Review of “Reconstructing Yo ur World View�? by Bart Madden

[_Boris_Hartman]

RM:

A problem, in PCT, is simply an inability to control a perception you want to control.

HB :

I’m wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT. Can you give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM :

There are basically two kinds of problems from a PCT perspective: lack of control due to lack of skill (such as inability to solve a math problem due to lack of knowledge of the rules of algebra) and lack of control due to conflict (such as lack of control of eating due to a conflict between wanting nourishment and wanting to be thin). Tim Carey and I discuss the difference between these two types of problems and how to solve them in our recent paper Understanding the Change Process Involved in Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-Based Approach to Understanding How Psychotherapy Works (2014).

HB :

I wonder again what could it mean »lack of control« in PCT ? And what is »lack of skill« in PCT ? It seems to me that you are using psycholological or I don’t know which terms for »covering« PCT description. So  I don’t see here any PCT description of PCT problems. Maybe again my language problem J.

RM : The solution to both of these types of problems involves what could be called “reconstructing your worldview�; but the reconstructing is quite different in each case.

HB :

Do I understand right that solutions in PCT have more possible basic principles , mechanisms ? And the basic term is »reconstructing« in two possible meanings ?

RM :

If the problem results from lack of skill then the solution is education; teaching the person the perceptions to control to achieve the desired result.

HB :

Again I’m wondering what this could mean ? Psychological or educational theory of solving problems or PCT explanation ? And do I understand right that you are »defining« education as »teaching the persons the perceptions to control«. Is this some new »PCT-education« theory ? What is teaching for you anyway ?

RM :

If it’s a conflict-based problem then the solution can only be achieved through reorganization; there is no way to teach the person the perceptions to control that will achieve the desired result.

HB :

Well if I understand right there are basically two mechanisms for solving problems in human organism ? One is »skill-oriented education« like »teaching students to control perceptions« and the other is reorganization, which doesn’t allow »any kind of teaching the person the perception to control« ? What a mess if I understood it right…

RM :

If the â€?complex business problemsâ€? addressed in the book are lack of skill problems then they can be readily solved by simply teaching the correct way to achieve the desired results. If, however, these problems are conflict-based – as they seem to be since they are described as involving resistance to change of “worldviewâ€? – then the only solution is random reorganization, perhaps assisted by MOL; an outsider cannot tell the person with the problem what the correct solution to their problem is.

HB:

Do you suggest that there are two ways of solving problems in PCT :

1.   teaching the correct way to achieve the desired results.
   

2.   solving conflict with random reorganization, perhaps assisted with MOL
   

Some RCT construct ?

RM :

What is being described is not necessarily cooperation. If the simultaneous control of the same perception is simply coincidental then there was no cooperation involved; it’s just two systems that happen to be controlling the same variable at the same time. Either system could have controlled the variable on its own; there was no need for the other system to be controlling as well. The only benefit of simultaneous control of the variable is that each system needs to produce less output to produce the desired result than it would have if it were on its own.

HB :

So here we have »control of the same variable« in outer environment, although there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment in Bill’s diagram ?

RM :

This would be an example of cooperation if the two systems had agreed in advance to control the same perception so that each would have to expend less effort at controlling it individually. Cooperation involves two or more control systems achieving a result that could not be achieved by either system acting on its own.

HB :

But interesting, here we have »control of the same perception« ? Are there also two ways of perceiving »cooperation« in PCT ?

RM : Real cooperation requires that each system give up some control (give up some “personal freedom�) in order to achieve control of some variable that the systems involved could not achieve individually (so that they are all “freer�). Cooperation does not “just happen� when people adopt (coincidentally) similar goals (although adopting similar goals can be part of what is agreed to as part of being cooperative).

HB :

What could this »PCT« constructs mean ? »Give up some control«, »give up some personal freedom«, »adopt similar goals«…… Are you explaining your own wn psychological view on the book or PCT ? You are psychologist aren’t you ? Well that could explain many explanation problems you used….

I left out critics based on your worldview of economy. Afterall it’s your problem what you think. It seems to me Rick, that you are frequently using two ways (approaches) to solving problems One is Mr Hyde (behaviorism) and other is Dr. Jekyll (PCT). So it maybe seems to you that the »world problems« are divided into two possible soilutions. That’s not how organisms work. They have one basic mechanism for solving problems. And Bill described it very good. My proposal is to get rid of Mr.Hyde.

Best,

Boris

P.S.

AP : (Too bad - we were hoping for some good PCT publicity.)

HB : I agree J

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:19 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.16.1220)]

“Reconstructing Your World View� introduces Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) as one of four “core beliefs� that can help people solve their business problems. While there is a brief but adequate description of PCT in Chapter 5 it was never clear to me how PCT was relevant to all the proposed solutions to the business problems described in the book. Indeed, many of these proposals seemed to have little to do with an understanding of humans in terms of PCT. One example of this is the basic premise of the book: that you can solve your problems by “reconstructing your worldview�. This is presented as a matter of disabusing oneself of “faulty assumptions� so that one can perceive things correctly.

One example given in the book of the benefits of disabusing oneself of “faulty assumptionsâ€? is Walmart’s success due to Sam Walton’s ability to see that the perception “big stores in small townsâ€? was correct while Kmart’s failure resulted from its inability to get past the idea that “big stores in big townsâ€? is correct. But there is nothing in PCT that says that one way of perceiving the world is more correct than another. The “correctnessâ€? of a perception makes sense only in terms of whether controlling it achieves the controller’s higher order goals – all of them. So controlling for “big stores in small townsâ€? may have been “correctâ€? for Walton inasmuch as it achieved all of his higher level goals but controlling that perception may not have been correct for Kmart because it would not have achieved all of Kmart’s higher level goals.

How you solve problems (from a PCT perspective) depends on the type of problem you have. A problem, in PCT, is simply an inability to control a perception you want to control. There are basically two kinds of problems from a PCT perspective: lack of control due to lack of skill (such as inability to solve a math problem due to lack of knowledge of the rules of algebra) and lack of control due to conflict (such as lack of control of eating due to a conflict between wanting nourishment and wanting to be thin). Tim Carey and I discuss the difference between these two types of problems and how to solve them in our recent paper Understanding the Change Process Involved in Solving Psychological Problems: A Model-Based Approach to Understanding How Psychotherapy Works (2014). The solution to both of these types of problems involves what could be called “reconstructing your worldviewâ€?; but the reconstructing is quite different in each case. If the problem results from lack of skill then the solution is education; teaching the person the perceptions to control to achieve the desired result. If it’s a conflict-based problem then the solution can only be achieved through reorganization; there is no way to teach the person the perceptions to control that will achieve the desired result. If the â€?complex business problemsâ€? addressed in the book are lack of skill problems then they can be readily solved by simply teaching the correct way to achieve the desired results. If, however, these problems are conflict-based – as they seem to be since they are described as involving resistance to change of “worldviewâ€? – then the only solution is random reorganization, perhaps assisted by MOL; an outsider cannot tell the person with the problem what the correct solution to their problem is.

PCT is simply a model of how purposeful behavior (control) works; it supports no particular political point of view or value system. But it does show what a properly functioning living system is: it’s a system that is in control. So if one’s idea of a “goodâ€? society is one where everyone is in control of their lives – that is, if one is controlling for the perception of a society made up of individuals who are able to control the perceptions they need and want to control (as mine is) – then “Reconstructing Your World Viewâ€? is particularly disappointing forum for “promulgating PCTâ€?. This is because the book seems to accept the idea that competition is a good thing; that "society benefits from business firms competingâ€?. Competition is just another word for conflict and if PCT teaches us anything it’s that conflict is the enemy of control. So I think that an understanding of PCT leads to a very different conclusion about the merits of competition in society, more like the conclusion so beautifully articulated by Powers in his paper “Degrees of freedom in social interaction”( reprinted in LCS I). In particular, see the section on “Freedom in Social Interactions” (starting on p. 229) for the PCT view of the supposed benefits of competition in a society.

Complementing the lack of understanding of the debilitating effects of conflict is a lack of understanding of the nature of cooperation. One of the “Key points� at the end of the chapter on PCT is the following: “When people working together have sharply different high-level goals, conflict is to be expected. When their high-level goals are similar, expect cooperation.� What is being described is not necessarily cooperation. If the simultaneous control of the same perception is simply coincidental then there was no cooperation involved; it’s just two systems that happen to be controlling the same variable at the same time. Either system could have controlled the variable on its own; there was no need for the other system to be controlling as well. The only benefit of simultaneous control of the variable is that each system needs to produce less output to produce the desired result than it would have if it were on its own. This would be an example of cooperation if the two systems had agreed in advance to control the same perception so that each would have to expend less effort at controlling it individually. Cooperation involves two or more control systems achieving a result that could not be achieved by either system acting on its own. Real cooperation requires that each system give up some control (give up some “personal freedom�) in order to achieve control of some variable that the systems involved could not achieve individually (so that they are all “freer�). Cooperation does not “just happen� when people adopt (coincidentally) similar goals (although adopting similar goals can be part of what is agreed to as part of being cooperative).

Cooperation is the basis of civilized human society. And I think it is the failure to understand the nature of cooperation from a PCT perspective that I find most problematic about this book. A business is a cooperative venture between employees and employers. So any problems in the business are control problems for both employees and employers. But this book presents PCT as a solution to the problems the employer only (with even the small nod toward improving “worker satisfactionâ€? being aimed at making business better for the employer). I find this focus on solving business problems only from the employers perspective to be almost obscene in the context of an economy where over the last 30 years CEO remuneration has gone from 50 to over 300 times that of the average employee while employee wages have remained stagnant or actually declined in real terms. Since money is what gives people a great deal of their ability to control (in a society based on specialized production) it’s pretty clear that over the last 30 years the problems of employers have declined considerably while those of their employees have increased substantially. It seems to me that what we need are more books on how employers can better cooperate with employees to give employees better control of their lives.

Ultimately I think this book suffers from a “worldview� that is well described in these quotes from two of my favorite economists:

This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition…[is] the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments… We frequently see the respectful attentions of the world more strongly directed towards the rich and the great, than towards the wise and the virtuous. We see frequently the vices and follies of the powerful much less despised than the poverty and weakness of the innocent. (Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments I.III.28).

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith

I look forward to someday seeing a truly PCT-based book on economics and business. I think it would describe an economy organized a lot more like those of the the Nordic countries than that of the US.

RSM

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.19.1145)]

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:43 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM:

A problem, in PCT, is simply an inability to control a perception you want to control.

HB :

I’m wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT. Can you give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I’m sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT when I post to CSGNet. But I’m happy to try to explain these things; I don’t think one can go over the basics too much.

HB :

You seemed to become too clever. I thought too, that basic understanding of PCT is necesary to answer on CSGnet, instead of insulting people. But you are an insult expert. And it would be nice to remember that, because another time when you will play »inocent sheep« which hasn’t done anything »bad« , we have now a record, although it’s probably not difficult to find other records of your insulting writings.

RM earlier :

You should point it out when I or anyone insults people. Insults should not be part of the discussion on CSGNet, and that includes insulting people by making baseless claims that they insult people. So if this is not a baseless claim that I insult people, show me where I have insulted someone and I will certainly apologize for it.

HB :

And if you were happy trying to explain these things, although I didn’t expect that you can »go over the basics too much«, I also decided to break my promise not to answer you before LCS IV is out. Although I was vaguing the decission for quite some time. I’ll answer you in some limits. The rest after LCS IV is out.

Readers have more then basic understanding of PCT, but problem is with explainer (commentator), who does not want to present basic understand of PCT (dr. Jekyll)… but is offering understanding in some classical psychological terminology and some proximity to self-regulation theory (MR. Hyde). I have a feeling that I was reading Carver and Scheier. Aren’t you psychologist ? It seems that you didn’t forget tha basics of behaviorism and »controlling in outer, observable environment« where you »observe facts«. So you must be probably the only person in the world that sees outside environment as it is. So it is good that we (CSGnet) have some interpreter that understand the world outside as it is and can teach us how we could see it right.Â

Â

RM :

In a simple control task, like a tracking task, where the controller is asked to maintain a constant reference, …

HB:

So you put it right, »the controller is asked to maintain a constant references«, which he will produce inside (probably in imagination) and asign it to something outside…so the controller will give a meaning to whatever is outside, and then control perception inside, and use the behavior (output) as means of control to affect environment. There is no fixed »controlled variables« and »references« outside, only when they have meaning given by controller. »Controlled variable and »references« are not implaying behavior. So I understand why Bill didn’t put »controlled variable« in outer environment in his diagram. Because there would be needed controlled behavior to control »controlled variables« all the time, if the diagram and PCT is to be general. And that is not what generally happens in everyday life. People behave frequently (not contiuosly) and they go to sleep. But they control all the time inside.

As you said once (dr.Jekyll) there are just variables or physical quantities out there. And all that stuff can get asigned meaning by people. There is no »fixed controlled variable« in outer environment, so that everybody can see it all the time. It’s just when people asign their control to something in outer environment.

RM :

“Inability to control” means an inability to keep a controlled variable at its reference.

….“inability to control” is measured as either RMS error or stability factor (see http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html). Both are measures of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor and target) varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and target). These are continuous measures of inability to control inasmuch as they can vary from very low to very high values; the larger the value of RMS error the greater the inability to control (the more the controlled variable varies around he reference); the larger the stability factor, the greater the ability to control (the less the controlled variable varies around he reference);

HB :

I was afraid that you will use some Bill’s definitions. I’m glad that you used your RCT (Rick’s Control Theory) so the conversation can go on.

What I see above is some »self-regulation« or even behavioristic terminology. It resembles to clasical »Control theory« based on thermostat logic. So it seems to me that you reduced PCT to some common »control theory« although PCT is much more then that. I think that in this way you made more damage to it, then benefit.

If I understandit right your explanation, there is »controlled variable« in outer environment (distance between cursor and target), which varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and target) also in outer environment. And this can be meassured like everything is tried to be measured in behaviorism and self-regulation, outside.

So it seems that behavior is stimulated in closed loop from outside (error) and that loop is »controlling itself« implaying behavior to »control »controled variable«. So zero error outside (reference) is somehow directing behavior. It is seen as observable phenomenon which is happening outside. I call it perceptual illusion.

But Bill showed internal structure of control in organisms and explained that behavior is just consequence of internal control. Whatever control is happening outside is just consequence of what is happening inside. So behavior is not stimulated from outside but inside.

So I think that »inability to controol« seen from inside control perspective has different meaning. It’s not any more difference that can be seen outside and isn’t telling practicaly anything, except that people are deviating from something. The main problem I see is, that we can’t see what’s causing it. The difference between explanation of »inability« outside and inside has serious implications.

As I understand selfregulation, goals (references) are put outside (zero distance between home and Boston) and then control of behavior is used to reach the goal (reference) with controlling something outside (for example car) with behavior. Or whatever it is useful in outer environment and is predicted that can do that task. Perception is usually used to check or monitor if control of behavior is in course to goal. If not, correction to control of behavior is used to maintain direction to the goal (reference) so minimizing the distance. There are also other constructs in self-regulation, but this is not the main theme hear.

Beside that your RCT defintion of »inability« resembles to self-regulation and behavioristic definition, it can be highly »dangerous« if you use it in everyday life. It can cause many labeling of people (children) just by concluding from »observable facts« as in history was the case for example in education system, but can be found also elsewhere. The outside definition of »inability or ability to control« was very similar to yours and it said that population for example children can deviate from standards (in your case references) and this deviations can be marked or used for other purposes. So children can deviate »over-standard«, »below standard« and somewhere arround standard. What means that they by behavioristic logic they are »un.normal«, »normal« and more than »normal«, genious.

In common sense behavioristic logic, based on »obervable facts«, »deviating« behavior (inability) below the educational standard (as that difference was seen outisde) was labeled as »not appropriate«, »lazy«, »uncapable«, »dumm«, »stupid«, or in your words, they were »unable to control« near reference (standard). In our expert language, we usualy say that children get »stigma«, just because they were born.Â

Acompanied constructs which were found in education were of second degree typization. On the first label, for example »incompetent« children, people (teachers) continue with common sense logic about »obervable fatcs« and »hanged« secondary labeling characteristics to children like : if they are not succesfull in school, so they are for example incompetent, researches showed that teacher used firther labeling like, he is also »thief«, »liar«, »untruthfull«, »dirty«, »junkie« and so on … All bad terms that can be attached to somebody that is not realizing adults expentacies. Normal children were secondary labeled as quite promising, sometimes not concentrated, but good and diligent…and so on. And best students were labeled as polite, highly inteligent, prepared to listen, and cooperate every time, briliant children with bright future….We know from practice and studies that this is not so. Also briliant students can be liars, lazy, sneaky, »junkie« and so on. And also »incompetent« children can be diligent, good, and so on.

Although no longitudinal study proved any significant correlation between »school success« and »life success«, labeling in the sense we mentioned still stayed and can be found in schools all over the world.

It’s an old story about children who are so different that just can’t meet expectations of teachers and parents but deviate more or less from them. I hope we understand. Deviations arround standards (expectations, references) are not some »objective truth«, but subjective as PCT clearly shows in through it’s internal control, giving different meaning to »inability«.

PCT is much more complex then you obviously think with your RCT logic and it’s not reduced only to »control of controlled variables« varying arround references in outer environment with it’s correlates inside. It’s real internal core, which can help understand what’s the real problem in school, and how to define »inability« not to cause »stigmatization« or »labeling« all genetically diffferent children as that is their natural characteristic, and they can’t do much about…

Humanistic movements specially those for children rights, did change much school situation and we got »Declaration of children rights« and today we have »Convention of children rights«. Agenda is trying to break with sitgmatization (labeling) and is talking about specificity in development of all children and so we got »children with special needs«. It is progress but this is still not solving the main problem in school »reality« and is not good enough, because these children are getting also labeled but in different sense. And I’m pretty sure that with PCT is possible to explain why and what is the core problem in school and what is right solution. Maybe it’s the only theory that can clearly explain that.

It’s hard to explain you all the history of behavioristic knowledge and common sense logic in short words, that caused so many psychical damage in schools (psychoterapy would be welcome) because children were also beaten not just by teachers, also by paretns when they were unable to achieve educational standards (deviate from references, expectancies). PCT can show many reasons why children can’t achieve standards (references), why is so unique and it can show also why classmates are beating other children, what is one of the continuing problems in UNICEF.Â

But this would go to much over the basics. So I can only advise you to avoid your defintion of »inability to control«. Why help »labeling« children in school that they have »inability to control« if they don’t achieve »education standards« or deviate arround some artificial (wished) references, based on »observable facts« and »behavioral explanations«.

If you will look for in rich Bill’s legacy instead of being slave of TV (watching sport events too much), you may find some very usefull informations.

By my oppinon terms like »inability to control« or »lack of control« have very narrow behavioristic meaning, no matter what’s the meaning you are asigning to it (probably to be PCT defitnion). And I think they are quite tautological and unusefull in PCT explanaition why children or people on general can’t control something. This terms as I see them don’t tell anything about why control is unsuccesfull. So from my stand point they are unusefull.

But relevancy and possibilities of research on this field with PCT offers so wide space, with it’s briliant idea of internal control structure and control functioning that it’s a crime to diminish it to ordinary »control theory«. At least I use it succesfully for 15 years… O.K. I noticed some weakness and they could be upgraded. But also »original« theory, basics of PCT is enough to understand basic problems in school. At least Glasser didn’t have much problems with his »Quality school«. And I found official record of one of the most important person in Glasser’s organization that wrote in article about »Choice theory« that it originates from Powers PCT and Glassers psychiatric practice«. So he assigned all theoretical knowledge in Glasser’s theory to Bill. Â

Moving control outside (although you make perceptual correlates with physical quantitites) and so on, does not by my oppinion justify general use of »controlled variable« in environment and use of other terms that are connected with characteristics of outside control. They are misleading.

Also results of laboratory experiments (as you call them demos) as »tracking experiment« are quite limited in solving the control problems of people in everyday life. Laboratory experiments are always probleamtic when »free-living« organisms are in question as Ashby pointed out. Remember Pavlov, Skinner…. Results of those experiments were prakcically unuseful or misleading when applying them to »free-living« organisms. So the »tracking experiments« doesn’t show all the problems of control in everyday life, as it has very limited relevancy to prove all aspects of control and conflict when »real« situations are in question.

Kent by my oppinion gave good description of how simulation and modeling can be »dangerous«. Compared to human protagonists, simulations can be radically simplified. They have neither behavioral mecahnisms, and can’t provide complexity nedeed for simulating higher levels. If I try to resume, such a rudimentary simulations can not be expected to reproduce the subtlety or sophistication of real life situations.

RM: I hope you now understand what “lack of control” means (the degree to which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference).

HB :

I hope you now understand all the problems you can cause with your »narrow Mr. Hide« thinking. And why these terms are inapropriate to be used in PCT. Once again : »Controlled variable« is not kept at the »reference«, perception is. We are talking about PCT not psychologist school of »self-regulation«. And I would kindly advise to study some definitions of control in PCT.

RM :

Lack of skill characterizes a control system that is not able to keep a controlled variable at the reference.

HB :

O.K. We’ve been through this already. This is porbably psychological terminology »skill«, »inability« and so on. I hope you still can understand PCT explanation of »inability to control« (dr.Jekyll) so you could »transform« these psychological terms into PCT. You could define what is »skill« in PCT ? And maybe you could show »skill« in control loop in hierarchy, if it means inability to keep »controlled variable« at the »reference«. What »skill« in control loop does that ? What is that, that is inabaling to keep »controlled variable« at the »reference« ? Be dr. Jekyll. Not Mr.Hyde.

I think we have enough text for now to discuss, other can wait, because you are mostly repeating yourself. I think we have to solve the »conflict« about what of your text is representing PCT and what is not. Then other explanations I suppose and answers will maybe come automatically. Precise understanding and using PCT terminology is probably one of the most important part of understanding PCT and possible misleading about PCT, what you are doing quite frequently, when you introduce Mr. Hyde. I just hope that you will not mislead PCT ladies (Bill’s daughters) into self-regulation or even behaviorism.

Best,

Boris

P.S. You are using again »control systems are protected from disturbances«. Protection in dictionary mostly means : being kept from… not to be harmed, or wet in the rain… protected from radiation… so if I understand it means something not happenning to control system… so in this sense it could mean »not affected«… So if I translate »protected« as being »not affected« it makes no sense in PCT.

How can LCS control if they are not disturbed ? Disturbances are necesary part of control (specially from evolution perspective) and if you are protected from them, means they are not affecting control. How LCS then can control ?

[_Boris_Hartman]

RM: I don't think you do understand what I am saying. And I find it difficult to understand what you are saying. Maybe it's a language problem.

HB :
That could be...:). And in some way I'd like to talk (and think) American language as good as you do. On general I like Americans, and my daughter had great experience when studying there. So maybe we could talk just that I could learn language :).

RM :
But my point seems pretty simple: the ability to control is measured in terms of degree of variation of a controlled variable around a presumed reference state (RMS) or as the ratio of observed to expected variance of a controlled variable (stability measure).

HB :
O.K. because of your good attitude to our relationship (this was like in the time when we started conversation I think in 2006 ot 2007) I'll tell you where I think you are wrong in respect to Bill's defintions. On general I think if we are talking about PCT is good to put some of his words into conversation, just to keep PCT course. Let us deifne control in Bill terms :
"Achievement and maintainance a preselected state in the controling system, though actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances (BCP : 296).

Ability or inability Control as I understand it in this sense is ablility to inability to "achieve and maintain a preselcted state", what for me represents much more than simulate controlling in outer environment with "controlled variables", which seems to be circuling as "isolated control loop" as if it's determind to be like an objective truth as something that is valid for every case of control. PCT probably differs from all the other "control theories" in important aspect, control system is controlling own state and consequentially also outer states. So self-repeating outer control process of "controlled variable" seemed to me like being "cut" from internal control that can "break" the outer loop any time. The point of any control outside is to contribute to internal control to "maintain" preselected state in controlling system. So in the case of "tracking experiment" it seems that you are not considering that. I think this is related to what is written on pages 245 and 246 (BC:P, 2005) It seems to me as the same problem. Can you exactly "translate" it (as it's possible) with using as little of your meaning as possible, what is written there. I'm also asking any other who is willing to read it and make interpretation (Martin, Bruce, Adam...any other...?).

RM :
You seem to be saying that it's not possible to measure the ability to control because controlled variables and the references for the states of these variables are all in the controller's head and, thus, cannot be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above (Nature of Control).

HB :
Problem is that I'm maybe not against your data, but that you have not sufficient theory behind and maybe you are differently inetrpreting "defintion of control," that could support your interpretation. I suppose that "empirical data" are also obtained on the bases of some theoretical knowledge which could be subjective. But it's good, we finaly start to talk again.

RM :
While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception is by seeing whether a perception of our own -- such as our (quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a tracking task -- is kept in some reference state, protected from disturbance,

HB :
The problem I see is that you are putting "controlled variable" into a diagram, although I never saw Bill doing that. If we suppose that whoever has pretty accurate idea of what he is perceiving, it's perceiving "controled variable" only when he is controlling. But putting "controlled variable" in environment means that is generaly there, although person is not controlling anything in environment.
And please if you could wait with your "protection from disturbances" until we clear problem about it's meaning.

RM :
This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is about;

HB :
Why not test for the controlled perception, if everything is our minds. Why test for the "controlled variable" ? It's "perceptual control theory" not "variable control theory"

RM :
... it's a procedure for identifying in the tester's perceptions the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading demonstration (Mindreading).
Of course, we don't necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in "Doing Research on Purpose"). But you can measure the ability to control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly right.

HB :
The relativity of thinking you used here is promising. In your past article about TCV you described also the huge limitations of TCV. The problem is again the simplicity of simlutaions on which data are obtained and interpretation made. It's a question of whether or not free-living organisms with all the hierarchy working all the time inside organism will act like you predict in testing TCV. People usually hide their real intention with behavior, and it's very problematic how to determine what they really think. So if I understood right all the "tests for controlled variable" can be tricky. "Real controlling" of free-living organism which is predicted can be false, because data are obtained on wrong theoretical bases. If the test for "controlled perception" is executed, organisms whole control in organism would be considered and maybe real intentions discovered. I hope that we understood, what I wanted to say.

RM:
There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don't think it has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers' description of "The Coin Game" in B:CP. See in particular the last paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter (E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument misses the point since "E has discovered what S is controlling". In other words, E's perception of the "zigzag" pattern of the coins that S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent to the perception of the "zigzag" pattern of coins that S is controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said that The Test is "... the nearest approach I know of to mind reading."(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an outside view of a controller's inside (mental) view inasmuch as the the tester's perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are controlling it.

HB:
I think this is fine PCT description. You also used "once we know what perception a controller is controlling, not which variable".
But I see the problem that nothing what is perceived is exactly what is seen, although maybe it seems to be. People also perceive what they want to perceive and has great imagination when describing things they perceived (think of smokers who permanently lie how many cigarettes they smoke or fisherman and hunter what did they caught :). I want to say that simplified simulations in laboratory conditions can not show the complexity of "real life situations" like Kent noticed. So whatever findings of your experiments were. It doesn't mean that they will work in everyday life. When Bill analyzed Maturana's work, he noticed something about "simplicity", relations between model and experience. Briliant thinking (LCS II, p. 184 - ....).

RM:
The standards you are talking about here are not references in the PCT sense.

HB :
Everything what's "build" in human organism is reference. No matter how we call it. It's product of internal control - "control of perception".

RM :
And the measures of inability to control are not based on a determination of whether students are trying to control the variables for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests can be viewed as measures of students' ability to control for particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether this observed performance results from an inability to control the variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student wasn't even trying to control that variable.

HB:
I'm sorry I don't understand what you wanted to say.

RM:
I agree with much of what follows; I think "stigmatizing" students based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the ability to control a perception using PCT.

HB :
If you put the "references" - standards (tests) into the head of the teachers and students, you will see that they control perception as any other human do. So they try to control with thier own references which are produced inside them. Conflict is inevitable. Try to think in the sense of "Collective control processes" as Kent do. I think that we can't say that whatever people are doing in school has nothing to do with PCT. It has everything to do. All that people in schools do, is "Control of perception". All what is happening to people in schools is included in the "Fact of control". I think we can not "isolate" "controlled variables" in environment like "standards" or "exames" as something objective that has nothing to do with PCT. All are constructs of people, so we have all the time to think of them as people creations, which are controlled inside them. So PCT is everywhere when social or other living control system are studied.

RM:
I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and I think the same of you. So let's just go our own ways. People who like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and people who like my version will like mine.

HB :
I'm sorry Rick. Why should we do that. The only thing we have to do is change our way of discussion. And talk like old friends as we used to do in the beggining. Mutual repect and listening to each other, and myabe we and others will learn something. We just have to let out sarcasm, raillery, offences, ...etc. Just try to put our arguments "on the table" as equal "control constructs" and also any others can contribute, although they could have maybe different oppinion or knowledge. It's not necessary that we all think the same. Diversity is what is "propeling" the world.

RM:
I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I've attached a copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I've taken the liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 -- so there are no disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So, again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

HB :
O.K. I'll try first to "break" with our tradition of using "You are bad -sentence" as Gordon is proposing. So I'll tell that I respect your work Rick, although you maybe got an impression that I don't. But sincerely speaking your tiral (simulation) to simplify understanding of how coordinated work of control units can be done in organisms are insufficient. They are based on still not general understanding how "Perceptual control" in real organisms work and approximations that PCT is doing is also insufficient, although I think PCT is the best "tool" to explore organisms.

It is a great job that Bill have done, but simluations can be improved if you improve the knowledge about organism on which bases simulations are to be done. So it's not my or your version of PCT, it's how near is our thinking about how organisms work, because that is the goal of PCT :
Bill P at all (2011). : Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms.

So if we start to talk about internal "controlled variables" in organism, we have to incorporate all the time ongoing disturbances like : continuous heat exchange and gravity disturbances which we can not escape, etc. The most disturbances to internal control in organisms are coming from inside the body beacuse of methabolic processes and so on. I didn't noticed that Bill included them, but they are very important in understanding why control in organism continuously counteracting. So however you simulation can be good, it's too simplifyed, to show all the control problems in organism and efects of all disturbances from internal and external environment that are counteracted in organism. Disturbances in outer environment are affecting the whole organism, beside receptors also other structures of organism.
If we want to understand the final "goal" of PCT, understanding the organism, then there is quite difficult task in front of all CSGnet group.

All the terms like "inability", "lack of control" and so on are getting by my oppinion different meaning if observed from the point of internal control in organisms, which primarly is responsible for "achieving and maintaining preselected state..." that is determined by genetics.

Best,

Boris

···

-----Original Message-----
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:55 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View�? by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.26.1455)]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net> wrote:

HB : I'm wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT.
Can you give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I'm sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT
when I post to CSGNet. But I'm happy to try to explain these things; I
don't think one can go over the basics too much.

HB :You seemed to become too clever. I thought too, that basic
understanding of PCT is necesary to answer on CSGnet, instead of insulting people.

RM: Sorry you feel insulted.

RM : "Inability to control" means an inability to keep a controlled
variable at its reference�."inability to control" is measured as
either RMS error or stability factor (see
Nature of Control). Both are
measures of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor
and
target) varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target).

HB: If I understandit right your explanation, there is »controlled
variable« in outer environment (distance between cursor and target),
which varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target) also in outer environment. And this can be meassured like
everything is tried to be measured in behaviorism and self-regulation, outside.

HB: So it seems that behavior is stimulated in closed loop from
outside (error) and that loop is »controlling itself« implaying
behavior to »control »controled variable«. So zero error outside
(reference) is somehow directing behavior. It is seen as observable
phenomenon which is happening outside. I call it perceptual illusion.

RM: I don't think you do understand what I am saying. And I find it difficult to understand what you are saying. Maybe it's a language problem. But my point seems pretty simple: the ability to control is measured in terms of degree of variation of a controlled variable around a presumed reference state (RMS) or as the ratio of observed to expected variance of a controlled variable (stability measure). You seem to be saying that it's not possible to measure the ability to control because controlled variables and the references for the states of these variables are all in the controller's head and, thus, cannot be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above (Nature of Control).

While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception is by seeing whether a perception of our own -- such as our
(quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a tracking task -- is kept in some reference state, protected from disturbance, This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is about; it's a procedure for identifying in the tester's perceptions the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading demonstration (Mindreading).
Of course, we don't necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in "Doing Research on Purpose"). But you can measure the ability to control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly right.

HB: So I think that »inability to controol« seen from inside control
perspective has different meaning. It's not any more difference that
can be seen outside and isn't telling practicaly anything, except that
people are deviating from something. The main problem I see is, that we can't see what's causing it.
The difference between explanation of »inability« outside and inside
has serious implications.

RM: There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don't think it has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers'
description of "The Coin Game" in B:CP. See in particular the last paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter
(E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument misses the point since "E has discovered what S is controlling". In other words, E's perception of the "zigzag" pattern of the coins that S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent to the perception of the "zigzag" pattern of coins that S is controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said that The Test is "... the nearest approach I know of to mind reading."(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an outside view of a controller's inside (mental) view inasmuch as the the tester's perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are controlling it.

HB: The outside definition of
»inability or ability to control« was very similar to yours and it
said that population for example children can deviate from standards
(in your case
references) and this deviations can be marked or used for other
purposes. So children can deviate »over-standard«, »below standard«
and somewhere arround standard. What means that they by behavioristic
logic they are »un.normal«, »normal« and more than »normal«, genious.

RM: The standards you are talking about here are not references in the PCT sense. And the measures of inability to control are not based on a determination of whether students are trying to control the variables for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests can be viewed as measures of students' ability to control for particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether this observed performance results from an inability to control the variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student wasn't even trying to control that variable.

HB: In common sense behavioristic logic, based on »obervable facts«,
»deviating« behavior
(inability) below the educational standard (as that difference was
seen outisde) was labeled as »not appropriate«, »lazy«, »uncapable«,
»dumm«, »stupid«, or in your words, they were »unable to control« near
reference (standard). In our expert language, we usualy say that children get »stigma«, just because they were born.

RM: I agree with much of what follows; I think "stigmatizing" students based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the ability to control a perception using PCT.

RM: I hope you now understand what "lack of control" means (the degree
to which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference).

HB : I hope you now understand all the problems you can cause with
your »narrow Mr. Hide« thinking.

RM: I sort of understand why you think there are problems but I think you are misidentifying the source of your concerns. The problem is not with measuring the ability to control. The problem (at least in the
US) seems to come from people who are trying to improve education based on a business model where the aim is to increase "profit"
(standardized test scores) by increasing productivity (getting rid of ineffective teachers -- the one's not increasing standardized test
scores) and reducing costs (lower wages, fewer teachers, cheaper facilities). Don't blame that on how ability to control is measured in PCT. I think the understanding of ability to control that comes from PCT would lead educators to emphasize reduced class size, broader curriculum and more discretion about how to teach to teachers who tend to be quite good (when class sizes are manageable) at determining what each child is trying to do (control) and how well they are managing to do it (their ability to control); that is, at informally evaluating studnets' ability to control.

HB: I think we have to solve the »conflict« about what of your text is
representing PCT and what is not.

RM: I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and I think the same of you. So let's just go our own ways. People who like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and people who like my version will like mine.

HB: I just hope that you will not mislead PCT ladies (Bill's daughters)
into self-regulation or even behaviorism.

RM: My days of misleading ladies are well behind me but even if they weren't I know that Bill's daughters can think for themselves extremely well! I wouldn't have a chance.

HB: How can LCS control if they are not disturbed ?

RM: The same way they control when they are disturbed.

HB: Disturbances are necesary part of control

RM: I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I've attached a copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I've taken the liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 -- so there are no disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key
(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So, again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

Best

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Rick,

I think we should go even slower in our discussion than you suggested

RM:

What “achieve and maintain a pre-selected state” means to me

HB :

I’m sorry for missleading you with using only part of deifinition. It seems that you used my mistake for your purposes of useless explanation what »control menas to you«. I thought we will play honest. O.K.  you obviously want it dirty as it was before. You can’t jump out of your skin. Â

So I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted state in the controlling system….«

Sorry for a mistake in writing which you used

RM :

PCT does differ from other control theories by being explicit about the fact that, as you say, a “control system is controlling [its] own state and consequentially also outer [environmental] states”. But I don’t think this means that control systems are controlling two different things – outer and inner – independently.

HB :

Again we have problem with your interpretation which is contradicting in two sentences. You obvioulsy seen that »own state« and »outer state« are correlated in my sentence. And you have to separate them thus »distorting my thought« with interpreting it in your way as »independent« with writing nonsense in further text with obvious incomprehension of PCT. The whole text looks like as rehabilitation of your personaÄ?ity or how to establish your »personal image«. Well as I said »dirty game« is on.

RM :

I’ll leave off here because this is quite a lot in itself and see what you think of it. We can handle the other stuff later if you like. But I think this distinction between control of “inner” and “outer” variables is central to whatever disagreements we may have and working it out should help get us on the same page. It is a very difficult aspect of PCT and one that we should discuss more often.

HB :

We both leave the discussion here. As the discussion about »inner« and »outer« variables is concerned you will have to read some books or consult with an experts.

What you write in LCS IV, we will judge when we see it.

Best,

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 7:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.28.1150)]
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : On general I think if we are talking about PCT is good to put some of his words into
conversation, just to keep PCT course. Let us deifne control in Bill terms :
"Achievement and maintainance a preselected state in the controling system, though
actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances (BCP : 296).
HB: Ability or inability Control as I understand it in this sense is ablility to inability to
“achieve and maintain a preselcted state”, what for me represents much more than simulate
controlling in outer environment with “controlled variables”, which seems to be circuling as
“isolated control loop” as if it’s determind to be like an objective truth as something that is
valid for every case of control.
RM: What “achieve and maintain a pre-selected state” means to me is that a properly designed control system acts to bring a perceptual variable, such as the visual distance between cursor and target, to a reference state, such as “zero distance” and keeps it in that state, protected, as best as possible, from the net effects of disturbances. This “protection” is seen as the systems acting in opposition to (or compensating for) the net effects of disturbances. How well a system opposes the effect of disturbances to the perceptual variable it controls is seen as the system’s ability to control. The better the system opposes the effect of disturbances, the closer the controlled perception is kept to the reference and the greater is the system’s observed ability to control. The main determiners of a control system’s ability to control (keep the perceptual variable it controls at the specified reference) are system gain, slowing and transport lag.

HB: PCT probably differs from all the other “control theories” in
important aspect, control system is controlling own state and consequentially also outer
states.

RM: I assume that by “controlling own state” you mean “controlling its own perceptions”. All control systems control their perceptions so any theory that explains control will explain it in terms of control of perception. PCT is just more explicit about this than other versions of control theory for reasons that I explain in my paper in LCS IV. So PCT does differ from other control theories by being explicit about the fact that, as you say, a “control system is controlling [its] own state and consequentially also outer [environmental] states”. But I don’t think this means that control systems are controlling two different things – outer and inner – independently. The aspect of the “outer” world that is controlled by a control system is defined by the system’s perceptual function. Control of that perception will require the system to have effects on the outside world that keep the perception at the reference. The world outside the system is, according to PCT, the physical world described by the current models of chemistry and physics. It’s a world of atoms. forces, waves and such; it is not a world of temperatures, colors and objects. So an observer doesn’t see the outer world any better than the controller. What an observer sees as the outer world is their perception of the outer world.

RM: An engineer who designs a system to control an “outer variable” like temperature is actually designing a system system that will control a perception that corresponds to the engineer’s perception of temperature. The engineer might “perceive” temperature via a thermometer reading or via his/her own senses. But it’s the engineer’s perception of the “outer variable” that the system is controlling. The point is that the “inner variable” controlled by a control system – what we call the controlled variable or controlled perception in PCT – will correspond to an outside observer’s perception of the “outer variable” that is the physical correlate of the controlled variable when that observer is correctly perceiving what the system is controlling.

RM: This is a subtle and difficult concept to get and I don’t know if I have made it clear. But the upshot is that observers of control systems are perfectly capable of “seeing” the “inner” perceptions that the system is controlling to the extent that the observer is able to perceive the same aspect of the “outer” world that the system is perceiving (and controlling). This is the basis of the Test for the Controlled Variable.

RM: I’ll leave off here because this is quite a lot in itself and see what you think of it. We can handle the other stuff later if you like. But I think this distinction between control of “inner” and “outer” variables is central to whatever disagreements we may have and working it out should help get us on the same page. It is a very difficult aspect of PCT and one that we should discuss more often.

Best

Rick

So self-repeating outer control process of “controlled variable” seemed to me like being “cut” from internal control that can “break” the outer loop any time. The point of any control outside is to contribute to internal control to “maintain” preselected state in controlling system. So in the case of “tracking experiment” it seems that you are not considering that. I think this is related to what is written on pages 245 and 246 (BC:P, 2005) It seems to me as the same problem. Can you exactly “translate” it (as it’s possible) with using as little of your meaning as possible, what is written there. I’m also asking any other who is willing to read it and make interpretation (Martin, Bruce, Adam…any other…?).

RM :
You seem to be saying that it’s not possible to measure the ability to control because controlled variables and the references for the states of these variables are all in the controller’s head and, thus, cannot be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html).

HB :
Problem is that I’m maybe not against your data, but that you have not sufficient theory behind and maybe you are differently inetrpreting “defintion of control,” that could support your interpretation. I suppose that “empirical data” are also obtained on the bases of some theoretical knowledge which could be subjective. But it’s good, we finaly start to talk again.

RM :
While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception is by seeing whether a perception of our own – such as our (quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a tracking task – is kept in some reference state, protected from disturbance,

HB :
The problem I see is that you are putting “controlled variable” into a diagram, although I never saw Bill doing that. If we suppose that whoever has pretty accurate idea of what he is perceiving, it’s perceiving “controled variable” only when he is controlling. But putting “controlled variable” in environment means that is generaly there, although person is not controlling anything in environment.
And please if you could wait with your “protection from disturbances” until we clear problem about it’s meaning.

RM :
This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is about;

HB :
Why not test for the controlled perception, if everything is our minds. Why test for the “controlled variable” ? It’s “perceptual control theory” not “variable control theory”

RM :
… it’s a procedure for identifying in the tester’s perceptions the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading demonstration (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html).
Of course, we don’t necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in “Doing Research on Purpose”). But you can measure the ability to control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly right.

HB :
The relativity of thinking you used here is promising. In your past article about TCV you described also the huge limitations of TCV. The problem is again the simplicity of simlutaions on which data are obtained and interpretation made. It’s a question of whether or not free-living organisms with all the hierarchy working all the time inside organism will act like you predict in testing TCV. People usually hide their real intention with behavior, and it’s very problematic how to determine what they really think. So if I understood right all the “tests for controlled variable” can be tricky. “Real controlling” of free-living organism which is predicted can be false, because data are obtained on wrong theoretical bases. If the test for “controlled perception” is executed, organisms whole control in organism would be considered and maybe real intentions discovered. I hope that we understood, what I wanted to say.

RM:
There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don’t think it has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers’ description of “The Coin Game” in B:CP. See in particular the last paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter (E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument misses the point since “E has discovered what S is controlling”. In other words, E’s perception of the “zigzag” pattern of the coins that S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent to the perception of the “zigzag” pattern of coins that S is controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said that The Test is “… the nearest approach I know of to mind reading.”(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an outside view of a controller’s inside (mental) view inasmuch as the the tester’s perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are controlling it.

HB: I think this is fine PCT description. You also used “once we know what perception a controller is controlling, not which variable”.
But I see the problem that nothing what is perceived is exactly what is seen, although maybe it seems to be. People also perceive what they want to perceive and has great imagination when describing things they perceived (think of smokers who permanently lie how many cigarettes they smoke or fisherman and hunter what did they caught :). I want to say that simplified simulations in laboratory conditions can not show the complexity of “real life situations” like Kent noticed. So whatever findings of your experiments were. It doesn’t mean that they will work in everyday life. When Bill analyzed Maturana’s work, he noticed something about “simplicity”, relations between model and experience. Briliant thinking (LCS II, p. 184 - …).

RM:
The standards you are talking about here are not references in the PCT sense.

HB :
Everything what’s “build” in human organism is reference. No matter how we call it. It’s product of internal control - “control of perception”.

RM :
And the measures of inability to control are not based on a determination of whether students are trying to control the variables for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests can be viewed as measures of students’ ability to control for particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether this observed performance results from an inability to control the variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student wasn’t even trying to control that variable.

HB:
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you wanted to say.

RM:
I agree with much of what follows; I think “stigmatizing” students based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the ability to control a perception using PCT.

HB :
If you put the “references” - standards (tests) into the head of the teachers and students, you will see that they control perception as any other human do. So they try to control with thier own references which are produced inside them. Conflict is inevitable. Try to think in the sense of “Collective control processes” as Kent do. I think that we can’t say that whatever people are doing in school has nothing to do with PCT. It has everything to do. All that people in schools do, is “Control of perception”. All what is happening to people in schools is included in the “Fact of control”. I think we can not “isolate” “controlled variables” in environment like “standards” or “exames” as something objective that has nothing to do with PCT. All are constructs of people, so we have all the time to think of them as people creations, which are controlled inside them. So PCT is everywhere when social or other living control system are studied.

RM:
I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and I think the same of you. So let’s just go our own ways. People who like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and people who like my version will like mine.

HB :
I’m sorry Rick. Why should we do that. The only thing we have to do is change our way of discussion. And talk like old friends as we used to do in the beggining. Mutual repect and listening to each other, and myabe we and others will learn something. We just have to let out sarcasm, raillery, offences, …etc. Just try to put our arguments “on the table” as equal “control constructs” and also any others can contribute, although they could have maybe different oppinion or knowledge. It’s not necessary that we all think the same. Diversity is what is “propeling” the world.

RM:
I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I’ve attached a copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I’ve taken the liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 – so there are no disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So, again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

HB :
O.K. I’ll try first to “break” with our tradition of using “You are bad -sentence” as Gordon is proposing. So I’ll tell that I respect your work Rick, although you maybe got an impression that I don’t. But sincerely speaking your tiral (simulation) to simplify understanding of how coordinated work of control units can be done in organisms are insufficient. They are based on still not general understanding how “Perceptual control” in real organisms work and approximations that PCT is doing is also insufficient, although I think PCT is the best “tool” to explore organisms.

It is a great job that Bill have done, but simluations can be improved if you improve the knowledge about organism on which bases simulations are to be done. So it’s not my or your version of PCT, it’s how near is our thinking about how organisms work, because that is the goal of PCT :
Bill P at all (2011). : Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms.

So if we start to talk about internal “controlled variables” in organism, we have to incorporate all the time ongoing disturbances like : continuous heat exchange and gravity disturbances which we can not escape, etc. The most disturbances to internal control in organisms are coming from inside the body beacuse of methabolic processes and so on. I didn’t noticed that Bill included them, but they are very important in understanding why control in organism continuously counteracting. So however you simulation can be good, it’s too simplifyed, to show all the control problems in organism and efects of all disturbances from internal and external environment that are counteracted in organism. Disturbances in outer environment are affecting the whole organism, beside receptors also other structures of organism.
If we want to understand the final “goal” of PCT, understanding the organism, then there is quite difficult task in front of all CSGnet group.

All the terms like “inability”, “lack of control” and so on are getting by my oppinion different meaning if observed from the point of internal control in organisms, which primarly is responsible for “achieving and maintaining preselected state…” that is determined by genetics.

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:55 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.26.1455)]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : I’m wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT.
Can you give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I’m sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT
when I post to CSGNet. But I’m happy to try to explain these things; I
don’t think one can go over the basics too much.

HB :You seemed to become too clever. I thought too, that basic
understanding of PCT is necesary to answer on CSGnet, instead of insulting people.

RM: Sorry you feel insulted.

RM : “Inability to control” means an inability to keep a controlled
variable at its reference….“inability to control” is measured as
either RMS error or stability factor (see
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html). Both are
measures of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor
and
target) varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target).

HB: If I understandit right your explanation, there is »controlled
variable« in outer environment (distance between cursor and target),
which varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target) also in outer environment. And this can be meassured like
everything is tried to be measured in behaviorism and self-regulation, outside.

HB: So it seems that behavior is stimulated in closed loop from
outside (error) and that loop is »controlling itself« implaying
behavior to »control »controled variable«. So zero error outside
(reference) is somehow directing behavior. It is seen as observable
phenomenon which is happening outside. I call it perceptual illusion.

RM: I don’t think you do understand what I am saying. And I find it difficult to understand what you are saying. Maybe it’s a language problem. But my point seems pretty simple: the ability to control is measured in terms of degree of variation of a controlled variable around a presumed reference state (RMS) or as the ratio of observed to expected variance of a controlled variable (stability measure). You seem to be saying that it’s not possible to measure the ability to control because controlled variables and the references for the states of these variables are all in the controller’s head and, thus, cannot be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html).

While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception is by seeing whether a perception of our own – such as our
(quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a tracking task – is kept in some reference state, protected from disturbance, This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is about; it’s a procedure for identifying in the tester’s perceptions the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading demonstration (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html).
Of course, we don’t necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in “Doing Research on Purpose”). But you can measure the ability to control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly right.

HB: So I think that »inability to controol« seen from inside control
perspective has different meaning. It’s not any more difference that
can be seen outside and isn’t telling practicaly anything, except that
people are deviating from something. The main problem I see is, that we can’t see what’s causing it.
The difference between explanation of »inability« outside and inside
has serious implications.

RM: There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don’t think it has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers’
description of “The Coin Game” in B:CP. See in particular the last paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter
(E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument misses the point since “E has discovered what S is controlling”. In other words, E’s perception of the “zigzag” pattern of the coins that S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent to the perception of the “zigzag” pattern of coins that S is controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said that The Test is “… the nearest approach I know of to mind reading.”(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an outside view of a controller’s inside (mental) view inasmuch as the the tester’s perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are controlling it.

HB: The outside definition of
»inability or ability to control« was very similar to yours and it
said that population for example children can deviate from standards
(in your case
references) and this deviations can be marked or used for other
purposes. So children can deviate »over-standard«, »below standard«
and somewhere arround standard. What means that they by behavioristic
logic they are »un.normal«, »normal« and more than »normal«, genious.

RM: The standards you are talking about here are not references in the PCT sense. And the measures of inability to control are not based on a determination of whether students are trying to control the variables for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests can be viewed as measures of students’ ability to control for particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether this observed performance results from an inability to control the variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student wasn’t even trying to control that variable.

HB: In common sense behavioristic logic, based on »obervable facts«,
»deviating« behavior
(inability) below the educational standard (as that difference was
seen outisde) was labeled as »not appropriate«, »lazy«, »uncapable«,
»dumm«, »stupid«, or in your words, they were »unable to control« near
reference (standard). In our expert language, we usualy say that children get »stigma«, just because they were born.

RM: I agree with much of what follows; I think “stigmatizing” students based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the ability to control a perception using PCT.

RM: I hope you now understand what “lack of control” means (the degree
to which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference).

HB : I hope you now understand all the problems you can cause with
your »narrow Mr. Hide« thinking.

RM: I sort of understand why you think there are problems but I think you are misidentifying the source of your concerns. The problem is not with measuring the ability to control. The problem (at least in the
US) seems to come from people who are trying to improve education based on a business model where the aim is to increase “profit”
(standardized test scores) by increasing productivity (getting rid of ineffective teachers – the one’s not increasing standardized test
scores) and reducing costs (lower wages, fewer teachers, cheaper facilities). Don’t blame that on how ability to control is measured in PCT. I think the understanding of ability to control that comes from PCT would lead educators to emphasize reduced class size, broader curriculum and more discretion about how to teach to teachers who tend to be quite good (when class sizes are manageable) at determining what each child is trying to do (control) and how well they are managing to do it (their ability to control); that is, at informally evaluating studnets’ ability to control.

HB: I think we have to solve the »conflict« about what of your text is
representing PCT and what is not.

RM: I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and I think the same of you. So let’s just go our own ways. People who like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and people who like my version will like mine.

HB: I just hope that you will not mislead PCT ladies (Bill’s daughters)
into self-regulation or even behaviorism.

RM: My days of misleading ladies are well behind me but even if they weren’t I know that Bill’s daughters can think for themselves extremely well! I wouldn’t have a chance.

HB: How can LCS control if they are not disturbed ?

RM: The same way they control when they are disturbed.

HB: Disturbances are necesary part of control

RM: I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I’ve attached a copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I’ve taken the liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 – so there are no disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key
(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So, again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

Best

Rick

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

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Sorry I have really problems with reading and writing in American language.

Here is correction.

 I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

Best,

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 7:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.28.1150)]
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : On general I think if we are talking about PCT is good to put some of his words into
conversation, just to keep PCT course. Let us deifne control in Bill terms :
"Achievement and maintainance a preselected state in the controling system, though
actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances (BCP : 296).
HB: Ability or inability Control as I understand it in this sense is ablility to inability to
“achieve and maintain a preselcted state”, what for me represents much more than simulate
controlling in outer environment with “controlled variables”, which seems to be circuling as
“isolated control loop” as if it’s determind to be like an objective truth as something that is
valid for every case of control.
RM: What “achieve and maintain a pre-selected state” means to me is that a properly designed control system acts to bring a perceptual variable, such as the visual distance between cursor and target, to a reference state, such as “zero distance” and keeps it in that state, protected, as best as possible, from the net effects of disturbances. This “protection” is seen as the systems acting in opposition to (or compensating for) the net effects of disturbances. How well a system opposes the effect of disturbances to the perceptual variable it controls is seen as the system’s ability to control. The better the system opposes the effect of disturbances, the closer the controlled perception is kept to the reference and the greater is the system’s observed ability to control. The main determiners of a control system’s ability to control (keep the perceptual variable it controls at the specified reference) are system gain, slowing and transport lag.

HB: PCT probably differs from all the other “control theories” in
important aspect, control system is controlling own state and consequentially also outer
states.

RM: I assume that by “controlling own state” you mean “controlling its own perceptions”. All control systems control their perceptions so any theory that explains control will explain it in terms of control of perception. PCT is just more explicit about this than other versions of control theory for reasons that I explain in my paper in LCS IV. So PCT does differ from other control theories by being explicit about the fact that, as you say, a “control system is controlling [its] own state and consequentially also outer [environmental] states”. But I don’t think this means that control systems are controlling two different things – outer and inner – independently. The aspect of the “outer” world that is controlled by a control system is defined by the system’s perceptual function. Control of that perception will require the system to have effects on the outside world that keep the perception at the reference. The world outside the system is, according to PCT, the physical world described by the current models of chemistry and physics. It’s a world of atoms. forces, waves and such; it is not a world of temperatures, colors and objects. So an observer doesn’t see the outer world any better than the controller. What an observer sees as the outer world is their perception of the outer world.

RM: An engineer who designs a system to control an “outer variable” like temperature is actually designing a system system that will control a perception that corresponds to the engineer’s perception of temperature. The engineer might “perceive” temperature via a thermometer reading or via his/her own senses. But it’s the engineer’s perception of the “outer variable” that the system is controlling. The point is that the “inner variable” controlled by a control system – what we call the controlled variable or controlled perception in PCT – will correspond to an outside observer’s perception of the “outer variable” that is the physical correlate of the controlled variable when that observer is correctly perceiving what the system is controlling.

RM: This is a subtle and difficult concept to get and I don’t know if I have made it clear. But the upshot is that observers of control systems are perfectly capable of “seeing” the “inner” perceptions that the system is controlling to the extent that the observer is able to perceive the same aspect of the “outer” world that the system is perceiving (and controlling). This is the basis of the Test for the Controlled Variable.

RM: I’ll leave off here because this is quite a lot in itself and see what you think of it. We can handle the other stuff later if you like. But I think this distinction between control of “inner” and “outer” variables is central to whatever disagreements we may have and working it out should help get us on the same page. It is a very difficult aspect of PCT and one that we should discuss more often.

Best

Rick

So self-repeating outer control process of “controlled variable” seemed to me like being “cut” from internal control that can “break” the outer loop any time. The point of any control outside is to contribute to internal control to “maintain” preselected state in controlling system. So in the case of “tracking experiment” it seems that you are not considering that. I think this is related to what is written on pages 245 and 246 (BC:P, 2005) It seems to me as the same problem. Can you exactly “translate” it (as it’s possible) with using as little of your meaning as possible, what is written there. I’m also asking any other who is willing to read it and make interpretation (Martin, Bruce, Adam…any other…?).

RM :
You seem to be saying that it’s not possible to measure the ability to control because controlled variables and the references for the states of these variables are all in the controller’s head and, thus, cannot be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html).

HB :
Problem is that I’m maybe not against your data, but that you have not sufficient theory behind and maybe you are differently inetrpreting “defintion of control,” that could support your interpretation. I suppose that “empirical data” are also obtained on the bases of some theoretical knowledge which could be subjective. But it’s good, we finaly start to talk again.

RM :
While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception is by seeing whether a perception of our own – such as our (quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a tracking task – is kept in some reference state, protected from disturbance,

HB :
The problem I see is that you are putting “controlled variable” into a diagram, although I never saw Bill doing that. If we suppose that whoever has pretty accurate idea of what he is perceiving, it’s perceiving “controled variable” only when he is controlling. But putting “controlled variable” in environment means that is generaly there, although person is not controlling anything in environment.
And please if you could wait with your “protection from disturbances” until we clear problem about it’s meaning.

RM :
This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is about;

HB :
Why not test for the controlled perception, if everything is our minds. Why test for the “controlled variable” ? It’s “perceptual control theory” not “variable control theory”

RM :
… it’s a procedure for identifying in the tester’s perceptions the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading demonstration (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html).
Of course, we don’t necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in “Doing Research on Purpose”). But you can measure the ability to control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly right.

HB :
The relativity of thinking you used here is promising. In your past article about TCV you described also the huge limitations of TCV. The problem is again the simplicity of simlutaions on which data are obtained and interpretation made. It’s a question of whether or not free-living organisms with all the hierarchy working all the time inside organism will act like you predict in testing TCV. People usually hide their real intention with behavior, and it’s very problematic how to determine what they really think. So if I understood right all the “tests for controlled variable” can be tricky. “Real controlling” of free-living organism which is predicted can be false, because data are obtained on wrong theoretical bases. If the test for “controlled perception” is executed, organisms whole control in organism would be considered and maybe real intentions discovered. I hope that we understood, what I wanted to say.

RM:
There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don’t think it has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers’ description of “The Coin Game” in B:CP. See in particular the last paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter (E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument misses the point since “E has discovered what S is controlling”. In other words, E’s perception of the “zigzag” pattern of the coins that S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent to the perception of the “zigzag” pattern of coins that S is controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said that The Test is “… the nearest approach I know of to mind reading.”(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an outside view of a controller’s inside (mental) view inasmuch as the the tester’s perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are controlling it.

HB: I think this is fine PCT description. You also used “once we know what perception a controller is controlling, not which variable”.
But I see the problem that nothing what is perceived is exactly what is seen, although maybe it seems to be. People also perceive what they want to perceive and has great imagination when describing things they perceived (think of smokers who permanently lie how many cigarettes they smoke or fisherman and hunter what did they caught :). I want to say that simplified simulations in laboratory conditions can not show the complexity of “real life situations” like Kent noticed. So whatever findings of your experiments were. It doesn’t mean that they will work in everyday life. When Bill analyzed Maturana’s work, he noticed something about “simplicity”, relations between model and experience. Briliant thinking (LCS II, p. 184 - …).

RM:
The standards you are talking about here are not references in the PCT sense.

HB :
Everything what’s “build” in human organism is reference. No matter how we call it. It’s product of internal control - “control of perception”.

RM :
And the measures of inability to control are not based on a determination of whether students are trying to control the variables for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests can be viewed as measures of students’ ability to control for particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether this observed performance results from an inability to control the variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student wasn’t even trying to control that variable.

HB:
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you wanted to say.

RM:
I agree with much of what follows; I think “stigmatizing” students based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the ability to control a perception using PCT.

HB :
If you put the “references” - standards (tests) into the head of the teachers and students, you will see that they control perception as any other human do. So they try to control with thier own references which are produced inside them. Conflict is inevitable. Try to think in the sense of “Collective control processes” as Kent do. I think that we can’t say that whatever people are doing in school has nothing to do with PCT. It has everything to do. All that people in schools do, is “Control of perception”. All what is happening to people in schools is included in the “Fact of control”. I think we can not “isolate” “controlled variables” in environment like “standards” or “exames” as something objective that has nothing to do with PCT. All are constructs of people, so we have all the time to think of them as people creations, which are controlled inside them. So PCT is everywhere when social or other living control system are studied.

RM:
I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and I think the same of you. So let’s just go our own ways. People who like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and people who like my version will like mine.

HB :
I’m sorry Rick. Why should we do that. The only thing we have to do is change our way of discussion. And talk like old friends as we used to do in the beggining. Mutual repect and listening to each other, and myabe we and others will learn something. We just have to let out sarcasm, raillery, offences, …etc. Just try to put our arguments “on the table” as equal “control constructs” and also any others can contribute, although they could have maybe different oppinion or knowledge. It’s not necessary that we all think the same. Diversity is what is “propeling” the world.

RM:
I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I’ve attached a copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I’ve taken the liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 – so there are no disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So, again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

HB :
O.K. I’ll try first to “break” with our tradition of using “You are bad -sentence” as Gordon is proposing. So I’ll tell that I respect your work Rick, although you maybe got an impression that I don’t. But sincerely speaking your tiral (simulation) to simplify understanding of how coordinated work of control units can be done in organisms are insufficient. They are based on still not general understanding how “Perceptual control” in real organisms work and approximations that PCT is doing is also insufficient, although I think PCT is the best “tool” to explore organisms.

It is a great job that Bill have done, but simluations can be improved if you improve the knowledge about organism on which bases simulations are to be done. So it’s not my or your version of PCT, it’s how near is our thinking about how organisms work, because that is the goal of PCT :
Bill P at all (2011). : Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms.

So if we start to talk about internal “controlled variables” in organism, we have to incorporate all the time ongoing disturbances like : continuous heat exchange and gravity disturbances which we can not escape, etc. The most disturbances to internal control in organisms are coming from inside the body beacuse of methabolic processes and so on. I didn’t noticed that Bill included them, but they are very important in understanding why control in organism continuously counteracting. So however you simulation can be good, it’s too simplifyed, to show all the control problems in organism and efects of all disturbances from internal and external environment that are counteracted in organism. Disturbances in outer environment are affecting the whole organism, beside receptors also other structures of organism.
If we want to understand the final “goal” of PCT, understanding the organism, then there is quite difficult task in front of all CSGnet group.

All the terms like “inability”, “lack of control” and so on are getting by my oppinion different meaning if observed from the point of internal control in organisms, which primarly is responsible for “achieving and maintaining preselected state…” that is determined by genetics.

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:55 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.26.1455)]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB : I’m wondering what could it mean »inability to control« in PCT.
Can you give some »deeper« PCT explanation of this inability ? Or some example ?

RM: I’m sorry. I assume that readers have a basic understanding of PCT
when I post to CSGNet. But I’m happy to try to explain these things; I
don’t think one can go over the basics too much.

HB :You seemed to become too clever. I thought too, that basic
understanding of PCT is necesary to answer on CSGnet, instead of insulting people.

RM: Sorry you feel insulted.

RM : “Inability to control” means an inability to keep a controlled
variable at its reference….“inability to control” is measured as
either RMS error or stability factor (see
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html). Both are
measures of how much the controlled variable (distance between cursor
and
target) varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target).

HB: If I understandit right your explanation, there is »controlled
variable« in outer environment (distance between cursor and target),
which varies around the reference (zero distance between cursor and
target) also in outer environment. And this can be meassured like
everything is tried to be measured in behaviorism and self-regulation, outside.

HB: So it seems that behavior is stimulated in closed loop from
outside (error) and that loop is »controlling itself« implaying
behavior to »control »controled variable«. So zero error outside
(reference) is somehow directing behavior. It is seen as observable
phenomenon which is happening outside. I call it perceptual illusion.

RM: I don’t think you do understand what I am saying. And I find it difficult to understand what you are saying. Maybe it’s a language problem. But my point seems pretty simple: the ability to control is measured in terms of degree of variation of a controlled variable around a presumed reference state (RMS) or as the ratio of observed to expected variance of a controlled variable (stability measure). You seem to be saying that it’s not possible to measure the ability to control because controlled variables and the references for the states of these variables are all in the controller’s head and, thus, cannot be measured from outside. Is that what your saying? If so, your going against a lot of empirical data, not the least of which can be easily obtained in the Nature of Control Demo I mentioned above (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/BasicTrack.html).

While a controlled variable is a perception in the mind of the controller we can get a pretty accurate idea of what that perception is by seeing whether a perception of our own – such as our
(quantified) perception of the distance between cursor and target in a tracking task – is kept in some reference state, protected from disturbance, This is what the Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) is about; it’s a procedure for identifying in the tester’s perceptions the perception that the controller is controlling. This TCV can be done even if the controller is not maintaining a constant reference for the controlled variable. This is demonstrated in my Mind Reading demonstration (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html).
Of course, we don’t necessarily always get it exactly right; indeed, I have shown that it is probably the angle rather that the distance between cursor and target that is the perceptual variable that corresponds to the one controlled in a tracking task (see Ch. 4 in “Doing Research on Purpose”). But you can measure the ability to control relatively accurately even if your assumption about the perceptual variable that a person is trying to control is not exactly right.

HB: So I think that »inability to controol« seen from inside control
perspective has different meaning. It’s not any more difference that
can be seen outside and isn’t telling practicaly anything, except that
people are deviating from something. The main problem I see is, that we can’t see what’s causing it.
The difference between explanation of »inability« outside and inside
has serious implications.

RM: There may be a slight difference in meaning but I don’t think it has serious implications. I think the difference between the inside and outside meanings of control is alluded to briefly in Powers’
description of “The Coin Game” in B:CP. See in particular the last paragraph on pp. 237-238 of the second edition. Here the experimenter
(E) doing The TCV concludes that the subject (S) is controlling for a zigzag pattern of coins. So E might conclude that the subject is controlling for a perception of the letter Z; The S may disagree and say it was an N or something else. But, as BIll notes,such an argument misses the point since “E has discovered what S is controlling”. In other words, E’s perception of the “zigzag” pattern of the coins that S is controlling (the outside view of control) is clearly equivalent to the perception of the “zigzag” pattern of coins that S is controlling (the inside view of control). So the outside view of controlled variables that is provided by The TCV is considered equivalent to the inside view of these variables that are actually being controlled by a controller. I believe this is why Bill said that The Test is “… the nearest approach I know of to mind reading.”(Powers, BYTE, September, 1979, p. 109). The Test provides an outside view of a controller’s inside (mental) view inasmuch as the the tester’s perception of the controlled variable is equivalent to the perception that is under control. Once you know what perception a controller is controlling you can easily measure how well they are controlling it.

HB: The outside definition of
»inability or ability to control« was very similar to yours and it
said that population for example children can deviate from standards
(in your case
references) and this deviations can be marked or used for other
purposes. So children can deviate »over-standard«, »below standard«
and somewhere arround standard. What means that they by behavioristic
logic they are »un.normal«, »normal« and more than »normal«, genious.

RM: The standards you are talking about here are not references in the PCT sense. And the measures of inability to control are not based on a determination of whether students are trying to control the variables for which the standard values are given. So while standardized tests can be viewed as measures of students’ ability to control for particular results (the score on the test), because there has been no TCV performed, even informally, the results say little about whether this observed performance results from an inability to control the variable measured (test score) or from the fact that the student wasn’t even trying to control that variable.

HB: In common sense behavioristic logic, based on »obervable facts«,
»deviating« behavior
(inability) below the educational standard (as that difference was
seen outisde) was labeled as »not appropriate«, »lazy«, »uncapable«,
»dumm«, »stupid«, or in your words, they were »unable to control« near
reference (standard). In our expert language, we usualy say that children get »stigma«, just because they were born.

RM: I agree with much of what follows; I think “stigmatizing” students based on their standardized test scores is not a good thing. Indeed, I think the emphasis in education on standardized testing is unfortunate. But this has nothing to do with how one measures the ability to control a perception using PCT.

RM: I hope you now understand what “lack of control” means (the degree
to which one is unable to keep a controlled variable at the reference).

HB : I hope you now understand all the problems you can cause with
your »narrow Mr. Hide« thinking.

RM: I sort of understand why you think there are problems but I think you are misidentifying the source of your concerns. The problem is not with measuring the ability to control. The problem (at least in the
US) seems to come from people who are trying to improve education based on a business model where the aim is to increase “profit”
(standardized test scores) by increasing productivity (getting rid of ineffective teachers – the one’s not increasing standardized test
scores) and reducing costs (lower wages, fewer teachers, cheaper facilities). Don’t blame that on how ability to control is measured in PCT. I think the understanding of ability to control that comes from PCT would lead educators to emphasize reduced class size, broader curriculum and more discretion about how to teach to teachers who tend to be quite good (when class sizes are manageable) at determining what each child is trying to do (control) and how well they are managing to do it (their ability to control); that is, at informally evaluating studnets’ ability to control.

HB: I think we have to solve the »conflict« about what of your text is
representing PCT and what is not.

RM: I think we should just drop it. You think I have PCT all wrong and I think the same of you. So let’s just go our own ways. People who like your version of PCT will enjoy your discussions of PCT and and people who like my version will like mine.

HB: I just hope that you will not mislead PCT ladies (Bill’s daughters)
into self-regulation or even behaviorism.

RM: My days of misleading ladies are well behind me but even if they weren’t I know that Bill’s daughters can think for themselves extremely well! I wouldn’t have a chance.

HB: How can LCS control if they are not disturbed ?

RM: The same way they control when they are disturbed.

HB: Disturbances are necesary part of control

RM: I think that is only true in your version of PCT. I’ve attached a copy of my hierarchy of control spreadsheet simulation. I’ve taken the liberty of setting all the disturbances to 0 – so there are no disturbances to the controlled variables. Press the recalculate key
(F9) repeatedly and see what happens:the hierarchy (all control systems in it) controls. It will eventually end up with all control systems keeping the perceptions they control exactly at their references; zero error at all three levels of the hierarchy. So, again, disturbances are not necessary for control in my version of PCT control systems. But maybe they are in yours.

Best

Rick

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

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical,  mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

Best,

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:20 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.0920)]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB: I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.

RM

–

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

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

RM:

How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.

HB :

You are making at least three kind of mistakes. But as I promissed you, you will get answers after LCS IV is out. Maybe I could explain what is wrong But I’m interested what Martin has to say about your interpretation of Bill’s defintion of control ? I suppose he will »back up« you ? J.

Best,

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Marken
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 1:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB: Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical, mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don’t suppose you would be willing to explain just what I got so wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism, self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge damage to PCT). Here is your question and my answer again:

HB: I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.

RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.

Best

Rick

–

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

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Warren,

this is a nice message and I agree wtih you. But you have to tell also others to do their part. I tried nice and gentel (see the posts), and what did I get ? Selfish personal promotion. I’m sorry but I won’t serve as subject of manipulations.

I don’t know anything about who dwarfs who. But I know that I understand quite something about the organisms and after long talkings to Bill and  some others on CSGnet, you can beleive me,I know what I’m talking about. Bill is really not with us, but his work is. And from time to time it’s good to remember what he said about something, not to read some »strange interpretations« of his work, which maybe even don’t resemble PCT.

I’m not sure what you meant with »steady steer« on the PCT boat. Warren I try to keep steady steer of PCT boat. You should turn to those who are not.

I admire Kent’s work, and I think that we should cite him more. I beleive that cooperation is effective maybe more than conflict. So arguments and common agreement of arguments shoud prevail not writing of one man, as that is the only thing we should beleive. Â

I beleive that you are a good guy. But people are very different. There are also bad guys. So I’m sorry if I’ll make differences in atitude to them. Enough openness can sometimes cuase damagable consequences. Â Experiences show that we should be carefull.

Best,

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Hi Boris, I agree with you that Bill’s knowledge dwarfs Ricks! And I also believe in that Rick’s knowledge of modelling PCT dwarfs mine, and maybe even yours?!

But Bill is no longer with us and we just have each other. So let’s work together to distil Bill’s key messages, and be openly uncertain about the rest, pending further enquiry.

Let’s keep a steady steer on the PCT boat, despite the inevitability of conflict with all this collective control. Kent’s work tells us it is possible with enough resources and enough openness about our own (multi-levelled and sometimes outside awareness) goals!

Land ahoy!

Warren

On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB: Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical, mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don’t suppose you would be willing to explain just what I got so wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism, self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge damage to PCT). Here is your question and my answer again:

HB: I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.

RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.

Best

Rick

–

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

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

Martin, thank you.

I’m not sure if we read corresponding pages. There is so much differences in what you read and what I was reading. And beside that you exposed my oppinion about the problem and then talked about how Rick’s oppinion »exactly match« Bill’s. It’s confusing.

MT :

What is written on Pages 245 and 246 is an expansion of what Rick has been trying to tell you. By that far into the book, what Rick has been saying should already be taken for granted.

HB :

As I said I don’t see any expansion of what Rick wrote. I see only mine »expansion« exposed. And I don’t remember that I asked for oppinion about Rick’s text. I asked for oppinion about Bill’s text. So again it would be nice if we could see  Rick’s text, that so much resembles to Bill’s and that should be taken for granted ? It’s really interesting how we differently saw the same invitations.

MT :

In those pages, Bill is giving in words a mathematical discussion of how to do the “Test for the Controlled Variable” when the subject’s reference value is changing all the time. Earlier he described how to do it when the subject’s reference value doesn’t change.

HB :

I also don’t see any mathematical discussion in words of how to do »Test for Controlled Variable«. Probably your imagination. I got an impression that you use frequently mathemathical descriptions and it seems that, this is your »background« when observing text and reality.

And if I’m sincere I even don’t see where Bill mentioned  any »Test for Controlled Variable«. He is realy mentioning variable once, but as i see it iwas in the context of internal environment. What I see Bill showed an introduction to introduce feed-back theory to behaviorists.     So the main point of what is written on p. 245 and 246 is for me the differences in views between behaviorist and PCT.

Bill P. (2005) : The behaviorist E would try to discover how the subject’s responses depend on the stimuli**……**But unless E happens to notice that the knot stays still, she will miss the crucial feature of the situation – the purpose of S’s every movement.

What I want to say is that we don’t need any simple experiments to see how diferently we perceive »reality«. There are different views everywhere in every science and in every discussion between people.  Simple experiments are heavily missleading as far as i’m concerned, as they can give an impression how »reality« resembles to perception. But when complex life situations are analyzed as this is, we can see how perception can be so much different in every person that answers can’t be found in »controlling controlled variables« in outer environment.

I think that Bill showed very nice, how we can see »distortions of perception on work« and how perceptions can be tricky. Your perception Martin about the same text seems to be totaly different from mine.

The main point of Bill’s text as I see it,  is about how behaviorist see so much differently the »Test« in comparison to PCTand how purposes are important in every human action. Although you pointed that also out but in very small extent.

The main difference between behaviorist observation and PCT observation is as I understand in the way they perceive every »external situation«.

Do we need any more Tests to prove how different  interpretations of perceptions of the same »reality« can be. I think that we should ask ourselves, why is that so ? Not whether perceptual representations are »the same« as »reality« or not.

The main point of Bill’s text as I see it, is about how references (inside events in organism) are important in control and perceiving the »world outside«. And that has little to do with Rick’s view of control. He is controlling mostly outside and then bring outside »controlled variable« into perceptual representation inside. And also this has little to do with how LCS really work.

Whatever you are writing later as »mathematical description in words«, which is by your oppinion »exact« as Rick’s, has serious conditions to work (Bill, 2005) : »The usefulness of the Test would be greatly increased if a way could be found to make it independent of reference level«. Nothing in the Rick’s text resemble to what Bill wrote here. Â

By all »if«, »guessing«, »assuming«  I really don’t understand how could you find Rick’s text »being exact« or even extended from exactness ? But this is »perceptual control«. Different for every LCS with common principles.

[Martin Taylor 2014.10.29.14.28]

···

On 2014/10/27 10:38 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

HB:

Ability or inability Control as I understand it in this sense is ablility to inability to "achieve and maintain a preselcted state", what for me represents much more than simulate controlling in outer environment with "controlled variables", which seems to be circuling as "isolated control loop" as if it's determind to be like an objective truth as something that is valid for every case of control. PCT probably differs from all the other "control theories" in important aspect, control system is controlling own state and consequentially also outer states. So self-repeating outer control process of "controlled variable" seemed to me like being "cut" from internal control that can "break" the outer loop any time.  The point of any control outside is to contribute to internal control to "maintain" preselected state in controlling system. So in the case of "tracking experiment" it seems that you are not considering that. I think this is related to what is written on pages 245 and

 246 (BC:P

, 2005)   It seems to me as the same problem. Can you exactly "translate" it (as it's possible) with using as little of your meaning as possible,  what is written there. I'm also asking any other who is willing to read it and make interpretation (Martin, Bruce, Adam...any other...?).

MT:

I hesitated to respond, but since you ask explicitly, here's my view. What is written on Pages 245 and 246 is an expansion of what Rick has been trying to tell you. By that far into the book, what Rick has been saying should already be taken for granted. In those pages, Bill is giving in words a mathematical discussion of how to do the "Test for the Controlled Variable" when the subject's reference value is changing all the time. Earlier he described how to do it when the subject's reference value doesn't change.

HB : It's good that you responded. It's a great respomd. Thank you again. The only problem I see, It seems to me that you focused on p. 246, and I assume you did that because it suits your purposes. It seems to me that you left the most important thing that is happening in Bill's text on p. 245. The differences in observing »reality« between people, with different references.the differences between behavioists view and PCT.

MT :
Now my take on the background, because as I read your comments, you are making an unwarranted separation between what other people can perceive of the outer world and what the subject perceives of it. Of course, they aren't the same thing, but if the following assumptions hold, they are necessarily related.

HB : You pointed out good : the emphases is on »IF«.

MT :
We assume that there exists an outer world of considerable complexity. We assume that what we perceive is based, at least in part, on what is in that external world. We assume that when we act on the outer world, changes in our perception of it are, at least in part, influenced by our actions. All of these are mere assumptions. Everything we perceive could be planted moment by moment in our minds by some superior being, but we assume that this is not the case.

HB : Assumption about perceiving »outer world« at least in a part is acceptable. But the emphases in on »PART«. Although I don't see any connection between mine and yours perception of Bill's text. So we perceived »outer reality totaly differently«. But I'm sure it happens that we perceive it partly the same.

MT :
Making all these assumptions, and related ones ad infinitum, we can say: "If I perceive something to be outside myself, say the distance of a glass of water from the edge of the table, and I perform certain actions, after which I perceive the glass to be at a different distance from the table edge, then my actions moved the glass." Suppose I am an experimenter, and I move the glass, but you, sitting at the table in front of the glass, put it back where it was, I may reasonably assume that you could also perceive something related to whatever allows me to perceive the position of the glass relative to the table edge. I move it again, you put it back again, and this repeats a few times. I put up a screen between you and the glass and I move it again. This time, the glass stays where I put it. I remove the screen, but tie your hands behind your back, and move the glass again. This time again the glass stays where I put it. Now I untie your hands, and perceive that they move to the glass, after which the glass moves back to its original position. Might I not reasonably say that you are controlling a perception that depends on properties of the environment remarkably like the properties that lead to my perception of the glass position? Of course, I can't prove that you are controlling anything related to the glass position. Maybe someone has embedded an invisible magnet in the glass and is whispering to you how to move your hands so that when a magnet under the table moves the glass, it looks to me as though you are acting on the glass, and when that someone perceives that you can't see the glass, refrains from moving it. Maybe...but after I have looked for a variety of such exotic possibilities, would it improper for me to assume that you are indeed controlling the position of the glass _**by way of controlling your perception of its position**_?

HB : I agree if it usually happens when one is perceiving outer world with »if«, »reasonable assumption« and so on…So if you connect this uncertanty with the simplicity of cases like glass, »tracking experiment«, »knot-dot« your reasonable assumption stands. But your »reasonable assumption« in complex life situation like our conversation is, by my oppinon goes more and more far away from »reasonability« It come more closer to »relativity«, special cases of how we perceive »outer reality«. You can see it from all conversations on CSGnet how unpredictable they can be, although we are speaking about the same subject.  And see how diferently we read the same text. I thought that somebody else will also read so to show more precisley how logic of different perception of »outer world« works. But I suppose our differences will show the point.

MTÂ  :
Now in the example, I, the experimenter, assumed that since your actions precisely countered what would be my disturbances if you were indeed controlling a perception of the distance of the glass from the table edge, that's what you were controlling. But I could be wrong. Maybe what you were controlling was a perception of a particular sonic resonance that occurs when the glass is at that position and no other. But in controlling that perception, your means of control was to control the position of the glass, so I would have been correct after all.

In order to test whether you were controlling a perception of that sonic resonance, first I would have to guess that you might be controlling that, second I would have to be able to perceive the resonance, and third, I would have to find a different way to disturb the resonance so that you could control your perception of it by moving the glass to a different position. These three conditions are pretty hard to achieve, at least when there are lots of perceptions you might be controlling in order to provide a reference for having the glass in just that position. You might even be controlling for perceiving me to be confused about what you were controlling, a possibility that would be difficult to subject to the TCV without playing some elaborate games.

HB : Great desciption of relativity of perception. Nothing is as it seems to be. I think that's also what Einstein noticed.

MT :
Anyway, as you know, I have often taken Rick to task for saying that we control things in the environment. But he is absolutely correct in that if one is controlling a perception that is precisely some function of environmental properties, then control of the perception implies control of the environmental function defined by (more properly "that is") the perceptual function.

HB : You said it right »IF« one is controlling«… But considering what you said before about vaguity of perception, I would rather assume that experiment where Rick is right, is just a simple experiment that is occuring only in laboratory conditions, and has a little to do with real life, »complex situaitions« as our conversation is. As I see it, we can't apply practically anything from what you said.

MT : The closer the experimenter can come to guessing what that function is, and the better the person's control of the perception, the more precise can be the TCV. The higher, as Bill says in the pages about which you ask, will be the maximum negative value of the cross-correlation function between the experimenter introduced disturbance changes and the subject-produced actions on the guessed CEV, and the lower the cross-correlation between changes in the disturbance and changes in the guessed CEV.

HB : You are probably right. But the problem with simplicity of experiment is still present. How much can we apply the results of simple experiment on »real-life« situation ?

MT :
One problem is always there. Many perceptual signals are likely to include a contribution from internal sources (we usually call them "imagination", but they could be feedback from higher-level perceptual functions). Any such contribution will reduce the power of the TCV. I think this is unimportant, because even if the contribution to the perceptual value from the environment is relatively small, nevertheless, if the guess is good, the TCV will give results.

HB : Bingo. But I think Martin that not only many but all of the perceptual signals »include contributions« from internal sources, not just »imagination«. By my version of hierarchies in nervous system contributions are quite huge on all levels. So I think it's always better to talk about »TCP« (Test for controlled percetion) and about »CEP« (complex environmental perception) and proximity of these to »TCV and CEV, because everything we can know about TCP and CEV is just conclusion from »TCP«, and »CEP«.

I could hardly conclude from your writings that you are »following« Rick's oppinion as reference if I wouldn't include my view of perceiving »reality« in relationship between me, you and Rick. But interesting that I have impression that you »back up« Rikc's oppinion only when I'm in question. I don't recall, you ever did it when you discussed in Bill's presence or when you twoo speak alone. I remember even your complaint to Bill that he is favourising Rick. But whatever. I think it's enough evidence that we perceive quite in accordance to our references or what is suitable for us. Or as Bill wrote : »Perceptual Control – in which we see that behavior is the process by which we act on the world to control perceptions that matter to us« (Making sense of behavior, 1998).

My oppinion is that because you favourised Rick's oppinion, which you even didin't present (but you presented mein), you missed the most important message Bill gave on the pages 245 and 246. The difference in views on the simple experiment between behaviorists and PCT. And how much he contributed to our discussion where we can see the huge differences in perceiving the »same reality« on only 2 pages. It's a pitty that Bruce and Adam didnt' give their oppinion. I'm pretty sure that they are different from ours. I didn't invite Kent, because he contact me directly if he thinks that there is something important to say. I also didn't invite Erling because I have a feeling that he doesn't like such invitations. Fred is known by his spontaneous including in discussions. But I still invite all of you on CSGnet  to contribute your oppinion about pages that me and Martin discussed. You may propose also other pages to see if there are differences in perceived »reality«.

MT :
All of that is a long winded way of trying to produce a paraphrase of what Bill says in p245 and 246, while at the same time expressing my opinion that Rick has had it exactly right in this particular thread.

HB : You said it nice : trial to produce a paraphrase of what Bill says. I like it. Only »exactly right« is relative for me. Nothing is »exactly the same« as you pointed out through discussion, specially not »outer world and perception«. And Rick speccialy didn't gave any insite into internal events of what is happening wirh references. But I hope I gave the answer that matters most to me, about diversity of perceptual control.

Boris

Martin

</details>

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Warren,

I’m always glad to talk to you. As diferences between people perception are conserned I tried to show them in conversation with Martin. We will not only try to push forward PCT, we will do it, of course with permisson from PCT ladies.

I think that you and some others that involve in conversation are enough garantie that »positive spirit« will prevale on the CSGnet. Thanks a lot also to all the others who contributed their oppinon.

Best,

Boris

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 11:29 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Hi Boris, thank you for your gracious reply. I guess we all differ in how we perceive PCT, unfortunately, and that is what we have to thrash out! As I say, we can probably still manage to push forward PCT with some conflict in perceptions but I also think we can reduce that conflict to with more time and attention paid to the apparent differences…

Warren

On 30 Oct 2014, at 17:59, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

this is a nice message and I agree wtih you. But you have to tell also others to do their part. I tried nice and gentel (see the posts), and what did I get ? Selfish personal promotion. I’m sorry but I won’t serve as subject of manipulations.

I don’t know anything about who dwarfs who. But I know that I understand quite something about the organisms and after long talkings to Bill and some others on CSGnet, you can beleive me,I know what I’m talking about. Bill is really not with us, but his work is. And from time to time it’s good to remember what he said about something, not to read some »strange interpretations« of his work, which maybe even don’t resemble PCT.

I’m not sure what you meant with »steady steer« on the PCT boat. Warren I try to keep steady steer of PCT boat. You should turn to those who are not.

I admire Kent’s work, and I think that we should cite him more. I beleive that cooperation is effective maybe more than conflict. So arguments and common agreement of arguments shoud prevail not writing of one man, as that is the only thing we should beleive.

I beleive that you are a good guy. But people are very different. There are also bad guys. So I’m sorry if I’ll make differences in atitude to them. Enough openness can sometimes cuase damagable consequences. Experiences show that we should be carefull.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Hi Boris, I agree with you that Bill’s knowledge dwarfs Ricks! And I also believe in that Rick’s knowledge of modelling PCT dwarfs mine, and maybe even yours?!

But Bill is no longer with us and we just have each other. So let’s work together to distil Bill’s key messages, and be openly uncertain about the rest, pending further enquiry.

Let’s keep a steady steer on the PCT boat, despite the inevitability of conflict with all this collective control. Kent’s work tells us it is possible with enough resources and enough openness about our own (multi-levelled and sometimes outside awareness) goals!

Land ahoy!

Warren

On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB: Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical, mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don’t suppose you would be willing to explain just what I got so wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism, self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge damage to PCT). Here is your question and my answer again:

HB: I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.

RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.

Best

Rick

–

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

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Andrew.

Are you somehow related to Fred ? J

AN :

Boris, it seems to me that the frequently hostile tone of your posts may be related to some internal conflicts you have and/or reorganization you are undergoing.

HB :

Maybe you are right. But I’m surely not hostile to everbody. Probably only to person’s who are hostile to me. But beleive me, that it wasn’t so in the beggining when I came to CSGnet. I remember how nice talkings we had. But later everything changed. I got a feeling that somebody here on CSGnet  »attacked« every »different oppinion«. In the past  some quite superb thinkers left CSGnet, probably because of »hostile attitude to them«, and so on.

I can’t ignore sentences like Rick is sending. Why should I ? And if he is so good at PCT with so various knowledge, why he doesn’t put arguments »on the table« supported by Bill’s citations. Afterall everyrthing here should be arround Bill.

But you are right. I have a problem, maybe as you said »internal conflict« which is going on as difference between my »wanted self« and actually »perceived self« here on CSGnet, where difference show to me, that I’m quite some years unwanted person, and quite often treated as »3.rd class member«. But I suppose we can’t solve that. It’s sad and melancholic, but so it is.

Thanks anyway for your concern about my »internal state« J.

···

AN : We are all in this together, and an emotional, contentious tone will likely only cloud the issues involved, retarding progress in understanding and disseminating accurate information regarding PCT.

HB :

As I said Andrew, I don’t know how much I’m appart from CSgnet or how much we are together, because of insults that appeared »from time to time« As i said  when I joined CSGnet it was nice and quite, but then it exploded and from than on, there is no peace.

I remember well only that me and Martin quite often stepped together against »agressors« J, and we were quite some years »shoulder by shoulder«. But I think that we splitted for not important reason or ?

So clouds you are talking about were here before. Those clouds which you are mentioned, are just »desert«. Conflicts about who is right and who is not conitnued and will continue. But I hope you saw it. I tried nice way. But it didn’t help. As I also said to Warren, you could tell some words also to others involved in conflict. Never only one is guilty when many persons are involved. By collective control logic they are all involved in cooperation or conflict.

I will stay on te position that arguments which are supported by citation from Bill’s work should prevale. As I said before. I’m quite sure in arguments I present.

So retardation of process in understanding and disseminating accurate informations are in treatment through our discussions. There in no objective truth what is right about PCT.

But I’m interested what do you think is right and accurate information regarding PCT ? Those which Rick represent ?

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew Nichols
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:15 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Boris, it seems to me that the frequently hostile tone of your posts may be related to some internal conflicts you have and/or reorganization you are undergoing. We are all in this together, and an emotional, contentious tone will likely only cloud the issues involved, retarding progress in understanding and disseminating accurate information regarding PCT.

Andrew Nichols

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

this is a nice message and I agree wtih you. But you have to tell also others to do their part. I tried nice and gentel (see the posts), and what did I get ? Selfish personal promotion. I’m sorry but I won’t serve as subject of manipulations.

I don’t know anything about who dwarfs who. But I know that I understand quite something about the organisms and after long talkings to Bill and some others on CSGnet, you can beleive me,I know what I’m talking about. Bill is really not with us, but his work is. And from time to time it’s good to remember what he said about something, not to read some »strange interpretations« of his work, which maybe even don’t resemble PCT.

I’m not sure what you meant with »steady steer« on the PCT boat. Warren I try to keep steady steer of PCT boat. You should turn to those who are not.

I admire Kent’s work, and I think that we should cite him more. I beleive that cooperation is effective maybe more than conflict. So arguments and common agreement of arguments shoud prevail not writing of one man, as that is the only thing we should beleive.

I beleive that you are a good guy. But people are very different. There are also bad guys. So I’m sorry if I’ll make differences in atitude to them. Enough openness can sometimes cuase damagable consequences. Experiences show that we should be carefull.

Best,

Boris

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Warren Mansell
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

Hi Boris, I agree with you that Bill’s knowledge dwarfs Ricks! And I also believe in that Rick’s knowledge of modelling PCT dwarfs mine, and maybe even yours?!

But Bill is no longer with us and we just have each other. So let’s work together to distil Bill’s key messages, and be openly uncertain about the rest, pending further enquiry.

Let’s keep a steady steer on the PCT boat, despite the inevitability of conflict with all this collective control. Kent’s work tells us it is possible with enough resources and enough openness about our own (multi-levelled and sometimes outside awareness) goals!

Land ahoy!

Warren

On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

HB: Well it’s obviously that it’s useless. You are dragging CSGnet to behaviorism and self-regulation . What you are proposin is almost the same as Carver and Scheier do. You are ignorant in comparison to Bill’s knowledge enormously. I don’t know how you will substitute Bill’s physiological,anathomical, mathematical, physical and probably saome more knowlegde, to understand that you are making a huge damage to PCT. As I said I’m only sorry for Bill’s daughter’s who maybe beleive your RCT. I hope they will »hire« some experts to clear mess you made.

RM: Wow, pretty strong stuff. I don’t suppose you would be willing to explain just what I got so wrong, without all the name calling (behaviorism, self-regulation, Carver-Scheier, ignorant, huge damage to PCT). Here is your question and my answer again:

HB: I’m interested what it means to you first part of Bill’s definiton :

»Achievement and maintainance of a preselcted perceptual state in the controlling system….«

RM: It means bringing a perceptual variable, such as the perception of the vertical optical velocity of a Frisbee, to a reference or goal value, such as zero optical velocity, and keeping it at the value, as best as possible, protected from the effects of disturbance, such as changes in the vertical movement of the Frisbee itself.

RM: How about a nice, clear explanation of what is wrong with what I said. It would surely help your cause of getting others to see why they shouldn’t pay any attention to what I say about PCT.

Best

Rick

–

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

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

[Martin Taylor 2014.10.31.14.52]

Martin, thank you.

I’m not sure if we read corresponding pages. There is so much differences in what you read and what I was reading. And beside that you exposed my oppinion about the problem and then talked about how Rick’s oppinion »exactly match« Bill’s. It’s confusing.

I find it hard to understand your interpretation of PCT, which appears to have diverged considerably from mine. There was a time when I thought our understandings were different only in a few small technical details that you agreed (I thought) could be resolved if you came to understand the mathematical background. At that time, we disagreed also over what I thought were rather peripheral matters where the disagreement was unimportant. But on the main points, I thought we were in full agreement.

HB :

Yes, I agree that there is still diversity in our thinking and it will probably stay as this is our natural divergence. And I think you are right that most of difference rise from your mathematical view of the »reality« and mine physiological view. That’s probably the main difference in »filters« for our judging the »physical quantities«.

MT :
This seems not to be the case now, and as I said, I don’t understand how you now see PCT. So when I respond, I can do so only from my own understanding of PCT, not from an understanding of where your view of PCT differs from mine. To reconcile our views, we have to recognize where they are different, and I don’t. Mine starts from this diagram, and goes on from there with various elaborations, many but not all of them presented by Bill.

A state sensed as S (a lot of sensory inputs) in the outer world (the CEV) is transformed by some internal operations into a perceptual signal P, which is compared to a reference value R. The difference is an error signal E, which is converted by some internal operations into actions O on the environment. The environment reacts to O in a variety of ways, some of which alter S and therefore P. If control is good, P approaches R over time. This is the diagram I tried to justify (partially) with my assumptions, to which you object.

HB :

I don’t think that I object to this (narrow) part of understanding how organisms work, but more how perceptual signals are »treated« in organism with references. My picture of how comparator works and how references are produced in organism is much different from yours and PCT. I tried once to present it to Bill and CSGnet, but presentation was disastrous. And that what I wanted to present was something what was somehow hidden under »the water« or if use your diagram, »under« your basic diagram of understanding PCT, which by your words resemble to Bill’s.

By my oppinion model you and Rick use for analyzing LCS is much too narrow. By my oppinion it does not allow full insight how organism works as that is the goal of PCT. So I see it difficult to advise you what to do to understand or get the whole picture of the »whole mountain under the water«, without advising you to get some knowledge of physiology.  That seems to be crucial in full understanding of how organisms work and consequetially in full understanding of PCT. It’s paradocs. By my oppinion physilogy doesn’t have the »whole picture« but have all details how organism works, and PCT have (theoretically) the whole picture, but does not have details. So both can offer the whole picture of organisms functioning with all details.

MT :

Apparently you have a different view, and it would help us to communicate if we knew how your view differs from this. Maybe you could present your own diagram.

HB :

I’m trying to make my picture to reading and understanding PCT based on my knowledge  and I assuume that you are trying to make your model based on your knowledge and there are quite differences (what we also noticed through our reading of 2 pages).

But I think we’ve been through all this at least 3 times if we count discussions on ECACS where »we disagreed also over what I thought were rather peripheral matters where the disagreement was unimportant. But on the main points, I thought we were in full agreement«.

If you remember you proposed the same thing you are proposing me now : to communicate the differences and to present you my original view. And if you remember I offered you cooperation, but you refused (or you never answered to my proposal). The same was with Bill, as he didn’t accept my terms. So I don’t know what else could I do, but offer fair agreement, which put as in equal position. So I concluded that you both wanted something else. But I will not talk about it anymore.

As you already said there were quite little differences in our perceiving and understanding of »the reality« when »narrow« general diagram of PCT was analyzed. More disagreements derive from our understanding how organisms work or what is the whole picture that PCT and other knowledge could offer.Â

PCT can offer some extent of understanding the »truth« about LCS, so we can get this picture with reading LCS I, LCS II, B:CP, »Making sense of behavior«, Ken’ts work, Czico’s work, Bruce Abbott’s synopsys … and so forth. Interesting I noticed that I never read anything from Rick J. They all offer aproximaltelly the same »picture« although I noticed once that Bill was enthusiastic about Czico’s explanation. I personally think that Kent and Bruce are closer to the truth of how organisms work and their language is quite understandable also for foreigner. I even think that Bill »stopped« their progressing to the »final truth«, although I don’t know if that is what they felt. But from Kent’s whole work from 1994 it’s obvious how his theoretical knowledge varyed. But please don’t take this for granted. It’s just humble oppinion of »3.rd order member«.

Speccially on the bases of reading Kent’s work and Bruce’s, which were the first things I read about PCT I suspected that there is something missing.  Although I admitt (I’m trully sorry Kent and Bruce) that  I first thought that simplicity of their understanding is not enough to understand PCT. So with further readings (by buying Bill’s books, maybe Allison will remember the disaster) I thought that I will extend my knowledge of PCT. But that wasn’t so, because of »very heavy« Bill’s  language although I could see how powerfull his knowledge was. So I get back to Kent and Bruce and finished my basic understanding of PCT. Than I get involved into conversation with you and later with Bill and to Kent and on ECACS to others. Interesting conversation was also with Bruce.

I must admitt that you gave me many basic clarifications of PCT outline. And I think you get it back when we talked on ECACS. But Bill gave the »whole picture« of PCT, so the missing parts become more than obvious. I got some ideas and exposed them and there our relationship sadly ended. Although I was sorry later thinking that maybe I could travel to USA and meet him, speccially when my daughter was there. But I was delaying my travel, thought there would be chances later but I obviously »missed the train«. And I’m trully sorry that our relationship ended like that.

After I get the »full picture« of PCT and noticed possible weakness, I tried to extend my knowledge about how organisms work. So I read Ashby, Maturana and  renewiev my physilogical knowledge. I also talked to Maturana. Well I was surprised. The picture did extend and gave quite different angle on how LCS could work, inside.

But the basic  Bill’s premise is probably »unbeatable« : all organism working as coordinated »machine« of bilions control units. It simplifies analitic approcah although it maybe look like enormous number. But imagine this enormous number without any »glue« keeping organism together as some sciences are trying to get to the »final truth«. Practically with nothing, chasing bilions adn bilions connections and impulses in nervous system without any basic »glue«. So my final goal as I repeated many times is to see how all possible control units work coordinatedly in organism at the same time. And as I repeated many times, the time of the PCT by my oppinion hasn’t come yet, because of the missing technology.

I hope Martin that I answered your question, as that is as far as I go. For now…

I will omitt other discussion as irrelevant. It was just for »testing« for how »reality« will be always perceived differently in different persons Most probable in accordance to their purposes, which are varying. And I think that no simple experiment can prove opposite. I think more of them as being missleading. I’m only sorry that nobody else joined the »Test«.

Best,

Boris

MT :

What is written on Pages 245 and 246 is an expansion of what Rick has been trying to tell you. By that far into the book, what Rick has been saying should already be taken for granted.

HB :

As I said I don’t see any expansion of what Rick wrote.

Well, from a quote you make later in your message, at least we are reading the same text, and I see it as very much an expansion of what Rick wrote; an expansion into the situation in which the reference values can change while the experimenter is doing the Test for the Controlled Variable (which Bill just calls “The Test” in this passage (as we did for at least the first decade of my involvement with PCT–adding “for the Controlled Variable” came much later).

In his expansion (p246-7) starting with “The usefulness of The Test would be greatly increased if a way could be found to make it independent of reference level.” Bill explains firstly where the problem is and then in the paragraph that crosses between p246and 247 derives the mathematics necessary to deal with the changing reference problem.

I see only mine »expansion« exposed. And I don’t remember that I asked for oppinion about Rick’s text.

No you didn’t. I simply didn’t see any need to repeat what Rick had already explained.

MT :

In those pages, Bill is giving in words a mathematical discussion of how to do the “Test for the Controlled Variable” when the subject’s reference value is changing all the time. Earlier he described how to do it when the subject’s reference value doesn’t change.

HB :

I also don’t see any mathematical discussion in words of how to do »Test for Controlled Variable«. Probably your imagination. I got an impression that you use frequently mathemathical descriptions and it seems that, this is your »background« when observing text and reality.

And if I’m sincere I even don’t see where Bill mentioned any »Test for Controlled Variable«. He is realy mentioning variable once, but as i see it iwas in the context of internal environment. What I see Bill showed an introduction to introduce feed-back theory to behaviorists. So the main point of what is written on p. 245 and 246 is for me the differences in views between behaviorist and PCT.

Bill certainly does that, but only as an introduction to the TCV. If you are a behaviourist, you aren’t even looking for a controlled variable. In the first part of this section, Bill shows that you should be.

…

The main point of Bill’s text as I see it, is about how references (inside events in organism) are important in control and perceiving the »world outside«.

Here’s a mystery. Within PCT as described by Bill, how can references affect how you perceive the world outside? In my understanding of PCT, a reference value is compared with the perceptual value as in the diagram above, and doesn’t affect “perceiving the world outside” in any way.

The difference between reference and perceptual value is an input to the output function, which eventually results in action that changes the state of the outer world so that what is perceived is altered. If the fact that control is done by changing the outer world is what you mean by references changing “perceiving the world outside”, then OK. If it isn’t what you mean, then it would help if you expand on this comment and explain how it might work.

And that has little to do with Rick’s view of control. He is controlling mostly outside and then bring outside »controlled variable« into perceptual representation inside. And also this has little to do with how LCS really work.

In your view, then, what we perceive is unrelated to what is outside?

Whether Bill’s HPCT is the way LCS (Living Control Systems) really work is open to question. Rick works only within Bill’s version of HPCT, so he could be wrong as well.

Whatever you are writing later as »mathematical description in words«, which is by your oppinion »exact« as Rick’s, has serious conditions to work (Bill, 2005) : »The usefulness of the Test would be greatly increased if a way could be found to make it independent of reference level«. Nothing in the Rick’s text resemble to what Bill wrote here.

No, it wouldn’t, because what Bill wrote is the expansion on what Rick said (as I explained).

By all »if«, »guessing«, »assuming« I really don’t understand how could you find Rick’s text »being exact« or even extended from exactness ?

I don’t remember any “guessing”. Which assumptions do you think not valid? The "if"s are there to say that it is possible the assumptions are wrong. You seem to think that at least one of them is invalid, so which one(s)? Here they are again, to save you from having to look back.

[MT earlier] We assume that there exists an outer world of considerable complexity. We assume that what we perceive is based, at least in part, on what is in that external world. We assume that when we act on the outer world, changes in our perception of it are, at least in part, influenced by our actions.

Martin

···

From: csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu [mailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Taylor
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:16 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Review of “Reconstructing Your World View� by Bart Madden

On 2014/10/31 3:27 AM, Boris Hartman wrote: