# Review of “Reconstructing Your World V iew�? by Bart Madden

[Martin Taylor 2014.10.29.14.28]

``````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.
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.
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.
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 __?
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. 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. 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.
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.
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
Martin

···

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...?).
``````

** by way of
controlling your perception of its position**

So do I, and with Martin and Rick.
Regards,
Rupert

I agree with Warren.
David Goldstein

Sent from my iPhone

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

[From Rick Marken (2014.10.29.1510)]

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, Â 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 Â»hireÂ« 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).Â Here is your question and my answer again:

Â

···

On 30/10/2014 14:10, D Goldstein wrote:

On Oct 30, 2014, at 4:44 AM, Warren Mansell <<mailto:wmansell@gmail.com>wmansell@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Â

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.Â

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.Â
Best
Rick

--

Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author ofÂ Â <http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose>Doing Research on Purpose.Â

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[Martin Taylor 2014.10.31.14.52]

``````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. 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.
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.
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.
No you didn’t. I simply didn’t see any need to repeat what Rick had
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.
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.
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.
No, it wouldn’t, because what Bill wrote is the expansion on what
Rick said (as I explained).
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.
Martin

···

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

``````        Martin,
``````

thank you.

Â

``````        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 Â»exactly matchÂ«
Bill’s. It’s confusing.

Â

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.

Â

``````        HB
``````

:

``````        As
``````

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

``````        I
``````

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

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.

Â

``````        HB
``````

:

``````        I
``````

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

Â

``````        And if I'm sincere I even don't see where Bill mentioned
``````

Â any Â»Test for Controlled VariableÂ«. 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. Â Â Â Â So the
main point of what is written on p. 245 and 246 is for me
the differences in views between behaviorist and PCT.

Â

Â

``````          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
Â»world outsideÂ«.

``````          And that has little to do with
``````

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

Â

``````          Whatever you are writing later as
``````

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

Â

``````          By all Â»ifÂ«, Â»guessingÂ«,
``````

Â»assumingÂ« Â I really don’t understand how could you find
Rick’s text Â»being exactÂ« or even extended from exactness
?

``````  [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.

Boris,

``````I won't try to answer your points, but I appreciate your
``````

clarifications of where you are coming from. Let me try to
paraphrase in bullet point form. If I am wrong, you can correct me.

``````1. Your primary objective (as with everybody on this list, I
``````

believe) is to understand how living control systems work; your
interest is in human physiology, whereas others among us are
interested in a wider range of living things, from bacteria and
flowers to mammals and reptiles, as well as venturing into the world
of robotics.

``````2. In some matters, your opinion is that Bill Powers is the ultimate
``````

authority, not to be challenged, but on other matters you challenged
him in life and continue to do so now. You say "
Bill gave the Â»whole pictureÂ« of PCT" , which is something
Bill never claimed. Bill often said that neither he nor anyone else
properly understood PCT, and that he wanted to build understanding
one small step at a time from the very simple beginnings he felt he
had established. That development might take many people many years
to fill in all the gaps and correct the errors. For myself, I see
the question of whether the development should be by Bill’s
incremental steps or by bold leaps as being a question of
personality. Some people are “linear thinkers”, others build a big
picture from isolated chunks.

``````2 (continued). You agree with probably the majority of people on
``````

this list, including me, when you say "
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
would add for myself “to see how control systems work in societies
of independently acting organisms”.

``````3. But you also seem to say that PCT is too narrow to explain all of
``````

human physiology (or is it that human physiology is too complex ever
to be understood in PCT terms?). Your position on this seems to be
pretty absolute.

``````4. You say: "
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 Â»the waterÂ« or if use your diagram, Â»underÂ« your
basic diagram of understanding PCT, which by your words resemble
to Bill’s." If that is so, I don’t think it is fair to
expect readers of your postings to understand what you say when you
use terms in a different way from the way everyone on the list uses
them, without providing a careful explanation of the way your usage
differs from the standard PCT usage. You get mad when people who
believe you are working in the context of Bill’s version of HPCT try
to correct you, when the problem really is that you are using what
we might call BCT (Boris Control Theory) without explaining how BCT
differs from Bill’s PCT. Maybe you could write a description of BCT
that could be archived (or published) somewhere so that you could
refer to it, and so that its implications couls be tested against
the implications of PCT in fair experiments.

``````5. (Personal) You say I refused cooperation in the past; I remember
``````

the opposite, when you wanted to know the reasoning behind some of
my statements and then refused to try to understand when I tried to
explain. This still seems to be the case. I hope I am wrong on this
one.

``````Martin
``````
···

On 2014/11/1 2:44 AM, Boris Hartman
wrote:

Â

Â

From:

``````            [] Martin Taylor
``````

Friday, October 31, 2014 9:16 PM
Re: Review of â€œReconstructing Your World
Viewâ€? by Bart Madden

Â

[Martin Taylor 2014.10.31.14.52]

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

wrote:

``````          Martin,
``````

thank you.

Â

``````          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 Â»exactly matchÂ«
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.

Â

``````        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 Â»realityÂ« and mine physiological
view. That’s probably the main difference in Â»filtersÂ« for
our judging the Â»physical quantitiesÂ«.

``````      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 Â»treatedÂ« 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 Â»the
waterÂ« or if use your diagram, Â»underÂ« your basic diagram of
understanding PCT, which by your words resemble to Bill’s.

Â

``````        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 Â»whole mountain under the waterÂ«,
without advising you to get some knowledge of physiology.
Â 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 Â»whole pictureÂ« 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.

Â

``````        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 Â 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).

Â

``````        But
``````

I think we’ve been through all this at least 3 times if we
count discussions on ECACS where Â» 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 agreementÂ«.

Â

``````          If you remember you proposed the
``````

same thing you are proposing me now : to communicate the
differences and to present you my original view. Â 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.

Â

``````        As
``````

you already said there were quite little differences in our
perceiving and understanding of Â»the realityÂ« when Â»narrowÂ«
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

Â

``````        PCT
``````

can offer some extent of understanding the Â»truthÂ« about
LCS, so we can get this picture with reading LCS I, LCS II,
B:CP, Â»Making sense of behaviorÂ«, 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 Â»pictureÂ« 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 Â»stoppedÂ« their progressing to the Â»final truthÂ«,
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 Â»3.rd order memberÂ«.

Â

``````        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. Â Although I admitt (I’m trully sorry Kent
and Bruce) that Â 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 Â»very
heavyÂ« Bill’s Â 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.

Â

``````        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 Â»whole pictureÂ« 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 Â»missed the trainÂ«. And I’m
trully sorry that our relationship ended like that.

Â

``````        After
``````

I get the Â»full pictureÂ« of PCT and noticed possible
weakness, I tried to extend my knowledge about how organisms
work. So I read Ashby, Maturana and Â 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.

Â

``````        But
``````

the basic Â Bill’s premise is probably Â»unbeatableÂ« : all
organism working as coordinated Â»machineÂ« of bilions control
units. It simplifies analitic approcah although it maybe
look like enormous number. But imagine this enormous number
without any Â»glueÂ« keeping organism together as some
sciences are trying to get to the Â»final truthÂ«. Practically
with nothing, chasing bilions adn bilions connections and
impulses in nervous system without any basic Â»glueÂ«. 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.

Â

``````        I
``````

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

Â

``````        I will omitt
``````

other discussion as irrelevant. It was just for Â»testingÂ«
for how Â»realityÂ« 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
Â»TestÂ«.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

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.

Â

``````        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 Â»expansionÂ« 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
``````

Â

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.

Â

``````        HB
``````

:

``````        I
``````

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

Â

``````        And
``````

if I’m sincere I even don’t see where Bill mentioned Â any
Â»Test for Controlled VariableÂ«. 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. Â Â Â Â 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.

Â

Â

``````        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 Â»world outsideÂ«.

``````      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 Â»controlled variableÂ«
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.

Â

``````        Whatever you
``````

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

``````      No, it wouldn't, because what Bill wrote is the expansion on
``````

what Rick said (as I explained).

Â

``````        By all Â»ifÂ«,
``````

Â»guessingÂ«, Â»assumingÂ« Â I really don’t understand how could
you find Rick’s text Â»being exactÂ« 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
``````

csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edumailto:csgnet-request@lists.illinois.edu** On Behalf
Of**
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: