Reference Level at Zero for Fascism

(Gavin Ritz
2010.02.13.11.32NZT)

BP: The
reference level can be zero at any organizational level of the hierarchy.

The
reference level (the effect of the reference signal that is accessible to an
outside observer) is the target toward which behavior alters the input quantity
(also observable from outside). It can be set to any value. At the highest
level in the hierarchy, a reference signal set to zero says that the perceptual
signal is to be maintained at zero. That is equivalent to avoiding that
perception.

My
reference level for fascism is zero.

Can you
please explain how your reference level for Fascism is zero?

I’m
not sure that it’s possible to avoid any perception once one becomes
aware of it.

This
reminds me of Trotsky’s game he played with his brother, see if you can walk across
a room without thinking of a white rabbit. It’s impossible.

That fact
that we don’t actually physically respond doesn’t mean that the reference
signal is zero.

Targets doesn’t
necessarily have to be acted on immediately there may be years of delays until
the actual action is seen.

So I’m
at a slight loss with the implications of saying “my reference level for
fascism is zero”. Yes okay but your reference signal might be screaming.
And I think it maybe, because in my opinion Fascism is a deep seated human
fear, it’s about massive restriction and confinement. And fear is the
main signals of all living entities. Freedom (the need- a error in PCT terms) the
very foundation of the US Constitution is the reciprocal of the deep fear of restriction
and confinement. I’m not so sure that the reference level of the US society for fascism is
zero.

This is similar
to creating things, it’s first in the mind (large reference signals) and
it may take years before the second creation is created (reference level) in
the physical world.

It may
be possible to avoid something, that’s in the mind, at the physical level
but never in the mental realms (the reference signals are working overtime) I think that leads to depression.

Regards

Gavin

···

BP:

My reference level for fascism is zero.
That fact that we don’t actually
physically respond doesn’t mean that the reference signal is zero.

Targets doesn’t necessarily have to be acted on immediately there may be
years of delays until the actual action is seen.

So I’m at a slight loss with the implications of saying “my reference
level for fascism is zero”.
[From Bill Powers (2010.02.12.1730 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.02.13.11.32NZT –

Can you
please explain how your reference level for Fascism is zero?

I’m not sure that it’s possible to avoid any perception once one becomes
aware of it.

This reminds me of Trotsky’s game he played with his brother, see if you
can walk across a room without thinking of a white rabbit. It’s
impossible.

I think you misunderstand what “control of perception” means.
It doesn’t mean altering the way you perceive until you’re perceiving
whatever you want, with no change in the outside world. My reference
level for fascism says that I would prefer to be able to look around and
not see any of it. It means acting on the environment or your
relationship to it so your perceptual systems, reporting honestly, see
the specified amount of whatever it is. If you can’t affect your
perception by acting on those things, then you can’t control it and may
not achieve a match to the reference condition.

I have succeeded so far in not experiencing fascism simply by not living
where it occurs.

The implications are simple. If I ever perceive fascism in my
surroundings, I will take some action to make it go away, or take myself
away from it, until once again I am experiencing zero fascism. The
reference signal doesn’t depend on the state of perceptions. It specifies
the state of a perception as I would like it to exist, whether or not the
perception matches that state. The setting of a reference signal is not
determined by responding or not responding.

Best,

Bill P.

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.13.13.55NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2010.02.12.1730 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.02.13.11.32NZT –

The setting of a
reference signal is not determined by responding or not responding.

This is the point, I was trying to make. I’m
only really interested in reference signals at higher levels.

Your reference signal for Fascism is not
zero. Your reference level may be, depending on your context.

Regards

Gavin

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.12.1850 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.02.13.13.55NZT –

The setting of a reference
signal is not determined by responding or not responding.

This is the point, I
was trying to make. I’m only really interested in reference signals at
higher levels.

Your reference signal for Fascism is not zero. Your reference level may
be, depending on your context.

I think we’re using different definitions for these terms. Would you
describe what your meanings are for reference signal and reference
level?

Best,

Bill P.

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.13.15.20NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2010.02.12.1850 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.02.13.13.55NZT –

The setting of a reference signal is not determined by responding
or not responding.

This is
the point, I was trying to make. I’m only really interested in reference
signals at higher levels.

Your reference signal for Fascism is not zero. Your reference level may be,
depending on your context.

I think we’re using different definitions for these terms. Would you describe
what your meanings are for reference signal and reference level?

The reference
signal as I understand it is the signal inside the control system ® the specifies
the error state (e) and hence determines what the reference level of the
controlled quantity is.

Regards

Gavin

···

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.13.0818 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.02.13.15.20NZT –

BP earlier: bp:
I think we’re using different
definitions for these terms. Would you describe what your meanings are
for reference signal and reference
level?

GR: The reference
signal as I understand it is the signal inside the control system (r) the
specifies the error state (e) and hence determines what the reference
level of the controlled quantity is.

BP: That may be the problem. Here is a lesson about signals and
analog computing which may clarify matters.
The reference signal is a signal that enters the control system
from outside (from above, as shown in the standard PCT diagram). It
specifies how much perceptual signal the control system is to create by
acting on the environment – more specifically, by acting through
environment on a physical input quantity that it is sensing. The
reference signal is simply a neural signal that sets the way the
perceptual signal will be made to look – not because the reference
signal causes this match, but because of the action of the rest of the
control loop. The perceptual signal represents the state of that input
quantity, so the control system is really acting on its own perceptual
signal. The net effect of this feedback is that the perceptual signal is
altered until it nearly matches the magnitude of the reference signal.
When the perceptual signal matches the reference signal in terms of
impulses per second, the input quantity outside the control system will
necessarily be in a corresponding state - the state that produces an
amount of perceptual signal equal to the reference signal. That state of
the input quantity is observable from outside; when the perceptual signal
matches the reference signal, we call the magnitude of the input quantity
the “reference level”. Of course the input quantity is at the
reference level only when the perceptual signal matches the
reference signal.

The error signal is produced by subtracting the magnitude of the
perceptual signal from the magnitude of the reference signal. So the
error signal is not determined by the reference signal, but is also
influenced just as much by the perceptual signal. The subtraction is done
by inhibition of the reference signal by the perceptual signal; it’s the
kind of computation that goes on continuously, an analog
computation.

The error signal is amplified by the output function to generate the
output quantity. The output quantity, acting through a feedback link in
the environment, affects the input quantity being sensed – but external
disturbances also add to the effects of the output on the input quantity.
Nevertheless, the control system is able to keep the perceptual signal
matching the reference signal.

The meaning of the term “signal” in PCT, and engineering in
general, is not the common-sense meaning of a coded message or a
starter’s gun. It means the magnitude of a physical quantity like a
voltage or the frequency firing of a neuron. It is called a signal
because the physical variable involved is very weak, not able by itself
to caused any significant physical consequences, but its magnitude
carries information about the magnitude of some other variable that does
have significant physical effects. At some point in a network of signals,
there is an amplifier (like a muscle) that transforms the weak signal
into a large physical effect, as the signal from a motor neuron is
transformed into a muscle tension that, in the biceps for example, can
exert a pull of over a quarter of a ton. That, by the way, is the primary
place where metabolic energy is used – in the transformation from
signals to physical effects.

In the control system, signals are combined by being added to or
subtracted from other signals – in terms of their magnitudes. The
reference signal, set to some steady number of impulses per second (a
neural signal, that is), enters a neural comparator, which also receives
a perceptual signal that is variable in magnitude and represents the
state of some external variable in the environment. The perceptual
signal is inhibitory, so its effects in the comparator subtract from the
effects of the reference signal. This is an “analog
computation”: the result of the computation is a continuous error
signal with a magnitude equal to the difference in magnitudes between the
reference and perceptual signals. It is another neural signal, still
small and weak in terms of physical effects. That small signal gets
amplified and otherwise processed to produce a larger (in magnitude, but
still physically weak) signal that goes into the output transducer where
now its effects are made a million times larger in terms of energy usage,
to create a macroscopic effect on the environment.

It’s crucial to read the Live Block Diagram with these descriptions in
mind. The blocks do not represent events that happen one after another as
you move your eye around the closed loop. They are places where variables
are transformed continually into the states of other continuous
variables, all the blocks being active at the same time as you can see by
watching the Live Block Diagram after you change the disturbance or
reference signal.

I hope that somewhere in that discussion is something that will help our
communications.

Best,

Bill P.

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.02.14.12.39NZT)

[From Bill
Powers (2010.02.13.0818 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.02.13.15.20NZT –

BP earlier:
bp: I think we’re using different definitions for these terms.
Would you describe what your meanings are for reference signal and reference
level?

GR: The
reference signal as I understand it is the signal inside the control system (r)
the specifies the error state (e) and hence determines what the reference level
of the controlled quantity is.

BP: That may be the problem. Here is a lesson about signals and
analog computing which may clarify matters.

You asked me to describe the meaning of
the signals not describe the entire control system. I can give you the math and
the entire CS details but I don’t want to go there because this type of
discussion goes around in circles. I know exactly what the PCT model does I’ve
had a very long look and play with it. However when it comes to the details you
are the expert in PCT it’s your theory.

Actually I got the definition out of BCP. But I want to move on
from this direction of dialogue.

What I want to discuss is your Reference
level of fascism the reference signal and the input quantities, perceptual
signals and the error in fact the entire CS model around your notions of fascism.

But mainly I want to know, what are the
reference signals associated with your reference level of fascism. So in other words
a qualitative and quantitative picture of the CS model around the concept of
fascism. This is in relation to your earlier comment around your reference
level for fascism is zero.

Regards

Gavin

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.14.1215 UT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.12.1730 MST)]

The implications are simple. If I ever perceive fascism in my surroundings, I will take some action to make it go away, or take myself away from it, until once again I am experiencing zero fascism. The reference signal doesn't depend on the state of perceptions. It specifies the state of a perception as I would like it to exist, whether or not the perception matches that state. The setting of a reference signal is not determined by responding or not responding.

It seems to me that much apparent S-R behavior can be understood in terms of if-then circuits. Many cases where I have been thinking in terms of a higher level perception setting a reference level for a lower-level system can be described in terms of the lower-level perception operating according to an if-then logic. If the fuel gage is below 1/4, then stop at the next gas station and fill up.

Bruce

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.14.0802 MST)]

Gavin Ritz
2010.02.14.12.39NZT –

BP earlier: bp:
I think we’re using different definitions for these terms. Would
you describe what your meanings are for reference signal and reference
level?

GR: The
reference signal as I understand it is the signal inside the control
system (r) the specifies the error state (e) and hence determines what
the reference level of the controlled quantity is.

BP: That may be the problem. Here is a lesson about signals and
analog computing which may clarify matters.

You asked me to
describe the meaning of the signals not describe the entire control
system. I can give you the math and the entire CS details but I don’t
want to go there because this type of discussion goes around in circles.
I know exactly what the PCT model does I’ve had a very long look and play
with it. However when it comes to the details you are the expert in PCT
it’s your theory.

Your description doesn’t fit the model. You say that r specifies the
error state e. That is not correct. The error state is e = r - p, where p
is the perceptual signal. Knowing r is not enough to specify the error
signal; you must know both r and p.

Actually I got the
definition out of BCP. But I want to move on from this direction of
dialogue.
What I want to discuss is your
Reference level of fascism the reference signal and the input quantities,
perceptual signals and the error in fact the entire CS model around your
notions of fascism.

B:CP does not say that the reference signal r specifies the error state
e. Read it again. Better yet, quote the part you’re referring to.

But mainly I want to
know, what are the reference signals associated with your reference level
of fascism. So in other words a qualitative and quantitative picture of
the CS model around the concept of fascism. This is in relation to your
earlier comment around your reference level for fascism is zero.

I don’t see why you have a problem with this. In plain language, I was
saying that I don’t want any fascism going on where I can perceive it.
That’s what it means to say my reference level for fascism is zero.
That’s how much fascism I want to perceive: zero. Since I spoke of the
reference level (which is observable from outside me), this means that
you could discover it by trying to implement what you perceive as some
fascism in my vicinity and seeing whether I would take an appropriate
action, such as acting to make it go away, or removing myself to some
other place – doing whatever I could to make my perception of it be
zero.

The reference signal needed to establish avoidance of perceiving fascism
would have a magnitude of zero, and the perceptual signal would be
whatever amount of perception of fascism I am having right now. A
reference signal of zero is equivalent to absence of a reference signal:
any amount of perceptual signal would cause an error signal to appear.
Note that this implies that for this system, the reference signal would
be inhibitory and the perceptual signal excitatory where they enter the
comparator (a neuron receiving only an inhibitory input signal will never
generate any output signal).

Since this was just an example, I think that amplifying it to propose
specific principles, logic, sequences, categories and so on down to
muscle tensions wouldn’t be of much interest even if I could do it
without getting psychoanalyzed – oops, I didn’t mean that.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.14.1130 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.02.14.1215 UT)

It seems to me that much apparent S-R behavior can be understood in terms of if-then circuits. Many cases where I have been thinking in terms of a higher level perception setting a reference level for a lower-level system can be described in terms of the lower-level perception operating according to an if-then logic. If the fuel gage is below 1/4, then stop at the next gas station and fill up.

I see it almost the same way. The higher system works in terms of symbols and reasoning, with labels like "fuel gauge" and "gas station" and "fill up." That is how the reference levels for the intermediate levels are established. Then you need levels with a different sort of organization to carry out the relationships and more detailed actions required to steer the car to the gas station, stop it at a pump, operate the pump, and so on to achieve the goal of a full tank. Just naming the sequence of results to be accomplished isn't enough -- they must actually be produced by real motor behavior, and they must be results that can legitimately be given the names that the if-then logic has specified. That's the link between thought and action that the control hierarchy is supposed to make possible.

Best,

Bill P.

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.15.10.22NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2010.02.14.0802 MST)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.02.14.12.39NZT –

The reference signal needed to establish avoidance of perceiving fascism would
have a magnitude of zero, and the perceptual signal would be whatever amount of
perception of fascism I am having right now.

Okay so
you have no opinion of fascism then, under this context, how about then in another
context where you do have an opinion.

A
reference signal of zero is equivalent to absence of a reference signal: any
amount of perceptual signal would cause an error signal to appear. Note that
this implies that for this system, the reference signal would be inhibitory and
the perceptual signal excitatory where they enter the comparator (a neuron
receiving only an inhibitory input signal will never generate any output
signal).

Since this was just an example,

It’s
actually a very important example.

I
think that amplifying it to propose specific principles, logic, sequences,
categories and so on down to muscle tensions wouldn’t be of much interest even
if I could do it without getting psychoanalyzed – oops, I didn’t mean that.

I’m
not asking you to be psycho (whatever). I’m asking you to answer a very
important notion in human thought and society and you are skirting the issue.
It’s very much of interest and basically at the crux for PCT theory
because really the reference signal is the signal that dictates all.

My contention
is that there actually never is a zero reference signal in the human (or any
entity for that matter) and this is because energy and signals are directly related
and human nervous system is never switched off.

On an energetic
basis the reference signal is impossible to be zero.

Regards

Gavin

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.14.1540)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.02.15.10.22NZT)

> Bill Powers (2010.02.14.0802 MST)--

>The reference signal needed to establish avoidance of perceiving fascism
> would have a magnitude of zero, and the perceptual signal would be whatever
> amount of perception of fascism I am having right now.

Okay so you have no opinion of fascism then, under this context, how about
then in another context where you do have an opinion.

What in the world are you talking about? Bill's "opinion" of fascism
(a system level perception) is quite clearly that he doesn't like it.
In PCT, not liking something (some perception) is modeled as having a
reference of zero for it.

> I think that amplifying it to propose specific principles, logic, sequences,
> categories and so on down to muscle tensions wouldn't be of much interest
> even if I could do it without getting psychoanalyzed -- oops, I didn't mean
> that.

I�m not asking you to be psycho (whatever). I�m asking you to answer a very
important notion in human thought and society and you are skirting the
issue.

He's not skirting the issue at all. Bill doesn't like fascism; in PCT
that means he has a reference of zero for it.

> It�s very much of interest and basically at the crux for PCT theory
> because really the reference signal is the signal that dictates all.

All what? The reference signal does specify what the perceptual signal
value should be, but it doesn't specify other things, like how output
should vary to bring the perception to the specified value. And it
certainly doesn't "dictate" anything.

My contention is that there actually never is a zero reference signal in the
human (or any entity for that matter) and this is because energy and signals
are directly related and human nervous system is never switched off.

Contend away. But you have given me no reason to accept your
contention.But I actually agree that it's probably true that reference
signals are never really zero (meaning zero impulses/second) since
there is always some level of neural noise in neurons even when they
are not carrying signals. So a reference level of zero may actually be
3 or 4 impulses/sec. But this is no problem for control because the
neural noise exists in the perceptual neurons as well. So when a
reference signal is functionally zero, the actual "signal level" will
be the noise level of the neuron; and the control system will act to
bring the perceptual signal to that noise level, which is functionally
zero perceptual signal. So neural noise defines the zero level of all
signals in a control system

On an energetic basis the reference signal is impossible to be zero.

Whatever. If you want that to be true, that's fine. But, as I show
above, it makes no functional difference to the behavior of a control
system.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.15.12.56NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.14.1540)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.02.15.10.22NZT)

Bill Powers
(2010.02.14.0802 MST)–

RM: Contend away. But you have given me no
reason to accept your

contention.But I actually agree that it’s
probably true that reference

signals are never really zero (meaning zero
impulses/second) since

there is always some level of neural noise
in neurons even when they

are not carrying signals. So a reference
level of zero may actually be

3 or 4 impulses/sec.

Okay, then, show me the
energetic calculation to get the 4 impulses/sec, and this needs to relate to energy
conversion in the brain cells at your so called noise level.

RM: But this is no problem for control
because the

neural noise exists in the perceptual
neurons as well. So when a

reference signal is functionally zero, the
actual “signal level” will

be the noise level of the neuron; and the
control system will act to

bring the perceptual signal to that noise
level, which is functionally

zero perceptual signal. So neural
noise defines the zero level of all

signals in a control system

On an energetic basis the reference signal is
impossible to be zero.

RM: Whatever. If you want that to be true,
that’s fine. But, as I show

above, it makes no functional difference to
the behavior of a control

system.

It’s not a matter of me
wanting it to be true. Prove it to me using basic chemical or physical quantities.
You have shown nothing in any rigorous way at all. Just conjecture.

Regards

Gavin

···

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.15.1915)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.02.15.12.56NZT)

Rick Marken (2010.02.14.1540)

So a reference level of zero may actually be
3 or 4 impulses/sec.

Okay, then, show me the energetic calculation to get the 4 impulses/sec

No thanks. But feel free to show me the calculations that prove that
it can't be 4 impulses/sec.

and this needs to relate to energy conversion in the brain cells at your so
called noise level.

I don't think it does. But feel free to show me (using calculations,
not the names of well known scientists) why you think that it does.

On an energetic basis the reference signal is impossible to be zero.

RM: Whatever. If you want that to be true, that's fine. But, as I show
above, it makes no functional difference to the behavior of a control
system.

It�s not a matter of me wanting it to be true. Prove it to me using basic
chemical or physical quantities. You have shown nothing in any rigorous way
at all. Just conjecture.

I don't know what you want proven. Do you want me to prove that the
minimum reference signal value will keep the physical correlate of a
perceptual variable at zero as long as the minimum perceptual signal
is the same as the minimum reference signal even if these minima are
non-zero? That's what I claim to be true and I believe I can prove it
using a simulation model. Is that what you want?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com