This answer it’s about side-effects
which Rick invented with his observations
Rick you are universal manipulator, with such a little knowledge about »organisms« that I’m estonished how you have »face« to manipulate and mislead all those honest people on CSGnet.
RM: My definition of “side effects” is as follows: All effects of the actions of a control system that do not affect the state of the variable that is under control. Another term for this is “irrelevant side effects” since these are observable effects of control actions that are irrelevant to keeping the controlled variable under control.
HB : As usual Rick is serving a lot of bullshitting and he demonstrated clearly that he don’t understand PCT at all. There is no »side-effects« of behavior in PCT and there is no “observable effects of control actions that are irrelevant to keeping the controlled variable under control”. There is no »controlled variable« in outer environment in PCT, there is no “Control of behavior” and so on. Nevromuscular connection produce always just effects. It can’t work once in one and other time in other way.
“Error” signal is generally turned into muscle tension and defined as effects to near environment.
Bill P (B:CP):
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
LCS III :
the outputt function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment
HB : There is no “controlled effects” to environment and there is no “variable under control” in outer environment. At least in any Bills’ diagram such a term can’t bw found.
The only »controlled variable« in PCT is perceptual signal.
Bill P (LCS III):
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
HB : That’s all as PCT is concerned about “controlled effects” and »side-effects« of behavior to environment. There is no »controlled« and »uncontrolled« effects.
You have to understand Rick how control in orgnisms is working before you start confusing people arround. So I again choose some texts from Bills’ enormous legacy, which is clearly describing PCT and not RCT. Here on CSGnet we rarely “hear” his PCT. Is this still forum for PCT is the forum for RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory). What Rick is doing is aproximatelly explained in Bills’ literature.
Bill P :
As long as we allow ourselfs the luxury of standing on a cloud from which we can see processes both inside and outside the behaving system, we do not really have any epistemological problem
HB : Your problem Rick with “observations” which you think are scientific are the same source of problems as any behaviorist had as that in fact is what you are. You are psychologist and you act like them. You see only behavior and you try to make interpretation just on what you "observe, totaly neglecting how internal structure and organization of organisms look like. And that is mistake that psychoology is doing all the time.
Bill P :
In the “experimental analysis of behavior” an attempt is made to adhere to a strictly empirical point of view. Some behaviorists even refer to this as the “scientific” point of view. No conjectures are made about the internal organization of a behaving system; all conclusions and all models are constructed only from observable phenomena. It is apperently thought that by working within such strict guidelines, one can achieve in the life sciencies the same kind of rigor and objectivity that is found in the physical sciences.
The myth was invented by J.B Watson, the former of behaviorims (although he probably got its basis from biologists).
I call that set of assertations a myth because in fact behaviorists (including in his time Watson) do make assumptions about how organisms work. Scientific Method itself (as named and practiced by behavioral scientist) depends on this model.
The reason that the failure of the model to work properly has not been discovered is that its correctness is assumed.
HB : I think it’s necessary to emphasize, that Bill in his PCT mostly explained how internal organization of organism look like
aand Rick is strictily offering his “obervations” (data) with no internal model of organisms structure and functioning that could be supported by other sciences. Just his assumptions that his “RCT model” is right. It is so, because he “observed” and said that it is so. And for a “chocolate” addision he is offering his constructed demos which show what he wants and mostly can’t be confirmed in nature, reality (the final arbiter).
Bill P :
The behavior of the system can be understood completely in terms of controlling the inner presentation instead of the objective reality.
HB : Bill formed the model of human behavior which can be scientifically supported. His “internal model” is result of “team” work which included also physiologist.
Powers, Clark, & McFarland (1960)
in all the feedback systems we will discuss, it is of no concern at all to the feedback system what actual effects are produced in environment. The system reacts only to the signals injected into it
«
//Even whenn we speak of systems which deal in human relationships, these complex systems not only do not »care« about what is actually going on in the »real« environment, they can not even know what is going on »out there«. They preform the sole function of bringing their feedback signals, the only reality they can perceive, to some reference level, the only goal they have.
HB : Bill didn’t use just observations and conclussions upon them, but he internally defined structure and functioning of organism supported with anatomical and physilogical facts (B:CP, 2005). So the model Bill formed is very “strong” and I know how hard is to add anything to his model if we want to be in accordance with other scientific researches. But Rick is changing his model all the time with no phsysioogical or neurophysiological evidences.
Bill P : The most common conception of human nature is based on empiricism : watching how people behave, remembering and classifying everything
HB : This is approximatelly what Rick is doing.
RM :
the side eeffects are some of the things that an observer notices that are not an effect of control – not a controlled variable.
HB : Observer as Rick or any other observer can have an ilussion that he sees different effects to environment, speccially if he thinks he sees a "controlled effects to environment, which are from tha internal side of view unexistable. But obviously Bills’ work is not respected and it’s not used in such discussions Rick is producing as observer without presenting what Bill wrote about such themes.
Bill P :
That is what is most wrong with empirical approach to understanding human nature. It limits understanding to isolated little group of facts that can’t be connected to form a big picture.
So there is no way to develope the empirical way of understanding human nature into a science.
That’s the first thesis : that an understanding of human nature based on empiricism is inherently limited in scope and inherently unreliable.Â
You’ll notice that I am reserving “science” to mean a method more advanced than empiricism.
HB : I think it’s quite clear why Ricks’ way of understanding “control nature” of people is wrong. Â So the question is what is right method and model of human nature.
Bill P :
A model that was made of entities that actually, although unobservably, exist, and that the related to each other preciselly in the manner of natural laws that actually govern the world, would be a perfect model.
Any failure of a model to predict exactly what occurs is therefore evidence that the model differs in some way from the perfect model - that is, from reality. It is at the same time a hint as to how the model must be changed to bring it closer to the right form
HB : So if I try to conclude from “perfect model” how PCT should look like it would probably be something like this :
Bill P :
According to control theory, it is the nature of human being to control what happens to themselves as individuals and as a species.
To adopt the point of view of such system is to imagine experiencing a world made up only of those perceptual signals it derives from its contact with a world that is otherwise unknown to it. In that world, behavior can be only control of perception.
HB : Please tell me Alice and Barb if it’s not a PCT poetry to listen to Bills words and models instead of “listening” to Rick who is admitting that he can outdo himself in stupidity. I simply can’t see any more Bills’ explanations. Everything is turning arround Rick and his RCT. Is there gone be some PCT on CSGnet forum or not ???
HB : You Rick are again making such a confussion that I wonder if any of PCT members still understand PCT, beside those who we know to understand it. And I suppose they probably are not answering you because they lost their hope that you will ever stop with your “behavioristic” nonsenses. I’m wondering Rick when you’ll stop producing »examples« which show that you are controlling something in environment and which are producing some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” which is unexistant in PCT. You are following wrong assumptions.
RCT “control loop” that you are presenting is unexistant in PCT. And now you even widen your RCT “control loop” (RCT model) with “side effects”.Â
RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) :
-
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
-
OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
-
“SIDE EFFECTS” : All effects of the actions of a control system that do not affect the state of the variable that is under control.
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
-
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
-
COMPARATOR : ????
So all in all Rick is serving his version of RCT and his theory which is talking about some »controlled variable« in environment which is »controlled« by »controlled effects of behavior« and there are also some »uncontrolled effects« which »wise« Rick called them »side effects« because there is obviously some “controlled variable” in envrionment of the system that is controlled by “controlled behavior” which is producing “controlled effects” to environment and produce some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV. But Rick never explained how this “CPV” is “behaving” in internal structure of organism through comparator and so on
And we must not forget that Rick NEVER PROVED HOW BEHAVIOR IS CONTROLLED.
Rick I advise you to start reading Bills’ book from the beginning. He devoted quite some Chapters to the problem you are describing. But he never called them »side-effect« as I could see. He used different terminology and of course different concept. Your RCT concept is uterly wrong.
RM: So given the above definition of irrelevant side effects of control, can anyone think of other examples of such side effects besides those I’ve already mentioned.
HB : I hope nobody will follow such a nonsense request. Rick already organized once some “table game” where he was collecting examples with »controlled behaviors« but he was stopped by PCT arguments. So I hope nobody will cooperate in his manipulative games. His only goal is to prove that »Behavior is control«, that there is some »controlled variable« in environment and so on
¦ The only true is that “Perception is controlled” not behavior.
When will you Rick accept Mary and Bill Powers Thesis ??? Why don’t you write clearly what is wrong with their conceptions
<
Mary Powers :
PCT requires a major shift in thinking from the traditional approach : that what is controlled is not behavior, but perception.
Bill Powers :
Behavior affects the world that really exist. Those effects, after being filtered through the properties of human perception, show up as changes in the world we know about.
HB : There is no »side-effects« of behavior, there is no »controlled variable« in environment of the system, there is no »Controlled Perceptusl Variable«
There is just »Control of perception«.
/span>
»PERCEPTUAL CONTROL LOOP« of PCT (Perceptual Control Theory) look like this :
Bill P (B:CP):
-
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):
-
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
:
the output function/b> shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
Bill P (LCS III):
-
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That's what feed-back means : it's an effect of a system's output on it's own input.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
Bill P (B:CP) :
-
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
And diagram :
Why don’t use Powers definitions and diagrams in discussions on CSGnet⦠instead of inventing all the time ways of interpretation of behavior which is opposite to them.
I’m seriously asking myself : is this forum devoted to Rick and his RCT or this is forum devoted to Bill and Mary Pwers and PCT. I need straight answer ? Alison, Barb ? For how long will Ricks’ misleading of CSG members go on ?
Boris
···
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 7:57 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Side-effects
[From Rick Marken (2017.08.13.1055)]
RM: I’m asking for other examples of “side -effects” of behavior than those I mentioned in earlier posts: fixed action patterns, linear optical trajectories, invariant movement velocity profiles, the power law of movement, the matching law in operant behavior, serial position curve in memory. Any others?
RM: John Kirkland was kind enough to answer my request in a private post that he said I could reply on the net. John begins with a list of what I take to be other examples of “side effects”:
Schedules of reinforcement
behavioural analyses
operant conditioning,imprinting
critical phases
neural networks
machine learning
S-R analyses
evidence/facts (BTW, I do savour that oxymoron, “the fact of perception”)
science, as magic that works (Vonnegut)
RM: These suggestions make me realize that the first step here should be defining what is meant by “side effects”. None of the the items listed above are what I would call “side effects” of control. “Schedules of reinforcement”, for example, are a component of the feedback connection between an organism’s output (key presses, for example) and its inputs. The other entries refer to things that are too general to qualify as what I think of as “side effects” of contorl.
RM: My definition of “side effects” is as follows: All effects of the actions of a control system that do not affect the state of the variable that is under control. Another term for this is “irrelevant side effects” since these are observable effects of control actions that are irrelevant to keeping the controlled variable under control. A rather clear example of such “irrelevant side effects” can be seen in my “Mind Reading” demo (www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). When you are controlling the position of one of the avatars your mouse movements are also having an effect on the other two. The movements of these two uncontrolled avatars are, thus, irrelevant side effects of the actions (mouse movements) that are keeping the controlled avatar under control.
RM: Another nice example of irrelevant side effects of control is demonstrated in teh “Control Blindness” paper (Willett, Marken, Parker& Mansell(2017) Control Blindness: Why People Can Make Incorrect Inferences about the Intentions of Others, Attention, Perception & Performance, doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1268-3).The irrelevant side effect is the pattern of movements that are made as a person acts to keep the knot connecting two rubber bands over a target dot. It’s a little tougher to see that the pattern of movements is a side-effect of control actions in this example since that pattern of actions is the exact mirror of the pattern of disturbances. So it seems like the pattern of actions its – what some people saw as two kangaroos boxing – could be considered the action that keeps the knot on target. But a model of the behavior in this situation shows that the only relevant control action is the instantaneous movement of the finger in the x and y dimensions to counter the instantaneous disturbances to the position of the knot in those dimensions. The pattern that resulted from those actions is not part of the model; it is an irrelevant side effect of the control actions.
RM: So given the above definition of irrelevant side effects of control, can anyone think of other examples of such side effects besides those I’ve already mentioned.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
