# Term ATENFEL? (VS: Stability and Control)

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/term-atenfel-vs-stability-and-control/11113>\
**Category:** CSG2016\
**Created:** [December 19, 2016, 8:41am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/term-atenfel-vs-stability-and-control/11113 "2016-12-19T08:41:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@EetuP](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/EetuP)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 2016, 8:41am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/term-atenfel-vs-stability-and-control/11113/1 "2016-12-19T08:41:02Z")

</div>

[eetu pikkarainen 2016-12-19]

Please, would you someone kindly give a short introduction to that term of ATENFEL?  
At least from what word is an abbreviation?  
I have tried to search if but did not manage to find.

Eetu Pikkarainen

> **···**
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
> L�hett�j�: Martin Taylor \<mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net\>  
> L�hetetty: 18. joulukuuta 2016 7:23  
> Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu  
> Aihe: Re: Stability and Control (was Re: TCV and Collective Control ...)
> 
> [Martin Taylor 2016.12.17.23.07]
> 
> > [From Erling Jorgensen (2016.12.14 0945 EST)]
> > 
> > \>[Martin Taylor 2016.12.13.14.32]  
> > \>\>Erling Jorgensen (2016.12.13 1155 EST)]
> > 
> > \>[MT] I don't like the term "Stability Factor" because a lot of  
> > uncontrolled  
> > things are stable. Rick mentioned El Capitan. I might add a weight hung  
> > by a spring or a ball in a bowl. The term I prefer is "Control Ratio"  
> > for the ratio Rick describes. That's teh wording that used to be  
> > standard on CSGnet.  
> > [EJ] I don't recall the use of that term, "Control Ratio," but I like  
> > it. Perhaps it was used in the earlier days of CSGnet, before I had  
> > joined the listserv.
> 
> In  
> \<[http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Info.theory.in.control/Control+correl.html&gt;](http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Info.theory.in.control/Control+correl.html&gt;),  
> which was a 1998 posting to CSGnet, I used "Control Ratio" to refer to  
> an amplitude ratio rather than a variance ratio between controlled and  
> uncontrolled variation under the influence of a disturbance. I guess  
> that I must have done so because that was the conventional usage at the  
> time.
> 
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;I can also understand a judgment call about how "Stability Factor"  
> > might be intriguing to a non-PCT readership, without eliciting [sorry  
> > about the behavioral framing here] the knee-jerk reaction against the  
> > notion of "control."
> > 
> > \>\> [EJ] In a tug-of-war with each team pulling as hard as they can,  
> > neither  
> > \>\> team has yet "controlled" the flag by bringing it to their preferred  
> > \>\> position, if the flag is still hovering ("stabilized") in the middle.  
> > \>\> Bill Powers' himself said -- (I love Rupert's affectionate  
> > \>\> designation, the Big Powowski!) -- that control systems in intractable  
> > \>\> conflict have effectively \_lost\_ control.
> > 
> > \>[MT] The individual controllers may have lost control, but that does  
> > not mean  
> > that the position of the "flag" must be uncontrolled. In a tug-of-war,  
> > it actually is uncontrolled because both teams are pulling as hard as  
> > they can, but in other analogous situation in which they aren't, the  
> > "flag" appears to be controlled by a system with a gain that is the sum  
> > of the two gains, and a reference value given by the ratio of the gains  
> > between the two individual reference values. [...the quotation  
> > continues further below...]  
> > [EJ] I believe that is the issue being discussed here: I.e., whether  
> > "control" is the best word for those interactive situations where  
> > there is the appearance of control, but the relevant perception is not  
> > sufficiently close to either party's actual reference. I'm arguing  
> > that "stabilized" is better, to emphasize that the outcome may derive  
> > from competing systems whose actual "control" is pretty poor, where  
> > control refers to tracking their own respective reference level. This  
> > doesn't mean that we can't still use the whole PCT armamentarium to  
> > analyze the situation. (Notice, as well, that "stabilized" as an verb  
> > acting in the situation seems better than "stability" as a property of  
> > the system.)  
> > [EJ] Perhaps we need to resurrect the old language of "controlling  
> > for" a given value of a perception.
> 
> I must be getting old. I have continued to use "controlling for" as a  
> short form of "Controlling a perception of with a reference value of".  
> For example. I "control for the room temperature to be 19C" is a short  
> form of "I control a perception of the room temperature, with a  
> reference value of 19C".
> 
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;Maybe we should consider a term such as "agent based virtual  
> > control," similar to the work with Agent-Based Computational Economics  
> > that Charlotte Bruun has done.  
> > [EJ] Returning to Martin's interrupted quotation above...  
> > \>[MT] Unless the tester can  
> > actually see the actors, there's no way that the TCV could tell the  
> > difference between what I call a "Giant Virtual Controller" and a real  
> > physical controller.  
> > [EJ] I wonder about this. I'm thinking spatially, & considering the  
> > simplified case of just two competing control systems pulling in  
> > opposite directions. And I guess it may be important that their  
> > respective outputs have not yet maxed out. I'm picturing it as two  
> > adjoining circles, representing the two control systems, where the  
> > radius represents each one's output pulling on a common variable,  
> > which is stabilized on a tangent point between the two circles.  
> > [EJ] There are various directions an additional Disturbance could be  
> > applied in the Test for the Controlled Variable. If the TCV  
> > disturbance is strictly orthogonal to both systems (i.e., pulling  
> > sideways out the joint tangent line), the output of both systems would  
> > be predicted to increase, because the variable gets further away from  
> > each of their preferred reference for it. But what if the TCV  
> > disturbance is applied along the radius of one of the circles, or in  
> > some other manner. Wouldn't there be a difference in their respective  
> > outputs, & could that differential help to distinguish between a  
> > single controller being involved versus a virtual controller with more  
> > than one control system contributing to the outcome?
> 
> I'm not going to try to answer this, except to say that I agree with you  
> and am (and for some days have been) writing a message describing a  
> gedanken experiment that I hope will help people to think about most of  
> the issue you raise or continue in this message.
> 
> One concept I would like people to think about before I send that  
> message is "neural current". No neural current exists in the brain. It's  
> a virtual property of events happening in a whole chunk of the brain (a  
> neural fibre bundle according to WTP).
> 
> > [EJ] For me, it's not just aesthetics, but rhetorically, too. While  
> > I haven't read the LCS-IV draft contributions where I believe the full  
> > argument is laid out, I've tried to notice my own reactions when you  
> > or Kent have used that term "atenfel." I always notice myself slowing  
> > down my absorption of the train of thought, while I tried to figure  
> > out 'What were those words again that the letters represent?' In that  
> > sense, "atenfel" gets in its own way. It doesn't easily build on an  
> > evocative or associative context, to get me part of the way there, the  
> > way the word "cybernetics" could possibly evoke "steersmanship." So,  
> > for now, I notice myself inserting a term such as "feedback path" when  
> > I run into the word "atenfel."
> 
> That's unfortunate, because it is likely to mislead you to do so. Think  
> more of "tool", which has connotations more similar to "atenfel". A  
> "tool" is used in the control of a perception, or at least some property  
> of the tool is so used. "Environmental Feedback Path Segment" is too  
> passive, as if it was just a piece of wire, when it might be the  
> workings of a complex system, say a bank that provides services that  
> help you to get food on the table. (Not that you couldn't do it another  
> way that doesn't involve a bank). Or it might be simple, such as the  
> sharpness of a pair of cutters that you have the skill to use in a  
> supporting perceptual control loop when you control for pruning a tree.  
> The entire control loop that involves the observable action of wielding  
> the cutters is an atenfel in your controlling for perceiving the  
> tree-branch to be severed.
> 
> > \>[MT] It may be the result of an environmental  
> > stability or a stability created by individual or collective control,  
> > but an atenfel is just a segment of the environmental feedback path  
> > between the output of an ECU (Elementary Control Unit -- another term)  
> > and the perceptual input of that same ECU.  
> > [EJ] So, how about the term "EFF-segment"? Environmental Feedback  
> > Function is already in the vernacular, even though it is not  
> > emphasized as much as the other functions in the control loop. I  
> > think 'segment' is the additional point you've now clarified for me,  
> > in how you use the concept.
> 
> Segment, yes, but a segment of a particular kind, functional.
> 
> > \>[MT] It's in a conceptually  
> > different domain, just as a wire is in a conceptually different domain  
> > from a voltage.  
> > [EJ] Yes, this is the distinction I was trying to make by  
> > distinguishing the "properties" of the loop from the "values" that  
> > travel along the wires.
> > 
> > \>\> [EJ] "CEV / Complex Environmental Variable" (perhaps subject to the  
> > \>\> representational misunderstanding).
> > 
> > \>[MT] A CEV is not a cultural stability. It's just a variable that is a  
> > function of "simpler" variables. When a similar concept refers to a  
> > cultural stability (i.e. a collectively controlled value of an  
> > environmental function) I call it a CCEV (Collective Complex  
> > Environmental Variable, to distinguish the two concepts.  
> > [EJ] I appreciate hearing how you use & define these concepts. I  
> > don't believe there is yet consensual agreement among the PCT/CSG  
> > community on the use of these terms.
> 
> No,there isn't. Some even seem to be controlling for the very concepts  
> to be expunged from discussions of PCT. And CCEV is a concept that I  
> hope my in-progress message will elucidate. Since I invented both terms,  
> I think I may carry some weight in describing their intended usages.
> 
> > \>[MT] A CCEV corresponds to a virtual perception controlled by a  
> > Giant Virtual  
> > Controller to some reference value that may not be held by any of the  
> > individual controllers whose controlling results in the observed  
> > effects.  
> > [EJ] ... Perhaps the key language we are seeking is in that word  
> > "virtual." Speaking of a "virtual reference level" for a "virtual  
> > perception" in a "Giant Virtual Controller" at least makes clear that  
> > the resulting stability may or may not line up with any individual's  
> > preferred reference level in what they are attempting to control.
> 
> My reference above to "neural current" is intended to suggest that this  
> may (perhaps must) also be true within an individual brain.
> 
> > [EJ] I believe there is pretty good convergence between us on what we  
> > are trying to talk about here. Just some disagreement still on the  
> > best terms to use. ..  
> > [EJ] I think that's what we're doing here -- trying to work out a  
> > clear & useful "analytic vocabulary for talking about the collectively  
> > controlled stabilities," to use Kent's phrase.  
> > [EJ] To the above list of associated concepts, I think we've now  
> > added the following, (admittedly, this is a clustering of ideas that  
> > may not all have the same referent):
> 
> To my mind they don't.
> 
> > "Controlling for"
> 
> A shorthand way of saying "controlling perception P with a reference  
> value V"
> 
> > "Agent based virtual control"
> 
> No idea what that might mean
> 
> > "Giant Virtual Controller"
> 
> The impression that something is controlling an observable environmental  
> property that occurs when a number of individual controllers control  
> related perceptions, whether their reference values are similar or  
> wildly different.
> 
> > "Feedback path"
> 
> Everything that occurs between the output of an elementary control unit  
> (ECU -- another term in the dictionary) and its perceptual input function.
> 
> > "EFF-segment"
> 
> Any part of an environmental feedback path (which is another reason why  
> it does not correspond to "atenfel", since an atenfel is a functional  
> component of the environmental feedback path, not just any segment).
> 
> > [EJ] I see this whole discussion as an \_example\_ of collectively  
> > controlled convergence as to perceptions, (well, hopefully  
> > convergence), in addition to an \_analytically\_ useful conversation.
> 
> That would be nice, indeed. I (and I think Kent) believe this is a way  
> that languages evolve. Another way is simply to use the words  
> consistently in contexts where their meanings are reasonably clear, so  
> that those meanings can be used in context from which the meanings  
> cannot be inferred so clearly. I remember in my early youth having used  
> "fatal" as an adjective to describe a minor accident to my mother, and  
> being informed that "fatal" couldn't be used in that context. I tried  
> something similar in respect of "atenfel" above. I hope we can converge  
> on an understanding of the concept, and perhaps on a more mellifluous  
> word for it. Remember that the word is just one of a related suite  
> "atenex", "molenfel", and "molenex". I hope that a better replacement  
> word for "atenfel" also carries along its relations.
> 
> Martin
> 
> > All the best,  
> > Erling

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ee7513/32.png) [@MartinT](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/MartinT)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/term-atenfel-vs-stability-and-control/11113/2 "2016-12-19T15:49:22Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 2016.12.19.10.34]

> [eetu pikkarainen 2016-12-19]
> 
> Please, would you someone kindly give a short introduction to that term of ATENFEL?  
> At least from what word is an abbreviation?  
> I have tried to search if but did not manage to find.
> 
> Eetu Pikkarainen

It's a contraction of "AT-omic EN-vironmental FE-edback L-ink".

Also "Atenex": Atomic Environmental Nexus: A part of the environment that can provide different atenexes as parts of the environmental feedback paths in the control of different perceptions.

Molenfel: Molecular Environmental Feedback Link. Two separate entities provide properties that together are used in control of a perception, when neither alone wold be useful. Example: Pen and paper in control of a perception of writing words or of making a drawing, or rather the properties of a pen that it can provide ink, and of paper that it can accept a line of ink.

Molenex: Molecular Environmental Nexus. Example: The actual pen and paper, which can provide molenfels used in control of many different perceptions, from flying a weighted dart to inciting a revolution.

The words don't yet appear in print anywhere of which I am aware. Kent and I invented the terms last year, as we were searching for labels for these concepts. We tried to find a better sounding set of words that implied their meanings, but were unable to do so.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Erling\_Jorgensen](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/58956e/32.png) [@\_Erling\_Jorgensen](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Erling_Jorgensen)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/term-atenfel-vs-stability-and-control/11113/3 "2016-12-21T19:59:45Z")

</div>

[From Erling Jorgensen (2016.12.21 1445 EST)]

> Martin Taylor 2016.12.19.10.34]

> Atenfel:  
> It’s a contraction of “AT-omic EN-vironmental FE-edback L-ink”.

> Also “Atenex”: Atomic Environmental Nexus: A part of the environment  
> that can provide different atenexes as parts of the environmental  
> feedback paths in the control of different perceptions.

> Molenfel: Molecular Environmental Feedback Link. Two separate entities  
> provide properties that together are used in control of a perception,  
> when neither alone wold be useful. Example: Pen and paper in control of  
> a perception of writing words or of making a drawing, or rather the  
> properties of a pen that it can provide ink, and of paper that it can  
> accept a line of ink.

> Molenex: Molecular Environmental Nexus. Example: The actual pen and  
> paper, which can provide molenfels used in control of many different  
> perceptions, from flying a weighted dart to inciting a revolution.

[EJ] I remain agnostic as to the use of these terms until I understand them better. I’m not sure I follow the distinction you & Kent are making between ‘atomic’ and ‘molecular’. It initially seems to me that most ‘atomic’ feedback links could be decomposed into constituent parts, making them in essence ‘molecular’. I am also not clear why a distinction is made between a ‘link’ and a ‘nexus’. Again, it initially seems to me that many ‘links’ could assist with control in differing directions or with differing perceptions. So, conceptually, wouldn’t they each be considered a ‘nexus’ of sorts.

[EJ] I’m content to await a more detailed treatment, to see if it is getting through to me. In the meantime, I’m just offering initial impressions, (& the limitations of my current understanding!)

All the best,

Erling