Sand in the Gears

CSGnet Archive CSG1994
1

[From Bruce Abbott (941222.1230 EST)]

Rick Marken (941221.2300)

Bruce Abbott (941221.1030 EST)

In reorganization, do not the consequences of a set of system parameters
(control or failure to control) determine whether those parameters will be
preserved in the system or abandoned in favor of yet other variations?

No. The consequences do NOT determine it. The DIFFERENCE between consequences
and REFERENCE signal determine it. Because reorganization is a closed loop
process, what is actually happening is that the reorganizing system is
determining the consequences (by varying parameters); the consequences do not
determine the parameters. Strange but true in the wonderful world of circular
causality.

Darwin: So you see, like begets like, yet there is variation. In a given
          environment, certain variations lead to improved survival, whereas
          others lead to premature death or lowered reproductive capability.
          I call this process "natural selection." These consequences tend
          to produce organisms whose characteristics better adapt them to
          their environments.

Marwin: No, no, no! Because evolution is a closed loop process, what is
          actually happening is that mutations determine the consequences
          (by varying the genes); the consequences do not determine the
          genes.

Darwin: Er, well, true, the consequences do not GENERATE the variations,
          but I never held that they do. I do not know what generates these
          variations, but it appears to be a more-or-less random process.
          Over generations, certain variants become more prevalent, and
          others less prevalent, owing to the relative reproductive
          successes of the organisms that possess them.

Marwin: Ah, so you ADMIT that the consequences do not select the genes of
          an INDIVIDUAL organism, yet you continue to believe in this
          evolution thing. O.K., provide a diagram showing how consequences
          can set the gene structure of a single organism.

Darwin: [sighs, pulls pocket watch out of his breast pocket, looks at it,
          and puts the watch away] Listen, I'd love to continue this
          conversation, but it's time I got back to work. Nice talking with
          you, have a nice holiday. [turns abruptly and walks away]

Again you have managed to find some "flaw" to pick apart rather than taking an
objective look at the argument. To wit:

No. The consequences do NOT determine it. The DIFFERENCE between consequences
and REFERENCE signal determine it.

This is a mere definitional problem. I view the "consequence" AS the effect
of the behavior on the error signal, which IS a change in the difference
between consequences [as you define them] and reference signal. I've said
this repeatedly, to no avail. Thus my description IS your description. The
assertions you make in the rest of your post are predicated on this
misunderstanding, especially

This will seem puzzling until you learn how a control system works. The
best way to do that is by running simulations of control systems

This is very strange. Too bad you are not able to actually run my demo and
see for yourself that it represents a beautiful example of a two-level control
system. Doesn't it strike you as odd that someone can WRITE simulations of
perceptual control systems without having a clue as to how they work?
[Probably not. I'm sure you will find an explanation that allows you to keep
up your perception that I do not understand them. It seems to be a highly-
valued reference level for you and thus strongly defended.]

Rick Marken (941218.1800)

Bruce Abbott (941218.1650 EST)

Rick, I accepted feedback-regulated
control as a general principle of behavior (and rejected the
reinforcement model) before I ever heard of Bill Powers and his book.

I can't think of any sense in which control could be
described as "feedback regulated"; if anything, control REGULATES
FEEDBACK, where feedback is the perceptual consequence of the
controller's own output.

Ah, more sand in the gears. This is a common description of the process, in
which "feedback-regulated" indicates the TYPE of control. Although in PCT,
"control" apparently refers to one, and only one, process (thus, no need for
the qualifier), in other contexts it also refers to open-loop situations, as
when a clock trips a relay that starts up your coffee-maker in the morning.
The clock "controls" the coffee-maker in that it has the ability to turn it
on, but the circuitry does not receive any sensory confirmation that the
coffee-maker is actually working after the relay signal has been sent.

Regards,

Bruce

2

<[Bill Leach 941225.00:47 EST(EDT)]

Bruce

Let me first comment that your contribution to the net has been, in my
opinion, of very high value. There is no doubt in my mind as to your
sincerity concerning this subject matter. I also believe that your
efforts in modeling are useful to many of us (even Bill Powers). I hope
that the holiday season is pleasent for you and yours and that you will
continue your efforts in the new year.

The subject of behaviour is a difficult one (an understatement of the
obvious).

One of the, in my opinion, major problems in discussing behaviour is the
subtle meanings for the term itself.

When we talk about the "cat pulling the string to get out of the box", we
are talking about a very complex topic.

In the first place, anyone that has ever possessed cats (or been 'owned'
by cats) knows that they will "pull strings" regardless of obvious
association to other events.

As Bill has already pointed out, the very act of "pulling a string" is
not a "simple" matter. The cat's initial position can and will
completely change the specific actions required.

It seems to me that PCT implies that studying "behaviour" for any purpose
other than the "TEST" is a waste of time and effort. The essence of PCT
is that behaviour itself is almost irrelevant.

I say almost because if the controlled variable is known but the
behaviour CANNOT control the variable then some insight is available into
the nature of the "problem" from a theraputic standpoint.

Otherwise, behaviour itself is important only for the purpose of
understanding what it is that the subject is trying to control.

ยทยทยท

------------------
Learning:

This matter probably can stand a great deal more discussion but again the
term "learning" offers it's own difficulties. As far as I can tell there
is little agreement as to what the term really means.

-bill

3

<[Bill Leach 941223.22:37 EST(EDT)]

[Bruce Abbott (941222.1230 EST)]

Darwin:

It seems that even talking in terms of "evolution" as a control system
process borders on being a "strawman" problem.

IF evolution is a control process (and I am not claim that it is not)
then the individual organism is at most a portion of the "control system"
but is otherwise an unwitting participant.

"Survival of the fittest" was always an interesting term to me. What
defines the "fittest"?, why the ones that survive of course. What are
the characteristics of the fittest?, the characteristics of the ones that
have survived... again, "of course".

When looking at "evolution" one can conclude that such is "selection by
consequence", after all the consequence is earlier death with attendant
lower reproduction. However, where is the control? What is the
reference level and what is the controlled perception? Indeed, where is
the control loop? Is it not possible that "evolution" as "defined" and
"understood" to exist is actually nothing more than an artifact of
limited control systems functioning in a limited environment?

Bruce:

Again you have managed to find some "flaw" to pick apart rather than
taking an objective look at the argument. To wit:

Rick:

No. The consequences do NOT determine it. The DIFFERENCE between
consequences and REFERENCE signal determine it.

Bruce:

This is a mere definitional problem. ...

Unfortunately these "definitional problems" create horrible
misunderstanding as well as "fuzzy thinking". Rick may be an obstainate
PITA but I am convinced that his "beating precision to death" is vital
for any real understanding to occur.

It seems like one really has to see why his nearly(?) annoying insistance
upon certain forms of expression is vital before one catches the real
implications provided by an understanding of the application of control
system theory to behaviour.

Bruce:

... Doesn't it strike you as odd that someone can WRITE simulations of
perceptual control systems without having a clue as to how they work?
[Probably not. I'm sure you will find an explanation that allows you to
keep up your perception that I do not understand them. It seems to be a
highly-valued reference level for you and thus strongly defended.]

No, it is not surprising exactly. Control systems engineers often miss
vital concepts for a full understanding, related to perfectly functioning
control system that they create. Indeed, it seems that it might well
nigh be impossible to create any system that maintains a perception at a
specific reference level under conditions of random disturbance without
creating a closed loop negative feedback control system.

Bruce:

Ah, more sand in the gears. This is a common description of the
process, in which "feedback-regulated" indicates the TYPE of control.
Although in PCT, "control" apparently refers to one, and only one,
process (thus, no need for the qualifier), in other contexts it also
refers to open-loop situations, as when a clock trips a relay that
starts up your coffee-maker in the morning. The clock "controls" the
coffee-maker in that it has the ability to turn it on, but the circuitry
does not receive any sensory confirmation that the coffee-maker is
actually working after the relay signal has been sent.

The "problem" here is that the term "control" is itself inappropriate for
an "open loop" system IF one is trying to imply that the designers
intended goal is controlled. That is, the implied goal for the "coffee
pot controller" is to start the coffee pot into operation at a specified
time. This operation IS NOT controlled and the timer is NOT a controller
in any real sense of the term.

"Motor controllers" is a term that is applied to a great many glorified
relays. That they are called "controllers" does not mean that they
are...

This is yet another example of the need for precision.

-bill