The Cognitive View

I was hoping we could discuss "The Cognitive View". All I know about
it is written on p. 33 of Richard Marken's More Mind Readings. The
explanation begins: Cognitive behavior is most obvious when
environmental factors (such as stimulus variables and environmental
feedback functions are held constant)…An observer is likely to

conclude that variations in behavior are the result of mental
processes. A chess example is then presented.

Please view the first attached figure, which is copied from p. 25 of
More Mind Readings. And next view the second figure, which is the
first figure applied to a game of chess.

Can we please discuss what is "The Cognitive View"?

Content-Type: image/png; name="Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 7.59.46 PM.png"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
  filename="Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 7.59.46 PM.png"
X-Attachment-Id: file0

Content-Type: image/png; name="Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 8.00.21 PM.png"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
  filename="Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 8.00.21 PM.png"
X-Attachment-Id: file2

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 7.59.46 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 8.00.21 PM.png

Hi everyone, I have taken the liberty of extracting the graphics from a recent article we have had accepted for publication (more on this later):

Figure 1. A generic diagram of an established
cognitive or behavioral model. The diagram shows the potential for an array of
sequential and top-down inhibitory and excitatory processes in gray. The
feedback effect of the response on the sensory effect of the stimulus is rarely
shown in diagrams and if it is it is treated as though it was part of a
sequential process. Yet the feedback effect is always present, though not
necessarily on the sensory effect of the stimulus (IV) used in the experiment.
IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable; MV = mediating variable
(mental process)

image.gif

image408.png

image1.gif

···

Figure 2. The PCT control unit. Definitions of terms
are provided in the text. The boxes denote functional operations that are
applied to quantities within the environment or to signals within the organism.
The dotted box denotes the organism-environment boundary. The minus sign
denotes where a quantity is subtracted from the quantity passing around the
loop. This single control loop is a functional simplification of a hierarchy of
control loops that are represented in grey.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:20 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

I was hoping we could discuss “The Cognitive View”. All I know about

it is written on p. 33 of Richard Marken’s More Mind Readings. The

explanation begins: Cognitive behavior is most obvious when

environmental factors (such as stimulus variables and environmental

feedback functions are held constant)…An observer is likely to

conclude that variations in behavior are the result of mental

processes. A chess example is then presented.

Please view the first attached figure, which is copied from p. 25 of

More Mind Readings. And next view the second figure, which is the

first figure applied to a game of chess.

Can we please discuss what is “The Cognitive View”?

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-14_10:02:56 ET]

That is a very nice representation, Warren.

image1.gif

image.gif

image408.png

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi everyone, I have taken the liberty of extracting the graphics from a recent article we have had accepted for publication (more on this later):

Figure 1. A generic diagram of an established
cognitive or behavioral model. The diagram shows the potential for an array of
sequential and top-down inhibitory and excitatory processes in gray. The
feedback effect of the response on the sensory effect of the stimulus is rarely
shown in diagrams and if it is it is treated as though it was part of a
sequential process. Yet the feedback effect is always present, though not
necessarily on the sensory effect of the stimulus (IV) used in the experiment.
IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable; MV = mediating variable
(mental process)

Figure 2. The PCT control unit. Definitions of terms
are provided in the text. The boxes denote functional operations that are
applied to quantities within the environment or to signals within the organism.
The dotted box denotes the organism-environment boundary. The minus sign
denotes where a quantity is subtracted from the quantity passing around the
loop. This single control loop is a functional simplification of a hierarchy of
control loops that are represented in grey.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:20 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

I was hoping we could discuss “The Cognitive View”. All I know about

it is written on p. 33 of Richard Marken’s More Mind Readings. The

explanation begins: Cognitive behavior is most obvious when

environmental factors (such as stimulus variables and environmental

feedback functions are held constant)…An observer is likely to

conclude that variations in behavior are the result of mental

processes. A chess example is then presented.

Please view the first attached figure, which is copied from p. 25 of

More Mind Readings. And next view the second figure, which is the

first figure applied to a game of chess.

Can we please discuss what is “The Cognitive View”?


Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

Hi Warren, thank you for taking your time to answer, but the reason I made the last post is because I wanted to use the diagram in Ricks book which had the organism, feeeback, and disturbance function. What is missing from your diagram below is the disturbance function. I wanted to discuss Rick’s diagram because I realized, after applying Rick’s diagram to a chess game, that the disturbance function (which I do not usually see represented) is central to understanding what the controlled variable is in the cognitive view. I will repost my original message with modifications to make it clearer.Â

image.gif

image408.png

image1.gif

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi everyone, I have taken the liberty of extracting the graphics from a recent article we have had accepted for publication (more on this later):

Figure 1. A generic diagram of an established
cognitive or behavioral model. The diagram shows the potential for an array of
sequential and top-down inhibitory and excitatory processes in gray. The
feedback effect of the response on the sensory effect of the stimulus is rarely
shown in diagrams and if it is it is treated as though it was part of a
sequential process. Yet the feedback effect is always present, though not
necessarily on the sensory effect of the stimulus (IV) used in the experiment.
IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable; MV = mediating variable
(mental process)

Figure 2. The PCT control unit. Definitions of terms
are provided in the text. The boxes denote functional operations that are
applied to quantities within the environment or to signals within the organism.
The dotted box denotes the organism-environment boundary. The minus sign
denotes where a quantity is subtracted from the quantity passing around the
loop. This single control loop is a functional simplification of a hierarchy of
control loops that are represented in grey.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:20 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

I was hoping we could discuss “The Cognitive View”. All I know about

it is written on p. 33 of Richard Marken’s More Mind Readings. The

explanation begins: Cognitive behavior is most obvious when

environmental factors (such as stimulus variables and environmental

feedback functions are held constant)…An observer is likely to

conclude that variations in behavior are the result of mental

processes. A chess example is then presented.

Please view the first attached figure, which is copied from p. 25 of

More Mind Readings. And next view the second figure, which is the

first figure applied to a game of chess.

Can we please discuss what is “The Cognitive View”?


Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

I was hoping we could discuss a chess game via “The Cognitive View”.

Please view the first attached figure, which is copied from p. 25 of More Mind Readings. And next view the second figure, which is the first figure applied to a game of chess.

I find that the disturbance function (labeled k.e) is important in understanding exactly what the controlled variable is.

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 7.59.46 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 8.00.21 PM.png

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-14_13:59:04 ET]

This diagram is on p. 25, a reprint of “The blind men and the elephant: Three perspectives on the phenomenon of control.” The original publication in *Closed Loop *3.1 is here, on pp. 37-46:

http://www.pctresources.com/Journals/Files/Closed_Loop/Closed_Loop_read/Closed_Loop_vol3_%231_read.pdf

I think all that k.e means is that the disturbance d takes effect on the sensory input (s in Rick’s diagram, not p) by way of physical properties of the environment.

Just as s is on the left, r is on the right, evoking a parallel to an s-r explanation that relies upon an ‘organism function’ between s and r. Rick’s k.o is an ‘organism function’ that comprises sensors (and higher-level input functions), reference signal(s), comparator(s), error signal(s), and effector(s) which produce r at the output. The diagram is drawn that way to facilitate the comparison with the concepts of s-r and ‘cognitive’ psychology. I recommend Warren’s diagram in its place.

The interaction between two chess players requires two such control diagrams, each controlling its perceptions of a rather complex field of variables. Most of this control is in imagination. Control by each is disturbance to control by the other, including what each imagines the other to be controlling. That calls for a pretty complex binary diagram.

Now, what about k.e? When one of them closes the control loop through the environment affecting the disposition of variables that are ‘also’ controlled by the other, that is a disturbance d in the environment, but given the highly structured environment on the chessboard what important difference are you expecting to see between the value d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such differences relevant to the variables being controlled? The bishop may be off-center on this side or that of its square, but it still ‘projects’ its ‘influence’ (and is vulnerable) along those two diagonals centered on that square.

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:58 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

I was hoping we could discuss a chess game via “The Cognitive View”.

Please view the first attached figure, which is copied from p. 25 of More Mind Readings. And next view the second figure, which is the first figure applied to a game of chess.

I find that the disturbance function (labeled k.e) is important in understanding exactly what the controlled variable is.

[philip 2018.03.14]

Here is the PCT diagram that I agree with.

image411.png

Here is what the interaction between two chess players looks like.

image412.png

Here is a better diagram of the interaction between two chess players.

image413.png

The feedback function in the third diagram, k.f, refers to the “laws of chess”, which are the rules which govern the relations of the chess pieces (i.e. the bishop capture diagonally, etc.). As such, the feedback function, k.f, determines the relation between your’s and your opponent’s pieces after a move is made (for example, after moving his own bishop onto the diagonal, white’s bishop can capture black’s bishop along the diagonal). This feedback function I am currently referring to in the third diagram, k.f, is the same as the disturbance function in the first and second diagrams, k.d, which is the same as the environmental function in Rick’s diagram in the “the blind men and the elephant” paper, k.e, which is a feedback function that is missing or incomplete in Warren’s diagram. Thus, I do not accept your recommendation of Warren’s diagram in its place, with no disrespect, Bruce.

And now, Bruce, to answer your question:
Q: “What important difference are you expecting to see between the value d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such differences relevant to the variables being controlled?”

Now, here comes the fun. We may intuit that your moves are made in response to the relations created by your opponent’s move (relations which were created by the “laws of chess”). And naturally your opponents moves are made in response to relations created by your own moves. But importantly, now we can say that your moves are made in response to your opponent’s response to the relations created by your move. And finally, the magic: if a relation you have created in a previous turn remains undisturbed by the opponent and thus propagates into your current turn, we can say that control causes variation in k.o by creating memory. Because now we can move relations instead of pieces. And now your opponent’s behavior is made in response to relations created by your “movement of relations”. And when we move relations, we are “varying the pieces as necessary” (thus engendering the “laws of behavior”).


Virus-free. www.avast.com

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-14_13:59:04 ET]

This diagram is on p. 25, a reprint of “The blind men and the elephant: Three perspectives on the phenomenon of control.” The original publication in *Closed Loop *3.1 is here, on pp. 37-46:

http://www.pctresources.com/Journals/Files/Closed_Loop/Closed_Loop_read/Closed_Loop_vol3_%231_read.pdf

I think all that k.e means is that the disturbance d takes effect on the sensory input (s in Rick’s diagram, not p) by way of physical properties of the environment.

Just as s is on the left, r is on the right, evoking a parallel to an s-r explanation that relies upon an ‘organism function’ between s and r. Rick’s k.o is an ‘organism function’ that comprises sensors (and higher-level input functions), reference signal(s), comparator(s), error signal(s), and effector(s) which produce r at the output. The diagram is drawn that way to facilitate the comparison with the concepts of s-r and ‘cognitive’ psychology. I recommend Warren’s diagram in its place.

The interaction between two chess players requires two such control diagrams, each controlling its perceptions of a rather complex field of variables. Most of this control is in imagination. Control by each is disturbance to control by the other, including what each imagines the other to be controlling. That calls for a pretty complex binary diagram.

Now, what about k.e? When one of them closes the control loop through the environment affecting the disposition of variables that are ‘also’ controlled by the other, that is a disturbance d in the environment, but given the highly structured environment on the chessboard what important difference are you expecting to see between the value d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such differences relevant to the variables being controlled? The bishop may be off-center on this side or that of its square, but it still ‘projects’ its ‘influence’ (and is vulnerable) along those two diagonals centered on that square.

/Bruce

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:58 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

I was hoping we could discuss a chess game via “The Cognitive View”.

Please view the first attached figure, which is copied from p. 25 of More Mind Readings. And next view the second figure, which is the first figure applied to a game of chess.

I find that the disturbance function (labeled k.e) is important in understanding exactly what the controlled variable is.

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.14.17.16]

Philip, it maybe before your time, but we learned to keep separate a

bunch of different viewpoint when looking at situations like this.
There is the “Observer” who can see only the effects controllers
make on their common external environment; there is the controller,
who is said to see only what the relevant perceptual functions
produce as perceptual signals; and there is the “Analyst” who can
theorize about all the signal levels in all the signal paths. I
think that in this message you are mixing up viewpoints in a
confusing way, being mostly “analyst” but sometimes “controller”.

That is an Analyst's view

I don’t understand this one, if it is not intended to put specific
examples of the perceptual control by one player of a perception of
the relationships among the pieces (really a large number of
interdependent perceptions).
This diagram appears to be a mash-up of an analyst’s view of
symmetric control loops of two players controlling perceptions of
what ought to be the same environmental situation, but it isn’t. It
is an observer’s view, since it deals only with the observable
behaviour. The “relations between your and your opponent’s pieces”
is a mystery, since the moves at the left and right ends of the
diagram act on the placement of the pieces on the board, and the
relationships perceived by the two players are different. They must
be, because if they were not, every game would end in a draw or a
very early concession.
There is one higher-level conflict that is assumed in every
competitive game, whether it be team or individual. Each is
controlling for being perceived to have won the game, but there is a
resource limitation, in that only one player can win.
Environmentally, there are a bunch of “the same” board layouts that
together form the reference pattern of pieces for each player, but
only one t most of the sets can be brought to its reference value of
“the other king in checkmate” at the end of the game. Maybe neither
will be, as is often the case in a resource limitation conflict.
I would draw two separate control loops, one for each player
controlling his or her perception of the relationships among the
pieces on the board, with the output being a move. That move affects
the layout, and thus disturbs the opponent’s perception of the
relations, which is being controlled with an action output
consisting of “opponent’s move”. There is in this way a loop of the
same form as that of a classic resource conflict. The limited
resource is the board layout, and the only variable controlled by
both players that has a common environmental correlate is the
perception “the other king is in checkmate”.
That’s a very S-R (anti-PCT) view of what is going on, is it not?
Multi-level control (moving relations instead of pieces) is standard
PCT, but your moves as responses to the opponent’s moves is not. Taking a controller’s view, the standard PCT way of saying it would
be the way I did it above: your moves are intended to disturb the
opponents perception of the relationships, in a way that the
opponent perceives as changes the perceptual distance from a winning
position. You made your move so as to bring your perception of the
game closer to your reference value of the opponent’s king being in
checkmate, and you intend, though you cannot know, that your
opponent does not see how this is true. Ideally, you would be
controlling for the opponent to perceive your move as moving the
game play nearer to your losing (perceiving you made a mistake), but
in a game in which all moves are visible, that’s hard to do. It is
more likely that if you perceived your move as bringing the game
state nearer your reference value, the opponent will see the same.
From the Analyst’s viewpoint, you would say much the same, probably
using names to make it easier to treat the entire set of feedback
loops within the two players individually and through both of them
together. What the Observer sees depends on the observer’s skill as
a chess player, but it is unlikely that it will be the same as what
either of the players sees, possibly unless all three are super
Grand-Masters or computers that have the same programming and
experience.
Or maybe you just made an unfortunate choice of words, and you
didn’t mean their S-R connotation at all. Martin

image411.png

image413.png

image412.png

···

[philip 2018.03.14]

Here is the PCT diagram that I agree with.

      Here is what the interaction between two chess players

looks like.

      Here is a better diagram of the interaction between two

chess players.

        The

feedback function in the third diagram, k.f, refers to the
“laws of chess”, which are the rules which govern the
relations of the chess pieces (i.e. the bishop capture
diagonally, etc.). As such, the feedback function, k.f,
determines the relation between your’s and your opponent’s
pieces after a move is made (for example, after moving his
own bishop onto the diagonal, white’s bishop can capture
black’s bishop along the diagonal). This feedback function I
am currently referring to in the third diagram, k.f, is the
same as the disturbance function in the first and second
diagrams, k.d, which is the same as the environmental
function in
Rick’s diagram in the “the blind men and the elephant”
paper , k.e, which is a feedback function that is
missing or incomplete in Warren’s diagram. Thus, I do not
accept your recommendation of Warren’s diagram in its place,
with no disrespect, Bruce.

And now, Bruce, to answer your question:

                  Q:

“What important difference are you expecting to see between
the value d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such
differences relevant to the variables being controlled?”

        A:

There is no significant difference between the value d and
the value (k.f * d). However, the value of d now depends on
your behavior, and the inverse is also obviously true (that
the behavior depends on the disturbance). But only the truth
of the inverse is apparent in Warren’s diagram.

      Now, here comes the fun. We may intuit that your moves are

made in response to the relations created by your opponent’s
move (relations which were created by the “laws of chess”).
And naturally your opponents moves are made in response to
relations created by your own moves. But importantly, now we
can say that your moves are made in response to your
opponent’s response to the relations created by your move. And
finally, the magic: i f
a relation you have created in a previous turn remains
undisturbed by the opponent and thus propagates into your
current turn, we can say that control causes
variation in k.o by creating memory. Because now we can move
relations instead of pieces. And now your opponent’s behavior
is made in response to relations created by your “movement of
relations”. And when we move relations, we are “varying the
pieces as necessary” (thus engendering the “laws of
behavior”).


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

      On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Bruce

Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-14_13:59:04 ET]

              This diagram is on p. 25, a reprint of "The blind

men and the elephant: Three perspectives on the
phenomenon of control." The original publication in * Closed
Loop *3.1 is here, on pp. 37-46:

http://www.pctresources.com/Journals/Files/Closed_Loop/Closed_Loop_read/Closed_Loop_vol3_%231_read.pdf

              I think all that k.e means is that the disturbance

d takes effect on the sensory input (s in Rick’s
diagram, not p) by way of physical properties of the
environment.

              Just as s is on the left, r is on the right,

evoking a parallel to an s-r explanation that relies
upon an ‘organism function’ between s and r. Rick’s
k.o is an ‘organism function’ that comprises sensors
(and higher-level input functions), reference
signal(s), comparator(s), error signal(s), and
effector(s) which produce r at the output. The diagram
is drawn that way to facilitate the comparison with
the concepts of s-r and ‘cognitive’ psychology. I
recommend Warren’s diagram in its place.

              The interaction between two chess players requires

two such control diagrams, each controlling its
perceptions of a rather complex field of variables.
Most of this control is in imagination. Control by
each is disturbance to control by the other, including
what each imagines the other to be controlling. That
calls for a pretty complex binary diagram.

              Now, what about k.e? When one of them closes the

control loop through the environment affecting the
disposition of variables that are ‘also’ controlled by
the other, that is a disturbance d in the
environment, but given the highly structured
environment on the chessboard what important
difference are you expecting to see between the value
d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such
differences relevant to the variables being
controlled? The bishop may be off-center on this side
or that of its square, but it still ‘projects’ its
‘influence’ (and is vulnerable) along those two diagonals
centered on that square.

/Bruce

                On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:58

AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:

                  I

was hoping we could discuss a chess game via “The
Cognitive View”.

                      Please view the first attached figure, which

is copied from p. 25 of More Mind Readings.
And next view the second figure, which is
the first figure applied to a game of chess.

                                            I find that the disturbance function

(labeled k.e) is important in understanding
exactly what the controlled variable is.

[philip 2018.03.14]
I did not say “your moves are responses to the opponent’s moves”. I said " your moves are responses to your opponent’s response to the relations created by your move".

image413.png

image412.png

image411.png

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.14.17.16]

Philip, it maybe before your time, but we learned to keep separate a

bunch of different viewpoint when looking at situations like this.
There is the “Observer” who can see only the effects controllers
make on their common external environment; there is the controller,
who is said to see only what the relevant perceptual functions
produce as perceptual signals; and there is the “Analyst” who can
theorize about all the signal levels in all the signal paths. I
think that in this message you are mixing up viewpoints in a
confusing way, being mostly “analyst” but sometimes “controller”.

[philip 2018.03.14]

Here is the PCT diagram that I agree with.

That is an Analyst’s view

      Here is what the interaction between two chess players

looks like.

I don't understand this one, if it is not intended to put specific

examples of the perceptual control by one player of a perception of
the relationships among the pieces (really a large number of
interdependent perceptions).

      Here is a better diagram of the interaction between two

chess players.

This diagram appears to be a mash-up of an analyst's view of

symmetric control loops of two players controlling perceptions of
what ought to be the same environmental situation, but it isn’t. It
is an observer’s view, since it deals only with the observable
behaviour. The “relations between your and your opponent’s pieces”
is a mystery, since the moves at the left and right ends of the
diagram act on the placement of the pieces on the board, and the
relationships perceived by the two players are different. They must
be, because if they were not, every game would end in a draw or a
very early concession.

There is one higher-level conflict that is assumed in every

competitive game, whether it be team or individual. Each is
controlling for being perceived to have won the game, but there is a
resource limitation, in that only one player can win.
Environmentally, there are a bunch of “the same” board layouts that
together form the reference pattern of pieces for each player, but
only one t most of the sets can be brought to its reference value of
“the other king in checkmate” at the end of the game. Maybe neither
will be, as is often the case in a resource limitation conflict.

I would draw two separate control loops, one for each player

controlling his or her perception of the relationships among the
pieces on the board, with the output being a move. That move affects
the layout, and thus disturbs the opponent’s perception of the
relations, which is being controlled with an action output
consisting of “opponent’s move”. There is in this way a loop of the
same form as that of a classic resource conflict. The limited
resource is the board layout, and the only variable controlled by
both players that has a common environmental correlate is the
perception “the other king is in checkmate”.

        The

feedback function in the third diagram, k.f, refers to the
“laws of chess”, which are the rules which govern the
relations of the chess pieces (i.e. the bishop capture
diagonally, etc.). As such, the feedback function, k.f,
determines the relation between your’s and your opponent’s
pieces after a move is made (for example, after moving his
own bishop onto the diagonal, white’s bishop can capture
black’s bishop along the diagonal). This feedback function I
am currently referring to in the third diagram, k.f, is the
same as the disturbance function in the first and second
diagrams, k.d, which is the same as the environmental
function in
Rick’s diagram in the “the blind men and the elephant”
paper , k.e, which is a feedback function that is
missing or incomplete in Warren’s diagram. Thus, I do not
accept your recommendation of Warren’s diagram in its place,
with no disrespect, Bruce.

And now, Bruce, to answer your question:

                  Q:

“What important difference are you expecting to see between
the value d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such
differences relevant to the variables being controlled?”

        A:

There is no significant difference between the value d and
the value (k.f * d). However, the value of d now depends on
your behavior, and the inverse is also obviously true (that
the behavior depends on the disturbance). But only the truth
of the inverse is apparent in Warren’s diagram.

      Now, here comes the fun. We may intuit that your moves are

made in response to the relations created by your opponent’s
move (relations which were created by the “laws of chess”).
And naturally your opponents moves are made in response to
relations created by your own moves. But importantly, now we
can say that your moves are made in response to your
opponent’s response to the relations created by your move. And
finally, the magic: i f
a relation you have created in a previous turn remains
undisturbed by the opponent and thus propagates into your
current turn, we can say that control causes
variation in k.o by creating memory. Because now we can move
relations instead of pieces. And now your opponent’s behavior
is made in response to relations created by your “movement of
relations”. And when we move relations, we are “varying the
pieces as necessary” (thus engendering the “laws of
behavior”).

That's a very S-R (anti-PCT) view of what is going on, is it not?

Multi-level control (moving relations instead of pieces) is standard
PCT, but your moves as responses to the opponent’s moves is not.

Taking a controller's view, the standard PCT way of saying it would

be the way I did it above: your moves are intended to disturb the
opponents perception of the relationships, in a way that the
opponent perceives as changes the perceptual distance from a winning
position. You made your move so as to bring your perception of the
game closer to your reference value of the opponent’s king being in
checkmate, and you intend, though you cannot know, that your
opponent does not see how this is true. Ideally, you would be
controlling for the opponent to perceive your move as moving the
game play nearer to your losing (perceiving you made a mistake), but
in a game in which all moves are visible, that’s hard to do. It is
more likely that if you perceived your move as bringing the game
state nearer your reference value, the opponent will see the same.

From the Analyst's viewpoint, you would say much the same, probably

using names to make it easier to treat the entire set of feedback
loops within the two players individually and through both of them
together. What the Observer sees depends on the observer’s skill as
a chess player, but it is unlikely that it will be the same as what
either of the players sees, possibly unless all three are super
Grand-Masters or computers that have the same programming and
experience.

Or maybe you just made an unfortunate choice of words, and you

didn’t mean their S-R connotation at all.

Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

      On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Bruce

Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-14_13:59:04 ET]

              This diagram is on p. 25, a reprint of "The blind

men and the elephant: Three perspectives on the
phenomenon of control." The original publication in * Closed
Loop *3.1 is here, on pp. 37-46:

http://www.pctresources.com/Journals/Files/Closed_Loop/Closed_Loop_read/Closed_Loop_vol3_%231_read.pdf

              I think all that k.e means is that the disturbance

d takes effect on the sensory input (s in Rick’s
diagram, not p) by way of physical properties of the
environment.

              Just as s is on the left, r is on the right,

evoking a parallel to an s-r explanation that relies
upon an ‘organism function’ between s and r. Rick’s
k.o is an ‘organism function’ that comprises sensors
(and higher-level input functions), reference
signal(s), comparator(s), error signal(s), and
effector(s) which produce r at the output. The diagram
is drawn that way to facilitate the comparison with
the concepts of s-r and ‘cognitive’ psychology. I
recommend Warren’s diagram in its place.

              The interaction between two chess players requires

two such control diagrams, each controlling its
perceptions of a rather complex field of variables.
Most of this control is in imagination. Control by
each is disturbance to control by the other, including
what each imagines the other to be controlling. That
calls for a pretty complex binary diagram.

              Now, what about k.e? When one of them closes the

control loop through the environment affecting the
disposition of variables that are ‘also’ controlled by
the other, that is a disturbance d in the
environment, but given the highly structured
environment on the chessboard what important
difference are you expecting to see between the value
d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such
differences relevant to the variables being
controlled? The bishop may be off-center on this side
or that of its square, but it still ‘projects’ its
‘influence’ (and is vulnerable) along those two diagonals
centered on that square.

/Bruce

                On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:58

AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:

                  I

was hoping we could discuss a chess game via “The
Cognitive View”.

                      Please view the first attached figure, which

is copied from p. 25 of More Mind Readings.
And next view the second figure, which is
the first figure applied to a game of chess.

                                            I find that the disturbance function

(labeled k.e) is important in understanding
exactly what the controlled variable is.

[philip 2018.03.14]
And in my opinion, I am not being mostly “analyst” but sometimes “controller”. I am being the observer.

image411.png

image412.png

image413.png

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:23 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[philip 2018.03.14]
I did not say “your moves are responses to the opponent’s moves”. I said " your moves are responses to your opponent’s response to the relations created by your move".

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.14.17.16]

Philip, it maybe before your time, but we learned to keep separate a

bunch of different viewpoint when looking at situations like this.
There is the “Observer” who can see only the effects controllers
make on their common external environment; there is the controller,
who is said to see only what the relevant perceptual functions
produce as perceptual signals; and there is the “Analyst” who can
theorize about all the signal levels in all the signal paths. I
think that in this message you are mixing up viewpoints in a
confusing way, being mostly “analyst” but sometimes “controller”.

[philip 2018.03.14]

Here is the PCT diagram that I agree with.

That is an Analyst’s view

      Here is what the interaction between two chess players

looks like.

I don't understand this one, if it is not intended to put specific

examples of the perceptual control by one player of a perception of
the relationships among the pieces (really a large number of
interdependent perceptions).

      Here is a better diagram of the interaction between two

chess players.

This diagram appears to be a mash-up of an analyst's view of

symmetric control loops of two players controlling perceptions of
what ought to be the same environmental situation, but it isn’t. It
is an observer’s view, since it deals only with the observable
behaviour. The “relations between your and your opponent’s pieces”
is a mystery, since the moves at the left and right ends of the
diagram act on the placement of the pieces on the board, and the
relationships perceived by the two players are different. They must
be, because if they were not, every game would end in a draw or a
very early concession.

There is one higher-level conflict that is assumed in every

competitive game, whether it be team or individual. Each is
controlling for being perceived to have won the game, but there is a
resource limitation, in that only one player can win.
Environmentally, there are a bunch of “the same” board layouts that
together form the reference pattern of pieces for each player, but
only one t most of the sets can be brought to its reference value of
“the other king in checkmate” at the end of the game. Maybe neither
will be, as is often the case in a resource limitation conflict.

I would draw two separate control loops, one for each player

controlling his or her perception of the relationships among the
pieces on the board, with the output being a move. That move affects
the layout, and thus disturbs the opponent’s perception of the
relations, which is being controlled with an action output
consisting of “opponent’s move”. There is in this way a loop of the
same form as that of a classic resource conflict. The limited
resource is the board layout, and the only variable controlled by
both players that has a common environmental correlate is the
perception “the other king is in checkmate”.

        The

feedback function in the third diagram, k.f, refers to the
“laws of chess”, which are the rules which govern the
relations of the chess pieces (i.e. the bishop capture
diagonally, etc.). As such, the feedback function, k.f,
determines the relation between your’s and your opponent’s
pieces after a move is made (for example, after moving his
own bishop onto the diagonal, white’s bishop can capture
black’s bishop along the diagonal). This feedback function I
am currently referring to in the third diagram, k.f, is the
same as the disturbance function in the first and second
diagrams, k.d, which is the same as the environmental
function in
Rick’s diagram in the “the blind men and the elephant”
paper , k.e, which is a feedback function that is
missing or incomplete in Warren’s diagram. Thus, I do not
accept your recommendation of Warren’s diagram in its place,
with no disrespect, Bruce.

And now, Bruce, to answer your question:

                  Q:

“What important difference are you expecting to see between
the value d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such
differences relevant to the variables being controlled?”

        A:

There is no significant difference between the value d and
the value (k.f * d). However, the value of d now depends on
your behavior, and the inverse is also obviously true (that
the behavior depends on the disturbance). But only the truth
of the inverse is apparent in Warren’s diagram.

      Now, here comes the fun. We may intuit that your moves are

made in response to the relations created by your opponent’s
move (relations which were created by the “laws of chess”).
And naturally your opponents moves are made in response to
relations created by your own moves. But importantly, now we
can say that your moves are made in response to your
opponent’s response to the relations created by your move. And
finally, the magic: i f
a relation you have created in a previous turn remains
undisturbed by the opponent and thus propagates into your
current turn, we can say that control causes
variation in k.o by creating memory. Because now we can move
relations instead of pieces. And now your opponent’s behavior
is made in response to relations created by your “movement of
relations”. And when we move relations, we are “varying the
pieces as necessary” (thus engendering the “laws of
behavior”).

That's a very S-R (anti-PCT) view of what is going on, is it not?

Multi-level control (moving relations instead of pieces) is standard
PCT, but your moves as responses to the opponent’s moves is not.

Taking a controller's view, the standard PCT way of saying it would

be the way I did it above: your moves are intended to disturb the
opponents perception of the relationships, in a way that the
opponent perceives as changes the perceptual distance from a winning
position. You made your move so as to bring your perception of the
game closer to your reference value of the opponent’s king being in
checkmate, and you intend, though you cannot know, that your
opponent does not see how this is true. Ideally, you would be
controlling for the opponent to perceive your move as moving the
game play nearer to your losing (perceiving you made a mistake), but
in a game in which all moves are visible, that’s hard to do. It is
more likely that if you perceived your move as bringing the game
state nearer your reference value, the opponent will see the same.

From the Analyst's viewpoint, you would say much the same, probably

using names to make it easier to treat the entire set of feedback
loops within the two players individually and through both of them
together. What the Observer sees depends on the observer’s skill as
a chess player, but it is unlikely that it will be the same as what
either of the players sees, possibly unless all three are super
Grand-Masters or computers that have the same programming and
experience.

Or maybe you just made an unfortunate choice of words, and you

didn’t mean their S-R connotation at all.

Martin


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

      On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Bruce

Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
wrote:

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-14_13:59:04 ET]

              This diagram is on p. 25, a reprint of "The blind

men and the elephant: Three perspectives on the
phenomenon of control." The original publication in * Closed
Loop *3.1 is here, on pp. 37-46:

http://www.pctresources.com/Journals/Files/Closed_Loop/Closed_Loop_read/Closed_Loop_vol3_%231_read.pdf

              I think all that k.e means is that the disturbance

d takes effect on the sensory input (s in Rick’s
diagram, not p) by way of physical properties of the
environment.

              Just as s is on the left, r is on the right,

evoking a parallel to an s-r explanation that relies
upon an ‘organism function’ between s and r. Rick’s
k.o is an ‘organism function’ that comprises sensors
(and higher-level input functions), reference
signal(s), comparator(s), error signal(s), and
effector(s) which produce r at the output. The diagram
is drawn that way to facilitate the comparison with
the concepts of s-r and ‘cognitive’ psychology. I
recommend Warren’s diagram in its place.

              The interaction between two chess players requires

two such control diagrams, each controlling its
perceptions of a rather complex field of variables.
Most of this control is in imagination. Control by
each is disturbance to control by the other, including
what each imagines the other to be controlling. That
calls for a pretty complex binary diagram.

              Now, what about k.e? When one of them closes the

control loop through the environment affecting the
disposition of variables that are ‘also’ controlled by
the other, that is a disturbance d in the
environment, but given the highly structured
environment on the chessboard what important
difference are you expecting to see between the value
d and the value (k.e * d), and how are any such
differences relevant to the variables being
controlled? The bishop may be off-center on this side
or that of its square, but it still ‘projects’ its
‘influence’ (and is vulnerable) along those two diagonals
centered on that square.

/Bruce

                On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:58

AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:

                  I

was hoping we could discuss a chess game via “The
Cognitive View”.

                      Please view the first attached figure, which

is copied from p. 25 of More Mind Readings.
And next view the second figure, which is
the first figure applied to a game of chess.

                                            I find that the disturbance function

(labeled k.e) is important in understanding
exactly what the controlled variable is.

[Rick Marken 2018-03-14_20:02:51]

···

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:20 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

PY: I was hoping we could discuss “The Cognitive View”. All I know about it is written on p. 33Â
of Richard Marken’s More Mind Readings…Â A chess example is then presented.Â

PY: Can we please discuss what is “The Cognitive View”?

RM: Chess was probably a poor example. I was using the term "“Cognitive View” to describe the view of behavior that seems to be “emitted” output rather than a response to stimuli (and chess moves coul d be seen as a response to the moves of the opponent) or a behavior selected by reinforcement. From a PCT point of view, behavior that looks to be spontaneously emitted output (also called “programmed output”) is variations in behavior that are due to variations in the reference for a controlled variable. So a good example of behavior that could be seen as emitted or programmed output is the behavior of the avatars in the Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html) when they are moved in an arbitrary trajectory around the screen. Or when you move your finger in a circular pattern in front of you. It looks like emitted output (that’s the Cognitive View) but it is actually controlled input (that’s the PCT view).Â

BestÂ

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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