Slatestarcodex

[wmansell]

I’ve had a word with these Slate Star people…

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/12/toward-a-predictive-theory-of-depression/#comment-547161

Here below…

Hi everyone, I really believe that this thread is based on two false premises. First that understanding depression is the way to help people recover from mental health problems. Depression is just one of many manifestations of chronic distress. We need to understand the principles of what underlies all of these because the categorisation of psychological distress into disorders is a red herring. All of the evidence now points to there being a core process underlying all mental health difficulties. Some of these studies are published in the highest impact psychiatry journals so it’s not just me saying it! Second we need to ask ourselves – what is more fundamental to wwell being? Predicting what will happen to you? Or controlling what will happen to you? Regardless of what you predict, if you can take control then your predictions are just that, and may not be reality, or you can make them your reality if you want to. This is control. So we need a unified theory of how control works. The fundamental mechanism of control – in all control systems – is negative feedback – not prediction. Un Under some circumstances prediction can improve control, but it needs updating as regularly as possible. That is negative feedback and it is the route to recovery and adaptation. Darwin and Wallace saw this a century ago by drawing analogy between the Watts Governor (negative feedback control system of a steam engine) and evolution by natural selection.

Perceptual Control Theory is the implementation of negative feedback in the nervous system, exploiting its capacity to extract regularities from the environment, organise them in a hierarchy and use actions to make current experience match memories of desired past environmental regularities. Conflict between control systems is the most pernicious reason of loss of control, and mental health problems persist when people are unwilling or unable to sustain their attention on the system governing the conflict long enough to allow spontaneous change to reduce error through reorganisation. Biases in prediction are observed to reduce during this process but this is largely epiphenomenal, and idiosyncratic to the person. The universal principle is to restore control through reorganisation of conflicted control systems.

We use Method of Levels as a universal therapy to help people manage this. See http://www.methodoflevels.com.au. We need to use mathematical/computational theories (of which PCT and PP and natural selection are examples) to push these pivotal changes rather than pondering within our familiar frames of reference…

···

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.09.15.0850)]

···

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

I’ve had a word with these Slate Star people…

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/12/toward-a-predictive-theory-of-depression/#comment-547161

Here below…

RM: Excellent post.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Hi everyone, I really believe that this thread is based on two false premises. First that understanding depression is the way to help people recover from mental health problems. Depression is just one of many manifestations of chronic distress. We need to understand the principles of what underlies all of these because the categorisation of psychological distress into disorders is a red herring. All of the evidence now points to there being a core process underlying all mental health difficulties. Some of these studies are published in the highest impact psychiatry journals so it’s not just me saying it! Second we need to ask ourselves – what is more fundamental to well bbeing? Predicting what will happen to you? Or controlling what will happen to you? Regardless of what you predict, if you can take control then your predictions are just that, and may not be reality, or you can make them your reality if you want to. This is control. So we need a unified theory of how control works. The fundamental mechanism of control – in all contrrol systems – is negative feedback – not prediction. Under sr some circumstances prediction can improve control, but it needs updating as regularly as possible. That is negative feedback and it is the route to recovery and adaptation. Darwin and Wallace saw this a century ago by drawing analogy between the Watts Governor (negative feedback control system of a steam engine) and evolution by natural selection.

Perceptual Control Theory is the implementation of negative feedback in the nervous system, exploiting its capacity to extract regularities from the environment, organise them in a hierarchy and use actions to make current experience match memories of desired past environmental regularities. Conflict between control systems is the most pernicious reason of loss of control, and mental health problems persist when people are unwilling or unable to sustain their attention on the system governing the conflict long enough to allow spontaneous change to reduce error through reorganisation. Biases in prediction are observed to reduce during this process but this is largely epiphenomenal, and idiosyncratic to the person. The universal principle is to restore control through reorganisation of conflicted control systems.Â

We use Method of Levels as a universal therapy to help people manage this. See http://www.methodoflevels.com.au. We need to use mathematical/computational theories (of which PCT and PP and natural selection are examples) to push these pivotal changes rather than pondering within our familiar frames of reference…

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.09.15.12.37]

···

Warren, I believe that below you hit on
the main difference between predictive coding theory (PCT) and
perceptual control theory (PCT), when you say “* …we need
to ask ourselves – what is more fundamental to well being?
Predicting what will happen to you? Or controlling what will
happen to you? Regardless of what you predict, if you can take
control then your predictions are just that, and may not be
reality, or you can make them your reality if you want to.
This is control*.”

    The circuitry of hierarchic PCT can be mapped from one

interpretation of the acronym to the other without very much
forcing, so the data aren’t very different in what is likely to
be observed in any one experiment. But they are very different
in their interpretation and in how their structures are imagined
to develop. My way of looking at the same thing you mentioned in
my quote is that PreCoT is a purely descriptive theory that is
motivated only by the observed data, whereas PerCoT is an
explanatory theory that can be motivated by appeal to evolution
as well as by observed data. Furthermore, and this is
essentially what you said, one can argue from thermodynamics
that PerCoT is physically necessary for life (see my Editorial
in the 1999 PCT special issue of Int. J. Human-Computer
Studies). I doubt you could do that with PreCoT.

    Martin

I’ve had a word with these Slate Star people…

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/12/toward-a-predictive-theory-of-depression/#comment-547161

Here below…

        Hi everyone, I really believe that

this thread is based on two false premises. First that
understanding depression is the way to help people recover
from mental health problems. Depression is just one of many
manifestations of chronic distress. We need to understand
the principles of what underlies all of these because the
categorisation of psychological distress into disorders is a
red herring. All of the evidence now points to there being a
core process underlying all mental health difficulties. Some
of these studies are published in the highest impact
psychiatry journals so it’s not just me saying it! Second we
need to ask ourselves – what is more fundamental to well
being? Predicting what will happen to you? Or controlling
what will happen to you? Regardless of what you predict, if
you can take control then your predictions are just that,
and may not be reality, or you can make them your reality if
you want to. This is control. So we need a unified theory of
how control works. The fundamental mechanism of control – in
all control systems – is negative feedback – no not prediction.
Under some circumstances prediction can improve control, but
it needs updating as regularly as possible. That is negative
feedback and it is the route to recovery and adaptation.
Darwin and Wallace saw this a century ago by drawing analogy
between the Watts Governor (negative feedback control system
of a steam engine) and evolution by natural selection.

        Perceptual Control Theory is the

implementation of negative feedback in the nervous system,
exploiting its capacity to extract regularities from the
environment, organise them in a hierarchy and use actions to
make current experience match memories of desired past
environmental regularities. Conflict between control systems
is the most pernicious reason of loss of control, and mental
health problems persist when people are unwilling or unable
to sustain their attention on the system governing the
conflict long enough to allow spontaneous change to reduce
error through reorganisation. Biases in prediction are
observed to reduce during this process but this is largely
epiphenomenal, and idiosyncratic to the person. The
universal principle is to restore control through
reorganisation of conflicted control systems.Â

        We use Method of Levels as a

universal therapy to help people manage this. See http://www.methodoflevels.com.au .
We need to use mathematical/computational theories (of which
PCT and PP and natural selection are examples) to push these
pivotal changes rather than pondering within our familiar
frames of reference…

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.09.15.13.49]

I have sent four messages to CSGnet today. The third asked why the first had not appeared although it was posted over an hour before the second, which had appeared. The fourth worked on the assumption that the subject line caused some intermediary stage to censor the post for political reasons, and changed the subject line. But it hasn't arrived either.

All the missing messages contained the word "[Letter-R] evolutionary". The initial message was a longish explanation of why I felt PCT deserved the use of that word, and used the word in the subject line. The other messages had the word in their body. I propose to resubmit the initial message, using [R] in place of the cited letter, and if that doesn't arrive I will try substituting "xxx". I hope people will find it readable if one of the versions arrives.

Martin

[_Erling_Jorgensen]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2017.09.15 1645 EDT)]

Martin Taylor 2017.09.15.12.37 (responding to Warren Mansell 9/15/2017 4:55 AM)

MT: Warren, I believe that below you hit on the main difference between predictive coding theory (PCT) and perceptual control theory (PCT), when you say “…we need to ask ourselves – what is more fundamental to well being? Predicting whhat will happen to you? Or controlling what will happen to you? Regardless of what you predict, if you can take control then your predictions are just that, and may not be reality, or you can make them your reality if you want to. This is control.”

    >MT:  The circuitry of hierarchic PCT can be mapped from one interpretation of the acronym to the other without very much forcing, so the data aren't very different in what is likely to be observed in any one experiment. But they are very different in their interpretation and in how their structures are imagined to develop.

EJ: I haven’t checked this out very thoroughly, so this may not hold. But from what I have seen so far of Predictive Coding Theory, I agree with Martin that there is a similar circuitry going on, but with a key difference as to routing of signals. Both compute a difference between entering perceptions and what I’ll call “expectations from above.”

EJ: For Perceptual Control Theory, we call that entry from above a Reference, and use it to specify how the perception should be changed to match its reference specification. In other words, the difference between the two is routed down to bring about the change in perception.

EJ: For Predictive Coding Theory, that entry from above is called a Prediction, and when there is a mismatch from the entering perception, the difference is routed up in order to make better predictions! That is a significant difference from our version of PCT. To paraphrase Bateson, it is a difference that makes all the difference!

EJ: So this distinction between Prediction and Control certainly is a fundamental one, whether we’re talking about mental health treatment (as Warren points out), or neuroscience wiring (as Martin points out.)

All the best,

Erling

···

---

Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2017.09.05.17:25 ET)]

  For Predictive Coding Theory, that entry from above is called a Prediction, and when there is a mismatch from the entering perception, the difference is routed up in order to make better predictions! That is a significant difference from our version of PCT. Â

 Is there some other part of ‘predictive coding theory’ that tells a story about how predictions determine outputs? If not, on what basis can this be compared and contrasted with PCT?

Could this be seen as a theory of learning (the establishment and refinement of reference values) that complements PCT as a theory of behavior? (That’s long been my view of the relation between PCT and at least some flavors of behaviorism.)Â

  To paraphrase Bateson, it is a difference that makes all the difference!Â

Yes. I don’t want to detract from your point, but we should be clear that Bateson’s “difference that makes a difference” refers to how continuous variation is transformed as it moves around a control loop. The transformations are especially obvious at the sensory inputs, in the metabolic amplification of neural signals as action, and in the environmental feedback function. A problem with his insightful metaphor from which he posited an ‘elementary unit of mind’ is the suggestion of discrete differences (as in TOTE) rather than continuous variation.

···

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Erling Jorgensen EJorgensen@riverbendcmhc.org wrote:

[From Erling Jorgensen (2017.09.15 1645 EDT)]

Martin Taylor 2017.09.15.12.37Â (responding to Warren Mansell 9/15/2017 4:55 AM)

MT:Â Warren, I believe that below you hit on the main difference between predictive coding theory (PCT) and perceptual control theory (PCT), when you say “…we need to ask ourselves – what is more fundamental too well being? Predicting what will happen to you? Or controlling what will happen to you? Regardless of what you predict, if you can take control then your predictions are just that, and may not be reality, or you can make them your reality if you want to. This is control.”

    >MT:Â  The circuitry of hierarchic PCT can be mapped from one interpretation of the acronym to the other without very much forcing, so the data aren't very different in what is likely to be observed in any one experiment. But they are very different in their interpretation and in how their structures are imagined to develop.

EJ: I haven’t checked this out very thoroughly, so this may not hold. But from what I have seen so far of Predictive Coding Theory, I agree with Martin that there is a similar circuitry going on, but with a key difference as to routing of signals. Both compute a difference between entering perceptions and what I’ll call "expectations from above."Â

EJ: For Perceptual Control Theory, we call that entry from above a Reference, and use it to specify how the perception should be changed to match its reference specification. In other words, the difference between the two is routed down to bring about the change in perception.Â

EJ: For Predictive Coding Theory, that entry from above is called a Prediction, and when there is a mismatch from the entering perception, the difference is routed up in order to make better predictions! That is a significant difference from our version of PCT. To paraphrase Bateson, it is a difference that makes all the difference!Â

EJ: So this distinction between Prediction and Control certainly is a fundamental one, whether we’re talking about mental health treatment (as Warren points out), or neuroscience wiring (as Martin points out.)Â

All the best,

Erling

---

Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.

Â

[MartinT]

···

[Martin Taylor
2017.09.15.17.52]

    reposted 2017.09.19.17.27

[From Erling Jorgensen (2017.09.15 1645 EDT)]

          >Martin Taylor 2017.09.15.12.37Â  (responding to

Warren Mansell 9/15/2017 4:55 AM)

          >MT:Â  Warren, I believe that below you hit on the

main difference between predictive coding theory (PCT) and
perceptual control theory (PCT), when you say “* …we
need to ask ourselves – what is more fundamental to
well being? Predicting what will happen to you? Or
controlling what will happen to you? Regardless of
what you predict, if you can take control then your
predictions are just that, and may not be reality, or
you can make them your reality if you want to. This is
control*.”

            >MT:Â  The circuitry of hierarchic PCT can be mapped

from one interpretation of the acronym to the other
without very much forcing, so the data aren’t very
different in what is likely to be observed in any one
experiment. But they are very different in their
interpretation and in how their structures are imagined
to develop.

          EJ:Â  I haven't checked this out very thoroughly, so

this may not hold. But from what I have seen so far of
Predictive Coding Theory, I agree with Martin that there
is a similar circuitry going on, but with a key difference
as to routing of signals. Both compute a difference
between entering perceptions and what I’ll call
"expectations from above."Â

          EJ:Â  For Perceptual Control Theory, we call that entry

from above a Reference, and use it to specify how the
perception should be changed to match its reference
specification. In other words, the difference between the
two is routed down to bring about the change in
perception.Â

          EJ:Â  For Predictive Coding Theory, that entry from

above is called a Prediction, and when there is a mismatch
from the entering perception, the difference is routed
up in order to make better predictions!

    A few weeks ago I offered an alternative circuit for the

inter-level connections in PerCoT. I don’t remember whether I
said so at the time, but it was based on one by Seth and Friston
to demonstrate PreCoT. It isn’t exactly the same as their
diagram, but it is my interpretation of their diagram in PerCoT
visual language. I used this figure to show that different
physical (neural) connections can provide the same result. In
it, the error is routed both up and down (through the output
function that provides the next lower layer’s reference values.

    In the "standard" PerCoT connection (top row), what goes up to

the next level is the perceptual value. In the PreCoT-based
circuit what goes up is the error and the reference, from which
the Perceptual Function can produce the perceptual signal (if
that loop requires it). The left column shows this for the
“standard” no-tolerance, no-imagination condition. The middle
column shows how the two circuits treat tolerance, while the
right column shows how they both treat imagination.

    The PreCoT-based circuit can do whatever the standard PerCoT

circuit can do, but it can do other things as well, such as
inject either reference or error individually back into the
upgoing perceptual circuitry. The PreCoT circuit also
automatically allows for blending of appropriately weighted
sensory and imagination input, as Bruce (Nevin?) was arguing for
many months ago. I consider both to be advantages, because we
certainly can (at least consciously) perceive reference and
error separately from the current perception, and the current
perception does use partial input from imagination if the
sensory input isn’t very clear or is interrupted…

          That is a significant difference from our version of

PCT. To paraphrase Bateson, it is a difference that makes
all the difference!Â

          EJ:Â  So this distinction between Prediction and Control

certainly is a fundamental one, whether we’re talking
about mental health treatment (as Warren points out), or
neuroscience wiring (as Martin points out.)Â

    I'm not guaranteeing that my interpretation of PreCoT would be

accepted as correct by one immersed in that theory, but I don’t
think it can be too terribly wrong. I haven’t really studied
PreCot beyond reading a few articles. If it is anything like
correct, the important difference between PreCoT and PerCoT
isn’t in what the circuitry does functionally, so much as in the
labels attached to the components by the proponents of the two
theories.

    There is one very big difference not captured in the above

diagram, however, and that is in the internal nature of the
output functions, which in PreCoT need to perform complex
computations in real time to work out what actions to perform to
minimize what they call “prediction error”, whereas PerCoT
requires the output function mainly to provide Gain, and if the
environmental feedback path does not provide it, time-binding in
the form of integration. In PerCoT, the equivalent of the
complicated calculations is largely contained in the reorganized
structure of the hierarchy, which determines what actions tend
to work best in influencing a controlled perception.

    Martin