 1, and will follow the
reference signal given by LOOP 2’s output.

Bill Powers (2000.11.02.0351 MST) to Bruce Abbott (2000.12.01.1035 EST)-

Thus you can’t distinguish a reinforcement-operated system from a reorganizing control system if the controlled variable is protected against disturbances (independent influences that can change its value).

Bill Powers (2001.04.12.0514 MDT) to Bruce Gregory (2001.0411.1243)–

I agree that perceiving can occur without controlling, but if something more that perceiving is
involved we have to ask just what is different, and see whether it requires achieving some pretermined end that is protected against disturbances.

Bill Powers (2007.11.08.0714 MST)

It could be that this model-based control process might work satisfactorily for higher-level systems that are slow anyway, and that are somewhat protected against disturbances by the actions of lower-level systems.

Bill Powers (2009.09.25.1757 MDT) to Martin Taylor 2009.09.25.14.14 –

As with Lovelock’s concept of Gaia as a global control (well, equilibrium) system, it’s possible that we are seeing a composite system made of many individual control systems, but before I can go along with that I would need some evidence that GDP is protected against disturbances by some mean activity that depends on departures of GDP from its composite reference level.

Bill Powers (2011.12.08.1035 MST) to Boris Hartmann (12/8/2011)

But the Test for the Controlled Variable allows us to observe and measure the reference level toward which the behavior of a control system always urges the controlled variable, the variable we observe to be protected against disturbances by observable changes in the action of the system.

Bill Powers (2011.12.21.2245 MST)] to Ted Cloak (2011.12.16.1030 MST)

According to my World Futures essay, the most critical of these variables must be the ones that must be protected against disturbances in order for reproduction to remain

RM: And just for fun I thought I would see if Bill ever said the other terrible thing that I sometimes say, which is that “behavior is control”. I suspected that he had, since this is probably his most important observation, and sure enough:

Bill Powers 950630.2130 MDT) to Martin Taylor (950630.1730) –

Most behavioral scientists would lose interest even faster if I presented a paper showing how the internal part of the control loop works. They would say “What control loop?” If they don’t understand that behavior is control, why would they be interested in a model of how control works?

Bill Powers (951026.0530 MDT) to Chris Cherpas (951017.1113 Pacific) –

Right. Operant behavior is control behavior.

RM: The search function in Eudora has some quirks so there may be more instances of Bill saying “protected from (or against) disturbance” and “behavior is control” But, as Mercutio said about what turned out to be his mortal wound, 'twil serve.

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers