responsibility to our science

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-28_12:04:04 ET]

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate perceptual control theory.

We cannot attain these aims without a practical grasp of the phenomenon of control. The last of these aims–promulgation–requires other people, many others, to achieve a practical grasp of the phenomenon of control. Without the existential perception of control as a phenomenon in the environment, the theory is just another castle of empty words.

A mode or quality of communication has become accepted among us which is inimical to these purposes. It is as though a troll lurks within each of us, quick to take offense and to offend. My friends, we are too few, and too isolated in the sea of willful ignorance that surrounds us, to afford this.

If we really care to control those stated purposes in this email forum, then we must apply the principles of perceptual control theory to our own conduct.

What can this mean? When we perceive the phenomenon of control what we perceive is resistance to disturbances. To perceive the phenomenon of control, we control two perceptions: perception of disturbances and perception of that which is disturbed. The Test ensures that these perceptions originate in the environment rather than in imagination.

When conflict arises (as it inevitably does), an alert control theorist can dial the intensity of disturbance back so as to employ the ongoing conflict gently as a Test for controlled variables. By contrast, when conflict arises the troll within pushes harder, or seeks alternative means to win perceived advantage. This troll metaphor obviously alludes to control of purposes (‘personality needs’) other than those listed above.

In a troll mood we are quick to point out where someone has not ‘got it right’ or to suggest that they do not even ‘get it’ at all. It seems to me, after 27 years of participant observation, that by these means we control a demonstration to others that we ourselves are the ones who have ‘got it’.

The trolling mode of communication puts perceptual control theory at risk of drowning, to be rediscovered by some future generation. Given the global situation, it may not be hyperbole to suggest that we risk leaving PCT to be rediscovered by some future species.

Amid and behind all our efforts to reorganize our respective specializations of science, organize and carry out research, and publish–rightly where our foremost attention and effort lies–our challenge is to master how to resolve conflict and make it fruitful. If we who are best informed in PCT cannot do this among ourselves, what claim do we have on the attention of others about the efficacy and importance of PCT? Albert Schweizer said there are three ways to teach a child. The first is by example. The second is by example. And the third is by example. If we cannot be a living demonstration of what it means really to grasp the phenomenon of control, how credible are our words?

Our responsibility is great. Come, friends, let us be about it.

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.28.12.31]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-28_12:04:04 ET]

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate perceptual control theory.

We cannot attain these aims without a practical grasp of the phenomenon of control. The last of these aims--promulgation--requires other people, many others, to achieve a practical grasp of the phenomenon of control. Without the existential perception of control as a phenomenon in the environment, the theory is just another castle of empty words.

A thought-provoking post, indeed. At least it raises many interlocking questions in my mind, about the mechanisms of perceptual control, about what perceptions are being controlled by the action of posting, and what are being controlled by the content of a posting. Some of those perceptions presumably have to do with perceptions of some imaginary other or others. When are the controlled perceptions perceptions of some one other person and the effects on other readers just side-effects? When are they perceptions of some generic reader that is a fit for no actual reader?

Those are just a few of the questions in my mind that arise from your posting, for which I thank you.

One question I address to you as author of the message: what is your understanding of "a troll" and "to troll". My understanding is that a troll is one who is controlling for creating disturbances to perceptions others control at moderate to high gain with little tolerance -- the higher-level reference being to perceive within the message stream a positive feedback loop. Is that your understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc Abrams. I suspect you have a different meaning in mind when you use the word.

The following may seem to be a digression, but it isn't.

It is clear that across CSGnet we do not all have the same detailed concept of the mechanisms and implications of PCT. Perhaps no two of us do. That is probably a good thing if the refinement and extension of the theory is a collective high-level goal, since if it were generally agreed, it would be settled and we could all move on to controlling other perceptions.

I make the analogy of chemistry. In the 18th century the concepts of atomic weights (but not atomic numbers) was developed. In the 19th century it was recognized that atoms have a variety of characteristic properties and Mendeleev was able to collect these into a table of relationships that helped explain why certain patterns of possible molecules exist naturally and are easy to make, while others don't seem to exist naturally and are hard to make. Then in the 20th century Bohr produced a model of an atom with orbiting electrons that could put those observations into a simpler frame of "valence", and lots else followed. Further refinements of the nature of an atom followed, but even as much later as my primary school days, some were talking about atoms as being just mathematical constructs with no physical reality. It just looked the same as it would if there were real atoms.

But none of those refinements affected the ability of chemists to do what they had been doing or to discover new compounds that were useful. Likewise, the most basic idea of perceptual control can be useful in practical situations, while the details of how perceptual control is performed are still the subject of disagreement, as was the structure of an atom for the first half of the 20th century.

The question posed by this notion of "inner-directed" refinement together with "outer-directed" use of perceptual control theory is in what and how postings intended to disturb other readers' (singular or plural) perceptions of one of them may have side effects of disturbing controlled perceptions of the other. Those side-effect disturbances may be what you perceive as "trolling", and may have the environmental effects that intentional trolling might have.

Does this make sense in the context of what perceptions you were trying to control by posting that message? Or am I talking about something quite different?

Martin

···

A mode or quality of communication has become accepted among us which is inimical to these purposes. It is as though a troll lurks within each of us, quick to take offense and to offend. My friends, we are too few, and too isolated in the sea of willful ignorance that surrounds us, to afford this.

If we really care to control those stated purposes in this email forum, then we must apply the principles of perceptual control theory to our own conduct.

What can this mean? When we perceive the phenomenon of control what we perceive is resistance to disturbances. To perceive the phenomenon of control, we control two perceptions: perception of disturbances and perception of that which is disturbed. The Test ensures that these perceptions originate in the environment rather than in imagination.

When conflict arises (as it inevitably does), an alert control theorist can dial the intensity of disturbance back so as to employ the ongoing conflict gently as a Test for controlled variables. By contrast, when conflict arises the troll within pushes harder, or seeks alternative means to win perceived advantage. This troll metaphor obviously alludes to control of purposes ('personality needs') other than those listed above.

In a troll mood we are quick to point out where someone has not 'got it right' or to suggest that they do not even 'get it' at all. It seems to me, after 27 years of participant observation, that by these means we control a demonstration to others that we ourselves are the ones who have 'got it'.

The trolling mode of communication puts perceptual control theory at risk of drowning, to be rediscovered by some future generation. Given the global situation, it may not be hyperbole to suggest that we risk leaving PCT to be rediscovered by some future species.

Amid and behind all our efforts to reorganize our respective specializations of science, organize and carry out research, and publish--rightly where our foremost attention and effort lies--our challenge is to master how to resolve conflict and make it fruitful. If we who are best informed in PCT cannot do this among ourselves, what claim do we have on the attention of others about the efficacy and importance of PCT? Albert Schweizer said there are three ways to teach a child. The first is by example. The second is by example. And the third is by example. If we cannot be a living demonstration of what it means really to grasp the phenomenon of control, how credible are our words?

Our responsibility is great. Come, friends, let us be about it.

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

Martin Taylor 2018.04.28.12.31 –

One question I address to you as author of the message: what is your understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My understanding is that a troll is one who is controlling for creating disturbances to perceptions others control at moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the higher-level reference being to perceive within the message stream a positive feedback loop. Is that your understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc Abrams. I suspect you have a different meaning in mind when you use the word.

A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a positive feedback loop? And also insufficiently general. (Abstraction != generalization.) Trolling has more variety on perhaps a continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms of disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion doesn’t capture thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced opinion, irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject “a definition”, no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll. n.

1a. One who posts deliberately provocative messages to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

1b. A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, etc. A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a “Flamer” who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.

1c. A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone who has nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but who rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject…

You may recall the illustrative events immediately after I posted that.

[Disquisition on history of atomic weight, number, and structure proposed as an analogy.] Does this make sense in the context of what perceptions you were trying to control by posting that message? Or am I talking about something quite different?

Different in an important way. I don’t think it’s a good analogy. They were groping after principles underlying empirically observed regularities, and they knew it. The principles of negative-feedback control are quite well established and not likely to change. The open questions include how those principles are implemented in living organisms, in social interactions and institutionalized social arrangements, in artificial analogs to these, etc.; methods for identifying and verifying the variables that are being perceived and controlled, by which control loops, in a given situation (especially at higher levels); confirmation and adequate characterization of the levels in the hierarchy; forms of learning, and relation of learning and evolution (e.g. Evolution in Four Dimensions, a book Bill was reading shortly before his death); a better understanding of memory and invocation of imagined perceptions–e.g. hypnotic phenomena are completely unconsidered; profound questions in epistemology, ethics, and other branches of philosophy… And (with a nod to your particular interests, Martin) questions of the systemic properties of implementations of the principles of control, necessary constraints on how they may possibly be organized and operate, etc., from an analytical point of view such as the mathematical theory of communication. And all that is just until I mentally run out of breath. There’s a lot. But the principles of control are known.

···

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-28_12:04:04 ET]

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate perceptual control theory.

We cannot attain these aims without a practical grasp of the phenomenon of control. The last of these aims–promulgation–requires other people, many others, to achieve a practical grasp of the phenomenon of control. Without the existential perception of control as a phenomenon in the environment, the theory is just another castle of empty words.
[Martin Taylor 2018.04.28.12.31]

A thought-provoking post, indeed. At least it raises many interlocking questions in my mind, about the mechanisms of perceptual control, about what perceptions are being controlled by the action of posting, and what are being controlled by the content of a posting. Some of those perceptions presumably have to do with perceptions of some imaginary other or others. When are the controlled perceptions perceptions of some one other person and the effects on other readers just side-effects? When are they perceptions of some generic reader that is a fit for no actual reader?

Those are just a few of the questions in my mind that arise from your posting, for which I thank you.

One question I address to you as author of the message: what is your understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My understanding is that a troll is one who is controlling for creating disturbances to perceptions others control at moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the higher-level reference being to perceive within the message stream a positive feedback loop. Is that your understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc Abrams. I suspect you have a different meaning in mind when you use the word.

The following may seem to be a digression, but it isn’t.

It is clear that across CSGnet we do not all have the same detailed concept of the mechanisms and implications of PCT. Perhaps no two of us do. That is probably a good thing if the refinement and extension of the theory is a collective high-level goal, since if it were generally agreed, it would be settled and we could all move on to controlling other perceptions.

I make the analogy of chemistry. In the 18th century the concepts of atomic weights (but not atomic numbers) was developed. In the 19th century it was recognized that atoms have a variety of characteristic properties and Mendeleev was able to collect these into a table of relationships that helped explain why certain patterns of possible molecules exist naturally and are easy to make, while others don’t seem to exist naturally and are hard to make. Then in the 20th century Bohr produced a model of an atom with orbiting electrons that could put those observations into a simpler frame of “valence”, and lots else followed. Further refinements of the nature of an atom followed, but even as much later as my primary school days, some were talking about atoms as being just mathematical constructs with no physical reality. It just looked the same as it would if there were real atoms.

But none of those refinements affected the ability of chemists to do what they had been doing or to discover new compounds that were useful. Likewise, the most basic idea of perceptual control can be useful in practical situations, while the details of how perceptual control is performed are still the subject of disagreement, as was the structure of an atom for the first half of the 20th century.

The question posed by this notion of “inner-directed” refinement together with “outer-directed” use of perceptual control theory is in what and how postings intended to disturb other readers’ (singular or plural) perceptions of one of them may have side effects of disturbing controlled perceptions of the other. Those side-effect disturbances may be what you perceive as “trolling”, and may have the environmental effects that intentional trolling might have.

Does this make sense in the context of what perceptions you were trying to control by posting that message? Or am I talking about something quite different?

Martin

A mode or quality of communication has become accepted among us which is inimical to these purposes. It is as though a troll lurks within each of us, quick to take offense and to offend. My friends, we are too few, and too isolated in the sea of willful ignorance that surrounds us, to afford this.

If we really care to control those stated purposes in this email forum, then we must apply the principles of perceptual control theory to our own conduct.

What can this mean? When we perceive the phenomenon of control what we perceive is resistance to disturbances. To perceive the phenomenon of control, we control two perceptions: perception of disturbances and perception of that which is disturbed. The Test ensures that these perceptions originate in the environment rather than in imagination.

When conflict arises (as it inevitably does), an alert control theorist can dial the intensity of disturbance back so as to employ the ongoing conflict gently as a Test for controlled variables. By contrast, when conflict arises the troll within pushes harder, or seeks alternative means to win perceived advantage. This troll metaphor obviously alludes to control of purposes (‘personality needs’) other than those listed above.

In a troll mood we are quick to point out where someone has not ‘got it right’ or to suggest that they do not even ‘get it’ at all. It seems to me, after 27 years of participant observation, that by these means we control a demonstration to others that we ourselves are the ones who have ‘got it’.

The trolling mode of communication puts perceptual control theory at risk of drowning, to be rediscovered by some future generation. Given the global situation, it may not be hyperbole to suggest that we risk leaving PCT to be rediscovered by some future species.

Amid and behind all our efforts to reorganize our respective specializations of science, organize and carry out research, and publish–rightly where our foremost attention and effort lies–our challenge is to master how to resolve conflict and make it fruitful. If we who are best informed in PCT cannot do this among ourselves, what claim do we have on the attention of others about the efficacy and importance of PCT? Albert Schweizer said there are three ways to teach a child. The first is by example. The second is by example. And the third is by example. If we cannot be a living demonstration of what it means really to grasp the phenomenon of control, how credible are our words?

Our responsibility is great. Come, friends, let us be about it.

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

          Martin Taylor

2018.04.28.12.31 –

          > One question I

address to you as author of the message: what is your
understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My
understanding is that a troll is one who is controlling
for creating disturbances to perceptions others control at
moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the
higher-level reference being to perceive within the
message stream a positive feedback loop. Is that your
understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived
much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc
Abrams. I suspect you have a different meaning in mind
when you use the word.

      A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist

have a reference for perceiving a positive feedback loop?
And also insufficiently general. (Abstraction !=
generalization.) Trolling has more variety on perhaps a
continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms
of disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion
doesn’t capture thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced
opinion, irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

      I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject

“a definition”, no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll .
n.

Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten. Your definitions are

much better.

Martin

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate perceptual control theory.

Â

​My experience engaging with CSGnet is that the main goal is to preach — and ddefinitely not to test…​

···

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

          Martin Taylor

2018.04.28.12.31 –

          MMT> One question I

address to you as author of the message: what is your
understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My
understanding is that a troll is one who is controlling
for creating disturbances to perceptions others control at
moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the
higher-level reference being to perceive within the
message stream a positive feedback loop. Is that your
understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived
much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc
Abrams. I suspect you have a different meaning in mind
when you use the word.

      A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist

have a reference for perceiving a positive feedback loop?Â
:-)Â And also insufficiently general. (Abstraction !=
generalization.) Trolling has more variety on perhaps a
continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms
of disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion
doesn’t capture thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced
opinion, irrelevant to the topic of the thread.Â

      I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject

“a definition”, no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll .
n.

Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten. Your definitions are

much better.

Martin

---

Alex Gomez-Marin, PhD

Research Group Leader

Instituto de Neurociencias

behavior-of-organisms.org

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_12:53:57 ET]

And that is in the spectrum of what I am inveighing against.

···

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate perceptual control theory.

Â

​My experience engaging with CSGnet is that the main goal is to preach — and definitely not to test…​

---

Alex Gomez-Marin, PhD

Research Group Leader

Instituto de Neurociencias

behavior-of-organisms.org

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

          Martin Taylor

2018.04.28.12.31 –

          MMT> One question I

address to you as author of the message: what is your
understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My
understanding is that a troll is one who is controlling
for creating disturbances to perceptions others control at
moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the
higher-level reference being to perceive within the
message stream a positive feedback loop. Is that your
understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived
much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc
Abrams. I suspect you have a different meaning in mind
when you use the word.

      A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist

have a reference for perceiving a positive feedback loop?Â
:-)Â And also insufficiently general. (Abstraction !=
generalization.) Trolling has more variety on perhaps a
continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms
of disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion
doesn’t capture thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced
opinion, irrelevant to the topic of the thread.Â

      I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject

“a definition”, no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll .
n.

Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten. Your definitions are

much better.

Martin

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

[philip 4/29/2018 15:23]

One thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its models
are more effective than inverse kinematic models for motor output. Can
we see a proof this?

Another thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its
descriptions are more clear than those of other theories. I saw the
following sentence above:
"Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a
positive feedback loop?"
I have made this point before, but I wish to make it again. In what
way is saying, "I have a reference for perceiving x" more clear than
saying, "I am looking for x"?

···

On 4/29/18, Bruce Nevin <bnhpct@gmail.com> wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_12:53:57 ET]

And that is in the spectrum of what I am inveighing against.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin <agomezmarin@gmail.com> > wrote:

> We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate
perceptual control theory.

​My experience engaging with CSGnet is that the main goal is to *preach*
� and definitely not to test...​

__________________________
Alex Gomez-Marin, PhD
Research Group Leader
Instituto de Neurociencias
behavior-of-organisms.org <http://www.behavior-of-organisms.org>

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net> >> wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

Martin Taylor 2018.04.28.12.31 --
> One question I address to you as author of the message: what is
your
understanding of "a troll" and "to troll". My understanding is that a
troll
is one who is controlling for creating disturbances to perceptions
others
control at moderate to high gain with little tolerance -- the
higher-level
reference being to perceive within the message stream a positive
feedback
loop. Is that your understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived
much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc Abrams. I
suspect
you have a different meaning in mind when you use the word.

A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference
for perceiving a positive feedback loop? And also insufficiently
general. (Abstraction != generalization.) Trolling has more variety on
perhaps a continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms
of
disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion doesn't
capture
thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced opinion, irrelevant to
the
topic of the thread.

I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject "a
definition", no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll. n.

Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten. Your definitions are much
better.

Martin

[Ed_Heidicker]

I am a newcomer as it were to this group. In day to day practice (along with my work in General Semantics) I have found that changing the question being asked can reduce conflict. Whether that activity is called 'looking for" or “I have a reference for” is not the process that I think I initiate. Prior to absorbing myself in PCT I might get irritated at my wife when she gets irritated with me - what I can now recognize as a positive feedback loop. Adding fuel to the ‘fire’ will only escalate the situation. Now I am more prone to asking, “What is it that she is trying to bring under control?” or "What is her perception of WIGO (what is going on) and what is disturbing that reference point? I really don’t care how I say that but the dynamics or the structure of the interaction lets me get a better picture of what is going on and enables me to act in a more constructive manner. If I consider that something that is happening is different from how she wants it to be then I can depersonalize the situation so that I don’t become an ongoing disturbance which is what I used to think I was before I had a better understanding (feel for, familiarity with, awareness of, etc.) PCT!

···

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[philip 4/29/2018 15:23]

One thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its models

are more effective than inverse kinematic models for motor output. Can

we see a proof this?

Another thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its

descriptions are more clear than those of other theories. I saw the

following sentence above:

"Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a

positive feedback loop?"

I have made this point before, but I wish to make it again. In what

way is saying, “I have a reference for perceiving x” more clear than

saying, “I am looking for x”?

On 4/29/18, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_12:53:57 ET]

And that is in the spectrum of what I am inveighing against.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com

wrote:

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate

perceptual control theory.

​My experience engaging with CSGnet is that the main goal is to preach

— and definitely not to test…​<

---

Alex Gomez-Marin, PhD

Research Group Leader

Instituto de Neurociencias

behavior-of-organisms.org <http://www.behavior-of-organisms.org>

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net

wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

Martin Taylor 2018.04.28.12.31 –

MMT> One question I address to you as author of the message: what is

your

understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My understanding is that a

troll

is one who is controlling for creating disturbances to perceptions

others

control at moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the

higher-level

reference being to perceive within the message stream a positive

feedback

loop. Is that your understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived

much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc Abrams. I

suspect

you have a different meaning in mind when you use the word.

A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference

for perceiving a positive feedback loop? :-) And also insufficiently

general. (Abstraction != generalization.) Trolling has more variety on

perhaps a continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms

of

disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion doesn’t

capture

thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced opinion, irrelevant to

the

topic of the thread.

I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject "a

definition", no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll. n.

Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten. Your definitions are much

better.

Martin

–

Ed Heidicker
828 274-5929

[bnhpct]

philip 4/29/2018 15:23Â –

Another thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its
descriptions are more clear than those of other theories. I saw the
following sentence above:
“Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a
positive feedback loop?”
I have made this point before, but I wish to make it again. In what
way is saying, “I have a reference for perceiving x” more clear than
saying, “I am looking for x”?

It’s not a matter of “in what way”, but rather “in what context”. The technical terminology of negative-feedback control is necessary in order to speak or write clearly about negative-feedback control, but it is certainly not a more clear way to talk in any other context. We nonetheless tend to extend the usage to less technical contexts in conversations among ourselves. It’s kind of what’s meant by the English idiom “talking shop” (or “shoptalk”). It can even lend itself to an in-group kind of humor. It happens with mathematicians, chemists, really any technical field. For example, among chemists: “How do sulphur and oxygen communicate? A sulfone.”

My comment to Martin (which you quoted) hinges on that. His way of putting would require that Internet trolls should be control theorists. Hence, the smiley in my answer. A control theorist has indeed developed the perceptual input functions that are required in order to perceive a positive-feedback loop as such, and you can’t have a reference value for something that you can’t perceive. Aside from the in-group humor of it, my main point was that the Internet cultural term ‘troll’ has broader meaning than that.

Speaking of context, could you please quote an instance where someone has claimed that PCT descriptions are more clear than those of other theories? Please include the context in which it was said.

A great deal has been written demonstrating the deficiencies of inverse kinematics (despite its great computational cost) and comparing those techniques unfavorably with PCT (with its comparatively negligible computational cost). A search through the CSGnet archive should turn up some good leads if you’re seriously interested and this isn’t just an “I don’t believe you guys and I bet you can’t anyway” kind of question. Bruce Abbott had a series of excellent posts on “springs and muscles” in early 2015, for example. You could look at  Bill Powers’ 1999 paper, “A model of kinesthetically and visually controlled arm movement”, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies (1999) 50, 463-479. Richard Kennaway may even have some kind of mathematical proof.

···

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[philip 4/29/2018 15:23]

One thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its models

are more effective than inverse kinematic models for motor output. Can

we see a proof this?

Another thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its

descriptions are more clear than those of other theories. I saw the

following sentence above:

"Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a

positive feedback loop?"

I have made this point before, but I wish to make it again. In what

way is saying, “I have a reference for perceiving x” more clear than

saying, “I am looking for x”?

On 4/29/18, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_12:53:57 ET]

And that is in the spectrum of what I am inveighing against.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com

wrote:

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate

perceptual control theory.

​My experience engaging with CSGnet is that the main goal is to preach

— and definitely not to test…​

---

Alex Gomez-Marin, PhD

Research Group Leader

Instituto de Neurociencias

behavior-of-organisms.org <http://www.behavior-of-organisms.org>

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net

wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

Martin Taylor 2018.04.28.12.31 –

MMT> One question I address to you as author of the message: what is

your

understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My understanding is that a

troll

is one who is controlling for creating disturbances to perceptions

others

control at moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the

higher-level

reference being to perceive within the message stream a positive

feedback

loop. Is that your understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived

much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc Abrams. I

suspect

you have a different meaning in mind when you use the word.

A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference

for perceiving a positive feedback loop? :-) And also insufficiently

general. (Abstraction != generalization.) Trolling has more variety on

perhaps a continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms

of

disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion doesn’t

capture

thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced opinion, irrelevant to

the

topic of the thread.

I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject "a

definition", no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll. n.

Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten. Your definitions are much

better.

Martin

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-04-30_05:38:36 UTC]

It is of course reasonable to use a language which other discussants understand. So if someone wants to cause an escalating conflict then I think it is correct to say that she has a
reference for perceiving a positive feedback loop if you say it to someone who understands that language – even thouggh that person about who you are talking about would not understand it. An escalating conflict or a growing row is a case of positive feedback
loop, isn’t it?

Positive feedback loop is a general concept with which you can handle many special cases which fit to its meaning, thus it is a handy tool often.

Again “have a reference for perceiving x� is more general than “look for x� because if you have already got or reached x and want to maintain it then you are not looking for it anymore
but you still have a reference for perceiving it.

Eetu

···

philip 4/29/2018 15:23 –

Another thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its

descriptions are more clear than those of other theories. I saw the

following sentence above:

"Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a

positive feedback loop?"

I have made this point before, but I wish to make it again. In what

way is saying, “I have a reference for perceiving x” more clear than

saying, “I am looking for x”?

It’s not a matter of “in what way”, but rather “in what context”. The technical terminology of negative-feedback control is necessary in order to speak or write clearly about negative-feedback control, but it is certainly not a more clear
way to talk in any other context. We nonetheless tend to extend the usage to less technical contexts in conversations among ourselves. It’s kind of what’s meant by the English idiom “talking shop” (or “shoptalk”). It can even lend itself to an in-group kind
of humor. It happens with mathematicians, chemists, really any technical field. For example, among chemists: “How do sulphur and oxygen communicate? A sulfone.”

My comment to Martin (which you quoted) hinges on that. His way of putting would require that Internet trolls should be control theorists. Hence, the smiley in my answer. A control theorist has indeed developed the perceptual input
functions that are required in order to perceive a positive-feedback loop as such, and you can’t have a reference value for something that you can’t perceive. Aside from the in-group humor of it, my main point was that the Internet cultural term ‘troll’ has
broader meaning than that.

Speaking of context, could you please quote an instance where someone has claimed that PCT descriptions are more clear than those of other theories? Please include the context in which it was said.

A great deal has been written demonstrating the deficiencies of inverse kinematics (despite its great computational cost) and comparing those techniques unfavorably with PCT (with its comparatively negligible computational cost). A search
through the CSGnet archive should turn up some good leads if you’re seriously interested and this isn’t just an “I don’t believe you guys and I bet you can’t anyway” kind of question. Bruce Abbott had a series of excellent posts on “springs and muscles” in
early 2015, for example. You could look at Bill Powers’ 1999 paper, “A model of kinesthetically and visually controlled arm movement”,
Int. J. Human-Computer Studies (1999) 50, 463-479. Richard Kennaway may even have some kind of mathematical proof.

/Bruce

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[philip 4/29/2018 15:23]

One thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its models
are more effective than inverse kinematic models for motor output. Can
we see a proof this?

Another thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its
descriptions are more clear than those of other theories. I saw the
following sentence above:
“Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a
positive feedback loop?”
I have made this point before, but I wish to make it again. In what
way is saying, “I have a reference for perceiving x” more clear than
saying, “I am looking for x”?

On 4/29/18, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_12:53:57 ET]

And that is in the spectrum of what I am inveighing against.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com
wrote:

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate
perceptual control theory.

​My experience engaging with CSGnet is that the main goal is to preach
— and definittely not to test…​

---

Alex Gomez-Marin, PhD
Research Group Leader
Instituto de Neurociencias
behavior-of-organisms.org <http://www.behavior-of-organisms.org>

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

Martin Taylor 2018.04.28.12.31 –
MMT> One question I address to you as author of the message: what is
your
understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My understanding is that a
troll
is one who is controlling for creating disturbances to perceptions
others
control at moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the
higher-level
reference being to perceive within the message stream a positive
feedback
loop. Is that your understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived
much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc Abrams. I
suspect
you have a different meaning in mind when you use the word.

A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference
for perceiving a positive feedback loop? And also insufficiently
general. (Abstraction != generalization.) Trolling has more variety on
perhaps a continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms
of
disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion doesn’t
capture
thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced opinion, irrelevant to
the
topic of the thread.

I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject “a
definition”, no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll. n.

Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten. Your definitions are much
better.

Martin

[bnhpct]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-30_11:20:22 ET]

Nicely put, Eetu.

Every science has its proper sublanguage, a specialized subset of the ‘language as a whole’ (an ill-defined concept). The sublanguage of PCT is more clear and more precise than common, everyday usage for talking about the behavior of living things because the terms and relations defined for that sublanguage identify how living things are organized and how they function as control systems employing their behavior as means of sustaining their existence and integrity and as means of achieving their other purposes subordinate to those existentially paramount results.

Open-loop ideas about behavior implicitly deny that living things are organized as control systems, or they limit negative-feedback control to autonomic and metabolic-biochemical so-called ‘homeostasis’, though these systems are well known to be far more dynamic than that term admits.
It is good to make that denial explicit. At least then the denier must acknowledge that the denied explanation, control theory, exists.Â

Open-loop attempts to explain behavior
 include the many varieties of S-R behaviorism (with the caveat that PCT has yet to properly assimilate and reorganize what they have suggested about learning, memory, and ways of influencing how an organism sets reference values for its perceptions).Â
Open-loop attempts to explain behavior also include elaborations of computationalism, the cognitive science notion that the brain performs information-processing computations (including e.g. inverse kinematics), constructs cognitive maps of the environment, and issues commands to muscles.Â

These modes of explanation are universally accepted, taught, and prerequisite for publication in journals that publish writings that are ‘relevant to the field’. Yet at the same time there has been for many years a growing apprehension, recurrent here and there in the literature of the ‘soft’ sciences, that these modes of explanation are not working. One would think there would be motivation to look for alternatives. But that’s easier said than done. Phil Runkel’s experience is an example.

These systems of ideas are complex and require considerable investment of time and intellectual resources to learn. Achievement in them is socially and institutionally prerequisite to academic achievement, reputation, and advancement in a related career whether in academia or in industry. Quite a few existentially important perceptions are under control here. Of course disturbances to these perceptions are resisted. This is why we see ‘prove it’ demands for answers to questions that the asker could learn in a week or two or even a day of seriously investigating PCT.

“The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” You may sniff derisively at that quotation because it was written by a novelist (F. Scott Fitzgerald). It has been elaborated in studies of cognitive dissonance, and in particular in research initiated by Milton Rokeach (The Open and Closed Mind. Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. Milton Rokeach. Basic Books, New York, 1960). What is required, if we have this kind of prior investment, is the capacity to entertain two mutually incompatible explanation-systems at once, and evaluate them in terms of phenomena rather than in terms of each other. Without this, we easily get stuck in a ‘local minimum’ of quasi-explanation.

This is why the phenomenon of control must come first, before the theory. Because once you recognize the phenomenon of control, and are able to recognize it within yourself and around you in other people and in other living things, in stark contrast to the ‘behavior’ of inanimate things, then your understanding of those institutionally entrenched open-loop explanations undergoes fundamental change. Because those explanations have no place for the empirical in-your-face unavoidable phenomenon of control, which you can no longer ignore.

Some have turned away in anger, which as we know commonly rides on the back of fear. Others have created a straw-man caricature of the theory so they could then dismiss or fit it into their preconceptions. If we don’t cave in and deny that the phenomenon of control exists, then our questions come to have a deeper character, and we seek answers to them more and more on our own initiative.

···

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-04-30_05:38:36 UTC]

Â

It is of course reasonable to use a language which other discussants understand. So if someone wants to cause an escalating conflict then I think it is correct to say that she has a
reference for perceiving a positive feedback loop if you say it to someone who understands that language – even though that person about who you are talking about would not understand it. An escalating conflict or a growing row is a case of positive feedback
loop, isn’t it?

Â

Positive feedback loop is a general concept with which you can handle many special cases which fit to its meaning, thus it is a handy tool often.

Â

Again “have a reference for perceiving x� is more general than “look for x� because if you have already got or reached x and want to maintain it then you are not looking for it anymore
but you still have a reference for perceiving it.

Â

Eetu

Â

From: Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:40 AM
To: CSG csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: responsibility to our science

Â

Â

Â

philip 4/29/2018 15:23Â –

Â

Another thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its

descriptions are more clear than those of other theories. I saw the

following sentence above:

"Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a

positive feedback loop?"

I have made this point before, but I wish to make it again. In what

way is saying, “I have a reference for perceiving x” more clear than

saying, “I am looking for x”?

It’s not a matter of “in what way”, but rather “in what context”. The technical terminology of negative-feedback control is necessary in order to speak or write clearly about negative-feedback control, but it is certainly not a more clear
way to talk in any other context. We nonetheless tend to extend the usage to less technical contexts in conversations among ourselves. It’s kind of what’s meant by the English idiom “talking shop” (or “shoptalk”). It can even lend itself to an in-group kind
of humor. It happens with mathematicians, chemists, really any technical field. For example, among chemists: “How do sulphur and oxygen communicate? A sulfone.”

Â

My comment to Martin (which you quoted) hinges on that. His way of putting would require that Internet trolls should be control theorists. Hence, the smiley in my answer. A control theorist has indeed developed the perceptual input
functions that are required in order to perceive a positive-feedback loop as such, and you can’t have a reference value for something that you can’t perceive. Aside from the in-group humor of it, my main point was that the Internet cultural term ‘troll’ has
broader meaning than that.

Â

Speaking of context, could you please quote an instance where someone has claimed that PCT descriptions are more clear than those of other theories? Please include the context in which it was said.

Â

A great deal has been written demonstrating the deficiencies of inverse kinematics (despite its great computational cost) and comparing those techniques unfavorably with PCT (with its comparatively negligible computational cost). A search
through the CSGnet archive should turn up some good leads if you’re seriously interested and this isn’t just an “I don’t believe you guys and I bet you can’t anyway” kind of question. Bruce Abbott had a series of excellent posts on “springs and muscles” in
early 2015, for example. You could look at  Bill Powers’ 1999 paper, “A model of kinesthetically and visually controlled arm movement”,
Int. J. Human-Computer Studies (1999) 50, 463-479. Richard Kennaway may even have some kind of mathematical proof.

Â

/Bruce

Â

Â

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[philip 4/29/2018 15:23]

One thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its models
are more effective than inverse kinematic models for motor output. Can
we see a proof this?

Another thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the fact that its
descriptions are more clear than those of other theories. I saw the
following sentence above:
“Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference for perceiving a
positive feedback loop?”
I have made this point before, but I wish to make it again. In what
way is saying, “I have a reference for perceiving x” more clear than
saying, “I am looking for x”?

On 4/29/18, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_12:53:57 ET]

And that is in the spectrum of what I am inveighing against.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com
wrote:

We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate
perceptual control theory.

​My experience engaging with CSGnet is that the main goal is to preach
— and definitely not to test…​

---

Alex Gomez-Marin, PhD
Research Group Leader
Instituto de Neurociencias
behavior-of-organisms.org <http://www.behavior-of-organisms.org>

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

Martin Taylor 2018.04.28.12.31 –
MMT> One question I address to you as author of the message: what is
your
understanding of “a troll” and “to troll”. My understanding is that a
troll
is one who is controlling for creating disturbances to perceptions
others
control at moderate to high gain with little tolerance – the
higher-level
reference being to perceive within the message stream a positive
feedback
loop. Is that your understanding, because if it is, I have not perceived
much, if any, of it on CSGnet, even in the days of Marc Abrams. I
suspect
you have a different meaning in mind when you use the word.

A bit too abstract. Would anyone but a control theorist have a reference
for perceiving a positive feedback loop? :-) And also insufficiently
general. (Abstraction != generalization.) Trolling has more variety on
perhaps a continuum with flaming intermediate and more legitimate forms
of
disputation at the other end. For example, your suggestion doesn’t
capture
thread-jacking to an obsessively re-introduced opinion, irrelevant to
the
topic of the thread.

I posted a broadly-accepted definition on March 11 (subject “a
definition”, no CSG datestamp, my lapse):

Troll. n.

Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten. Your definitions are much
better.

Martin

Â

[_Boris_Hartman]

Well nice trial…

<

···

From: Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 6:18 PM
To: IAPCT csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: responsibility to our science

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-28_12:04:04 ET]

BN : We are here to investigate, test, demonstrate, and promulgate perceptual control theory.

HB : Before doing all these thought operations you have to understand PCT. But I agree that CSGnet forum is for promulgating PCT and preserve memory on Bill and Mary Powers.

BN : We cannot attain these aims without a practical grasp of the phenomenon of control. The last of these aims–promulgation–requires other people, many others, to achieve a practical grasp of the phenomenon of control. Without the existential perception of control as a phenomenon in the environment, the theory is just another castle of empty words.

HB : You wrote it down that »promulgation« of PCT can be efective through examples (Albert Schweizer). If you’ll check through CSGnet I’m probably the one who contributed most of PCT examples though conversations with Bill, Rick, Barb, Martin, Fred, Bruce A… And of course lately with Alison.Â

BN : A mode or quality of communication has become accepted among us which is inimical to these purposes.

HB : Well… mode of quality of communication depends on all of us. I don’t understand about which mode you are talking about when you are saying »among us« ? Is that a specific mode among your friends ? Or you have »mode of communication« in which you respect every member the same. If you would appologize for your starting attitude to me (which had nothing to do with respect) , I would sure answer with »respectfull mode« of conversation to you.

BN : It is as though a troll lurks within each of us, quick to take offense and to offend. My friends, we are too few, and too isolated in the sea of willful ignorance that surrounds us, to afford this.

HB : This sounds like call for cooperation ?

BN : If we really care to control those stated purposes in this email forum, then we must apply the principles of perceptual control theory to our own conduct.

HB : And which are the principles of perceptual control theory ? Are these principles listed below right ? Do you agree with them ?

PCT Definitions of control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1. CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

1. OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system

Bill P (LCS III):…the ooutput function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

1. FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

1. ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

1. ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

PCT diagram in LCS III

BN : What can this mean? When we perceive the phenomenon of control what we perceive is resistance to disturbances.

HB : I think you’ll have to check your understanding of how organisms function ?

BN : To perceive the phenomenon of control, we control two perceptions: perception of disturbances and perception of that which is disturbed.

HB : I keep telling you, that you don’t perceive only with »outer« receptors. For understanding how organims function you have to understand how internal structure function. The control is primary going on inside organisms. That is definition of control.

Bill P :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

HB : Thinking only that perception is outside phenomenon is old psychology. Even modern psychologist see the importance of understanding how organisms function.

BN : The Test ensures that these perceptions originate in the environment rather than in imagination.

HB : Which »test« ??? For »outer perception« ? Come on Bruce. Let behaviorism stay and rest in past. It’s PCT time.

BN : When conflict arises (as it inevitably does), an alert control theorist can dial the intensity of disturbance back so as to employ the ongoing conflict gently as a Test for controlled variables.

HB : Even Rick confirmed limitaions of TCV. It’s better to use also other methods of understanding what other people control (think).Â

RM (2013) : But the intentional behavior that occurs in real life often involves the control of variables that are impossible to represent as simple function of physical variables, e.g., the honesty of a communication or the intimacy of a realtionship. A quantitative approcah to the TCV will not work when trying to study such abstract variables….

HB : So why should you be doing just »test for controlled variables« ? You have many other methods for understanding what is going on in other person. Anyway any »test« is not certain, because if you don’t understand how orgsnisms function you’ll never know whether person behaves so to express what is going on inside her or is just facking what is really going on inside. People can lie, imagine and can trick you.

BN : By contrast, when conflict arises the troll within pushes harder, or seeks alternative means to win perceived advantage. This troll metaphor obviously alludes to control of purposes (‘personality needs’) other than those listed above.

HB : How can you know for sure that other person is revealing to you his real purposes ?

BN : In a troll mood we are quick to point out where someone has not ‘got it right’ or to suggest that they do not even ‘get it’ at all. It seems to me, after 27 years of participant observation, that by these means we control a demonstration to others that we ourselves are the ones who have ‘got it’.

HB : Well show me what you »got« from PCT ? BNCT ?

BN : The trolling mode of communication puts perceptual control theory at risk of drowning, to be rediscovered by some future generation. Given the global situation, it may not be hyperbole to suggest that we risk leaving PCT to be rediscovered by some future species.

HB : Well first you have to judge for yourself and your contribution to PCT. Until you’ll promote RCT or BNCT, PCT will slowly dissapear. And if you promote »behavioral« tools for »Researchgate project« you are on good way that PCT will not be researched but behaviorism.

BN : Amid and behind all our efforts to reorganize our respective specializations of science, organize and carry out research, and publish–rightly where our foremost attention and effort lies–our challenge is to master how to resolve conflict and make it fruitful.

HB : Well difficult question. If you think on Rick publishing, than I can say only that he made more damage to PCT than anyone else. I think that Powers ladies or IAPCT should form some group of real PCT’ers, who should examine whatever is to be published about PCT and allow it or not if it’s not in accordance to Billls’ writings.

BN : If we who are best informed in PCT cannot do this among ourselves, what claim do we have on the attention of others about the efficacy and importance of PCT?

HB : Yes I’m wondering why is there so many »control theories« on CSGnet. Maybe because many members have their own image of what PCT is. I think that only what is in accordance to Bills’ PCT is considered as right PCT. So every text should be supported by Bills’ writings, like I’m doing all the time for example.

BN : Albert Schweizer said there are three ways to teach a child. The first is by example. The second is by example. And the third is by example. If we cannot be a living demonstration of what it means really to grasp the phenomenon of control, how credible are our words?

HB : Well I can hardly recall any of your PCT examples, but you can get at least 10 my PCT examples on CSGnet. Search through archives. The last example was in cooperation with Alison. Why didn’t you take part ?

BN : Our responsibility is great. Come, friends, let us be about it.

HB : Well it would be nice if you would be the first to start thinking in PCT manner.

Boris

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2018.04.30.13.35]

The implication of what your write is that all these are untrue

within a PCT framework. I don’t think they are, when you talk about
conscious functioning, on which PCT hardly touches. What you say is
untrue of the brain functioning as represented by the non-conscious
control hierarchy, but not necessarily of the conscious processing
done in and by the brain. For example, solving a differential
equation posed as a tutorial problem by a teacher requires what I
would call “information processing computations”. Trying to work out
a best route to avoid construction sites that infest a city road
network (as currently in my part of Toronto) seems to require
constructing a cognitive map of the environment and
information-processing computations. Issuing commands to muscles is
indefinite, but sounds like what a sports or music professional
tries to get the student to do consciously so that the system can
build a reorganized hierarchy that performs well in controlling the
complex perceptions the professional has tried to get the student to
develop.
For the operations of the reorganized control hierarchy, these
comments don’t apply, but maybe it would be reasonable to consider
conscious operations of the brain in light of some of the ideas and
observations of other viewpoints. I think, but with no strong
confidence, that there may be gold nuggets in the bed of that stream
of thought.
I believe I used information processing computations and constructed
a cognitive map of the social intellectual environment in composing
this message. That belief may, of course, be about a perception
based on an illusion.
Martin

···

A minor niggle, perhaps. Perhaps it’s
more than that?

[Bruce Nevin 2018-04-30_11:20:22 ET]

Nicely put, Eetu.

… O pen-loop
attempts to explain behavior also include elabor ations
of computationalism, the cognitive science notion that the brain
performs information-processing computations (including e.g.
inverse kinematics), constructs cognitive maps of the
environment, and issues commands to muscles.Â

      On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Eetu

Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi
wrote:

                [Eetu Pikkarainen

2018-04-30_05:38:36 UTC]

Â

                It is of course

reasonable to use a language which other discussants
understand. So if someone wants to cause an
escalating conflict then I think it is correct to
say that she has a reference for perceiving a
positive feedback loop if you say it to someone who
understands that language – even though that peerson
about who you are talking about would not understand
it. An escalating conflict or a growing row is a
case of positive feedback loop, isn’t it?

Â

                Positive

feedback loop is a general concept with which you
can handle many special cases which fit to its
meaning, thus it is a handy tool often.

Â

                Again “have a

reference for perceiving x� is more general than
“look for x� because if you have already got or
reached x and want to maintain it then you are not
looking for it anymore but you still have a
reference for perceiving it.

Â

Eetu

Â

From: Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:40 AM
To: CSG csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: responsibility to our science

Â

Â

Â

                        philip

4/29/2018 15:23Â –

Â

                        Another

thing that PCT promotes itself upon is the
fact that its

                                                      descriptions

are more clear than those of other
theories. I saw the

                                                      following

sentence above:

                                                    "Would

anyone but a control theorist have a
reference for perceiving a

                                                      positive

feedback loop?"

                                                  I

have made this point before, but I wish to
make it again. In what

                                                      way is

saying, “I have a reference for perceiving
x” more clear than

                                                      saying, "I am

looking for x"?

                      It's not a matter of "in

what way", but rather “in what context”. The
technical terminology of negative-feedback
control is necessary in order to speak or
write clearly about negative-feedback control,
but it is certainly not a more clear way to
talk in any other context. We nonetheless tend
to extend the usage to less technical contexts
in conversations among ourselves. It’s kind of
what’s meant by the English idiom “talking
shop” (or “shoptalk”). It can even lend itself
to an in-group kind of humor. It happens with
mathematicians, chemists, really any technical
field. For example, among chemists: “How do
sulphur and oxygen communicate? A sulfone.”

Â

                      My comment to Martin (which

you quoted) hinges on that. His way of putting
would require that Internet trolls should be
control theorists. Hence, the smiley in my
answer. A control theorist has indeed
developed the perceptual input functions that
are required in order to perceive a
positive-feedback loop as such, and you can’t
have a reference value for something that you
can’t perceive. Aside from the in-group humor
of it, my main point was that the Internet
cultural term ‘troll’ has broader meaning than
that.

Â

                      Speaking of context, could

you please quote an instance where someone has
claimed that PCT descriptions are more clear
than those of other theories? Please include
the context in which it was said.

Â

                      A great deal has been

written demonstrating the deficiencies of
inverse kinematics (despite its great
computational cost) and comparing those
techniques unfavorably with PCT (with its
comparatively negligible computational cost).
A search through the CSGnet archive should
turn up some good leads if you’re seriously
interested and this isn’t just an “I don’t
believe you guys and I bet you can’t anyway”
kind of question. Bruce Abbott had a series of
excellent posts on “springs and muscles” in
early 2015, for example. You could look
at  Bill Powers’
1999 paper, “A model of kinesthetically and
visually controlled arm movement”,
Int. J. Human-Computer Studies (1999)
50, 463-479. Richard Kennaway may even have
some kind of mathematical proof.

Â

/Bruce

Â

Â

                        On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at

6:30 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <pyeranos@ucla.edu >
wrote:

                          [philip 4/29/2018

15:23]

                          One thing that PCT promotes itself upon is

the fact that its models
are more effective than inverse kinematic
models for motor output. Can
we see a proof this?

                          Another thing that PCT promotes itself

upon is the fact that its
descriptions are more clear than those of
other theories. I saw the
following sentence above:
“Would anyone but a control theorist have
a reference for perceiving a
positive feedback loop?”
I have made this point before, but I wish
to make it again. In what
way is saying, “I have a reference for
perceiving x” more clear than
saying, “I am looking for x”?

                          On 4/29/18, Bruce Nevin <bnhpct@gmail.com                              >

wrote:
> [Bruce Nevin 2018-04-29_12:53:57 ET]
>
> And that is in the spectrum of what I
am inveighing against.
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM,
Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> > We are here to investigate,
test, demonstrate, and promulgate
>> perceptual control theory.
>>
>> ​My experience engaging with
CSGnet is that the main goal is to
preach
>> — and definitely not to testt…​
>>
>>
>> __________________________
>> Alex Gomez-Marin, PhD
>> Research Group Leader
>> Instituto de Neurociencias
>> behavior-of-organisms.org
<http://www.behavior-of-organisms.org>

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:51
PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor
2018.04.29.09.50]

[Bruce Nevin
2018-04-29_08:38:08 ET]

Martin Taylor
2018.04.28.12.31 –
MMT> One question I
address to you as author of the
message: what is
your
understanding of “a
troll” and “to troll”. My
understanding is that a
troll
is one who is controlling
for creating disturbances to
perceptions
others
control at moderate to
high gain with little tolerance – the
higher-level
reference being to
perceive within the message stream a
positive
feedback
loop. Is that your
understanding, because if it is, I
have not perceived
much, if any, of it on
CSGnet, even in the days of Marc
Abrams. I
suspect
you have a different
meaning in mind when you use the word.

A bit too abstract. Would
anyone but a control theorist have a
reference
for perceiving a positive
feedback loop? :-) And also
insufficiently
general. (Abstraction !=
generalization.) Trolling has more
variety on
perhaps a continuum with
flaming intermediate and more
legitimate forms
of
disputation at the other
end. For example, your suggestion
doesn’t
capture
thread-jacking to an
obsessively re-introduced opinion,
irrelevant to
the
topic of the thread.

I posted a
broadly-accepted definition on March
11 (subject “a
definition”, no CSG
datestamp, my lapse):

Troll. n.

Thanks for that. I had
completely forgotten. Your definitions
are much
better.

Martin

Â