Rick,
It seems that you »run away« as usual when it comes to serious, not phylosophical talkings. O.K. so will play a little with your text.
RM: It’s all perception. The fact of control is a perception; the perception of a variable being maintained in reference state protected from disturbances. Facts are perceptions.
HB :
O.K. Show us what is in the case of »the perception of a variable being maintained in reference state protected from disturbances«. What is protected from disturbances ? Scienrifically speaking how did you come to the result that PCT is »protecting theory« ?Â
RM: The fact that “it’s all perception” – that we know of reality only via our senses – does not imply that perception is controlled.
HB :
What kind of nonsense is this one ? Are you in PCT or not ? What does it imply ? That behavior is »controlled«? Is there anything else beside perception that can be controlled ? Do you read what you are writing ? Do you have any idea how organisms contro to survive ?
RM : The idea that perception is controlled is a theoretical notion developed to explain the fact that behavior is a control – not an S-R – process.
HB :
It’s not just theoretical notion. Bill suported this theory with very strong evidences. But you are too ignorant to understand this.
Now all you have to do is to prove how »behavior is controlled« ? Bill proved that perception is controlled. That’s why the Title of his theory is PCT (Perceptual Control Theory). It seems that you will not abandon the idea that »behavior is control« and thus you will not abandon the idea of your RCT ? So why don’t you form your own theory and stop bugging PCT. How do you know that »behavior is controlled« ? From your controlled perceptions ?
RM: I think this is the basis of all our differences. I believe there are real facts.
HB :
There is no difference between us as far this matter is concerned. I too »BELEIVE« that arround us and inisde us are »real facts«. We can beleive what we want. But the »fact« is that »facts« are perceptions. And perception is controlled not behavior. At least in PCT.
RM: I am interested in PCT because it is a theory that explains what we observe; it explains the facts of behavior.
HB :
This is the place which is the basis of all our differences. PCT doesn’t explain the »facts« of behavior, but the facts of »Perception of behavior« and all other perceptions that are being controlled all the time in organism. Otherwise organism wouldn’t work. Behavior is just side effect of perceptual control. How do you know there is behavior if you don’t perceive it ?
RM : Since you believe there are no real facts, your interest in PCT is completely orthogonal to mine.
HB :
You are putting words into my mouth. This is your way of »bullshit« converstaion … Sorry conversation with nonseense.
Where exactly I gave a statement that I »BELEIVE« there are no »real facts« ? Even if I did so this is not the reason why our interest in PCT are orthogonal. Our oppinions are different because you think that »behavior is control«, and I know that »Perception is controlled«, not behavior, what can be easily brought out from PCT (Bil’sl theory). I don’t know which theory you follow, but it’s sure not PCT. And you never proved yet how behavior can be »controlled« ?
RM : I’m interested in PCT as an explanation of the facts of behavior; you seem to be interested in PCT as an explanation of why there are no facts. I’m afraid i don’t see much basis for discussion since you dismiss the very existence of the facts that I see as the reason for the existence of PCT
HB :
What is the »fact« of behavior for you ? Is it how you perceive »behavior«, or how you give names to people actions, which are consequence of »Control of perception« ? Existance of PCt is in Bill’s statements. It’s his theory and you are not following it. You are following yours RCT with »behavior is control«. Whatever you were saying above it’s »bullshit«, ups, sorry nonsense.
RM: I find name-calling a very uninteresting approach to discussion. But I can name-call with the best of them so I’ll just say that you are a solipsist, purely anti-science like those that Bill wanted to have nothing to do with. Bill Powers was a scientist, one of the best.
HB :
I see that you are continuing with bullshitting.
First the one who has nothing to do with sicence is you. Look your way of writing. You »pull out my text, you arrenge it, you make statements that are not supported with any evidence. It’s just that you say it and you suppose that other should beleive you. I don’t understand how Powers Ladies allow this sort of unprofessional and »bullshit« converstaion.
Your RCT with behavior as Control has no proofs yet, and you are promoting it all the time. So you are the one that Bill wanted to have nothing to do with. Bill is pormoting »Perceptual Control Thoery«. Or PCT. Did you ever herad of it ?
So would you be so kind and prove to me, how can I be a solipsist and Bill is not, if I’,m using his statements for proving how PCT works ? I told you many times that my statements are attached to Bill’s. So if you are accusing me of being a solipsist, you are accusing also Bill that he is a solipsist.
Bill P. :
Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make the perception of the glass chhange from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we producce actions that alter the world of perception…
So you will explain to me now, how Bill was a scientist and not a solipsist if by your words what I’m presenting is solipsism and it’s springing out of Bill’s PCT, how can I be a solipsist and Bill is not.  If you noticed I’m backing up my text with his citation. I don’t remember when you last time presented me any of his statments as proof that you are right. So explanation…. And you are the one who is quoting what iis science and wht it isn’t ? Did you ever wrote a seminar work. Ups sorry. You have to wrote at least one if you have PhD. Or you bought it ? Is this the level how PhD’s present science ? I must say it’s bullshit.
RM: No, PCT hypothesizes (not explains) that organisms control perceptual input.
HB :
No. Here is another problem. Bill proved with physiological »facts« and of course explained that organisms control perceptual input. I’m telling you all the time that you are »sloopy« reader of Bill’s books, or you don’t understand a thing what he was writing about, and thus you don’t understand PCT. Maybe it’s your ignorance. Anyway I think you should improve improve yourself in reading Bill’s books, specially B:CP, where Bill explained that perception is controlled not »hypothesized« it. Go read B.CP once again and you’ll have no problems with basics of PCT. I noticed before that you have problem understanding Bill’s books. Me and Bill are just following physiological »facts« which enavitably show that there is no control in behavior.
Because Bill proved that organism control perception his theory is called PCT (Perceptual Control Theory). And yours is RCT (Rick’s Control Theory), where you hypothesized that »behavior is control«, but you never proved it.
RM : PCT, that explains behavior – behavior that can be seen to be a process of control, in fact, not just in theory (see Marken, R. S. (1988) The Nature of Behavior: Control as Fact and Theory. Behavioral Science, 33, 196- 206).
HB :
Maybe to you behavior is seen as process of Control. But if mouse and elephant would be looking at your behavior they wouldn’t see any control in it. It’s just your illusion that actions of other people who you are observing involve control. PCT dose not recognize it as control. See Bill’s statements. You don’t know what you are doing to reality. And he proved that this is so with physiological facts.
Behavior is not a fact, it’s your assumption and of many behaviorist who use common sense as you do. It’s only your imagination as many other things. Whatever you had written in your artcile in »Behavioral Science, 33, 196- 206), it’s obviously concerned with behavior. The Title itself is very obvious. You don’t belong to CSGnet forum, but to »Behavior forum«. You are from other world Rick. Face it and stop misleading and confusing people on CSGnet, including Powers ladies.
PCT is talking about perception. And whatever is what you wrote in Behavioral Science, 33, 196- 206 is RCT is something what is misleading people on CSGnet and obviously also broader public. But if the »behavior that can be seen to be a process of control, in fact, not just in theory, you will give us of course some scientific evidence that »behavior is process of control« or that it contain at least »a little bit of control«. I know that you are not a scientist but you could try to be once.
RM: I certainly have driven a car in all kinds of conditions and am aware of the fact that I can easily keep many variables – the speed, location, etc of the car – under control at the same time. My driving behavior is clearly an example of controlling.
HB :
You must be a maggician to «easily keep many variables« variables – the speed, location, etc of the car – under control at the same time.You are not keeping many variables in control, but you are keeping »perception« of many variables under control at the »same time«. Anyway it’s not »Control of behavior«, but »Control of perception«. And organism is biologically constructed to perform milions of control processes in parallel. So it’s not only »speed«, location« and other things that you can have under perceptual control, but it’s thousands of perceptions people have under control in the same time. But that doesn’t mean that control is happening at the same time.  So control of different »controlled variables« are not happening at the same time but sequentially. All neurons in nerv net are not firing at the same time. There is a time delay and order of sequences which enable control. But you already decided about this one. Are you changing your mind again as hundred times before ?
HB earlier : Every physiologist knows and could explain to you that El Hady was right : whatever is happening in control loop is sequence of »cause-effect« events through the loop (some time delays).
RM earlier : You are absolutely right.
RM: Strange suggestion, given that you keep saying that “it’s all perception” (which it is). Unless by “reality” you mean perception. But the perceptions one deals with when driving are just as real as the perceptions one deals with when doing a computer tracking task. But now I have no idea what your epistemology is. Apparently it oscillates between solipsism and realism as necessary to control for seeing everything I say as wrong.
HB :
So you confirmed that “it’s all perception” (which it is).There is no »control of behavior«. If there is only perception that’s only what can be controlled.
Perceptions one deals with in nature are different when you are driving a car on the »real« road, and perception that you are controlling when you are doing »computer tracking task«.Experiences are different. Behind the computer simulation you can’t experience all the disturbances that could influence »Control of perception«. So simulaton is obscure. You can come to wrong conclussions as you did, because you are sitting just behind your computer screen and making demos and wrong (behavioristic) conclussions like those about »baseball catch«, »people can control other people«, and so on.
And it’s not healthy to sit only behaind computer. Go sometimes in nature and relax yourself.
Bill P : »If the effects of the model are just as hypothetical as the model, we don’t have a model, because we can’t check it against direct experience. The ultimate authority is always direct experience, the real reality we are incapable of doubting…« (LCS II, p.185)
HB : Whatever you are doing behind computer you’ll have to test in nature, or you can use science knowledge which »tested« it already in nature. For example you could start reading physiology… J or ask for oppinion somebody who is experrt in physiology like Henry Yin. Learn Rick, learn….
RM: Well, then it’s a good thing you’re here to set everyone straight.
HB : Well somebody has to »set everything straight«if you meant PCT. We are on CSGnet forum, not »behavioral control« forum. So here we are supposed to use PCT as it’s meant to be used. But if you don’t understand it and you don’t want to write about it you can found your own »behavior control« forum and write about it as much as you want.
AGM : The tendency to bullshit is encouraged and promoted by the view that the responsible citizen (or scientist) must have an opinion about everything.
HB : This must be you Rick. It entirely suits your description… Or am I wrong ?
AGM : Highly educated people have the gifts that enable them to create bullshit. A lot of highly educated people acquire a kind of arrogance that encourages the production of bullshit.
HB : This is your mirror Rick. It perfectly suits to what you are writing. Or am I wrong again ?
AGM : Despite not being actively promoted, bullshit is protected.
HB : Is this something like Powers ladies protecting you on CSGnet because of your long friendship ? Ooohhhh, I must be wrong again ?
Science is not about friendship it’s about respecting evidences. And the priority have natural evidences. Why don’t you listen to Bill.
Best,
Boris
···
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 4:17 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Control of Performance
[From Rick Marken (2016.07.06.1915)]
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
RM: The subtitle of Bill’s last book, LCS III, is “The Fact of Control”.
HB : It’s just subtitle. The main Title of Bill’s Theory is that »Perception is controlled«. And this is »The fact of control«, which is shown through all his work.
RM: Control is the fact to be explained; control of perception is the theory that explains that fact.
RM : So clearly Powers saw control as a fact – an observable phenomenon-- and, indeed, it is the fact explained by control theory. PCT explains the fact of control as it is observed in the behavior of living organisms.
HB : Observed ??? So it is all perception. Or you can oberve »reality« directly in some other way ?
RM: It’s all perception. The fact of control is a perception; the perception of a variable being maintained in reference state protected from disturbances. Facts are perceptions.
HB: The »fact« of control clearly represent that the »Perception is controlled« because all there is, is perception.
RM: The fact that “it’s all perception” – that we know of reality only via our senses – does not imply that perception is controlled. The fact that “it’s all perception” is also consistent with the idea that perception is the first step in a causal chain that results in behavioral output. The idea that perception is controlled is a theoretical notion developed to explain the fact that behavior is a control – not an S-R – process.
HB: It’s the fact. There is no »real facts«.
RM: I think this is the basis of all our differences. I believe there are real facts. Without them there would be no science. While it’s true that the facts of science are perceptions, that doesn’t make those facts any less factual. For me, science is about developing theories that explain what we observe – our perceptions (facts). PCT is the explanation of our observations – perceptions – of the behavior of living organisms. One of those observations is that organisms control. PCT explains why we observe this; it explains the fact (perception, phenomenon or observation) that organisms control.
RM: I am interested in PCT because it is a theory that explains what we observe; it explains the facts of behavior. Since you believe there are no real facts, your interest in PCT is completely orthogonal to mine. I’m interested in PCT as an explanation of the facts of behavior; you seem to be interested in PCT as an explanation of why there are no facts. I’m afraid i don’t see much basis for discussion since you dismiss the very existence of the facts that I see as the reason for the existence of PCT.
HB: You are behaviorist Rick, pure psychologist like those that were criticized by Bill.
RM: I find name-calling a very uninteresting approach to discussion. But I can name-call with the best of them so I’ll just say that you are a solipsist, purely anti-science like those that Bill wanted to have nothing to do with. Bill Powers was a scientist, one of the best.
RM : It’s important to understand the phenomenon that a theory explains or one ends up doing theorizing that is not anchored in fact.
HB : You don’t inderstand Rick and that is your problem. PCT Theory explains that »Perception is Controlled« not »Behavior«.
RM: No, PCT hypothesizes (not explains) that organisms control perceptual input. This hypothesis is the central assumption of a theory, PCT, that explains behavior – behavior that can be seen to be a process of control, in fact, not just in theory (see Marken, R. S. (1988) The Nature of Behavior: Control as Fact and Theory. Behavioral Science, 33, 196- 206).
BH: You have to prove with your RCT theory that »Behavior can be controlled«. But you can’t as Physiology and Bill already proved that you can’t. You just have to accept »The fact of perceptual control«.
RM: Bil “proved” no such thing. Indeed, he showed how behavior can be controlled via disturbance to a variable that another person is controlling (see B:CP, 2nd Ed, pp. 244-245).
RM: Once you understand what control is – in fact, not just in theory – then it is easy to see (and demonstrate to yourself) that nearly everything called “behavior” – walking, talking, playing chess, etc – is control.
HB : He,he…. Rick, who is talking about »facts and theory« ??? Did you ever go and drive car in a strong wind, as I suggested you. Well I did, so don’t tell me who »UNDERSTAND WHAT CONTROL IN FACT MEANS«. How could you know with your theoretical »common sense« approach and simulations behind computer.
RM: I certainly have driven a car in all kinds of conditions and am aware of the fact that I can easily keep many variables – the speed, location, etc of the car – under control at the same time. My driving behavior is clearly an example of controlling.
HB: Go to »reality« and try things there.
RM: Strange suggestion, given that you keep saying that “it’s all perception” (which it is). Unless by “reality” you mean perception. But the perceptions one deals with when driving are just as real as the perceptions one deals with when doing a computer tracking task. But now I have no idea what your epistemology is. Apparently it oscillates between solipsism and realism as necessary to control for seeing everything I say as wrong.
HB: You are misleading again whole CSGnet forum.
RM: Well, then it’s a good thing you’re here to set everyone straight.
RM: If, as you say, it is wrong to say that a person’s behavior is a process of control, then what is it? What do you think is the phenomenon that PCT explains?
HB : Well Rick I could easily explain it to you. It’s no big deal.
RM: So explain it. What is the phenomenon that PCT explains?
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for themselves.” – William T. Powers