Please forgive me Kent. I know that you don’t want to querell with Rick, but I’m willing to do it. I hope you will not mind…
···
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 9:27 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Stabilizing (was Re: Conflict…)
[From Rick Marken (2017.07.07.1225)]
Kent McClelland (2017.07.05) –
re [Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-07-04] and Boris Hartman’s reply on 2017.07.05
KM: I’ve generally used the term “stabilized�, because, unlike Rick Marken, I think that in a perceptual control process the term “controlled� should be reserved for what happens to the perceptual variable and not to the corresponding environmental variable. Furthermore, it seems to me that what most often happens to the environmental variable is that the person tries to eliminate unwanted variation in the physical variable in order to keep the perception controlled. Thus, the physical actions to counteract disturbances that affect the perceptual variable tend also to reduce the variation in the physical variable, which sounds like stabilization to me. (Of course, Rick would prefer to call it control.)
RM: I prefer to use the term “control” to describe what is happening to both the perceptual variable and the physical (environmental) correlate of the variable in a control process.
HB : Well in your RCT theory it can be whatever you want. But you can’t mix it with PCT. There is only one »controlled variable«
Bill P : 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 : So it’s clear that in PCT the only controlled variable is perceptual signal or input.
RM : For two reasons.
First, because the technical meaning of control applies to what is happening to both variables: both are being brought to and maintained in reference states, protected from disturbance.
HB : So you say that control processes outside and inside the »Living Control Systems! Are the same or even »equal«. There are two references outside and inside. And both variables are brought to the same »reference state«. I don’t understand how definition of control does not show 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.
HB : O.K. show us in technical meaning how internal variables (in organism) are »protected from disturbances« and brought to reference state ? You can do it for all »intrinsic variables« ?
RM : And second, because the aspect of the environment that is being controlled – the controlled variable or controlled quantity–
Hb : Where do you see this from definition of control ???
Controlled variable and »controlled quantity« are totaly different concepts. In Bills’ theory PCT there is no »controlled variable« in environment, what can be seen from any Bills’ diagram and definition . But »Controlled quantity« is a PCT concept very different from »controlled variable«
Bill P :
The Living Control System of this kind must sense the controlled quantity in each dimenssion in which the quantity is to be controlled; this implies the inner model of the quantity in the form of a signal or set of signals.
HB : It’s from Bills Thesis and his literature. Do you agree with them ?
HB : You can see that in PCT »controlled quantity« is being emphasized as something that is to be controlled. Do you understand the difference between »present« and »future« tense. If you don’t then you’ll have to go to elementary school to clear up tenses. Ande ven more :
Bill P (B:CP) : Consider once again the meaning of the term controlled quantity. A controlled quantity is controlled only because it is detected by a control system, compared with a reference, and affected by outputs based on the error thus detected. The controlled quantity is defined strictly by the behaving system’s perceptual computers; it may or may not be identifiable as an objective (need I put in quotes?) property of, or entity in, the physical environment. In general an observer will not, therefore, be able to see what a control system is controlling.
RM : … is what we actually see being controlled.
HB : From the definitions of »controlled quantity« above you can see that there is nothing actually being controled outside. Control is happening just inside.
Bill P (B:CP) :
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
HB : From definition of comparator we can see that actually »perceptual signal is beaing controlled« in computation process in comparator. Can you describe your RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) »comparator« how it works with »Controlled Perceptul Variable« ? Bill never used this term. How did you got it ?
RM : It’s this observation that leads us to an explanation in terms of control theory, which says that the observed control is achieved by a system that controls a perceptual representation of the variable being controlled.
HB : Ha,ha,ha…. Which »control theory ? RCT and engineering control theory ? You both explain how we observe »control«. But PCT has nothing to do with this.
PCT does not observe control, PCT control »observation«…. There is no »controlled observationn« in PCT….
As I said before Bill never used any such term as »controlled observation« or »Controlled Perceptul variable« PCV.
But Gavin did use something similar. It seems that you two agree that perceptual signal is controlled from outside. Why did you chased him away from CSGnet. You seem to be »brother in soul«.
RM : There is no need for two different words to describe what is going on with the controlled variable and controlled perception. One word will do: “control”.
HB : There is no control going outside in environment. There is no two control processes in the control loop. It’s just one control loop where »Perception is controlled«.
Otherwise Bill would put »controlled variable« in environment, but he didn’t. You did it in your RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory).
Rick you have no clue what is PCT. You don’t understand PCT anymore. You are out. And you were so good PCT thinker back in 2007. I think it’s better that you establish your own forum for RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory).
Boris
Best
Rick
However, things may be not quite so simple as I’ve just described. As Eetu notes in his post, the stabilization of the physical variable may sometimes look to an observer like destabilization, as when the perception controlled is one of physical movement, and the error eliminated in the process of controlling the perception is the difference between the intended movement and the perceived movement (say, of feet walking or fingers writing, as Eetu suggests). I guess I would describe this kind of effect as the “dynamic stabilization� of a pattern of movement. Or, as Eetu suggests, you might call it a matter of “adjustment� of the physical environment, including one’s own physical body, in the service of controlling one’s perceptions.
Things get even more complicated when you consider actions that are intentionally violent. In everyday life we are always, of course, controlling perceptions at many different perceptual levels all at once. When there is physical stability—that is, stability of the parts of the environment that correspond to our low-level perceptions—it’s generally p;useful to us for controlling our higher-level perceptions. Extreme variations in heat or cold, for example, as is happening outside on this hot day in Iowa, it make it hard for a person to get anything else done. Luckily, I’m still able to pursue my higher-level goals today in spite of the heat, because I an fortunate to have a stabilized physical environment inside my house, with the air conditioner chugging away, making it possible for me to do more today than just try to stay physically cool. My point is that stability in the physical variables that correspond to our lower-level perceptions gives us a solid platform, as it were, for controlling our higher-level perceptions.
Getting back to violence: We describe actions as violent when one person intentionally destabilizes the environmental variables that correspond to another person’s controlled perceptions. The most extreme kind of violence, of course, is destruction of the other person’s physical body by killing the person, immediately ending the victim’s perceptual control of anything at all. But when a person beats another person up or vandalizes the other person’s home, we also describe that as violence. In all of such cases of violence, the intention of the perpetrator is not to stabilize some portion of the physical environment but to damage or destroy it, making it unusable by the victim to control the perceptions that had previously been supported by that aspect of the physical environment. Perpetrators of violence are apparently able to control higher-level perceptions of their own by means of actions that inflict severe disturbances on the physical environment.
In violent actions, then, “stabilization� doesn’t quite describe what’s going on. “Adjustment� also seems a little tame for it. Other words I’ve sometimes used to describe what is happening, such as “modification� or “manipulation� of the environment, may also be inadequate. To use the word “control� seems even more far-fetched to me, when we’re describing what happens to an environmental variable corresponding to a perpetrator’s perceptual variable. The perpetrator is intentionally messing things up!
Anyhow, I don’t think there’s a perfect PCT description for what happens to the corresponding environmental variable in every case, but I do think it’s important to pay attention to what is happening in a perceptual controller’s environment as well as what is happening in the perceptual controller’s head.
Kent
On Jul 5, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:
Dear Boris
Just a quick reply. I agree that stabilizing is often a good term. But there are at least two problems that Martin has noted. 1. All output does not stabilize but rather destabilize, like feet in walking or fingers in writing. 2. Also stabilizing like control mainly takes place inside as stabilizing the relationship between perceptions and error.
If you think that adjusting is too much a synonym for control then I have to contend myself just to “affecting”.
Eetu
(Lähetetty kännykästä / Sent from mobile)
Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net kirjoitti 5.7.2017 kello 14.26:
Dear Eetu,
From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 9:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Conflict (was … long live William T. Powers
[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-07-04]
[snip]
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
