Rushton et al.

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
21

[From Bruce Gregory (990420.1415 EDT)]

Now you see him, now you don't....

Rick Marken (990406.0950) to Bruce Abbott:

First, let me say that I agree that you understand control theory
just fine, as well or better than me. Also, you have, indeed,

corrected

me on several occasions when I have made mistakes (the
"control of behavior is an illusion" episode was the most recent).

Rick Marken (990420.1030)]to Bruce Abbott:

Rushton et al might know (as you do) that moving to a target is
a closed loop process. What they (and you) don't know is how
this loop works. They (like you) don't know that closed negative
feedback loops are organized around the control of perceptual
variables. That is, they (like you) don't know what a controlled
variable _is_. That's why they (like you) have no idea how to
test for controlled variables.

Ah well, apparently consistency, whether foolish or not, is the
hobgoblin of little minds....

Bruce Gregory

22

[From Bruce Gregory (990420.1435 EDT)]

Bill Powers (990419.1916 MDT)

There is no objective counterpart of beauty or
ugliness. The Test
does not establish a correspondence of perception with reality. It
establishes a provisional correspondence of the controlling system's
hypothetical perceptions with the observer's perceptions.

A very strong (and, as far as I can tell, unsupported) claim. Studies
suggest that people find symmetrical human faces more "beautiful" than
unsymmetrical faces. (It would be nice to test this by allowing the
subjects to control symmetry themselves and seeing if they resist
disturbances). Presumably you will argue that symmetry has no objective
counterpart, but this is a claim that I maintain lacks empirical
support.

Bruce Gregory

23

[From Rick Marken (990420.1230)]

Me1:

First, let me say that I agree that you [Bruce Abbott]
understand control theory just fine

Me2:

Rushton et al might know (as you do) that moving to a target is
a closed loop process. What they (and you) don't know is how
this loop works. They (like you) don't know that closed negative
feedback loops are organized around the control of perceptual
variables.

Bruce Gregory (990420.1415 EDT)

Ah well, apparently consistency, whether foolish or not, is the
hobgoblin of little minds....

Where's the inconsistency?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

24

[From Bruce Gregory (990420.1540 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990420.1230)

Where's the inconsistency?

I could tell you, but I think you'll benefit more by discovering it for
yourself.

Bruce Gregory

25

[From Rick Marken (990420.1240)]

Bill Powers (990419.1916 MDT)--

There is no objective counterpart of beauty or ugliness. The Test
does not establish a correspondence of perception with reality.
It establishes a provisional correspondence of the controlling
system's hypothetical perceptions with the observer's perceptions.

Bruce Gregory (990420.1435 EDT)--

A very strong (and, as far as I can tell, unsupported) claim.
Studies suggest that people find symmetrical human faces more
"beautiful" than unsymmetrical faces.

So symmetry is not a perception and beauty is?

Presumably you will argue that symmetry has no objective
counterpart, but this is a claim that I maintain lacks
empirical support.

What is the objective counterpart of symmetry? Do you know
the objective counterparts of any other perceptions? How
were you able to get past your sensory inputs to determine
what's really, objectively out there?

You are a piece of work, Bruce;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

26

[From Rick Marken (990420.1300)]

Me:

Where's the inconsistency?

Bruce Gregory (990420.1540 EDT)--

I could tell you, but I think you'll benefit more by discovering
it for yourself.

Ok. Fair enough.

There is no inconsistency at all.

It is perfectly possible for people to understand control theory
(as Bruce Abbott does) and not know that a closed negative
feedback loops is organized around the control of perceptual
variables. Control theory has been applied to behavior since 1945
(at least). Many of these applications have been done by people
who had a very good understanding of the mathematics of control
theory. In none of those cases did the control theorist understand
that a control system controls a perceptual representation, not
an objective state of affairs; and s/he certainly didn't understand
what this means in terms of understanding the behavior of the living
systems to which their theory was being applied.

We've had trained control engineers appear on this net who
objected _vigorously_ to our characterization of the behavior of
control systems (living or artifactual) as the control of
perception. I just had a paper on controlled variables rejected
by _Psychological Review_ and the most negative review came from
a certifiable expert in control theory who had no idea what I
was talking about when I discussed controlled perceptual variables.

One of the biggest problems for PCT is people who believe that
knowing all the complex math of control theory means that they
understand PCT. It is not so.

Consistently not yours,

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

27

[From Bruce Gregory (990420.1602 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990420.1240)

Bill Powers (990419.1916 MDT)--

> There is no objective counterpart of beauty or ugliness. The Test
> does not establish a correspondence of perception with reality.
> It establishes a provisional correspondence of the controlling
> system's hypothetical perceptions with the observer's perceptions.

Bruce Gregory (990420.1435 EDT)--

> A very strong (and, as far as I can tell, unsupported) claim.
> Studies suggest that people find symmetrical human faces more
> "beautiful" than unsymmetrical faces.

So symmetry is not a perception and beauty is?

Huh? Read the next sentence" "(It would be nice to test this by allowing
the subjects to control symmetry themselves and seeing if they resist
disturbances.)" How do you arrive at the fey conclusion that I believe
that symmetry is not a perception?

> Presumably you will argue that symmetry has no objective
> counterpart, but this is a claim that I maintain lacks
> empirical support.

What is the objective counterpart of symmetry? Do you know
the objective counterparts of any other perceptions? How
were you able to get past your sensory inputs to determine
what's really, objectively out there?

I have powers (note small "p") that you apparently lack. I suppose that
you can't leap over tall buildings either... (When will I ever learn not
to argue with solipsists? Here's an even better question, who _do_
solipsists argue with? Can two solipsists argue with each other?)

Bruce Gregory

28

[From Bruce Gregory (990420.1607 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990420.1300)

One of the biggest problems for PCT is people who believe that
knowing all the complex math of control theory means that they
understand PCT. It is not so.

So PCT is _not_ an example of control theory. Calling PCT a control
theory certainly leads to misunderstandings. Maybe it needs a less
misleading name.

Bruce Gregory

29

[From Bill Powers (990420.1431 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (990420.1435 EDT)--

There is no objective counterpart of beauty or
ugliness. The Test
does not establish a correspondence of perception with reality. It
establishes a provisional correspondence of the controlling system's
hypothetical perceptions with the observer's perceptions.

A very strong (and, as far as I can tell, unsupported) claim. Studies
suggest that people find symmetrical human faces more "beautiful" than
unsymmetrical faces. (It would be nice to test this by allowing the
subjects to control symmetry themselves and seeing if they resist
disturbances). Presumably you will argue that symmetry has no objective
counterpart, but this is a claim that I maintain lacks empirical
support.

It's the claim that something exists in reality to correspond to our
perception of symmetry that lacks empirical support. You have no way to
examine reality except through your senses. There can be no independent
confirmation of any external counterpart of any perception. Nor can there
be any independent refutation -- the question must forever remain undecided.

Best,

Bill P.

30

[From Bill Powers (990420.1439 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (990420.1602 EDT)--

(When will I ever learn not
to argue with solipsists? Here's an even better question, who _do_
solipsists argue with? Can two solipsists argue with each other?)

I can offer you a pretty good line of argument, based on control phenomena,
that allows us to infer the existence of a real reality independent of us
(so I am certainly not a solipsist). But the very fact that that I have to
rely on evidence and logic shows that we are inferring, not observing, this
reality.

It is quite possible for such a reality to exist, and still not resemble
the world that we experience. For instance, if all human beings' perceptual
systems are related to the outside world through a layer of identical
conformal transformations, no one will ever discover it. There is simply no
way for us ever to observe the outside world directly, even if it exists.
So we can't check to see if our perceptions correspond to reality.

The solipsist says that nothing else exists. That is also unverifiable.

Best,

Bill P.

31

[From Bill Powers (990420.1453 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (990420.1607 EDT)--

Rick Marken (990420.1300)

One of the biggest problems for PCT is people who believe that
knowing all the complex math of control theory means that they
understand PCT. It is not so.

Bruce G:

So PCT is _not_ an example of control theory. Calling PCT a control
theory certainly leads to misunderstandings. Maybe it needs a less
misleading name.

I'm finding your non-sequiturs particularly grating today. Knowing the
complex math of a subject is no guarantee of understanding it. It seems to
me that you were complaining about the same thing with respect to physics
-- that people learned the math by rote without getting any feel for
physics. Well, the same thing happens in control engineering.

Best,

Bill P.

32

[From Bill Powers (990420.1453 MDT)]

I'm finding your non-sequiturs particularly grating today.

Knowing the
complex math of a subject is no guarantee of understanding
it. It seems to
me that you were complaining about the same thing with
respect to physics
-- that people learned the math by rote without getting any feel for
physics. Well, the same thing happens in control engineering.

That's certainly true. But Rick is not talking about student
misconceptions. He is saying that engineers who design control systems
don't really understand control theory and that only "we" truly
understand control theory. Frankly, this makes us look like flakes. (If
I said that physicists don't understand quantum mechanics, only I
understand it, I would expect to be dismissed as a crank.) There is a
real problem here and call it a non-sequitur will not make it go away.

Bruce Gregory

33

[From Bruce Gregory (990420.1740 EDT)]

Bill Powers (990420.1431 MDT)

It's the claim that something exists in reality to correspond to our
perception of symmetry that lacks empirical support. You have
no way to
examine reality except through your senses. There can be no
independent
confirmation of any external counterpart of any perception.
Nor can there
be any independent refutation -- the question must forever
remain undecided.

I sympathize with this view, but it is very easy to mistake for
solipsism. Saying that the thermostat doesn't control the temperature of
the room but really only controls its perception since it has no way of
knowing the "real" temperature, is perfectly legitimate but liable to
sound bizarre to many people. Your way of understanding how a
thermostat works is simple, elegant, and convincing to me, but it sounds
"funny" to control engineers. Since they think they understand control
it might be prudent not to tell them that they don't know what they
talking about.

Bruce Gregory

34

[From Bill Powers (990420.1553 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (990420.1740 EDT)--

Saying that the thermostat doesn't control the temperature of
the room but really only controls its perception since it has no way of
knowing the "real" temperature, is perfectly legitimate but liable to
sound bizarre to many people.

So what? It is correct. In fact if you don't understand that the thermostat
controls only its perception, you may have a hard time troubleshooting a
thermostat with a bad sensor. You may have trouble understanding why a
perfectly good thermostat set to 72 degrees doesn't keep the air on the
other side of the room (by the windows) at 72 degrees, although the air
around the thermostat is at the right temperature.

Why are you so worried all of a sudden about people thinking our ideas are
bizzarre or that we are "flakes?" RE the other post, there are plenty of
professional control system designers who do a lousy job of it. Do you
really care what they think? I don't.

Best,

Bill P.

  Your way of understanding how a

···

thermostat works is simple, elegant, and convincing to me, but it sounds
"funny" to control engineers. Since they think they understand control
it might be prudent not to tell them that they don't know what they
talking about.

Bruce Gregory

35

[From Rick Marken (990420.1810)]

Bill Powers (990420.1453 MDT) to Bruce Gregory --

I'm finding your non-sequiturs particularly grating today.

Me too. I think this constitutes proof that Bruce is really,
objectively grating;-)

Bruce Gregory (sometime 990420) --

That's certainly true. But Rick is not talking about student
misconceptions. He is saying that engineers who design control
systems don't really understand control theory and that only
"we" truly understand control theory.

Real engineers who design real control systems have used control
theory to study humans as S-R devices; these same engineers have
dismissed PCT because they know that control systems control
objective variables in the environment, not their own perceptions.
These engineers are not students. Do they understand control
theory?

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

36

[From Bill Powers (990421.0708 MDT)]

Rick Marken (990420.1810)--

Me too. I think this constitutes proof that Bruce is really,
objectively grating;-)

No, no, an objective grating is a circular frame holding parallel bars that
is put over the objective lens of a telescope so that the star images will
appear as tiny spectra. What I meant is that Bruce is really, truly (i.e.,
objectively) grating, meaning that he is making a pizza and is currently
preparing the cheese.

Sheesh, where can you get good help nowadays?

Best,

Bill P.

37

[From Bruce Gregory (990421.1000 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990420.1810)

Real engineers who design real control systems have used control
theory to study humans as S-R devices; these same engineers have
dismissed PCT because they know that control systems control
objective variables in the environment, not their own perceptions.
These engineers are not students. Do they understand control
theory?

Do the control systems they design work? I'll bet the folks who designed
my thermostat and cruise control (both of which work quite well) didn't
understand PCT. Since there are many more of them than there are of us,
I'll let them call their discipline control theory and grant that they
know what they are doing. I guess I'm just soft on control theory.

An engineer thinks of a TV remote control as an open-loop device for
controlling the TV. I think of it as part of control loop by which I
control my perception of program. Each model seems to works adequately
for the modeler. The models do not clash by predicting different
outcomes. The engineer is not interested in which channel I watch. I am.
Further he cares about how the remote control works, I don't. I care
about how I work; the engineer rarely thinks about how either he or I
work.

Bruce Gregory

38

[From Bruce Gregory (990421.1008 EDT)]

Bill Powers (990421.0708 MDT)

No, no, an objective grating is a circular frame holding
parallel bars that
is put over the objective lens of a telescope so that the
star images will
appear as tiny spectra.

You will not be surprised to learn that I had the same thought!

Bruce Gregory

39

[From Rick Marken (990421.0900)]

Me:

Real engineers who design real control systems have used control
theory to study humans as S-R devices; these same engineers have
dismissed PCT because they know that control systems control
objective variables in the environment, not their own perceptions.
These engineers are not students. Do they understand control
theory?

Bruce Gregory (990421.1000 EDT) --

Do the control systems they design work?

This is another non-sequiter. Did the bridges designed by
the engineers who lived before Newton work?

Since there are many more of them than there are of us

"Us"???

Each model seems to works adequately for the modeler.

The control engineer who rejected my paper on controlled
variables did so for the following three reasons: 1) control
systems are more properly viewed as controlling objective
states of affairs, not perceptions 2) the presentation of
control theory was way too elementary and 3) psychologists
already know all about controlled variables anyway. Would say
that this fellow understands control theory perfectly well
because it "works for him". Isn't it possible that there
might be a fundamental flaw in this person's understanding of
control theory, even though it "works for him"?

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

40

[From Bruce Gregory (990421.1430 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990421.0900)

Me:

> Real engineers who design real control systems have used control
> theory to study humans as S-R devices; these same engineers have
> dismissed PCT because they know that control systems control
> objective variables in the environment, not their own perceptions.
> These engineers are not students. Do they understand control
> theory?

Bruce Gregory (990421.1000 EDT) --

> Do the control systems they design work?

This is another non-sequiter.

I'm not sure how a question can be a non-sequitur.

Did the bridges designed by
the engineers who lived before Newton work?

Yes indeed. It would have been completely wrong to tell them that they
did not understand how to build bridges, and that only people who
understood Newton are able to build adequate bridges.

> Since there are many more of them than there are of us

"Us"???

Forgive my presumption.

> Each model seems to works adequately for the modeler.

The control engineer who rejected my paper on controlled
variables did so for the following three reasons: 1) control
systems are more properly viewed as controlling objective
states of affairs, not perceptions

Perfectly understandable. We normally think that thermostats control the
temperature of the room, not their perceptions of the temperature. (This
is one reason we don't place a candle under the thermostat in order to
save fuel costs in the winter.)

2) the presentation of

control theory was way too elementary and

Definitely true from an engineer's perspective. All of PCT deals with a
section of the first chapter of any text on control.

3) psychologists

already know all about controlled variables anyway.

Why would you expect an engineer to know anything about what
psychologists know or don't know?

Would say
that this fellow understands control theory perfectly well
because it "works for him".

Yes.

Isn't it possible that there
might be a fundamental flaw in this person's understanding of
control theory, even though it "works for him"?

Yes.

Bruce Gregory