(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.07.17.48NZT)

At the higher levels in
HPCT.

The Perceptual signal is:
How MUCH EXISTS of a “criteria”

The Reference signal is:
How MUCH the individual WANTS of a particular “criteria”

The Error signal is: How
MUCH between what “exists of a criteria” and how much you WANT of a
particular “criteria”.

The perceptual input function(s)
is the structure that EXISTS “of a particular criteria”

The output function(s) is
the structure that deals with the error signal. I need a better definition for
this.

Of course there can be
many many criteria relating to the many many input functions.

I need some better definitions
for my own education on this or are there much better definitions.

Regards

Gavin

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.07.0930)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.08.07.17.48NZT)

At the higher levels in HPCT.

The Perceptual signal is: How MUCH EXISTS of a ï¿½criteriaï¿½

I think of it as the extent to which the perception computed by the
perceptual function is present in the sensory inputs to that function.

The Reference signal is: How MUCH the individual WANTS of a particular
ï¿½criteriaï¿½

I'd say it's how much of the perception is wanted.

The Error signal is: How MUCH between what ï¿½exists of a criteriaï¿½ and how
much you WANT of a particular ï¿½criteriaï¿½.

It's the difference between what is wanted (reference signal value,
which is kind of a "criterion" for what the perceptual signal should
be) and what is actually happening (perceptual signal value).

The perceptual input function(s) is the structure that EXISTS ï¿½of a
particular criteriaï¿½

The perceptual input function is the structure that computes the
perceptual signal.

The output function(s) is the structure that deals with the error signal. I
need a better definition for this.

At the higher levels an output function takes error signals as inputs
from several higher level systems and converts them into a single
reference input to a lower level system. The Byte articles,
particularly the one on modeling the hierarchy, will make this stuff
clear.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.07.1215 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.08.07.0930) –

RM: At the higher levels an
output function takes error signals as inputs

from several higher level systems and converts them into a single

reference input to a lower level system.

BP: I think we need one output function per control system. The output
function converts the error signal to an output signal, perhaps by
integrating it or through some gain function, and then it is
fanned out to lower-order reference inputs. Each lower-order comparator
can receive multiple inputs, one from each of several different
higher-order systems – summed, probably. Each higher-order system’s
output can be sent with different weightings to many lower-order
comparators.

I don’t mean this IS how the system is hooked up, only that this is the
way I’ve been thinking of it.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.07.1135)]

Bill Powers (2010.08.07.1215 MDT)

Rick Marken (2010.08.07.0930) --

RM: At the higher levels an output function takes error signals as inputs
from several higher level systems and converts them into a single
reference input to a lower level system.

BP: I think we need one output function per control system. ...

Yes, sorry. Forgot. That is the way I implemented it in my spreadsheet
your way, that is, with integrating output functions per control
system.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.08.08.15.39NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.07.0930)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.08.07.17.48NZT)

At the higher levels in HPCT.

The Perceptual signal is: How MUCH
EXISTS of a “criteria”

I think of it as the extent to which
the perception computed by the

perceptual function is present in the
sensory inputs to that function.

I don’t understand
this statement. Each perceptual input structure in my understanding is requisitely
required to be quite unique, relating to a particular “criteria”.

The Reference signal is: How MUCH the
individual WANTS of a particular

“criteria”

I’d say it’s how much of the perception is
wanted.

Ok that’s much of
the same thing.

The Error signal is: How MUCH between
what “exists of a criteria” and how

much you WANT of a particular
“criteria”.

It’s the difference between what is wanted
(reference signal value,

which is kind of a “criterion”
for what the perceptual signal should

be) and what is actually happening
(perceptual signal value).

Okay that’s much of
the same thing I’m saying.

The perceptual input function(s) is
the structure that EXISTS “of a

particular criteria”

The perceptual input function is the
structure that computes the

perceptual signal.

Okay but that statements
says nothing about what the structure is, as I understand it, it is directly related
to the particular “criteria”, otherwise how would it work in the
brain. The must be some type of recognition structure of a particular “criteria”,
so I am assuming in HPCT the perceptual input structure is the structure.

The output function(s) is the
structure that deals with the error signal. I

need a better definition for this.

At the higher levels an output function
takes error signals as inputs

from several higher level systems and
converts them into a single

reference input to a lower level system.
The Byte articles,

particularly the one on modeling the
hierarchy, will make this stuff

clear.

Okay I will look at the
Byte articles.

the output function transferring the reference signal to the lower levels.
However it would be directly related to a particular “criteria” and
particular “perceptual input structure” and a particular “reference
signal”. It cannot be just any output structure. In my understanding
it should be quite a unique output structure related to the unique electrical signatures

These entire high level
CS systems (of course millions) are all each quite unique relating to
particular “criteria”

Regards

Gavin

···

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.08.16.03NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2010.08.07.1215 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.08.07.0930) –

RM: At the higher levels
an output function takes error signals as inputs

from several higher level systems and converts them into a single

reference input to a lower level system.

BP: I think we need one output function per control system.

That’s exactly what I said in the
last thread. For this to work at the higher levels I think it’s a unique
output structure for a unique error signal for a unique input signal for a unique
perceptual input structure all relating to a particular unique “criteria”

This is built like the number system
1+1+1+1+1……………………………………………………………………
the only difference is sequence is not requisite at all. You can have one’s
coming in from anywhere. Stuart Kauffman at Santa Fe modeled this type of structure with his network of buttons. (See “At
Home in the Universe” the search for self-organization).

So as per PCT systems concept level, only
its all systems concept level. Not really a hierarchy. This way it solves some
major problems and then there is some math one can use for this. Topoi Logic
and Network Systems.

Also similar “unique criteria”
just bunch together. Just like in the human body, there is no real level of hierarchy
just different functional systems all working together.

So what I’m saying it’s possible
that there really is only two levels, the one connected directly to the actual modalities
(input functions) and output functions (muscles) the rest is a network (all
with each unique control system), with unique signatures.

Hey just a wondering
mind!!!

The output function
converts the error signal to an output signal, perhaps by integrating it
or through some gain function, and then
it is fanned out to lower-order reference inputs.

Each lower-order
comparator can receive multiple inputs, one from each of several different
higher-order systems – summed, probably. Each higher-order system’s output can
be sent with different weightings to many lower-order comparators

is just billions of unique firing neural structures all linked together, some
how.

I don’t mean this IS how the system is hooked up, only that this is the way
I’ve been thinking of it.

lot too.

Regards

Gavin

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.08.0145MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.08.08.16.03NZT –

BP: I think we need one output
function per control system.

Thats exactly what I said in the last thread. For this to work at the
higher levels I think its a unique output structure for a unique error
signal for a unique input signal for a unique perceptual input structure
all relating to a particular unique criteria

You’re limiting your concept of signals too much. A signal is a
variable that can change over a range from zero to some maximum value. If
we think in terms of balanced pairs of signals, as in my oculomotor model
from the 1980s, the signal can vary from a maximum negative to a maximum
positive value. So it’s “unique” only in terms of identity: it
is emitted by a particular comparator, or balanced pair of comparators,
in a particular control system. And don’t say “relating to”
unless you’re prepared to say how the relationship is brought

Also, don’t forget that we are, like it or not, simplifying the system.
Those diagrams you found unhelpful in B:CP show how what is actually a
network, a many-to-many relationship, can be represented as an equivalent
set of many-to-one functions for purposes of modeling. And finally, each
perceptual signal is a different function of overlapping sets of
lower-order perceptions. A change in one lower-order perceptual signal
can alter many higher-order perceptions of which it is a component. The
perceptual signals are in physically distinct channels, but they are
related to each other by their common ancestry at lower levels.

This is built like the number system 1+1+1+1+1
the only difference is sequence is not requisite at all. You can have
ones coming in from anywhere. Stuart Kauffman at Santa Fe modeled this
type of structure with his network of buttons. (See At Home in the
Universe the search for self-organization).

So as per PCT systems concept level, only its all systems concept level.
Not really a hierarchy. This way it solves some major problems and then
there is some math one can use for this. Topoi Logic and Network
Systems.
Also similar unique criteria
just bunch together. Just like in the human body, there is no real level
of hierarchy just different functional systems all working together.

So what Im saying its possible that there really is only two levels,
the one connected directly to the actual modalities (input functions) and
output functions (muscles) the rest is a network (all with each unique
control system), with unique signatures.

Hey just a wondering
mind!!!

Don’t give up on the hierarchy so easily. The fact that you understand
only a few levels doesn’t mean there aren’t more. All you have to do is
ask “why” a given control system pursues a particular goal.
That leads to a higher level of control. And so on. You really can’t get
away with only two levels. In the spinal cord, the tension in tendons is
controlled by a control system in which the spinal motor neurons are the
comparators and muscle fibers are the output function. That level of
control is used by a second level which is the stretch reflex, a combined
static and dynamic controller. That’s two levels and we haven’t even
reached the brain stem. If you lump these levels together, you’re only
doing it in your head. They remain separate levels in the organism.

No way. that’s just lazy thinking. You can’t solve the problem by
pretending it’s simpler than it is. The trick is in finding just enough
simplification so you can handle the concepts, but not so much as to
conceal the real problems that have to be solved.

The output function converts the
error signal to an output signal, perhaps by integrating it or
through some gain function, and then it is fanned out to
lower-order reference inputs.

OK, I won’t follow it in this post. But see part 3 of the Byte
articles.

Each lower-order comparator can
receive multiple inputs, one from each of several different higher-order
systems – summed, probably. Each higher-order system’s output can be
sent with different weightings to many lower-order comparators

Not so sure
how.
I don’t mean this IS how the
system is hooked up, only that this is the way I’ve been thinking of
it.

“Some how” is just arm-waving. It’s like, just the whole thing,
you know. The whole question is “HOW?” Modeling is about trying
to answer that question. If you don’t even want to try, you might as well
give up,.

Okay Ive

By the way, I apologize for underestimating your mathematical
abilities.

Best,

Bill P.

···

(Gavin Ritz
2010.08.08.22.33NZT)

[From Bill
Powers (2010.08.08.0145MDT)]
Gavin Ritz 2010.08.08.16.03NZT –

BP: I think we need one output function per control system.

That’s exactly what I said in the last thread. For this to work at the
higher levels I think it’s a unique output structure for a unique error
signal for a unique input signal for a unique perceptual input structure all
relating to a particular unique “criteria”

You’re limiting your concept of signals too much. A signal is a variable
that can change over a range from zero to some maximum value.

I’ve got no problem with this.

If we think in terms of
balanced pairs of signals, as in my oculomotor model from the 1980s, the signal
can vary from a maximum negative to a maximum positive value.

So it’s
“unique” only in terms of identity:

This is specifically what I’m
talking about, identity. But this is s slippery subject identity as it has a
fixed like quality, but changes.

it is emitted by a
particular comparator, or balanced pair of comparators, in a particular control
system. And don’t say “relating to” unless you’re prepared to say how

specific citeria which has a specific identity which may have different
intensities.

Also, don’t forget that we are, like it or not, simplifying the system. Those
diagrams you found unhelpful in B:CP show how what is actually a network, a
many-to-many relationship, can be represented as an equivalent set of
many-to-one functions for purposes of modeling. And finally, each perceptual
signal is a different function of overlapping sets of lower-order perceptions.
A change in one lower-order perceptual signal can alter many higher-order
perceptions of which it is a component. The perceptual signals are in
physically distinct channels, but they are related to each other by their
common ancestry at lower levels.

This is built like the number system
1+1+1+1+1……………………………………………………………………
the only difference is sequence is not requisite at all. You can have
one’s coming in from anywhere. Stuart Kauffman at Santa Fe modeled this type of structure with his network of buttons. (See
“At Home in the Universe” the search for self-organization).

So as per PCT systems concept level, only its all systems concept level. Not
really a hierarchy. This way it solves some major problems and then there is
some math one can use for this. Topoi Logic and Network Systems.

Don’t give up on the hierarchy so easily. The fact that you understand only a
few levels doesn’t mean there aren’t more. All you have to do is ask
“why” a given control system pursues a particular goal. That leads to
a higher level of control. And so on. You really can’t get away with only two
levels. In the spinal cord, the tension in tendons is controlled by a control
system in which the spinal motor neurons are the comparators and muscle fibers
are the output function.

I really do not know enough about the
details of the human neurological system to really make an educated guess. So I
guess I leave this for now.

That level of control is
used by a second level which is the stretch reflex, a combined static and
dynamic controller. That’s two levels and we haven’t even reached the brain
stem. If you lump these levels together, you’re only doing it in your head.
They remain separate levels in the organism.

Also
similar “unique criteria” just bunch together. Just like in the
human body, there is no real level of hierarchy just different functional
systems all working together.

So what I’m saying it’s possible that there really is only two
levels, the one connected directly to the actual modalities (input functions)
and output functions (muscles) the rest is a network (all with each unique
control system), with unique signatures.

Hey just a wondering
mind!!!

No way. that’s just lazy thinking. You can’t solve the problem by pretending
it’s simpler than it is. The trick is in finding just enough simplification so
you can handle the concepts, but not so much as to conceal the real problems
that have to be solved.

The output function converts
the error signal to an output signal, perhaps by integrating it or
through some gain function, and then
it is fanned out to lower-order reference inputs.

OK, I won’t follow it in this post. But see part 3 of the Byte articles.

Each lower-order
comparator can receive multiple inputs, one from each of several different
higher-order systems – summed, probably. Each higher-order system’s output can
be sent with different weightings to many lower-order comparators

billions of unique firing neural structures all linked together, some how.

“Some how” is just arm-waving. It’s like, just the whole thing, you
know. The whole question is “HOW?” Modeling is about trying to answer
that question. If you don’t even want to try, you might as well give up,.

I don’t mean this IS how
the system is hooked up, only that this is the way I’ve been thinking of it.