Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Warren,

You are wrong….

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:48 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

Yep, for ‘perceived controlled variable’ read ‘perceptual signal’ and for ‘controlled quantity’ read ‘input quantity’. I think you are missing the point of my post which is to try to at least agree that there are different ways that output signals can ultimately affect shifts in perception - via moving the object itself, via shifting one’s view of the object, and via imagining the object differently.

All the best,

Warren

HB :

You are missing the point. Barb clearly wrote once that we know how precisly Bill choose terminology. Not without reason. So stick to his terminology and we’ll have no problem with inderstanding each other. You participated in article »50th Anniversary« so stick to terminology you were participating for. Or you provide Bill’s citations in newer literature that your change of his terminology is justified. Â

Best,

Boris

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hu Warren,

What a mess….

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 11:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

Hi Philip, this is a very important example! Rick, could we have reached a breakthrough? Could there be actions that control the perceived controlled variable via changing the controlled quantity AND actions that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity? AND of course we have the imagination mode exception as well. Maybe you are BOTH RIGHT? Often happens in debates I find!

HB : Why don’t you make orientation in the article »50th Anniversary« you were participating. You are denying everything what you agreed in that article. Actions can never be controlled. Read Bill’s book. There is no »perceived controlled variable«. It’s just »perceptual signal »millions of them which do not any information about environment. Read B:CP. There is no »controled quantity. It’s just imagined term… In the latest Bill’s diagraam you will meet just »input quantity« that is affected by output. You can see clearly these things out of diagram (Anniversary). Read Bill, respect Bill, use his terms, stop listening Rick and his RCT (Rick Control Theory) who is anyway just »trouble-maker«.

Bets,

Boris

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:11 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

Boris brought up to me the example of looking at a passerby. What Boris is saying is that the effect of the environment on the senses is controlled as well as the effect of the actions on the environment. Move body to look at person; look at person but don’t touch. The environmental object corresponding to the image on the eye is not influenced, merely which aspect is observed. This is a “perceptual switch” type thingy.

Keep in mind that the reference signal is a copy of a registered perceptual signal (memory). So as the person strolls along, you’re going to be looking at them during the entire time, from when some aspect of the person’s existence (perhaps their ears) enters your memory until the time it departs and you are no longer entertaining thoughts about any aspect of the person.

This is an important example because we are looking at a person: a single, entire, finite behaving system, not countless numbers of atoms comprising inanimate matter. Even if we could see the individual atoms of inanimate matter, they would still not take up a life of their own and move in a manner analogous to a living thing. Perhaps we would observe some discrete, rememberable pattern. But on the whole, there is no physical organism.

This is not quantum mechanics. The choice of which aspect of the person to observe (i.e. which variable to measure) does not affect the observed system (the person), who exists independent of our perception. Neither does the act of pure sight affect in any way the outcome of the measurement. We can look at any visible aspect of the person we like. We cannot, however, see the forces exerted by the person’s muscles.

The perception of the forces which move the person along are controlled by the person but occur independently of the image cast on your retina. What’s more important than the stabilization of the image in your eye is the stabilization of the relationship controlled by the person walking (the relationship is the proportion of the amount of effort output by various groups of muscles involved in walking and posture).

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[wmansell]

Hi Warren,

You are wrong…¦.

···

Yep, for ‘perceived controlled variable’ read ‘perceptual signal’ and for ‘controlled quantity’ read ‘input quantity’. I think you are missing the point of my post which is to try to at least agree that there are different ways that output signals can ultimately affect shifts in perception - via moving the object itself, via shifting one’s view of the object, and via imagining the object differently.

All the best,

Warren

HB :

You are missing the point. Barb clearly wrote once that we know how precisly Bill choose terminology. Not without reason. So stick to his terminology and we’ll have no problem with inderstanding each other. You participated in article »50th Anniversary« so stick to terminology you were participating for. Or you provide Bill’s citations in newer literature that your change of his terminology is justified.

Best,

Boris

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hu Warren,

What a mess….

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 11:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

Hi Philip, this is a very important example! Rick, could we have reached a breakthrough? Could there be actions that control the perceived controlled variable via changing the controlled quantity AND actions that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity? AND of course we have the imagination mode exception as well. Maybe you are BOTH RIGHT? Often happens in debates I find!

HB : Why don’t you make orientation in the article »50th Anniversary« you were participating. You are denying everything what you agreed in that article. Actions can never be controlled. Read Bill’s book. There is no »perceived controlled variable«. It’s just »perceptual signal »millions of them which do not any information about environment. Read B:CP. There is no »controled quantity. It’s just imagined term… In the latest Bill’s diagram you will meet just »input quanttity« that is affected by output. You can see clearly these things out of diagram (Anniversary). Read Bill, respect Bill, use his terms, stop listening Rick and his RCT (Rick Control Theory) who is anyway just »trouble-maker«.

Bets,

Boris

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:11 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

Boris brought up to me the example of looking at a passerby. What Boris is saying is that the effect of the environment on the senses is controlled as well as the effect of the actions on the environment. Move body to look at person; look at person but don’t touch. The environmental object corresponding to the image on the eye is not influenced, merely which aspect is observed. This is a “perceptual switch” type thingy.

Keep in mind that the reference signal is a copy of a registered perceptual signal (memory). So as the person strolls along, you’re going to be looking at them during the entire time, from when some aspect of the person’s existence (perhaps their ears) enters your memory until the time it departs and you are no longer entertaining thoughts about any aspect of the person.

This is an important example because we are looking at a person: a single, entire, finite behaving system, not countless numbers of atoms comprising inanimate matter. Even if we could see the individual atoms of inanimate matter, they would still not take up a life of their own and move in a manner analogous to a living thing. Perhaps we would observe some discrete, rememberable pattern. But on the whole, there is no physical organism.

This is not quantum mechanics. The choice of which aspect of the person to observe (i.e. which variable to measure) does not affect the observed system (the person), who exists independent of our perception. Neither does the act of pure sight affect in any way the outcome of the measurement. We can look at any visible aspect of the person we like. We cannot, however, see the forces exerted by the person’s muscles.

The perception of the forces which move the person along are controlled by the person but occur independently of the image cast on your retina. What’s more important than the stabilization of the image in your eye is the stabilization of the relationship controlled by the person walking (the relationship is the proportion of the amount of effort output by various groups of muscles involved in walking and posture).

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[_Boris_Hartman]

It’s fine with me Warren, as long as you put your ideas in Bill’s framework and his terminology. I expect from professor with PhD to know how to citate and present his ideas. Although as I see it you try to present ideas in RCT. And also this I tink you should know how to handle.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:22 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

I am just playing with ideas mate in this creative forum we call CSG

On 22 Sep 2015, at 14:12, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Warren,

You are wrong….

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:48 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

Yep, for ‘perceived controlled variable’ read ‘perceptual signal’ and for ‘controlled quantity’ read ‘input quantity’. I think you are missing the point of my post which is to try to at least agree that there are different ways that output signals can ultimately affect shifts in perception - via moving the object itself, via shifting one’s view of the object, and via imagining the object differently.

All the best,

Warren

HB :

You are missing the point. Barb clearly wrote once that we know how precisly Bill choose terminology. Not without reason. So stick to his terminology and we’ll have no problem with inderstanding each other. You participated in article »50th Anniversary« so stick to terminology you were participating for. Or you provide Bill’s citations in newer literature that your change of his terminology is justified.

Best,

Boris

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hu Warren,

What a mess….

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 11:00 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

Hi Philip, this is a very important example! Rick, could we have reached a breakthrough? Could there be actions that control the perceived controlled variable via changing the controlled quantity AND actions that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity? AND of course we have the imagination mode exception as well. Maybe you are BOTH RIGHT? Often happens in debates I find!

HB : Why don’t you make orientation in the article »50th Anniversary« you were participating. You are denying everything what you agreed in that article. Actions can never be controlled. Read Bill’s book. There is no »perceived controlled variable«. It’s just »perceptual signal »millions of them which do not any information about environment. Read B:CP. There is no »controled quantity. It’s just imagined term… In the latest Bill’s diagram yyou will meet just »input quantity« that is affected by output. You can see clearly these things out of diagram (Anniversary). Read Bill, respect Bill, use his terms, stop listening Rick and his RCT (Rick Control Theory) who is anyway just »trouble-maker«.

Bets,

Boris

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:11 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

Boris brought up to me the example of looking at a passerby. What Boris is saying is that the effect of the environment on the senses is controlled as well as the effect of the actions on the environment. Move body to look at person; look at person but don’t touch. The environmental object corresponding to the image on the eye is not influenced, merely which aspect is observed. This is a “perceptual switch” type thingy.

Keep in mind that the reference signal is a copy of a registered perceptual signal (memory). So as the person strolls along, you’re going to be looking at them during the entire time, from when some aspect of the person’s existence (perhaps their ears) enters your memory until the time it departs and you are no longer entertaining thoughts about any aspect of the person.

This is an important example because we are looking at a person: a single, entire, finite behaving system, not countless numbers of atoms comprising inanimate matter. Even if we could see the individual atoms of inanimate matter, they would still not take up a life of their own and move in a manner analogous to a living thing. Perhaps we would observe some discrete, rememberable pattern. But on the whole, there is no physical organism.

This is not quantum mechanics. The choice of which aspect of the person to observe (i.e. which variable to measure) does not affect the observed system (the person), who exists independent of our perception. Neither does the act of pure sight affect in any way the outcome of the measurement. We can look at any visible aspect of the person we like. We cannot, however, see the forces exerted by the person’s muscles.

The perception of the forces which move the person along are controlled by the person but occur independently of the image cast on your retina. What’s more important than the stabilization of the image in your eye is the stabilization of the relationship controlled by the person walking (the relationship is the proportion of the amount of effort output by various groups of muscles involved in walking and posture).

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[_Boris_Hartman]

RM: You have never given me (or anyone, as far as I know) an example of a perceptual signal being controlled while the environmental correlate of that perception is not. An example, from my perspective, would be a computer simulation (or a mathematical model) showing that a perceptual variable, p, can be controlled while the aspect of the environment that corresponds to p is not.

HB :

Your memory is really short or you haven’t got any. You can by memory chips very cheap.

In 2007 we have discussed numerous examples in school system. We talked about what perception teacher and students control. When they control perception no correlate is controlled. Just outer environment and consequently input is affected by output . See Bill’s diagram.

We also discussed about »rocketball« how it is played with controlling »which perceptions«, not contolled variables in environment. You used this example in advising Fred how to train. It’s a good start, but I could give you more hints as I was trainer in several sports…

Anotrher example is your »missed« demo of baseball catch. Pure »input contollng output«. After our discussion you removed your baseball catch and »repair« it and it still doesn’t work.

Another example is »sheep dogs« which should somehow control behavior of shisp. There is no »controlled variable« called ship.

Anotehr example was tennis where I, David and Barb proved that you don’t know anything about tennis, as you calimed that opponets cotnrol each other. So i’ve got impression that you don’t know anthing about sports.

RM :

Until you can provide such an example I will, as per my previous post, continue to see your “explanations” as having nothing to do with with what I am interested in doing, which is research aimed at testing PCT.

HB : So you example where we »correct« your self-regualtion and behavioristic theory is as much as you want.

When I’ve provided you example of »turning head« as pure example of »output affecting inptu, you’ve »stolen« it and make it looking as being your example. See back our discussion and your later discussion qith Tracy Harms.

RM :

This makes it clear that your actions (outputs) don’t necessarily have to have a direct effect on the environment… For example, when I move my head

I’ve written twice to Powers ladies to do somrthing with your »prinicing« on teh CSGnet. But they did one big NOTHING.

So until CSGnet is safe from your »princing« and until you will not read again all books from Bill and understand his work, and use his terminology his citations in your discussions as an evidence, not your own imginary constructions of RCT /Ricks Control Theory, I’m not saying anymore about PCT as I did.

It’ up to »powers ladies« to do something about your ignorancy.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 10:32 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.20.1330)]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

PY: … What is an example of a perceptual signal which is controlled, but the corresponding environmental correlate is not controlled? If you can give me just one example of this, I’ll believe you.

RM: Excellent question. I’d like to hear an example of this too. If nothing else it would help me understand what Boris is talking about.

HB : I’ve explained you so many times and I don’t intend to do it again, if you don’t read again B:CP and our converstaions about why »aspect of outer environment« is not controlled. There is only one »spot« in the loop where controlling is done.

RM: You have never given me (or anyone, as far as I know) an example of a perceptual signal being controlled while the environmental correlate of that perception is not. An example, from my perspective, would be a computer simulation (or a mathematical model) showing that a perceptual variable, p, can be controlled while the aspect of the environment that corresponds to p is not. Until you can provide such an example I will, as per my previous post, continue to see your “explanations” as having nothing to do with with what I am interested in doing, which is research aimed at testing PCT.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[Andrew_Nichols]

[From Andrew Nichols (2015.09.22.11:13)]

Just curious, who are you, Boris Hartman, and what is your background/field?

A

···

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: Â You have never given me (or anyone, as far as I know) an example of a perceptual signal being controlled while the environmental correlate of that perception is not. An example, from my perspective, would be a computer simulation (or a mathematical model) showing that a perceptual variable, p, can be controlled while the aspect of the environment that corresponds to p is not.

Â

HB :

Your memory is really short or you haven’t got any. You can by memory chips very cheap.

Â

In 2007 we have discussed numerous examples in school system. We talked about what perception teacher and students control. When they control perception no correlate is controlled. Just outer environment and consequently input is affected by output . See Bill’s diagram.

Â

We also discussed about »rocketball« how it is played with controlling »which perceptions«, not contolled variables in environment. You used this example in advising Fred how to train. It’s a good start, but I could give you more hints as I was trainer in several sports…

Â

Anotrher example is your »missed« demo of baseball catch. Pure »input contollng output«. After our discussion you removed your baseball catch and »repair« it and it still doesn’t work.

Â

Another example is »sheep dogs« which should somehow control behavior of shisp. There is no »controlled variable« called ship.

Â

Anotehr example was tennis where I, David and Barb proved that you don’t know anything about tennis, as you calimed that opponets cotnrol each other. So i’ve got impression that you don’t know anthing about sports.

Â

RM :

Until you can provide such an example I will, as per my previous post, continue to see your “explanations” as having nothing to do with with what I am interested in doing, which is research aimed at testing PCT.

Â

HB : So you example where we »correct« your self-regualtion and behavioristic theory is as much as you want.

Â

When I’ve provided you example of »turning head« as pure example of »output affecting inptu, you’ve »stolen« it and make it looking as being your example. See back our discussion and your later discussion qith Tracy Harms.

Â

RM :

This makes it clear that your actions (outputs) don’t necessarily have to have a direct effect on the environment… For example, when I move my head

Â

Â

I’ve written twice to Powers ladies to do somrthing with your »prinicing« on teh CSGnet. But they did one big NOTHING.

Â

So until CSGnet is safe from your »princing« and until you will not read again all books from Bill and understand his work, and use his terminology his citations in your discussions as an evidence, not your own imginary constructions of RCT /Ricks Control Theory, I’m not saying anymore about PCT as I did.

Â

It’ up to »powers ladies« to do something about your ignorancy.

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 10:32 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.20.1330)]

Â

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

PY:  … What is an example of a perceptual signal which is controlled, but the corresponding environmental correlate is not controlled?  If you can give me just one example of this, I’ll believe you.Â

RM: Excellent question. I’d like to hear an example of this too. If nothing else it would help me understand what Boris is talking about.

Â

HB : I’ve explained you so many times and I don’t intend to do it again, if you don’t read again B:CP and our converstaions about why »aspect of outer environment« is not controlled. There is only one »spot« in the loop where controlling is done.

Â

RM: Â You have never given me (or anyone, as far as I know) an example of a perceptual signal being controlled while the environmental correlate of that perception is not. An example, from my perspective, would be a computer simulation (or a mathematical model) showing that a perceptual variable, p, can be controlled while the aspect of the environment that corresponds to p is not. Until you can provide such an example I will, as per my previous post, continue to see your “explanations” as having nothing to do with with what I am interested in doing, which is research aimed at testing PCT.

Â

Best

Â

Rick

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

A, Boris is clearly a physiologist.Â

BH: You overlooked my request to keep our conversation private.Â

PY: I’m sorry, Boris, but it wasn’t a very personal matter…all I said is that you brought up the example. Â

PY: Boris brought up to me the example of looking at a passerby. What Boris is saying is that the effect of the environment on the senses is controlled as well as the effect of the actions on the environment. Move body to look at person; look at person but don’t touch. The environmental object corresponding to the image on the eye is not influenced, merely which aspect is observed. This is a “perceptual switch” type thingy

HB : I didin’t say that »effect of the actions« on the envieonment in controlled. I think that nobody can prove that… Ouptus are just trials.

<
PY: You said the effect of the environment on the senses is controlled. I meant to say then that the effect of the action on “which aspect of the environment is perceived” is also controlled. Herein lies the perceptual switch.Â

PY: The reason that the effect of the actions on the environment itself is not controlled, as you insist, is because the environment is made up of aspects which we do not normally perceive due to physical limitations. It is precisely in response to the fact that we don’t perceive something that we are moved to action and build instrumentation.Â

FYI: just because input is controlled doesn’t mean output is not controlled. Controlling output is akin to controlling what you look like to another person while you’re controlling a perception.  It’s not necessary or sufficient to control the perception, but it could theoretically occur. Namely in social engineering situations (con artists). As a physiological example, consider how some viruses can encapsulate themselves in fragments of our own cell membranes, replete with MHC molecules and everything else necessary to evade detection. Rediculous. In the military world, controlling input is like locking on to a plane using radar technology whereas controlling output is like evading a lock-on with anti-radar technology. The missle approach warning: The subject of a radar lock-on may become aware of the fact that it is being actively targeted by virtue of the electro-magnetic emissions of the tracking system, notably the illuminator. This condition will present a heightened threat to the target, as it indicates that a missile may be about to be fired at it.  When a plane is locking on to you, you hear beeps. You do maneuvers until the beeps go away. Here’s a better PCT example than looking at a person walking by…the person is flying by and you’re trying to kill the person using radar and incindiaries! Hurray. So the moral is this: Controlling output means controlling controllability, either of your own input or somebody else’s.Â

PS: Study mechanisms of animal camouflage. Â

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.22.1430)]

···

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Philip, this is a very important example! Rick, could we have reached a breakthrough?

RM: More like a “breakdown”, it seems to me.

WM: Could there be actions that control the perceived controlled variable via changing the controlled quantity AND actions that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?

RM: No. That makes no sense. The controlled quantity and the controlled variable are the same thing. The controlled quantity is the controlled variable described from the perspective of the observer. The controlled quantity is not something out there in the environment that is perceived by the control system. So there can’t be actions “that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?” The controlled variable is not based on information about the controlled quantity because the controlled variable (perception ) IS the controlled quantity (aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception).

RM: The perceptual function of the control system defines the perception controlled by the control system. This controlled perception, p, is called the controlled quantity, q.i, when viewed from outside the control system. For example, in the “What is size” demo, when you control the area of the rectangle you are controlling a perception p = w * h. The controlled quantity, which is being measured by the computer, is q.i = w * h. Not much room for acting on p without acting on q.i.

RM: In the example of a person looking at a moving passerby, the controlled perception is the angular deviation of the passerby’s image from the fovea. The controlled quantity is the angular deviation of the passerby’s image from the fovea. The fact that this perception is usually controlled by moving the head and eyes relative to the passerby, rather than by grabbing and moving the passerby, is of no consequence. In either case the system is acting to keep a perception – a perception which, when computed by an outsider, is know as the controlled quantity – in a reference state.

RM: So, again, the idea that the controlled quantity (q.i) and the controlled perception (p) are different things reflects a rather fundamental misunderstanding of perceptual control theory.

WM: AND of course we have the imagination mode exception as well. Maybe you are BOTH RIGHT? Often happens in debates I find!

RM: I don’t know what kind of debates you’ve been having but in real scientific debates it is extremely rare that both “sides” are right. I can only think of one and that’s the debate about whether light is best modeled as a wave or a particle. But in the debate about whether a perception (p) or the corresponding aspect of the environment (q.i) or both are controlled, only one side is right; the side that says they are both controlled because they are the same variable; q.i is just p as seen by an observer of the system controlling p. The fact that this is the case is demonstrated in virtually all of my (and Bill’s) demos and experiments. They all include variables, the input quantities, q.i, which represent the experimenter’s description of the perceptual variables being controlled.

RM: In the Mindreading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html) for example the computer does a very good job (if you are good at controlling the position of the avatars) of determining which of three possible definitions of q.i – moving Homer, Bart or Lisa – corresponds to the perception that is actually under control ,p.

RM: So, no, what you read is not a breakthrough at all. Just the usual misunderstanding of PCT that comes from attending only the lectures (often with an agenda) and not doing the lab work.

Best

Rick

---

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

No, you are wrong Rick. About several things.

1. The Mindreading demo:
   RM:
   This program demonstrates the test for the controlled variable which is a way to determine what a person is doing on purpose …You can pick one of the characters and move it with the mouse so that it
   dodges (or takes bites of) the on-coming stream of donuts…But the mouse moves all three characters at the same time so you could be moving any one of the three character on purpose. And it is impossible to tell, just by looking at the movements of the characters on the screen, which is the one being moved on purpose. The computer is able to figure this out, however, and when it does, tthe character you are moving on purpose become Mr.Burns.

PY:

This is where your first mistake is. It’s actually quite easy to tell by looking at the screen which character is controlled. All you have to do is look at which head is colliding with the least donuts. One of the three heads is going to dodge all the donuts whereas the other two are going to be colliding with them left and right. So its not impossible to tell, just by looking at the screen, which one is being moved on purpose. What the computer is doing (calculating the correlation coefficients) is quite unecessary. In any case, calculating these values is definitiely not the same as reading my mind. I hope you understand.

2.Your response to Warren:

WM:
Could there be actions that control the perceived controlled variable via changing the controlled quantity AND actions that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that
is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?

RM:
No. That makes no sense…The controlled quantity is not something out there in the environment that is perceived
by the control system. So there can’t be actions “that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that
is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?”

PY: Here’s your second mistake. You aren’t thinking about what computer data structures look like. An object is theoretically defined in a computer program in the following manner:

abstract_data_type: square
{

integer: length

integer: width

character: color
}

This declaration defines an object (an abstract data type) called an square. This object is described by three bytes of data (two of the integer type and one of the character type). The size of this square object is thus three bytes. An object is stored in memory as a contiguous array of bytes.

This “nonexistant” shift operation you are trying to do away with is the movement of the memory pointer through the various aspects (data types - length, width, color) of the object being referenced. It’s actually a centrally important operation in the computer’s implementation of object memory. Depending on where in the object the pointer is, we control the information input from the object in memory. This is called pointer arithmetic and it’s important for storing data as well as for moving between programs. Very very important stuff.

RM: So, no, what you read is not a breakthrough at all. Just the usual misunderstanding of PCT that comes from attending only the lectures (often with an agenda) and not doing the lab work.

PY: How rude! If you need to know, my agenda is to create a galactic federation (none of your business). As far as breakthroughs go however…no, pointer arithmetic is 80 years old and certainly not a breakthrough. But it’s one step closer to understanding the way me and my friend the computer break things down.

···

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.22.1430)]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Philip, this is a very important example! Rick, could we have reached a breakthrough?

RM: More like a “breakdown”, it seems to me.

WM: Could there be actions that control the perceived controlled variable via changing the controlled quantity AND actions that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?

RM: No. That makes no sense. The controlled quantity and the controlled variable are the same thing. The controlled quantity is the controlled variable described from the perspective of the observer. The controlled quantity is not something out there in the environment that is perceived by the control system. So there can’t be actions “that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?” The controlled variable is not based on information about the controlled quantity because the controlled variable (perception ) IS the controlled quantity (aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception).

RM: The perceptual function of the control system defines the perception controlled by the control system. This controlled perception, p, is called the controlled quantity, q.i, when viewed from outside the control system. For example, in the “What is size” demo, when you control the area of the rectangle you are controlling a perception p = w * h. The controlled quantity, which is being measured by the computer, is q.i = w * h. Not much room for acting on p without acting on q.i.

RM: In the example of a person looking at a moving passerby, the controlled perception is the angular deviation of the passerby’s image from the fovea. The controlled quantity is the angular deviation of the passerby’s image from the fovea. The fact that this perception is usually controlled by moving the head and eyes relative to the passerby, rather than by grabbing and moving the passerby, is of no consequence. In either case the system is acting to keep a perception – a perception which, when computed by an outsider, is know as the controlled quantity – in a reference state.

RM: So, again, the idea that the controlled quantity (q.i) and the controlled perception (p) are different things reflects a rather fundamental misunderstanding of perceptual control theory.

WM: AND of course we have the imagination mode exception as well. Maybe you are BOTH RIGHT? Often happens in debates I find!

RM: I don’t know what kind of debates you’ve been having but in real scientific debates it is extremely rare that both “sides” are right. I can only think of one and that’s the debate about whether light is best modeled as a wave or a particle. But in the debate about whether a perception (p) or the corresponding aspect of the environment (q.i) or both are controlled, only one side is right; the side that says they are both controlled because they are the same variable; q.i is just p as seen by an observer of the system controlling p. The fact that this is the case is demonstrated in virtually all of my (and Bill’s) demos and experiments. They all include variables, the input quantities, q.i, which represent the experimenter’s description of the perceptual variables being controlled.

RM: In the Mindreading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html) for example the computer does a very good job (if you are good at controlling the position of the avatars) of determining which of three possible definitions of q.i – moving Homer, Bart or Lisa – corresponds to the perception that is actually under control ,p.

RM: So, no, what you read is not a breakthrough at all. Just the usual misunderstanding of PCT that comes from attending only the lectures (often with an agenda) and not doing the lab work.

Best

Rick

---

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

HI Philip,

We are anyway done….

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:27 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

A, Boris is clearly a physiologist.

HB : I didn’t ask you to comment Andrews question. Nothing it’s clear. If something is clear it’s your attiude. You should be tought some polite manners when you were young. Now it’s too late.

BH: You overlooked my request to keep our conversation private.

PY: I’m sorry, Boris, but it wasn’t a very personal matter…all I said is that you brought up the example.

HB :It doesn’t matter whether it’s personal matter or not. You are not the one who will decide this. You were »crowling« for the answer not I. So it was my answer my deccision. It looks like you don’t come from cultural environment.

PY: Boris brought up to me the example of looking at a passerby. What Boris is saying is that the effect of the environment on the senses is controlled as well as the effect of the actions on the environment. Move body to look at person; look at person but don’t touch. The environmental object corresponding to the image on the eye is not influenced, merely which aspect is observed. This is a “perceptual switch” type thingy

HB : I didin’t say that »effect of the actions« on the envieonment in controlled. I think that nobody can prove that… Ouptus are just trials.

PY: You said the effect of the environment on the senses is controlled. I meant to say then that the effect of the action on “which aspect of the environment is perceived” is also controlled. Herein lies the perceptual switch.

HB: This is a forgery. On the level of your culture. I read again what I wrote, and there is no statement like you put it together. These are even not my words. I never said or wrote anything like this. Its’ obviously that you are manipulating as you didn’t put in inverted commas all my thught. So it’s obvious what you are doing. You are an ordinary swinder.

PY: The reason that the effect of the actions on the environment itself is not controlled, as you insist, is because the environment is made up of aspects which we do not normally perceive due to physical limitations. It is precisely in response to the fact that we don’t perceive something that we are moved to action and build instrumentation.

HB : I don’t understand what you are saying and I’m not interested to understand.

FYI: just because input is controlled doesn’t mean output is not controlled. Controlling output is akin to controlling what you look like to another person while you’re controlling a perception. It’s not necessary or sufficient to control the perception, but it could theoretically occur. Namely in social engineering situations (con artists). As a physiological example, consider how some viruses can encapsulate themselves in fragments of our own cell membranes, replete with MHC molecules and everything else necessary to evade detection. Rediculous. In the military world, controlling input is like locking on to a plane using radar technology whereas controlling output is like evading a lock-on with anti-radar technology. The missle approach warning: The subject of a radar lock-on may become aware of the fact that it is being actively targeted by virtue of the electro-magnetic emissions of the tracking system, notably the illuminator. This condition will present a heightened threat to the target, as it indicates that a missile may be about to be fired at it. When a plane is locking on to you, you hear beeps. You do maneuvers until the beeps go away. Here’s a better PCT example than looking at a person walking by…the person is flying by and you’re trying to kill the person using radar and incindiaries! Hurray. So the moral is this: Controlling output means controlling controllability, either of your own input or somebody else’s.

PS: Study mechanisms of animal camouflage.

HB :Â You understand a little physiology but now I see that you haven’t got the whole picture. It’s hard work waitnig for you…I think this is all what we have to say to each other.

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

Boris, the wait is hard on everybody. I should be smarter by now, it’s true. I don’t have the whole picture yet. But I’m trying to close the gaps. I wish you had something insightful to contribute to my understanding. But I’ve had enough of what you have to offer.Â

HB : I didn’t ask you to comment

PY: I do things without people asking me to.Â

HB:You were »crowling« for the answer not I.Â

PY: that’s not a word.Â

HB: This is a forgery.

PY: a little bit - 5%

HB:Â It’s hard work waitnig for you…

PY: I understand.Â

all the best

[_Boris_Hartman]

PY : Boris, the wait is hard on everybody. I should be smarter by now, it’s true.

HB : You are right. You should be smarter. And I should be smarter too, and watch with whom I’m sharing informations. As far as I’m concerned, I’ll not make the same mistake again. J

PY : IÂ don’t have the whole picture yet. But I’m trying to close the gaps. I wish you had something insightful to contribute to my understanding.

HB : I was hoping too, to have a nice private chat with you. But not under these condition. You exposed our conversation to others, you manipulated text, foist »statetments« that I’ve never said, put other theory in »my mouth«, and so on. Who would cooperate, and contribute under such conditions ?

PY : But I’ve had enough of what you have to offer.

HB : You don’t know what I have to offer, but since I had exams from Physiology and Anatomy it’s probability that I’ll understand something more from these fields very high. So my understanding of Bill’s books are at least much different than yours or others who are not acquanted with medicine knowledge. And you could heard my »part« of PCT understanding in our »private« conversation. Well it’s too late now. A lot of trust is needed for sharing informations.

But maybe we could learn something from thhis »lesson«. So our conversation started something like this :

HB earlier :

There is no need for anything to be controlled in environment as PCT is not »supporting« the concept that anything is »controlled« outside. PCT is supporting the concept that something is AFFECTED outside by output. Not controlled

PY earlier :

I don’t get it. You need to give an example of this. What is an example of a perceptual signal which is controlled, but the corresponding environmental correlate is not controlled? If you can give me just one example of this, I’ll believe you.

HB :

You got an answer, so now I expect you’ll beleive what I said. You could just kepp your word ? But maybe we could make another example from our conversation…

You wrote :

PY: You said the effect of the environment on the senses is controlled. I meant to say then that the effect of the action on “which aspect of the environment is perceived” is also controlled. Herein lies the perceptual switch.

HB : Let us say this is X’ (some perceptual »correlate« of »X« in environment) as Fred marked it, and I’m now presenting some of my thoughts in answer to you, which it could be presented as »X« in Fred’s notation. I’ll just »copy-paste« some of my statements :

1.   When you are turning your head you directly afffect sensors with your output and you don't affect environment, so there can be no »controlled variable« in environment. Anyway there isn't. It's always just effect of output on input.
   

2.   So all everyday activities are consequence of »Controlling your perception«, not »controlling your behavior« or some outer aspect of environment.
   

3.   If there is no control of direct muscle tension, there is no »controlled behavior« and there is no »controlled aspect of environment«.
   

4.   When you are eating, drinking, walking, talking, etc. (name it) is following PCT »pattern« of »Control of percpetion«. So you are not eating with controlling your hands, walking with controlling your legs, etc. Bill was explicit what is meant by output (behavior). It's definitely not »control«. Only perception (perceptual signal) of what you are doing is controlled, nothing else.  This is the only controlled variable in loop.
   

HB :

You can see that what you wrote is not my terminology. And you can aslo see that when I »copy-paste« my staetments they turned to be blue as in original text, but yours are black as you didn’t quote my text. I don’t know whos’ is your text, but it’s sure that I’ve never used such a terminology in my presence on CSGnet. So what we see as my writing is »reality« or as Fred marked with »X«. Â

So if we get to the point I’m interested what you were »controlling« in your mind, if you didn’t follow the »correlate« in environment. It’s obviously that you made your own »CONSTRUCT« of text I wrote. So what has really happend from »X« (my text) to transformatons through your sensors and then through all levels in hierarchy that you finally produced »X’« as your own »CONSTRUCT« ?  So what you have in mind when you look at my sentences, that you saw totaly different meaning ? That »X’« (your construct) has no correlate in environment but it still exist in your mind ? I think that this is well explained in Bill’s B:CP, 2005 and his other books. This is quite widened phenomenon among people. I want to say that people do it most of the time. Making their own »CONSTRUCTS«. And I also think that PCT is perfect to demistify this phenomenon.

As I see it, you perceived »X« (my sentences) as you wanted to perceive it. It’s quite the same »strategy« as Rick sometimes use. He is also perceiving Bill’s text as he wants. Although it’s true that will come to very different conclussions if we all read the same Bill’s text. Probably in accordance with our knowledge and life experiences, etc.

Through your own example you could maybe understand how »controlling in »imagination and off imagination« (as Martin used to say) works.

You made up  some »THOUGHT CONSTRUCT«, but there ISN’T ANY »correlate controlled« in environement.

You simply made up  your own story, which has no counter part in realitiy. Do you understand what I want to say ?

Maybe you could explore it for yourself what happened, as this is good way to understand PCT as the »whole picture«.

Best,

Boris

HB : I didn’t ask you to comment

PY: I do things without people asking me to.

HB : Do you get ever heart when you »stick your nose« into other bussines. I think people in America used to say »mind your own bussines. I don’t think it’s healthy »speccially in USA« to do things to poeple without asking them.

HB:You were »crowling« for the answer not I.

PY: that’s not a word.

HB : O.K. »crawling« or »cringing« or »lick someones boots« JJ. Choose what you like.

HB: This is a forgery.

PY: a little bit - 5%

HB : I can prove it any time that you made a 100% forgery.

Best,

Boris

···

From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN [mailto:pyeranos@ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 5:47 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.28…0830)]

···

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:21 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: No, you are wrong Rick. About several things.

PY: 1. The Mindreading demo:
RM:
This program demonstrates the test for the controlled variable which is a way to determine what a person is doing on purpose …You can pick one of the characters and move it with the mouse so that it
dodges (or takes bites of) the on-coming stream of donuts…But the mouse moves all three characters at the same time so you could be moving any one of the three character on purpose. And it is impossible to tell, just by looking at the movements of the characters on the screen, which is the one being moved on purpose. The computer is able to figure this out, however, and when it does, tthe character you are moving on purpose become Mr.Burns.

PY: This is where your first mistake is. It’s actually quite easy to tell by looking at the screen which character is controlled. All you have to do is look at which head is colliding with the least donuts. One of the three heads is going to dodge all the donuts whereas the other two are going to be colliding with them left and right. So its not impossible to tell, just by looking at the screen, which one is being moved on purpose. What the computer is doing (calculating the correlation coefficients) is quite unecessary. In any case, calculating these values is definitiely not the same as reading my mind. I hope you understand.

RM: Actually, I tested this claim by having observers identify which was the intentionally moved avatar (I was moving the avatar) on many different trials. The results are reported on pp. 72-73 of “Doing Research on Purpose” (in the section titled “Using the TCV to Validate ToM”). Only two of 6 subjects identified the intentionally moved avatar at better than a chance level. No one got even close to 100% correct identification of the intentionally moved avatar. I’m sure that with enough trials we would find that all people do no better than chance at identifying the intentionally moved avatar. The computer, using the TCV, identified the intentionally moved avatar on 100% of the trials.

RM: So you may think that people can easily identify the intentionally moved avatar in this demonstration. But the data show that they actually can’t. That’s one of the nice things about empirical research; it places constraints on one’s imagination (theorizing). That’s why empirical observation and test is essential to science (and anathema to religion and right wing politics;-)

2.Your response to Warren:

WM:
Could there be actions that control the perceived controlled variable via changing the controlled quantity AND actions that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that
is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?

RM:
No. That makes no sense…The controlled quantity is not something out there in the environment that is perceived
by the control system. So there can’t be actions “that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that
is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?”

PY: Here’s your second mistake. You aren’t thinking about what computer data structures look like. An object is theoretically defined in a computer program in the following manner:

RM: I don’t see the relevance of object-oriented programming structures to the question of whether or not a perception, p, can be controlled independent of the aspect of the environment – the controlled quantity, q.i – to which it corresponds. So if this somehow shows that I am wrong I’m afraid I will have to remain ignorant of why I am wrong.

Best

Rick

abstract_data_type: square
{

integer: length

integer: width

character: color
}

This declaration defines an object (an abstract data type) called an square. This object is described by three bytes of data (two of the integer type and one of the character type). The size of this square object is thus three bytes. An object is stored in memory as a contiguous array of bytes.

This “nonexistant” shift operation you are trying to do away with is the movement of the memory pointer through the various aspects (data types - length, width, color) of the object being referenced. It’s actually a centrally important operation in the computer’s implementation of object memory. Depending on where in the object the pointer is, we control the information input from the object in memory. This is called pointer arithmetic and it’s important for storing data as well as for moving between programs. Very very important stuff.

RM: So, no, what you read is not a breakthrough at all. Just the usual misunderstanding of PCT that comes from attending only the lectures (often with an agenda) and not doing the lab work.

PY: How rude! If you need to know, my agenda is to create a galactic federation (none of your business). As far as breakthroughs go however…no, pointer arithmetic is 80 years old and certainly not a breakthrough. But it’s one step closer to understanding the way me and my friend the computer break things down.

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.22.1430)]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Philip, this is a very important example! Rick, could we have reached a breakthrough?

RM: More like a “breakdown”, it seems to me.

WM: Could there be actions that control the perceived controlled variable via changing the controlled quantity AND actions that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?

RM: No. That makes no sense. The controlled quantity and the controlled variable are the same thing. The controlled quantity is the controlled variable described from the perspective of the observer. The controlled quantity is not something out there in the environment that is perceived by the control system. So there can’t be actions “that control the perceived controlled variable simply via a shift in the information that is currently inputed from that controlled quantity?” The controlled variable is not based on information about the controlled quantity because the controlled variable (perception ) IS the controlled quantity (aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception).

RM: The perceptual function of the control system defines the perception controlled by the control system. This controlled perception, p, is called the controlled quantity, q.i, when viewed from outside the control system. For example, in the “What is size” demo, when you control the area of the rectangle you are controlling a perception p = w * h. The controlled quantity, which is being measured by the computer, is q.i = w * h. Not much room for acting on p without acting on q.i.

RM: In the example of a person looking at a moving passerby, the controlled perception is the angular deviation of the passerby’s image from the fovea. The controlled quantity is the angular deviation of the passerby’s image from the fovea. The fact that this perception is usually controlled by moving the head and eyes relative to the passerby, rather than by grabbing and moving the passerby, is of no consequence. In either case the system is acting to keep a perception – a perception which, when computed by an outsider, is know as the controlled quantity – in a reference state.

RM: So, again, the idea that the controlled quantity (q.i) and the controlled perception (p) are different things reflects a rather fundamental misunderstanding of perceptual control theory.

WM: AND of course we have the imagination mode exception as well. Maybe you are BOTH RIGHT? Often happens in debates I find!

RM: I don’t know what kind of debates you’ve been having but in real scientific debates it is extremely rare that both “sides” are right. I can only think of one and that’s the debate about whether light is best modeled as a wave or a particle. But in the debate about whether a perception (p) or the corresponding aspect of the environment (q.i) or both are controlled, only one side is right; the side that says they are both controlled because they are the same variable; q.i is just p as seen by an observer of the system controlling p. The fact that this is the case is demonstrated in virtually all of my (and Bill’s) demos and experiments. They all include variables, the input quantities, q.i, which represent the experimenter’s description of the perceptual variables being controlled.

RM: In the Mindreading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html) for example the computer does a very good job (if you are good at controlling the position of the avatars) of determining which of three possible definitions of q.i – moving Homer, Bart or Lisa – corresponds to the perception that is actually under control ,p.

RM: So, no, what you read is not a breakthrough at all. Just the usual misunderstanding of PCT that comes from attending only the lectures (often with an agenda) and not doing the lab work.

Best

Rick

---

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

RM: So you may think that people can easily identify the intentionally moved avatar in this demonstration. But the data show that they actually can’t. Only two of 6 subjects identified the intentionally moved avatar at better than a chance level.

PY: You’re generalizing what you saw from only six people? Who were these six people? Are they PCT veterans or random people. Were they doing the Simpsons challenge (with the donuts, or without)? You can’t make the proper call without using the donuts as a reference. I’ll bet the donuts weren’t there.

RM: I don’t see the relevance of object-oriented programming structures to the question of whether or not a perception, p, can be controlled independent of the aspect of the environment – the controlled quantity, q.i – to which it corresponds. So if this somehow shows that I am wrong I’m afraid I will have to remain ignorant of why I am wrong.

PY: A teacher does not correct the student’s wrong answer after asking the question. The student must correct himself. All the teacher may do is reteach what is fundamental. But since I don’t get paid to teach, I’m no teacher. So I’m afraid you will have to remain ignorant indefinitely.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.28.1800)]

···

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:24 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

RM: So you may think that people can easily identify the intentionally moved avatar in this demonstration. But the data show that they actually can’t. Only two of 6 subjects identified the intentionally moved avatar at better than a chance level.

PY: You’re generalizing what you saw from only six people?

RM: True. But you were generalizing (saying that it was not impossible to tell which avatar was being moved intentionally) from one person (yourself) and you were basing that generalization on what you thought was true rather than on observation of your own ability to tell which cursor was being moved intentionally. Since every one of my six subjects found it impossible to reliably identify the the intentionally moved avatar I feel rather comfortable saying that it is impossible to reliably identify the intentionally moved avatar.

RY: Who were these six people?

RM: Students in my Research Methods class.

RY: Are they PCT veterans or random people.

RM: Students who knew nothing about PCT.

RY: Were they doing the Simpsons challenge (with the donuts, or without)?

RM: With donuts.

RY: You can’t make the proper call without using the donuts as a reference. I’ll bet the donuts weren’t there.

RM: They were there for the test of the students. The original demo (written in 1981 in assembler for a Commodore 64) had no donuts (or Simpsons for that matter). I put them in in order to give participants a reason to move the avatars around the screen. The donuts don’t seem to help a person identify the intentionally moved avatar though because the intentionally moved one often hits a donut even when the person is trying to avoid it and the unintentionally moved avatars often avoid the donuts by accident.

RM: I don’t see the relevance of object-oriented programming structures to the question of whether or not a perception, p, can be controlled independent of the aspect of the environment – the controlled quantity, q.i – to which it corresponds. So if this somehow shows that I am wrong I’m afraid I will have to remain ignorant of why I am wrong.

PY: A teacher does not correct the student’s wrong answer after asking the question. The student must correct himself. All the teacher may do is reteach what is fundamental. But since I don’t get paid to teach, I’m no teacher. So I’m afraid you will have to remain ignorant indefinitely.

RM: I guess so.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

Andrew I’m sorry to answer you so late. I took time to think about your proposal and I think that presentation is not actual. I’m not coming to CSGnet. I’m asking myself how to leave it. So I don’t see any sense in doing what you are asking.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Andrew Nichols [mailto:anicholslcsw@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 6:16 PM
To: csgnet
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

[From Andrew Nichols (2015.09.22.11:13)]

Just curious, who are you, Boris Hartman, and what is your background/field?

A

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: You have never given me (or anyone, as far as I know) an example of a perceptual signal being controlled while the environmental correlate of that perception is not. An example, from my perspective, would be a computer simulation (or a mathematical model) showing that a perceptual variable, p, can be controlled while the aspect of the environment that corresponds to p is not.

HB :

Your memory is really short or you haven’t got any. You can by memory chips very cheap.

In 2007 we have discussed numerous examples in school system. We talked about what perception teacher and students control. When they control perception no correlate is controlled. Just outer environment and consequently input is affected by output . See Bill’s diagram.

We also discussed about »rocketball« how it is played with controlling »which perceptions«, not contolled variables in environment. You used this example in advising Fred how to train. It’s a good start, but I could give you more hints as I was trainer in several sports…

Anotrher example is your »missed« demo of baseball catch. Pure »input contollng output«. After our discussion you removed your baseball catch and »repair« it and it still doesn’t work.

Another example is »sheep dogs« which should somehow control behavior of shisp. There is no »controlled variable« called ship.

Anotehr example was tennis where I, David and Barb proved that you don’t know anything about tennis, as you calimed that opponets cotnrol each other. So i’ve got impression that you don’t know anthing about sports.

RM :

Until you can provide such an example I will, as per my previous post, continue to see your “explanations” as having nothing to do with with what I am interested in doing, which is research aimed at testing PCT.

HB : So you example where we »correct« your self-regualtion and behavioristic theory is as much as you want.

When I’ve provided you example of »turning head« as pure example of »output affecting inptu, you’ve »stolen« it and make it looking as being your example. See back our discussion and your later discussion qith Tracy Harms.

RM :

This makes it clear that your actions (outputs) don’t necessarily have to have a direct effect on the environment… For example, when I move my head

I’ve written twice to Powers ladies to do somrthing with your »prinicing« on teh CSGnet. But they did one big NOTHING.

So until CSGnet is safe from your »princing« and until you will not read again all books from Bill and understand his work, and use his terminology his citations in your discussions as an evidence, not your own imginary constructions of RCT /Ricks Control Theory, I’m not saying anymore about PCT as I did.

It’ up to »powers ladies« to do something about your ignorancy.

Best,

Boris

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 10:32 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Richards & Glasersfeld, 1979: The control of perception and the construction of reality

[From Rick Marken (2015.09.20.1330)]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

PY: … What is an example of a perceptual signal which is controlled, but the corresponding environmental correlate is not controlled? If you can give me just one example of this, I’ll believe you.

RM: Excellent question. I’d like to hear an example of this too. If nothing else it would help me understand what Boris is talking about.

HB : I’ve explained you so many times and I don’t intend to do it again, if you don’t read again B:CP and our converstaions about why »aspect of outer environment« is not controlled. There is only one »spot« in the loop where controlling is done.

RM: You have never given me (or anyone, as far as I know) an example of a perceptual signal being controlled while the environmental correlate of that perception is not. An example, from my perspective, would be a computer simulation (or a mathematical model) showing that a perceptual variable, p, can be controlled while the aspect of the environment that corresponds to p is not. Until you can provide such an example I will, as per my previous post, continue to see your “explanations” as having nothing to do with with what I am interested in doing, which is research aimed at testing PCT.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble