The are just 2 kinds of disturbance in the world (was Re: Target Model Exercise)

[From Rick Marken (2011.05.31.1810)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.31.9.09NZT) --

Iï¿½m going to split the disturbances out in the conceptual mathematics.

I'm not quite sure how you were going to split disturbances. But this
comment made me realize that there two different kinds of disturbance,
and making the distinction may help people understand the general
notion of "disturbance" as it is used in PCT.

We often talk of a disturbance as a variable that affects (or has an
effect on) the value of controlled variable. In our diagrams of a
control system we often show the disturbance variable connected to the
controlled variable with an arrow, as in:

d -->qi

This way of describing a disturbance implies that there is a physical
causal link between disturbance variable and controlled variable. And
there often is such a link, as in the case of the car in a crosswind.
The cross wind, d, causes the car to move laterally which causes the
perceived position of the car relative to center of the road, qi. But
there are also cases where there is no physical link between
disturbance and controlled variable, but there is a link, nonetheless.
An example of this is in the pursuit tracking task where the moving
target is the disturbance to the distance between cursor and target.
The target (d) has no physical effect on the cursor (c) or on the
distance between the cursor and target (the controlled variable, qi).
Yet it is still true that variations in d influence qi; it's not a
causal influence but it is an influence.

So there are two kinds of disturbance, differing in terms of how they
influence the state of a controlled variable. One kind influences qi
where variations in cursor position and, this, in qi, are physically
caused by variations in d); the other influences qi simply because it
is included in the perceptual function that computes the controlled
variable (as in the pursuit tracking described above) .

Maybe the distinction is between a "physical" disturbance and a
"perceptual" disturbance?

Best

Rick

···

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

(Gavin Ritz 2011.06.01.15.44NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.05.31.1810)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.05.31.9.09NZT)

I take this as a sincere compliment
that you take any cognizance of what I have to say about PCT.

I’m going to split the disturbances out in
the conceptual mathematics.

I’m not quite sure how you were going to split
disturbances.

I don’t quite know
at this stage, but for me to keep it conceptually within a mathematical framework
I am required to choose a set (that can have elements and will have in this
case) and a function that transforms that set (also with other elements), plus
I need to keep to the identity and associativity laws of mathematical category
theory. So conceptual mathematics has bookkeeping, identity and associativity
laws.

It’s actually a
very important distinction if we are to create an economic PCT theory. I still don’t
even understand how multiple units interact in the environment.

But this

comment made me realize that there two different kinds
of disturbance,

and making the distinction may help people understand
the general

notion of “disturbance” as it is used in
PCT.

You are correct it will
go a long way to helping people understand disturbance in PCT.

We often talk of a disturbance as a variable that
affects (or has an

effect on) the value of controlled variable. In our
diagrams of a

control system we often show the disturbance variable
connected to the

controlled variable with an arrow, as in:

d -->qi

Yes, I came to the
conclusion there was a logical (object and arrow) problem with this. I am very pleased
to see that you agree.

This way of describing a disturbance implies that
there is a physical

causal link between disturbance variable and
controlled variable. And

there often is such a link,

Absolutely.

as in the case of the car in a crosswind.

The cross wind, d, causes the car to move laterally
which causes the

perceived position of the car relative to center of

there are also cases where there is no physical link
between

disturbance and controlled variable,

Absolutely, but there is
a link none the less, just not at the macro level. It’s just not the same
set or function.

but there is a link, nonetheless.

An example of this is in the pursuit tracking task
where the moving

target is the disturbance to the distance between
cursor and target.

The target (d) has no physical effect on the cursor

distance between the cursor and target (the controlled
variable, qi).

Yet it is still true that variations in d influence
qi; it’s not a

causal influence but it is an influence.

So there are two kinds of disturbance,

Absolutely.

differing in terms of how they

influence the state of a controlled variable. One kind
influences qi

via known physical causal links (as in the

where variations in cursor position and, this, in qi,
are physically

caused by variations in d); the other influences qi
simply because it

is included in the perceptual function that computes
the controlled

variable (as in the pursuit tracking described above)

Absolutely.

Maybe the distinction is between a
“physical” disturbance and a

“perceptual” disturbance?

I just don’t know
to be quite frank; I don’t think I fully understand what the sets and functions
for two disturbances would look like?

I’m not even sure
how it would look geometrically. The Mobius strip came to mind when two people
are sort of in agreement, their feedback functions would not be blocked and the
controlled variables would be sort of in sync so to say. But this just doesn’t
sound right to me either.

When multiple people
interact their external circuitry interacts but I am unable to see how. It
looks like blockages (I block someone’s external circuitry) they block
mine or I aid theirs or something in-between.

Is the “perceptual”
disturbance a blockage (or constraint, interference) or maybe something else on
another person’s external circuitry.

Actually I really don’t
all.

Regards

Gavin

[From Bill Powers (2011.06.01.1050 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.05.31.1810) --

RM: So there are two kinds of disturbance, differing in terms of how they
influence the state of a controlled variable. One kind influences qi
where variations in cursor position and, this, in qi, are physically
caused by variations in d); the other influences qi simply because it
is included in the perceptual function that computes the controlled
variable (as in the pursuit tracking described above) .

Maybe the distinction is between a "physical" disturbance and a
"perceptual" disturbance?

BP: I think the difference is in whether you think you can see physical variables directly, or whether all variables, controlled or disturbing, are perceptions. In the tracking experiment, the target is seen to move relative to the cursor, and prior to PCT we all saw that as an external situation: a target, a cursor, and a distance between them, all in the environment outside us. The old engineering psychologists interpreted tracking in exactly that way. In their models they drew a target and a cursor outside the person, and what entered through the eyes was the distance between them, the tracking error. The "human operator" was shown as a transfer function which simply converted the tracking error into a behavioral output, with the whole human being compressed into what we now call the output function, and no reference signal or comparator or input function inside the person. It was a pure stimulus-response model of the person, embedded in a closed-loop environmental relationship. They used the right control-system equations developed by the control engineers, but the wrong model of the person. They just assumed that zero error meant the cursor being on the target -- it never occurred to them that a person might want to aim a gun some distance to one side of a (moving) target. They wouldn't have known how to diagram that.

So I think your distinction between types of disturbance is really a matter of which part of the model you're thinking about. The actual controlled variable in all cases is a perception, and the controlled variable is a physical variable only in our models of the environment. We label the distance between two objects as if that distance is in the environment, but that's only in the physical model. If you look at the place where the distance is, you can run your hands back and forth through it and feel nothing, look directly at it and see nothing, shine a light on it and see no reflection, and so on. Distance is a perception.

Best,

Bill P.

(Gavin Ritz 2011.06.02.14.33NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.06.01.1050 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.05.31.1810) –

RM: So there are two kinds of disturbance,
differing in terms of how they

influence the state of a controlled variable. One
kind influences qi

via known physical causal links (as in the

where variations in cursor position and, this, in
qi, are physically

caused by variations in d); the other influences
qi simply because it

is included in the perceptual function that
computes the controlled

variable (as in the pursuit tracking described
above) .

Maybe the distinction is between a
“physical” disturbance and a

“perceptual” disturbance?

BP: I think the difference is in whether you think you
can see

physical variables directly, or whether all variables,
controlled or

disturbing, are perceptions.

This is such and
important point.

In the tracking experiment, the target

is seen to move relative to the cursor, and prior to
PCT we all saw

that as an external situation: a target, a cursor, and
a distance

between them, all in the environment outside us. The
old engineering

psychologists interpreted tracking in exactly that
way. In their

models they drew a target and a cursor outside the
person, and what

entered through the eyes was the distance between
them, the tracking

error. The “human operator” was shown as a
transfer function which

simply converted the tracking error into a behavioral
output, with

the whole human being compressed into what we now call
the output

function, and no reference signal or comparator or
input function

inside the person. It was a pure stimulus-response
model of the

person, embedded in a closed-loop environmental
relationship. They

used the right control-system equations developed by
the control

engineers, but the wrong model of the person. They
just assumed that

zero error meant the cursor being on the target – it
never occurred

to them that a person might want to aim a gun some
distance to one

side of a (moving) target. They wouldn’t have known
how to diagram that.

So I think your distinction between types of
disturbance is really a

matter of which part of the model you’re thinking

I fully understand this.

The actual

controlled variable in all cases is a perception,

I thought so hence I just
could not evaluate Rick’s suggestion.

Because the disturbance
and the controlled variable are so intimately
connected (well all the environmental variables) I need to re think the economy
model totally.

What I would like to understand
more is this. For the Test of the controlled Variable (CV) one is looking to
see when the subject resists a particular variable. How do we find a CV when a two
subjects controlled variables are synchronized (ie they assist each other).

and the controlled

variable is a physical variable only in our models of
the

environment.

This makes me re-evaluate
how we are going to create a model of the economy using PCT.

We label the distance between two objects as if that

distance is in the environment, but that’s only in the
physical

model. If you look at the place where the distance is,
you can run

your hands back and forth through it and feel nothing,
look directly

at it and see nothing, shine a light on it and see no
reflection, and

so on. Distance is a perception.

So, are distance,
assistance and resistance all controlled variables?

I would like to know how
all external parts of the circuitry are associated with other external circuitry.

Can you elaborate using
two or more individuals how (not using physical disturbances like a wind or car
driving) would their output variables, output quantities, disturbances, VC, input
quantities interact with each other.

Kind regards

Gavin

···

(Gavin Ritz 2011.06.02.18.12NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.06.01.1050 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.05.31.1810) –

So I think your distinction between types of
disturbance is really a

matter of which part of the model you’re thinking

controlled variable in all cases is a perception,

Okay, in conceptual mathematics
the variables are the elements of a set, what identity would be give to the set
then. A controlled variable is not a set it’s a bunch of variables.

and the controlled

variable is a physical variable only in our models of
the

environment. We label the distance between two objects
as if that

distance is in the environment, but that’s only in the
physical

model. If you look at the place where the distance is,
you can run

your hands back and forth through it and feel nothing,
look directly

at it and see nothing, shine a light on it and see no
reflection, and

so on. Distance is a perception.

Yes, all external things
are perceptions (they are transduced energies) inside us. But if we have to identify
specific disturbances then we could say wind, (as as set) and the elements
could be speed, moisture content etc whatever, ie real physical phenomena.

When we are communicating
the real physical phenomena are gesticulations, sound from our voice boxes etc.
All can or may not be disturbances; they are not the same as the wind example
because of relationship.

Regards

Gavin

···

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.02.0840)]

Bill Powers (2011.06.01.1050 MDT)--

BP: So I think your distinction between types of disturbance is really a matter
of which part of the model you're thinking about. The actual controlled
variable in all cases is a perception, and the controlled variable is a
physical variable only in our models of the environment.

That's not quite the distinction I'm trying to make. I always think of
the controlled variable as a perception. Even in our models, where qi
is placed outside the organism, in the environment, I think of qi as
an external observer's perception of the aspects of the environment
that the controller is controlling.

The distinction I'm making is the difference between a disturbance
that physically affects the state of qi vs a disturbance that affects
qi only because it takes on a particular value. In both cases the
disturbance is influencing the state of a perception, qi, but it seems
to me that they do it in different ways (at least in terms of how we
understand how the world on the other side of our perceptions works,
according to the models of physics). [As you will see, I change my
mind on this at the end of this post]

Here's what I think are examples of two different ways a disturbance
can influence the state of a controlled variable: qi.

1) The rubber band demo: qi is the perceived distance between knot and
dot. The main disturbance to qi is the force exerted by E on the knot
via the rubber band. So there is a physical connection (the rubber
band) between disturbance variable (the force exerted by E) and the
state of qi (if the controller does nothing E's disturbance pulls the
knot away from the dot). This is the same way a disturbance (like a
crosswind) affects a variable controlled by the driver (perceived
relation between car and road); the disturbance has a physical effect
(according to our physics model) on a component of the controlled
perception.

2) Verbal disturbance: assume qi is a principle variable, such as
perceived honesty (equivalent to perceived distance between knot and
dot). A disturbance to this variable is what another person says
(which is equivalent to E pulling on the rubber band; the emission of
the statement is equivalent to the pull and the statement itself is
like the change in position of the knot). If the statement (the
"perturbation" per your terminology) moves the perception of honesty
away from it's reference then there will be error and some action
taken (such as teh system saying "you lie").

So now that I think about it, these disturbances do affect the
controlled variable in the same way; there is really only one kind of
disturbance. In both cases there is a disturbance variable (the force
exerted by E on the rubber band; the air emitted by the speaker) and
these variables have an effect, via the disturbance function, g(), on
a controlled perception. So in both cases:

d --g()--> xi....xn --f()-->qi

The disturbance variable (d; force on rubber band or pressure on air)
has an effect (via function g()) on some or all of the environmental
variables (xi...xn; knot position or sounds produced) on which the
controlled perception, qi, depends (via the perceptual function f()).
The function, g(), that converts d into variations in the
environmental variables on which the perception, qi, depends may be
quite different in different control situations (per the physicists)
but the basic relationship between disturbance and controlled variable
is always the same, as per PCT: qi = f[g(d)+h(o)] (since a controlled
variable is also a function, h(), of the system's own outputs).

So you are right again, Bill (Mr Smarty Pants;-)

Best

Rick

···

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

(Gavin Ritz 2011.06.03.16.19NZT

[From Rick Marken
(2011.06.02.0840)]

Bill Powers
(2011.06.01.1050 MDT)–

The disturbance variable (d; force on rubber band or
pressure on air)

has an effect (via function g()) on some or all of the
environmental

variables (xi…xn; knot position or sounds produced)
on which the

controlled perception, qi, depends (via the perceptual
function f()).

The function, g(), that converts d into variations in
the

environmental variables on which the perception, qi,
depends may be

quite different in different control situations (per
the physicists)

but the basic relationship between disturbance and
controlled variable

is always the same, as per PCT: qi = f[g(d)+h(o)]
(since a controlled

variable is also a function, h(), of the system’s own
outputs).

Thank you.

I see all this pretty clearly,
my question is: the rubber band force is a visible force (macro) and the sound
is (micro) is invisible. So they don’t have the same identities. Is one resisting
and the other blocking or are they both resisting? What are their identities?

In conceptual mathematics
a set is required to have an identity so the disturbance is a variable (that is
elements of a set) what are the identities of the sets or set that contains
these variables.

I don’t understand how
a controlled variable can also be a function. A function in conceptual
mathematics is the transformation formula. Can you explain to me please how a variable
is also a function? A variable in conceptual mathematics is an element of a
set.

The second question is
more important (too me anyway) how do these external circuitry of the Control
system interact with other external circuitry of other control systems. That is
how do multiple external circuitries interact?

Regards

Gavin

[From Bill Powers (2011.06.03.0931 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.03.16.19NZT –

GR: I see all this pretty
clearly, my question is: the rubber band force is a visible force (macro)
and the sound is (micro) is invisible. So they dont have the same
identities. Is one resisting and the other blocking or are they both
resisting? What are their identities?

BP: Gavin, it’s really time to switch to real physics if you’re going to
try to apply advanced mathematics to all these ideas. You’re using
laymen’s terms for physical processes, instead of the careful and
internally consistent language worked out by thousands of scientists over
hundreds of years. “Blocking” and “resisting” are
vague terms for vague ideas, as is the way “energy” is used by
you and most nonscientists. Sometimes vague terminology is all you need
because you’re not trying to communicate some deep principle, but when
you are trying to do that, or work toward doing it, you had better take
advantage of whatever specific and precise tools there are.

Yes, a disturbance can block the effect of a controlling action, or
resist it, but it can also cause some other alteration of the form of a
connection between action and controlled quantity, and it can occur in
the form of any physical process that affects the controlled quantity, as
perceived, directly. If I am controlling the distance between A and B,
but can affect only the position of B, a disturbing effect applied to B
is a disturbance that can change the perceived distance (if my action
doesn’t change), but so is a change in A. If I want just one light out of
two to be lit to save electricity (A and not B, or B and not A), then
lighting both lights (by any means) constitutes a disturbance of that
perception. In general, a disturbance is anything that can alter a
perception other than an action of the control system itself.

GR: In conceptual mathematics a
set is required to have an identity so the disturbance is a variable
(that is elements of a set) what are the identities of the sets or set
that contains these variables.

BP: That’s up to you; you can define a set any way you want to. You can
also make up whatever rules you like for manipulating sets. Sets aren’t
physical things that exist outside us; they’re just ways of looking at
collections of things, ideas, forces, tastes, pieces of lint, anything
you pay attention to. A set is a perception. I call the level concerned
with that sort of thing the “category” level, not in any formal
sense of the term, but in the sense of “things you could throw into
a bucket and treat as if they were the same.”

GR: I dont understand how a
controlled variable can also be a function.

Who suggested that it could? I didn’t see any such claim. A variable can
be one argument of a function, or the value of a function can be a
variable, but the function itself is a formula, a set of operations which
combines variables and constants to generate a value.

A function in conceptual
mathematics is the transformation formula. Can you explain to me please
how a variable is also a function? A variable in conceptual mathematics
is an element of a set.

I don’t know what you are referring to – who said a variable is also a
function? Of course in a trivial sense it could be the argument of a
unity transform y = 1x, in which the function 1x would normally be
written just as x. But that would almost never be what we’re talking

The second question is more
important (too me anyway) how do these external circuitry of the Control
system interact with other external circuitry of other control systems.
That is how do multiple external circuitries interact?

What do you mean by “external circuitry”? The way I use
the term circuitry, it means neural networks inside the organism, or
transistors and other components inside the artificial controller. In
block diagrams, the functions shown outside the controller are not
“circuits.” They’re simply physical processes. An object with
mass, for example, converts a force applied to it into an acceleration.
So we might diagram that as

f --> MASS --> a

The descriptive formula would be a = f/M.

That isn’t a “circuit,” it’s just a physical process in the
environment.

Best,

Bill

(Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.15.02NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.06.03.0931 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.03.16.19NZT –

GR: I see all this pretty
clearly, my question is: the rubber band force is a visible force (macro) and
the sound is (micro) is invisible. So they don’t have the same identities.
Is one resisting and the other blocking or are they both resisting? What are
their identities?

BP: Gavin, it’s really time to switch to real physics if you’re going to try to
apply advanced mathematics to all these ideas.

Bill that is exactly what I’m doing. I don’t understand why
you would say I should apply real physics, when that is what I’m doing.
Please don’t patronize me. If you are going to teach me something I
expect to be respected.

I think that PCT is an extremely elegant
concept, and if I’m to understand (and deeply) it fully it requires me to
do so from me own creative inner sets of knowledge.

You’re using laymen’s
terms for physical processes, instead of the careful and internally consistent
language worked out by thousands of scientists over hundreds of years.
“Blocking” and “resisting” are vague terms for vague ideas,
as is the way “energy” is used by you and most nonscientists.

This is a not true, I use energy in the strictest
sense of the word. I’m am a professional engineer (I have got a post graduate
and undergrad engineering degree from one of the top engineering schools in the
world), I have designed some of the most sophisticated structures using
hard engineering science, where energy is in the strictest sense of the word
energy and nothing non scientific. When I talk about energy I’m talking
about energy in the physics and chemistry sense of energy, nothing less nothing
else.

I cannot understand why you would say
this.

Sometimes
vague terminology is all you need because you’re not trying to communicate some
deep principle, but when you are trying to do that, or work toward doing it,
you had better take advantage of whatever specific and precise tools there are.

That is why I’m saying if one says it’s
a variable, my question is in the strictest sense what quality are you
measuring. Show me the identities of those qualities so we can measure them.

Yes, a disturbance can block the effect of a controlling action, or resist it,
but it can also cause some other alteration of the form of a connection between
action and controlled quantity, and it can occur in the form of any physical
process that affects the controlled quantity, as perceived, directly. If I am
controlling the distance between A and B, but can affect only the position of
B, a disturbing effect applied to B is a disturbance that can change the
perceived distance (if my action doesn’t change), but so is a change in A. If I
want just one light out of two to be lit to save electricity (A and not B, or B
and not A), then lighting both lights (by any means) constitutes a disturbance
of that perception. In general, a disturbance is anything that can alter a
perception other than an action of the control system itself.

We have potential disturbing influences
all the time it seems to me that the only time it’s really
called a disturbance is when we are in trying to control it. Like gravity when
we walk or the sunlight is too strong so we put on a pair of sun glasses.

My question is a valid one; disturbances
may be a set, what are the identities of the set or sets.

I guess you are saying I’m at
liberty to make these choices myself.

GR: In conceptual
mathematics a set is required to have an identity so the disturbance is a
variable (that is elements of a set) what are the identities of the sets or set
that contains these variables.

BP: That’s up to you; you can define a set any way you want to. You can also
make up whatever rules you like for manipulating sets. Sets aren’t physical
things that exist outside us; they’re just ways of looking at collections of
things, ideas, forces, tastes, pieces of lint, anything you pay attention to. A
set is a perception. I call the level concerned with that sort of thing the
“category” level, not in any formal sense of the term, but in the
sense of “things you could throw into a bucket and treat as if they were
the same.”

Ok, so does your category have the same
rules as mathematical categories then? Qualitatively a category in conceptual
mathematics is a very all encompassing concept.

The set of all ‘stars” are not
the same as the set may contain different “elements” in a set of stars
“big stars, Cepheid stars, bright stars, red stars, neutron stars. One can’t
just throw things into a bucket and call it a category. There are mathematical rules
for sets and functions and how we apply them to identities and associations.

What was it Stafford Beer said I think it went
something like this “the parsimony of natural invariance”

GR: I don’t
understand how a controlled variable can also be a function.

Who suggested that it could? I didn’t see any such claim.

Rick said so in his last email.

A variable can be one
argument of a function,

My point exactly.

or the value of a function
can be a variable,

but the function itself
is a formula,

My point exactly

a set of operations which
combines variables and constants to generate a value.

A function in
conceptual mathematics is the transformation formula.

Can you explain to me
please how a variable is also a function? A variable in conceptual mathematics
is an element of a set.

I don’t know what you are referring to – who said a variable is also a
function?

Rick said so in his last email.

Of course in a
trivial sense it could be the argument of a unity transform y = 1x, in which
the function 1
x would normally be written just as x. But that would almost
never be what we’re talking about.

The second question is
more important (too me anyway) how do these external circuitry of the Control
system interact with other external circuitry of other control systems. That is
how do multiple external circuitries interact?

What do you mean by “external circuitry”?

I have just lumped all the external parts of
the control circuit into one concept.

The way I use the term
circuitry, it means neural networks inside the organism,

Yes, well it is also a sort of circuitry outside
the organism although it doesn’t have the neural part; the energy is
still transduced to other energies like mechanical, sound etc.

or transistors and other
components inside the artificial controller. In block diagrams, the functions
shown outside the controller are not “circuits.” They’re simply
physical processes. An object with mass, for example, converts a force applied
to it into an acceleration. So we might diagram that as

f --> MASS --> a

The descriptive formula would be a = f/M.

That isn’t a “circuit,” it’s just a physical process in the
environment.

I’m just being a bit sloppy, it sort
of is, instead of being an electrical signal (neural etc) it is sound, heat,
pressure etc that can be potentially transduced into a neural signal (inside
the organism) again in the circular feedback process.

Very simply it seems to me that disturbances
are just the perceptual blockages of these energies.

Regards

Gavin

Best,

Bill

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.03.2140)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.06.04.15.02NZT)

GR: I dont understand how a controlled variable can also be a function.

BP: Who suggested that it could? I didn’t see any such claim.

GR: Rick said so in his last email.

Actually, Rick didn’t ( know because I’m Rick)

GR Can you explain to me please how a variable is also a function? A variable
in conceptual mathematics is an element of a set.

BP: I don’t know what you are referring to – who said a variable is also a
function?

GR:Rick said so in his last email.

I think this is what Gavin may be referring to:

RM:… the basic relationship between disturbance and controlled variable
is always the same, as per PCT: qi = f[g(d)+h(o)] (since a controlled
variable is also a function, h(), of the system’s own outputs).

I’ve underlined the part of my sentence where I said “…a controlled variable is also a function…” If you ignore the rest of the sentence then I suppose I did say that a controlled variable is a function. But if you read the whole sentence (as well as the equation) then I think it’s pretty clear that I said that a controlled variable is a FUNCTION OF the system’s own outputs as well as of the disturbance.

Best

Rick

···

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

(Gvain Ritz
2011.06.04.17.44NZT)

[From
Rick Marken (2011.06.03.2140)]

Gavin Ritz (2011.06.04.15.02NZT)

GR:Rick said so in his last email.

I think this is what Gavin may be referring to:

RM:… the basic relationship between disturbance and controlled variable
is always the same, as per PCT: qi = f[g(d)+h(o)] (since a controlled
variable is also a function, h(), of the system’s own outputs).

I’ve underlined the part of my sentence where I said “…a controlled
variable is also a function…” If you ignore the rest of the
sentence then I suppose I did say that a controlled variable is a function. But
if you read the whole sentence (as well as the equation) then I think it’s
pretty clear

Yip that’s
it. Okay now I see what you are saying.

I’m
still a little confused, with that equation. What is the h(o) function?

that
I said that a controlled variable is a FUNCTION OF the system’s own
outputs as well as of the disturbance.

Regards

Gavin

···

[From Bill Powers (2011.06.04.0045 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.15.02NZT –

BP: Gavin, it’s really time to
switch to real physics if you’re going to try to apply advanced
mathematics to all these ideas.

GR: Bill that is
exactly what Im doing. I dont understand why you would say I should
apply real physics, when that is what Im doing. Please dont patronize
me. If you are going to teach me something I expect to be
respected.

I think that PCT is
an extremely elegant concept, and if Im to understand (and deeply) it
fully it requires me to do so from me own creative inner sets of
knowledge.
BP: You’re using laymen’s
terms for physical processes, instead of the careful and internally
consistent language worked out by thousands of scientists over hundreds
of years. “Blocking” and “resisting” are vague terms
for vague ideas, as is the way “energy” is used by you and most
nonscientists.

GR: This is a
not true, I use energy in the strictest sense of the word. Im am a
engineering degree from one of the top engineering schools in the
world), I have designed some of the most sophisticated structures
using hard engineering science, where energy is in the strictest sense of
the word energy and nothing non scientific. When I talk about energy Im
talking about energy in the physics and chemistry sense of energy,
nothing less nothing else.

I cannot understand why you would say this.

energy that, because it is not how perception works. Yes, energy is used
during perceptual processes, but energy does not make the difference
between one perception and another one, and no energy is transported
along with neural signals from one point to another. There are not
different kinds of energy from one perception to another. The perceptual
system does not take energy into the body; in fact perceiving requires
the expenditure of energy from the body’s stores. If you measured the
energy used up in one kind of perceptual process, it would be
indistinguishable from the energy used in another kind. I’m talking about
the kind of energy physicists mean.

I don’t dispute your education. I simply object to the way you are using
the terms of physics, in a way that shows little of the deep grasp of
physics that you undoubtedly have.

BP earlier: Sometimes vague
terminology is all you need because you’re not trying to communicate some
deep principle, but when you are trying to do that, or work toward doing
it, you had better take advantage of whatever specific and precise tools
there are.

GR: That is why Im
saying if one says its a variable, my question is in the strictest sense
what quality are you measuring. Show me the identities of those qualities
so we can measure them.

BP: In the environment, they are simply the ordinary quantities of
physics, but most particularly those that have sensory representations in
the nervous system. In a tracking experiment, they are the positions of
images on a computer screen (and the retinas), and the positions and
motions of an arm and hand holding a mouse.

BP earlier: Yes, a disturbance can
block the effect of a controlling action, or resist it, but it can also
cause some other alteration of the form of a connection between action
and controlled quantity, and it can occur in the form of any physical
process that affects the controlled quantity, as perceived, directly. If
I am controlling the distance between A and B, but can affect only the
position of B, a disturbing effect applied to B is a disturbance that can
change the perceived distance (if my action doesn’t change), but so is a
change in A. If I want just one light out of two to be lit to save
electricity (A and not B, or B and not A), then lighting both lights (by
any means) constitutes a disturbance of that perception. In general, a
disturbance is anything that can alter a perception other than an action
of the control system itself.

GR: We have
potential disturbing influences all the time it seems to me that the only
time its really called a disturbance is when we are in trying to control
it. Like gravity when we walk or the sunlight is too strong so we put on
a pair of sun glasses.
GR: My question is a valid one;
disturbances may be a set, what are the identities of the set or sets.

I guess you are saying Im at liberty to make these choices
myself.

BP: We do not often control disturbances; we control perceptions.
Disturbances are seldom counteracted directly and are seldom detectable
except through their effects (mostly canceled by a control system). Most
often the action that does the controlling acts directly on the
controlled quantity and does nothing to the disturbing quantity or the
connection between the disturbing quantity and the perception being
affected.

Occasionally we do try to anticipate disturbances so as to avoid them or
to be braced to meet them. But that does not lead to accurate control.
Accurate control requires that action vary as the disturbance varies even
when the changes in the disturbing variable can’t be anticipated or even
seen, as in the case of a sailor casually strolling down an interior
passageway of a ship rolling in the the waves.

When it comes to disturbances, you can divide them into different
categories if you like, but the most important thing is to recognize them
when you see or feel them. Little disturbances are happening all the
time, starting with gravity as you say, but including variations in the
world and your body that influence your movements (such as winds and
inertia) and little inaccuracies in your own behavior that move your
limbs and body not quite as you had intended. If psychologists had
noticed all the obvious little disturbances, stimulus-response theory
would have been abandoned as soon as it was proposed.

You simply have to ask what all the influences in the environment are
that can affect the world where your sensors are and that do not arise
from your own muscle tensions. That is the set of all disturbances. Of
course they must affect aspects of the world that you are controlling, to
be labeled that way.

GR: In conceptual mathematics a set
is required to have an identity so the disturbance is a variable (that is
elements of a set) what are the identities of the sets or set that
contains these variables.

BP: If the sun comes out from behind a cloud, that changes the light flux
reaching the ground. The increased light flux might reduce the contrast
on a portable television screen at a picnic, so the viewer will reach out
and turn the contrast up. Or it might make the sun too hot on the skin of
a sunworshipper, who puts the reflector aside that was being used to
increase the radiation reaching the skin. Or it might cause increased
evaporation from a plant’s leaves, and the plant will close some of the
pores to hold the water in. Or it might overheat the sand at a beach, so
the bathers hop gingerly as they walk to minimize the duration of contact
with the sand, and the crabs burrow deeper to where the sand is cooler.
Any physical variable has multiple effects, and can disturb many
different things that people or other control systems are controlling (as
well as a vastly greater number of uncontrolled physical variables). You
can’t know whether a given physical variable is a disturbance until you
find it disturbing some variable that a person is controlling.

BP earlier: That’s up to you; you can
define a set any way you want to. You can also make up whatever rules you
like for manipulating sets. Sets aren’t physical things that exist
outside us; they’re just ways of looking at collections of things, ideas,
forces, tastes, pieces of lint, anything you pay attention to. A set is a
perception. I call the level concerned with that sort of thing the
“category” level, not in any formal sense of the term, but in
the sense of “things you could throw into a bucket and treat as if
they were the same.”

GR: Ok, so
does your category have the same rules as mathematical categories then?
Qualitatively a category in conceptual mathematics is a very all
encompassing concept.
GR: The set of all stars are
not the same as the set may contain different elements in a set of
stars big stars, Cepheid stars, bright stars, red stars, neutron stars.
One cant just throw things into a bucket and call it a
category.

BP: I haven’t tried to devise any rules for categories. My basic concept
is simply the OR of all the variables that give rise to the same category
perception. There may well be more to it than that, but we would have to
study real category perception to find out.

BP: Of course one can. What about the category of all things in my left
trouser pocket (keys and a comb)? I can refer to the “contents”
of my pocket as causes of holes, without specifying which element of the
category I mean. That’s all I mean by the word. I know it’s customary to
suppose that elements of a category must have some feature in common, but
I would see that as a special case, with many other cases being possible.
How about “the set of all things that have nothing in common?”
Looking up writings on category theory on the Web, I find all sorts of
arbitrary definitions, which is OK with me, but the idea that this is the
only way to define a category seems unreasonable. Or to put that another
way, what they’re defining as a category isn’t what I mean by the word,
though I guess they have a right to their own definition. To claim that
theirs is the ONLY way to think of a category, however, goes against my
grain. How do they justify these definitions? Isn’t this basically a
game, in which you state some rules and then try to play according to
them just to see if you can?

GR: There are
mathematical rules for sets and functions and how we apply them to
identities and associations.

What was it Stafford Beer said I think it went something like this the
parsimony of natural invariance

Stafford Beer is a master of almost meaningless prose, presented so
convincingly that when I first spoke with him I called him “Sir
Stafford,” feeling sure I had heard that he was knighted. He
corrected me. He believes in the Law of Requisite Variety, which says
nothing of any importance.

GR: I dont understand how a
controlled variable can also be a function.

BP earlier: Who suggested that it could? I didn’t see any such claim.

Rick said so
in his last email.

BP: Where? I’m looking at the post of 2011.05.31.1810 from Rick, and
don’t see it.

BP earlier; A variable can be one
argument of a function,

GR: My point
exactly.

BP earlier: or the value of a
function can be a variable,

but the function itself is a
formula,

GR: My point
exactly

BP: Fine, that’s how we have all learned to speak of variables and
functions. Who is arguing with that?

BP earlier: a set of operations which
combines variables and constants to generate a value.

GR: A function in conceptual mathematics is the transformation formula.

Can you explain to me please
how a variable is also a function? A variable in conceptual mathematics
is an element of a set.

BP earlier: I don’t know what you are referring to – who said a variable
is also a function?

Rick said so
in his last email.

BP: All right, I’ll say it: no, he didn’t. So quote from the post and
show me I’m wrong.

GR: The second question is more
important (too me anyway) how do these external circuitry of the Control
system interact with other external circuitry of other control systems.
That is how do multiple external circuitries interact?

BP earlier: What do you mean by “external circuitry”?

GR: I have
just lumped all the external parts of the control circuit into one
concept.

BP: I thought you said " One cant just throw things into a bucket
and call it a category." You have just proven that you can.

BP earlier: The way I use the term
circuitry, it means neural networks inside the organism,

GR: Yes, well
it is also a sort of circuitry outside the organism although it doesnt
have the neural part; the energy is still transduced to other energies
like mechanical, sound etc.

There you go with the “energies” bit again. Variables are
transduced into variables, but energy is not transduced into energy in
the nervous system. The energy flow can go either way – consider a cold
receptor, which fires when it loses heat to its surroundings. Consider
black print on a white background. “A sort of circuitry outside the
organism” is what I mean about misusing physical terms.

BP earlier: An object with mass, for
example, converts a force applied to it into an acceleration. So we might
diagram that as

f --> MASS --> a

The descriptive formula would be a = f/M.

That isn’t a “circuit,” it’s just a physical process in the
environment.

GR: Im just
being a bit sloppy, it sort of is, instead of being an electrical signal
(neural etc) it is sound, heat, pressure etc that can be potentially
transduced into a neural signal (inside the organism) again in the
circular feedback process.
GR: Very simply it seems to me
that disturbances are just the perceptual blockages of these energies.

BP: The term isn’t “a bit” (sloppy), it’s “HORRIBLY.”
It “sort of is?”

BP; Well, they aren’t. They aren’t even “sort of” what
you say. They are variables that can alter controlled variables
independently of the actions of the organism. They tend to alter
variables, not “energies”. Another example of the sloppy use of
physical terms. A disturbance can increase a variable as well as decrease
its value; its effect will still be resisted.

Sorry, Gavin. I’m being mean. I’m sure you’re really a great guy, but in
this discussion you’re irritating the hell out of me. Yes, I know who is
irritating me, but it’s more satisfactory when I say it that
way.

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers
(2011.06.04.0045 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.15.02NZT –

energy that, because it is not how perception works.

How do you know for sure what perception
really is? If it’s all perception.

And the reason I won’t reconsider the
energy concept is, not because you ask me so. I have seen the experiment
conducted by a colleague of mine which shows that the human mind learns in chromatographic
spectrums. Plus he has proved the Gibbs Free Energy formula for biological systems.

Just like you he has evidence for his
theory of mind. Compelling evidence and tests.

How is this all to be reconciled?

My question is still open on how multiple organisms
interact that is how the external environments of multiple organisms interact
that is. This is what I’m interest in.

For what it’s worth, I agree about
Stafford Beer (it’s all bullshit his theory), in fact the entire Cybernetic
Theory (Wiener’s model) of biological systems is baloney. I spent years
going through these theories and had your theory on my book shelf for over 10 years
thinking it was just another version of cybernetics, how wrong I was.

You may not think so but see something in
PCT something quite unintended.

Regards

Gavin

[From Bill Powers (2011.06.04.1032 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.15.02NZT –

reconsider all this talk about energy this and energy that, because it is
not how perception works.

GR: How do you know for sure what perception really is? If its all
perception.
GR: And the reason I wont
reconsider the energy concept is, not because you ask me so. I have seen
the experiment conducted by a colleague of mine which shows that the
human mind learns in chromatographic spectrums. Plus he has proved the
Gibbs Free Energy formula for biological systems.

BP: I’m just going by the best model we have so far. It seems that all
perception begins with neural sensors and depends on the resulting neural
signals reaching certain destinations. Interrupt that process and
perception stops. Quite a lot is known about how neural conduction works,
the channels for potassium and calcium for example, and the mechanisms
that open and close them, and the effects of the ions on voltages inside
the cell body and the subsequent effect on rate of firing. The ions that
enter are pumped back into the intercellular spaces after each firing.
That’s where all the energy is used. It’s not transported in the
direction the outgoing signals travel; the effect is more like a set of
mousetraps, each one triggering the next and then being reset by
something strong enough to wind the spring back up. The energy is
supplied locally from fluids just outside the axon or cell body or
dendrite. And it’s simply chemical energy, the same chemical energy
regardless of what information the signals are conveying.

Gibbs Free Energy (G) - The energy
associated with a chemical reaction that can be used to do work.
The free energy of a system is the sum of its enthalpy (H) plus the
product of the temperature (Kelvin) and the entropy (S) of the system:

Just like you he has
evidence for his theory of mind. Compelling evidence and
tests.

So, compel me. What is the evidence, and how is it interpreted?

For what its worth,
I agree about Stafford Beer (its all bullshit his theory), in fact the
entire Cybernetic Theory (Wieners model) of biological systems is
baloney. I spent years going through these theories and had your theory
on my book shelf for over 10 years thinking it was just another version
of cybernetics, how wrong I was.

I was trying not to commit libel.

Best,

Bill P.

(Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.10.32NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.06.04.1032 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.15.02NZT –

reconsider all this talk about energy this and energy that, because it is not
how perception works.

GR: How do you know for sure what perception really is? If it’s all
perception.

BP: I’m just going by the best model we have so far. It seems that all
perception begins with neural sensors and depends on the resulting neural
signals reaching certain destinations. Interrupt that process and perception
stops. Quite a lot is known about how neural conduction works, the channels for
potassium and calcium for example, and the mechanisms that open and close them,
and the effects of the ions on voltages inside the cell body and the subsequent
effect on rate of firing. The ions that enter are pumped back into the
intercellular spaces after each firing. That’s where all the energy is used.
It’s not transported in the direction the outgoing signals travel; the effect
is more like a set of mousetraps, each one triggering the next and then being
reset by something strong enough to wind the spring back up. The energy is
supplied locally from fluids just outside the axon or cell body or dendrite.
And it’s simply chemical energy, the same chemical energy regardless of what
information the signals are conveying.

Yip I know all this I think you and I have
gone through this a number of times.

Yes chemical energy the foundations of all
biological systems.

GR: And
the reason I won’t reconsider the energy concept is, not because you ask
me so. I have seen the experiment conducted by a colleague of mine which shows
that the human mind learns in chromatographic spectrums. Plus he has proved the
Gibbs Free Energy formula for biological systems.

Gibbs Free Energy (G) - The energy associated with
a chemical reaction that can be used to do work. The free energy of a
system is the sum of its enthalpy (H) plus the product of the temperature
(Kelvin) and the entropy (S) of the system:

Just
like you he has evidence for his theory of mind. Compelling evidence and tests.

So, compel me. What is the evidence, and how is it interpreted?

Not this formula, this is the equilibrium
one of the big break-throughs between chemistry and thermodynamics.

I have posted on this list some months ago
the non-equilibrium formula.

Here it is: from that email.

This is the energy that
is not tied up in keeping the organism’s structure-process.

ΔG = -Δn. msu. [E
(msy,Msy)- E(msu,Msu)] (de Lange)

Where ΔG is the free
energy

Δn= the rate or flow of
low order quantities from the Surrounding to the System

msu= the low
order quantities of the surroundings.

E (msy,Msy)=
the energy of the system in terms of its low order quantities and high order
qualities.

E(msu,Msu)=
the energy of the surroundings in terms of its low order quantities and high
order qualities.

For any system to be
spontaneous delta G must be negative.

To provide you with the evidence is simple
I send you his 400 page document, whether you have the desire or inclination to
actually read it is a different story.

De Lange knows what he’s talking about. By background he is a chemist
and mathematician.

For what
it’s worth, I agree about Stafford Beer (it’s all bullshit his
theory), in fact the entire Cybernetic Theory (Wiener’s model) of
biological systems is baloney. I spent years going through these theories and
had your theory on my book shelf for over 10 years thinking it was just another
version of cybernetics, how wrong I was.

I was trying not to commit libel.

Me too.

Regards

Gavin

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2011.06.07.0809 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.10.32NZT –

GR: How do
you know for sure what perception really is? If its all
perception.

BP: I’m just going by the best model
we have so far. It seems that all perception begins with neural sensors
and depends on the resulting neural signals reaching certain
destinations.
Yes chemical energy the
foundations of all biological systems.
[etc.]

GR: Yip I know all
this I think you and I have gone through this a number of times.

BP:Then why did you ask if I know what perception really is?
That’s as close as I can come to an answer. Do you have a better
one?

So what? It’s also the foundation (in part) of a lump of coal or a power
generating station or a star. Just describing the energy involved in or
required for a system’s operation doesn’t give you any information
about how the system works or how it is behaving in relation to other
systems or the environment. My main interest is in how systems work, not
how much energy they use while they work. Energy is the foundation for
the ability of the system to do work, but not for its design or its
behavior or the principles that make it the kind of system it is. Energy
is an abstraction, not a thing. It’s useful for certain purposes, such as
establishing limits on what can be done (as Martin Taylor has explained),
but it doesn’t tell you anything about what WILL be done under any
specific circumstances.

GR: And the reason I
wont reconsider the energy concept is, not because you ask me so. I have
seen the experiment conducted by a colleague of mine which shows that the
human mind learns in chromatographic spectrums.

BP: That sounds strange to me. What does the mind know about
chromatographic spectrums, and how can it know that? How is learning like
a chromatographic spectrum? Can you explain further, or don’t you
understand it either?

GR: Plus he
has proved the Gibbs Free Energy formula for biological systems.

···

Gibbs Free Energy (G) - The
energy associated with a chemical reaction that can be used to do
work. The free energy of a system is the sum of its enthalpy (H)
plus the product of the temperature (Kelvin) and the entropy (S) of the
system:

BP: Why does it need proving for biological systems? It’s a general
formula, applying to all chemical reactions that can be used to do work.
It doesn’t matter whether they are in a biological system or any other
kind of system. The formula is the same for any chemical system. Of
course that means it can’t be used to tell the difference between a
biological system and any other kind.

GR: Just like you he
has evidence for his theory of mind. Compelling evidence and
tests.

BP: So tell me about them, don’t just cite something I’m supposed to
read. If you understand them well enough to believe them, you must
understand them well enough to summarize and explain them in your own
words. If you don’t understand them that well, why cite them?

BP earlier: So, compel me. What is
the evidence, and how is it interpreted?

GR: : this formula,
reactions. Gibbs formula was one of the big break-throughs between
chemistry and thermodynamics.

I have posted on this list some months ago the non-equilibrium
formula.

Here it is: from that email.

This is the energy that is not tied up in keeping the organisms
structure-process.

ÄG = -Än.
msu. [E (msy,Msy)-
E(msu,Msu)]
(de
Lange)

Where ÄG is
the free energy

Än= the rate or flow of low order quantities from the Surrounding to the
System

msu= the low order quantities of the surroundings.

E (msy,Msy)= the energy of the system in terms of
its low order quantities and high order qualities.

E(msu,Msu)= the energy of the surroundings in terms
of its low order quantities and high order qualities.

For any system to be spontaneous delta G must be negative.

To provide you with the evidence is simple I send you his 400 page
document, whether you have the desire or inclination to actually read it
is a different story.

BP: If you understand it, can’t you summarize the basic ideas and explain
them? Just writing a formula in a strange typeface and in an undefined
notation doesn’t explain anything (I assume that what comes through here
as a capital A with an umlaut over it is supposed to be a delta). You’re
what it IS. It’s like describing a car by telling me who built it or how
much it cost or where you park it or what you use if for without ever

If you sent me a 400-page book, I wouldn’t have any idea which statements
you consider relevant or important and which are mere detail or even
wrong. I can’t search a whole book for the ideas that convinced you,
especially when you haven’t said what they are.

GR: De Lange knows
what hes talking about. By background he is a chemist and
mathematician.

BP: Is his reputation the only reason you have for believing what he
said? Weren’t there any particular things he wrote that you found
compelling or interesting that you understood and might want to tell us

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.07.1230)]

Bill Powers (2011.06.07.0809 MDT)–

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.10.32NZT –

GR: Yes chemical energy the
foundations of all biological systems.

BP: So what? It’s also the foundation (in part) of a lump of coal or a power
generating station or a star. Just describing the energy involved in or
required for a system’s operation doesn’t give you any information
about how the system works or how it is behaving in relation to other
systems or the environment.

GR: And the reason I
wont reconsider the energy concept is, not because you ask me so. I have
seen the experiment conducted by a colleague of mine which shows that the
human mind learns in chromatographic spectrums.

BP: That sounds strange to me. What does the mind know about
chromatographic spectrums, and how can it know that? How is learning like
a chromatographic spectrum? Can you explain further, or don’t you
understand it either?

GR: Plus he
has proved the Gibbs Free Energy formula for biological systems.

BP: Why does it need proving for biological systems? It’s a general
formula, applying to all chemical reactions that can be used to do work.

GR: Just like you he
has evidence for his theory of mind. Compelling evidence and
tests.

BP: So tell me about them, don’t just cite something I’m supposed to
read. If you understand them well enough to believe them, you must
understand them well enough to summarize and explain them in your own
words. If you don’t understand them that well, why cite them?

GR: This is the energy that is not tied up in keeping the organisms
structure-process.

ÄG = -Än.
msu. [E (msy,Msy)-
E(msu,Msu)]
(de
Lange)

BP: If you understand it, can’t you summarize the basic ideas and explain
them? Just writing a formula in a strange typeface and in an undefined
notation doesn’t explain anything.

GR: De Lange knows
what hes talking about. By background he is a chemist and
mathematician.

BP: Is his reputation the only reason you have for believing what he
said? Weren’t there any particular things he wrote that you found
compelling or interesting that you understood and might want to tell us

When I grow up I want to be just like BP! How in the world do you maintain your calm, reasonable manner?

Love

Rick

···

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[From Bill Powers (2011.06.07.1501 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.06.07.1230) --

When I grow up I want to be just like BP! How in the world do you maintain your calm, reasonable manner?

The answer, as I imagine you know judging from your own efforts in that direction, "At times, with more difficulty than at others."

Best,

Bill P.

[From Richard Kennaway (2011.06.08.1008 BST)]

GR: Just like you he has evidence for his theory of mind. Compelling evidence and tests.

BP: So tell me about them, don't just cite something I'm supposed to read. If you understand them well enough to believe them, you must understand them well enough to summarize and explain them in your own words. If you don't understand them that well, why cite them?

I looked for de Lange on Google, and I found a one-page summary of who he is at http://www.eoht.info/page/Adriaan+de+Lange. Rather a long page, but I think the first paragraph is enough. The root page, http://www.eoht.info/ and the related site http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/ are also illuminating on the matter. Gavin has a page at EOHT as well: http://www.eoht.info/page/Gavin+Ritz.

I believe that just a few minutes perusing this material will give a clear and accurate idea of its exact importance.

···

At 16:00 +0100 7/6/11, Bill Powers wrote:

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, http://www.cmp.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

(Gavin Ritz 2011.06.08.22.46NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.06.07.0809 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2011.06.04.10.32NZT –

BP: That sounds strange to me. What does the mind know about
chromatographic spectrums, and how can it know that? How is learning like a
chromatographic spectrum? Can you explain further, or don’t you understand it
either?

GR: The mind knows nothing of
chromatographic spectrums. In De Lange’s experiments he found that learning in the human mind has the
same patterns as a chromatograph spectrum.

GR: Plus he has proved the Gibbs Free
Energy formula for biological systems.

Gibbs Free Energy (G) - The energy associated with
a chemical reaction that can be used to do work. The free energy of a
system is the sum of its enthalpy (H) plus the product of the temperature
(Kelvin) and the entropy (S) of the system:

BP: Why does it need proving for biological systems? It’s a general formula,
applying to all chemical reactions that can be used to do work. It doesn’t matter
whether they are in a biological system or any other kind of system.

GR: Because that formula can only be used to
say whether equilibrium stoichiometric chemical reactions will be spontaneous
or not. (Norman Craig, Entropy Analysis, Chemical thermodynamics)

The formula is the same
for any chemical system.

Gr: that’s not correct. It can only
be used in equilibrium stoichiometric equations. De Groot and Mazur (Non Equilibrium
Thermodynamics- Dover Press- 1984) also has a formula for delta G but it’s
incredibly complex.

Of course that means it
can’t be used to tell the difference between a biological system and any other
kind.

GR: It’s not meant tell the differences;
it’s a Free energy formula which tells one whether a chemical reaction
will happen spontaneously or not.

This is important thing to know in living organisms
because living organisms show continuous ability for chemical spontaneity.

GR: Just
like you he has evidence for his theory of mind. Compelling evidence and tests.

BP: So tell me about them, don’t just cite something I’m supposed to read. If
you understand them well enough to believe them, you must understand them well
enough to summarize and explain them in your own words. If you don’t understand
them that well, why cite them?

GR: I understand them well enough. The
theory says that mental creativity (in an educational environment) is directly related
to entropy production. De Lange used mathematics as an exemplar of mind and chemistry as an exemplar
of the environment. He then used mathematical category theory to see if there
was a bridge between them. It looks like to me he has succeeded in proving it.

BP earlier: So, compel
me. What is the evidence, and how is it interpreted?

GR: :
this formula, this is the equilibrium formula for Free Energy. Used for
chemical reactions. Gibb’s formula was one of the big break-throughs
between chemistry and thermodynamics.

I have posted on this list some months ago the non-equilibrium formula.

Here it is: from that email.

This is the energy that is not tied up in keeping the organism’s
structure-process.

ÄG = -Än. msu. [E (msy,Msy)-
E(msu,Msu)] (de Lange)

Where ÄG is the free energy

Än= the rate or flow of low order quantities from the Surrounding to the System

msu= the low order quantities of the surroundings.

E (msy,Msy)= the energy of the system in terms of its low
order quantities and high order qualities.

E(msu,Msu)= the energy of the surroundings in terms of
its low order quantities and high order qualities.

For any system to be spontaneous delta G must be negative.

To provide you with the evidence is simple I send you his 400 page document,
whether you have the desire or inclination to actually read it is a different
story.

BP: If you understand it, can’t you summarize the basic ideas and explain them?
Just writing a formula in a strange typeface and in an undefined notation
doesn’t explain anything (I assume that what comes through here as a capital A
with an umlaut over it is supposed to be a delta

GR: Yes not sure how the A got into that.

). You’re telling me
like describing a car by telling me who built it or how much it cost or where
you park it or what you use if for without ever talking about the car itself.

GR: It’s and educational theory of
creativity where he, as I mentioned above the basic summary is, has showed that
human mental creativity is directly related to entropy production. Basically it’s
a theory of learning.

If you sent me a 400-page book, I wouldn’t have any idea which statements you
consider relevant or important and which are mere detail or even wrong. I can’t
search a whole book for the ideas that convinced you, especially when you
haven’t said what they are.

GR: De Lange knows what he’s
talking about. By background he is a chemist and mathematician.

BP: Is his reputation the only reason you have for believing what he said?

GR: Not
sure how you arrived at this conclusion. In fact I didn’t accept this
theory for 15 years.

Weren’t
there any particular things he wrote that you found compelling or interesting
that you understood and might want to tell us about?

GR: I have
written on this list extensively about this theory and other theories of mind (Elliot Jaques, Requisite Organization)
which also has compelling evidence about the human mind. Just as your theory
has compelling evidence. I have never asked anyone else to accept these
concepts at face value and I hope they do not. I am sure you don’t expect
people to accept PCT at face value.

It is almost
impossible to understand PCT in one sentence (or even a paragraph) as you are
asking me to explain another theory like this. I went through 5 of your books spent
hours on your computer models, spent hours on books written by others on PCT (I
went through Runkel’s books at least twice).

I have
taken the time and effort to get to
know PCT and let me say I have not been well received on this list. Challenge
and question is the hallmark of any good science.

I have
put forward PCT arguments on the Cybernetics List no less that I have easily defended
simply because people have never read PCT on these lists and think they know what
it is. And I still think I don’t understand PCT that well.

I could
not explain Quantum mechanics or Geometrodynamics or information theory in one sentence.

I guess
the bottom line is this, very few people actually have the interest to read and
understand many scientific models and social models; I do this for fun Bill. I enjoy it; I spend most
of my spare time on interesting theories. I see connections between many disciplines,
it keeps me busy when I not running my business. And your theory is one of the
good one’s. I have a personal library of thousands of books from
Complexity theory to Chaos Theory, Cybernetics, fractals, evolution; I know
which theories are baloney.

For what
it’s worth, of all the theories of mind only three in my opinion is still
left standing as having value to mankind, and PCT is one of them.

Gavin R