The Feedback Function

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.29.1240 ET)]

Not long ago, Dag Forsell, “nitpicked” my PCT diagram, indicating that it did not include a “disturbance” function. Instead, it showed the disturbance going directly against the controlled variable or input quantity. I added the disturbance function.

That fix led me to revisit the “feedback function” which, as I understand it, is the means, mechanism or path by which output affects the input quantity or controlled variable. I’ve got some questions about that.

Let’s suppose I want to register for a test (I’m going back to my days at ETS). I am controlling for being registered for the test. To do that, I have to obtain, fill out and submit a registration form. That involves things like extracting the registration form from the test bulletin, getting a pen or pencil, reading and following the instructions for filling out the form, checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly, making any necessary corrections, folding the completed registration form, inserting it in an envelope, sealing the envelope, affixing a stamp, and placing it in the mail box. Hopefully, before long, I receive an email notifying me that I am registered and providing me with the time, date and place of the test administration. Voila! I am registered.

There are lots of different “outputs” along the way. Lots of different reference signals at work. And lots of levels of the HPTCT hierarchy involved.

But, at its most basic, it seems to me that the “feedback function” related to my goal or reference of being registered to take the test, consists of and involves all that stuff I mentioned above.

Do I have that right?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Writer & Consultant

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distance”SM

www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.29.1615)]

···

Fred Nickols (2016.06.29.1240 ET)]

Â

FN: Not long ago, Dag Forsell, “nitpickedâ€? my PCT diagram… That fix led me to revisit the “feedback functionâ€? … I’ve got some questions about that.

Â

FN: Let’s suppose I want to register for a test …I am controlling for being registered for the test. To do that, I have to obtain, fill out and submit a registration form. That involves things like extracting the registration form from the test bulletin, getting a pen or pencil, reading and following the instructions for filling out the form, checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly, making any necessary corrections, folding the completed registration form, inserting it in an envelope, sealing the envelope, affixing a stamp, and placing it in the mail box. Hopefully, before long, I receive an email notifying me that I am registered and providing me with the time, date and place of the test administration. Voila! I am registered.

Â

FN: There are lots of different “outputsâ€? along the way. Lots of different reference signals at work. And lots of levels of the HPTCT hierarchy involved.

Â

FN: But, at its most basic, it seems to me that the “feedback functionâ€? related to my goal or reference of being registered to take the test, consists of and involves all that stuff I mentioned above.

Â

FN: Do I have that right?Â

RM: I would say that everything you mentioned above is the reference state of a controlled perceptual variable (or the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state). For example, “being registered for the test” is the reference state of the perception of your registration status; “checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly” describes the control process involved in getting the perception of how correctly the form is filled out into the reference state “filled out correctly”. There is no feedback function described here. The feedback functions are the environmental links between the controller’s output and the perceptual variable under control. You can only identify a feedback function once you have identified a controlled variable and the output that affects the state of that variable.Â

RM: So let’s try to identify a feedback function for the two controlled variables mentioned above: registration status and correctness of form fill-out. The output that connects you to both of these variables is forces exerted by the muscles of you hands, limbs, and vocal apparatus. These outputs have effects on both registration status and the correctness of the form fill-out via their physical effects on the world – physical forces that move you to the place where the forms can be found, that move the pen that makes corrections to the form, that fold the form and put it into the mail box, etc.Â

RM: Feedback functions are, as you can see, an aspect of controlling that are not perceived by the controller (nor by an observer of a controller, unless the observer is in a lab with fancy measuring instruments). A controller can perceive variables that affect the nature of the feedback function – for example, a controller can perceive whether the ground in front of the mailbox is covered in ice or not – and, can, therefore control for avoiding the ice, knowing that stepping on it would likely result in a slip. But that’s not perceiving the feedback function per se, which is the function relating the force vector of the foot on the ice and the resulting movement of the foot.Â

RM: Feedback functions are physical laws, like f = ma. We do have to take them into account when modeling behavior but, like disturbances that are often unpredictable and undetectable, variations in feedback functions are handled automatically by a correctly functioning (dynamically stable) living control system.Â

RM: While your description of registering for a test does’t include any feedback functions (it would get ridiculously – and unnecessarily – Â complex if it did) it is an excellent description of the hierarchy of perceptual variables that must be controlled in order to control the highest level perceptual variable: registration status.Â

Best regards

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

“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

BL: Just a comment Fred… The observed behavior ‘contains’ the
feedback function. I say contains because, unlike your behavioral
description, the observed behavior may include behavior that is not
purposeful… that is incidental to the controlled perceptions.

···

On 06/29/2016 10:42 AM, Fred Nickols
wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.29.1240 ET)]

      Not long ago, Dag Forsell, “nitpicked” my

PCT diagram, indicating that it did not include a
“disturbance” function. Instead, it showed the disturbance
going directly against the controlled variable or input
quantity. I added the disturbance function.

      That fix led me to revisit the “feedback

function” which, as I understand it, is the means, mechanism
or path by which output affects the input quantity or
controlled variable. I’ve got some questions about that.

      Let’s suppose I want to register for a test

(I’m going back to my days at ETS). I am controlling for
being registered for the test. To do that, I have to obtain,
fill out and submit a registration form. That involves things
like extracting the registration form from the test bulletin,
getting a pen or pencil, reading and following the
instructions for filling out the form, checking to make sure
I’ve filled it out correctly, making any necessary
corrections, folding the completed registration form,
inserting it in an envelope, sealing the envelope, affixing a
stamp, and placing it in the mail box. Hopefully, before
long, I receive an email notifying me that I am registered and
providing me with the time, date and place of the test
administration. Voila! I am registered.

      There are lots of different “outputs” along

the way. Lots of different reference signals at work. And
lots of levels of the HPTCT hierarchy involved.

      But, at its most basic, it seems to me that

the “feedback function” related to my goal or reference of
being registered to take the test, consists of and involves
all that stuff I mentioned above.

Do I have that right?

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

        Writer &

Consultant

DISTANCE
CONSULTING LLC

  •          “Assistance
    

at a Distance”*SM

www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html

[From Fred Nickols (2016.06.29.1240 ET)]

      Not long ago, Dag Forsell, “nitpicked” my

PCT diagram, indicating that it did not include a
“disturbance” function. Instead, it showed the disturbance
going directly against the controlled variable or input
quantity. I added the disturbance function.

      That fix led me to revisit the “feedback

function” which, as I understand it, is the means, mechanism
or path by which output affects the input quantity or
controlled variable. I’ve got some questions about that.

      Let’s suppose I want to register for a test

(I’m going back to my days at ETS). I am controlling for
being registered for the test. To do that, I have to obtain,
fill out and submit a registration form. That involves things
like extracting the registration form from the test bulletin,
getting a pen or pencil, reading and following the
instructions for filling out the form, checking to make sure
I’ve filled it out correctly, making any necessary
corrections, folding the completed registration form,
inserting it in an envelope, sealing the envelope, affixing a
stamp, and placing it in the mail box. Hopefully, before
long, I receive an email notifying me that I am registered and
providing me with the time, date and place of the test
administration. Voila! I am registered.

      There are lots of different “outputs” along

the way. Lots of different reference signals at work. And
lots of levels of the HPTCT hierarchy involved.

      But, at its most basic, it seems to me that

the “feedback function” related to my goal or reference of
being registered to take the test, consists of and involves
all that stuff I mentioned above.

Do I have that right?

RM: I would say that everything you mentioned above is the reference state of a controlled perceptual variable (or the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state).

HB : What is controlled perceptual variable and what is the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state ???

And what is »The feedback functions are the environmental links between the controller’s output and the perceptual variable under control« ???

I think that you should say :

MT : …the feeedback function includes everything that happens between the output of the control unit, which is its contribution to lower-level reference values (except for the very lowest-level outputs that are directly connected to muscles), and the inputs to its Perceptual Input Function.

HB : For me this is right explanation….

Best,

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:15 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Feedback Function

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.29.1615)]

Fred Nickols (2016.06.29.1240 ET)]

FN: Not long ago, Dag Forsell, “nitpickedâ€? my PCT diagram… That fix led me to revisit the “feedback functionâ€? … I’ve got some questions about that.

FN: Let’s suppose I want to register for a test …I am controlling for being registered for the test. To do that, I have to obtain, fill out and submit a registration form. That involves things like extracting the registration form from the test bulletin, getting a pen or pencil, reading and following the instructions for filling out the form, checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly, making any necessary corrections, folding the completed registration form, inserting it in an envelope, sealing the envelope, affixing a stamp, and placing it in the mail box. Hopefully, before long, I receive an email notifying me that I am registered and providing me with the time, date and place of the test administration. Voila! I am registered.

FN: There are lots of different “outputs� along the way. Lots of different reference signals at work. And lots of levels of the HPTCT hierarchy involved.

FN: But, at its most basic, it seems to me that the “feedback function� related to my goal or reference of being registered to take the test, consists of and involves all that stuff I mentioned above.

FN: Do I have that right?

RM: I would say that everything you mentioned above is the reference state of a controlled perceptual variable (or the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state). For example, “being registered for the test” is the reference state of the perception of your registration status; “checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly” describes the control process involved in getting the perception of how correctly the form is filled out into the reference state “filled out correctly”. There is no feedback function described here. The feedback functions are the environmental links between the controller’s output and the perceptual variable under control. You can only identify a feedback function once you have identified a controlled variable and the output that affects the state of that variable.

RM: So let’s try to identify a feedback function for the two controlled variables mentioned above: registration status and correctness of form fill-out. The output that connects you to both of these variables is forces exerted by the muscles of you hands, limbs, and vocal apparatus. These outputs have effects on both registration status and the correctness of the form fill-out via their physical effects on the world – physical forces that move you to the place where the forms can be found, that move the pen that makes corrections to the form, that fold the form and put it into the mail box, etc.

RM: Feedback functions are, as you can see, an aspect of controlling that are not perceived by the controller (nor by an observer of a controller, unless the observer is in a lab with fancy measuring instruments). A controller can perceive variables that affect the nature of the feedback function – for example, a controller can perceive whether the ground in front of the mailbox is covered in ice or not – and, can, therefore control for avoiding the ice, knowing that stepping on it would likely result in a slip. But that’s not perceiving the feedback function per se, which is the function relating the force vector of the foot on the ice and the resulting movement of the foot.

RM: Feedback functions are physical laws, like f = ma. We do have to take them into account when modeling behavior but, like disturbances that are often unpredictable and undetectable, variations in feedback functions are handled automatically by a correctly functioning (dynamically stable) living control system.

RM: While your description of registering for a test does’t include any feedback functions (it would get ridiculously – and unnecessarily – complex if it did) it is an excellent description of the hierarchy of perceptual variables that must be controlled in order to control the highest level perceptual variable: registration status.

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

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.30.0940)]

···

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: I would say that everything you mentioned above is the reference state of a controlled perceptual variable (or the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state).

Â

HB : What is controlled perceptual variable and what is the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state ???

RM: A controlled perceptual variable is a perceived aspect of the environment that is controlled by a control system. The process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state is called “control”. For example, one perceptual variable that is controlled when intercepting a moving object (like catching a Frisbee) is the vertical velocity of the image of the object on the retina; this variable is controlled inasmuch as it is brought to (and maintained at) a reference state of zero (or slightly greater than zero) by moving towards or away from the object, as necessary (see https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2p2bheqv9f5el3/Chasin%27Choppers.pdf?dl=0).

Â

HB: And what is »The feedback functions are the environmental links between the controller’s output and the perceptual variable under control« ???

RM: In the case of controlling vertical optical velocity, the feedback function is the optical law relating the controller’s rate of movement toward or away from the object to vertical optical velocity.Â

Â

HB: I think that you should say :

Â

MT : …the feedback function includes everything that happeens between the output of the control unit, which is its contribution to lower-level reference values (except for the very lowest-level outputs that are directly connected to muscles), and the inputs to its Perceptual Input Function.

Â

HB : For me this is right explanation….

<
RM: That’s fine. I don’t care for it because it confounds a control process (the operation of the hierarchy of control systems) with a causal process (the physical effects of one set of physical variables – system outputs – Â on another – system inputs). But it doesn’t really matter too much what you call the “feedback function”; Â once you get down to actually building models of behavior it doesn’t matter what you call things as long as you get the model right.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:15 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Feedback Function

Â

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.29.1615)]

Â

Fred Nickols (2016.06.29.1240 ET)]

Â

FN: Not long ago, Dag Forsell, “nitpickedâ€? my PCT diagram… That fix led me to revisit the “feedback functionâ€? … I’ve got some questions about that.

Â

FN: Let’s suppose I want to register for a test …I am controlling for being registered for the test. To do that, I have to obtain, fill out and submit a registration form. That involves things like extracting the registration form from the test bulletin, getting a pen or pencil, reading and following the instructions for filling out the form, checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly, making any necessary corrections, folding the completed registration form, inserting it in an envelope, sealing the envelope, affixing a stamp, and placing it in the mail box. Hopefully, before long, I receive an email notifying me that I am registered and providing me with the time, date and place of the test administration. Voila! I am registered.

Â

FN: There are lots of different “outputs� along the way. Lots of different reference signals at work. And lots of levels of the HPTCT hierarchy involved.

Â

FN: But, at its most basic, it seems to me that the “feedback function� related to my goal or reference of being registered to take the test, consists of and involves all that stuff I mentioned above.

Â

FN: Do I have that right?Â

RM: I would say that everything you mentioned above is the reference state of a controlled perceptual variable (or the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state). For example, “being registered for the test” is the reference state of the perception of your registration status; “checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly” describes the control process involved in getting the perception of how correctly the form is filled out into the reference state “filled out correctly”. There is no feedback function described here. The feedback functions are the environmental links between the controller’s output and the perceptual variable under control. You can only identify a feedback function once you have identified a controlled variable and the output that affects the state of that variable.Â

Â

RM: So let’s try to identify a feedback function for the two controlled variables mentioned above: registration status and correctness of form fill-out. The output that connects you to both of these variables is forces exerted by the muscles of you hands, limbs, and vocal apparatus. These outputs have effects on both registration status and the correctness of the form fill-out via their physical effects on the world – physical forces that move you to the place where the forms can be found, that move the pen that makes corrections to the form, that fold the form and put it into the mail box, etc.Â

Â

RM: Feedback functions are, as you can see, an aspect of controlling that are not perceived by the controller (nor by an observer of a controller, unless the observer is in a lab with fancy measuring instruments). A controller can perceive variables that affect the nature of the feedback function – for example, a controller can perceive whether the ground in front of the mailbox is covered in ice or not – and, can, therefore control for avoiding the ice, knowing that stepping on it would likely result in a slip. But that’s not perceiving the feedback function per se, which is the function relating the force vector of the foot on the ice and the resulting movement of the foot.Â

Â

RM: Feedback functions are physical laws, like f = ma. We do have to take them into account when modeling behavior but, like disturbances that are often unpredictable and undetectable, variations in feedback functions are handled automatically by a correctly functioning (dynamically stable) living control system.Â

Â

RM: While your description of registering for a test does’t include any feedback functions (it would get ridiculously – and unnecessarily – Â complex if it did) it is an excellent description of the hierarchy of perceptual variables that must be controlled in order to control the highest level perceptual variable: registration status.Â

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

“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


Richard S. MarkenÂ

“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

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.30.13.48]

Now I think I understand why you have not yet understood what an

atenfel is, or the various ways (some of which were explained to
you) the concept is useful when dealing with interactions among
control units.
Martin

···

On 2016/06/30 12:41 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.30.0940)]

        On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:33 AM,

Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net
wrote:

        ...

Â

                HB:

I think that you should say :

Â

              MT : …the feedback function

includes everything that happens between the output of
the control unit, which is its contribution to
lower-level reference values (except for the very
lowest-level outputs that are directly connected to
muscles), and the inputs to its Perceptual Input
Function.

Â

                HB

: For me this is right explanation….

          RM: That's fine. I don't care for it because it

confounds a control process (the operation of the
hierarchy of control systems) with a causal process (the
physical effects of one set of physical variables –
system outputs – Â on another – system inputs). But it
doesn’t really matter too much what you call the “feedback
function”; Â once you get down to actually building models
of behavior it doesn’t matter what you call things as long
as you get the model right.Â

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.30.1200)]

···

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.30.13.48]

MT: Now I think I understand why you have not yet understood what an

atenfel is, or the various ways (some of which were explained to
you) the concept is useful when dealing with interactions among
control units.

RM: Great! I hope so.

Best

Rick

          RM: That's fine. I don't care for [that definition of a feedback function] because it confounds a control process (the operation of the

hierarchy of control systems) with a causal process (the
physical effects of one set of physical variables –
system outputs – on another – system inputs). But it
doesn’t really matter too much what you call the “feedback
function”; once you get down to actually building models
of behavior it doesn’t matter what you call things as long
as you get the model right.

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

[Martib=n Taylor 2016.06.30.20.30]

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.30.1200)]

I wonder why? It rather sounds as though you are pleased with your

inability, rather than wanting to work to come to an understanding.
I understand that as a political attitude, but my assumption and
hope has always been that our attitudes are scientific, which
implies that failure to understand is an indication of error in a
controlled variable “perception of understanding X” with a reference
value of “fully” – which none of us ever really achieve.
Politicians may not control such a perception; scientists usually
do.

Let's consider the paragraph that led me to think I understood why

you had a persistent failure to grasp the concept of atenfel. (The explanation of the atenfels was done earlier, to
which your responses demonstrated the fact of your
non-understanding. Here I’m dealing only with the possible reason
for your failure, a failure that seems to please you.)

You say that you do not like to think of the environmental feedback

path (EFP) of a control unit as including the parts of the hierarchy
below that control process. For you the EFP starts and ends at the
organism’s skin, and in that external part of the path between the
unit’s output and its input there exist no control processes or
other feedback loops – only passive physical connectors. Since you
are concerned only with the action of this one gloriously isolated
control loop, I can see why it is uninteresting to you to consider
the stages of the EFP described by Fred. That is why I said “I think
I understand.”

To you, apparently it matters not whether someone has stolen your

bicycle, because the environmental feedback function involving
walking or driving still allows you to control your perception of
location. It matters not whether Fred’s control of the perception of
whether he is registered requires unintelligble masses of legalistic
forms to be filled in several distinct stages at different offices,
or whether he just tells someone he wants to be registered. Your
environmental path consists of " the physical effects
of one set of physical variables – system outputs – on another
– system inputs".

  So it's all OK and who cares about the component parts of the EFP?

All that matters are the time distribution and magnitude of the
“physical effects” (perhaps in relation to the “physical effects”
of disturbances. And that is valid if and only if all that
concerns you is this one lonely control loop.

  Or maybe you meant that you are just glad I now understand,

without wanting to know what I thought I understood, in which case
I have wasted your time and mine by explaining a little of it.

Martin
···

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.30.13.48]

            MT: Now I think I understand why you have not yet

understood what an atenfel is, or the various ways (some
of which were explained to you) the concept is useful
when dealing with interactions among control units.

RM: Great! I hope so.

                        RM: That's fine. I don't care for [that

definition of a feedback function] because
it confounds a control process (the
operation of the hierarchy of control
systems) with a causal process (the physical
effects of one set of physical variables –
system outputs – on another – system
inputs). But it doesn’t really matter too
much what you call the “feedback function”;
once you get down to actually building
models of behavior it doesn’t matter what
you call things as long as you get the model
right.

Rick,

I have let out your behavioristic phylosophy about outer objects which control people. You know why… If you don’t knoow go and see our endless discusions with Bill and you about your behavioristic explanation of »baseball catch«. All of your »UFO« has the same explanation.

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 6:42 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Feedback Function

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.30.0940)]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: I would say that everything you mentioned above is the reference state of a controlled perceptual variable (or the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state).

HB : What is controlled perceptual variable and what is the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state ???

RM: A controlled perceptual variable is a perceived aspect of the environment that is controlled by a control system.

HB : So you think that control is part of outer environment not something going on in organism. Please show me where Bill used such a term as : »Controlled perceptual variable« ???

And then you will have to prove that control is a content of perceptual signal. Will you ? I’d like also physiological explanation of »Controlled perceptual signal« ???

And of course the question is with what is system »controlling« the outer environment so that it can be »controlled« by a control system. Probably you think that system is controlling outer environment with »Behavior as control« ? Will you also prove this one. Â

HB: And what is »The feedback functions are the environmental links between the controller’s output and the perceptual variable under control« ???

HB: I think that you should say :

MT : …the feedback function includes everything that happens betweenn the output of the control unit, which is its contribution to lower-level reference values (except for the very lowest-level outputs that are directly connected to muscles), and the inputs to its Perceptual Input Function.

HB : For me this is right explanation….

RM: That’s fine. I don’t care for it because it confounds a control process (the operation of the hierarchy of control systems) with a causal process (the physical effects of one set of physical variables – system outputs – on another – system inputs). But it doesn’t really matter too much what you call the “feedback function”; ….

HB : It does matter how you call the »feedback function«, because Bill defined it clearly and it’s his theory not yours. If you want to redefine terms he used and redefine PCT, then zhe only option I see is that you make your own RCT. So it’s important what is called how, as Barb said once that her father was very precise at choosing terms. So respect this. It would be nice if you stick to Bill explanations, because when you are diverging it looks like you don’t understand PCT.

RM : ….once you get down to actually buildiing models of behavior it doesn’t matter what you call things as long as you get the model right.

HB : True. But you don’t understand PCT model right, including hierarchy.

Best

Rick

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:15 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The Feedback Function

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.29.1615)]

Fred Nickols (2016.06.29.1240 ET)]

FN: Not long ago, Dag Forsell, “nitpickedâ€? my PCT diagram… That fix led me to revisit the “feedback functionâ€? … I’ve got some questions about that.

FN: Let’s suppose I want to register for a test …I am controlling for being registered for the test. To do that, I have to obtain, fill out and submit a registration form. That involves things like extracting the registration form from the test bulletin, getting a pen or pencil, reading and following the instructions for filling out the form, checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly, making any necessary corrections, folding the completed registration form, inserting it in an envelope, sealing the envelope, affixing a stamp, and placing it in the mail box. Hopefully, before long, I receive an email notifying me that I am registered and providing me with the time, date and place of the test administration. Voila! I am registered.

FN: There are lots of different “outputs� along the way. Lots of different reference signals at work. And lots of levels of the HPTCT hierarchy involved.

FN: But, at its most basic, it seems to me that the “feedback function� related to my goal or reference of being registered to take the test, consists of and involves all that stuff I mentioned above.

FN: Do I have that right?

RM: I would say that everything you mentioned above is the reference state of a controlled perceptual variable (or the process of getting the perceptual variable to the reference state). For example, “being registered for the test” is the reference state of the perception of your registration status; “checking to make sure I’ve filled it out correctly” describes the control process involved in getting the perception of how correctly the form is filled out into the reference state “filled out correctly”. There is no feedback function described here. The feedback functions are the environmental links between the controller’s output and the perceptual variable under control. You can only identify a feedback function once you have identified a controlled variable and the output that affects the state of that variable.

RM: So let’s try to identify a feedback function for the two controlled variables mentioned above: registration status and correctness of form fill-out. The output that connects you to both of these variables is forces exerted by the muscles of you hands, limbs, and vocal apparatus. These outputs have effects on both registration status and the correctness of the form fill-out via their physical effects on the world – physical forces that move you to the place where the forms can be found, that move the pen that makes corrections to the form, that fold the form and put it into the mail box, etc.

RM: Feedback functions are, as you can see, an aspect of controlling that are not perceived by the controller (nor by an observer of a controller, unless the observer is in a lab with fancy measuring instruments). A controller can perceive variables that affect the nature of the feedback function – for example, a controller can perceive whether the ground in front of the mailbox is covered in ice or not – and, can, therefore control for avoiding the ice, knowing that stepping on it would likely result in a slip. But that’s not perceiving the feedback function per se, which is the function relating the force vector of the foot on the ice and the resulting movement of the foot.

RM: Feedback functions are physical laws, like f = ma. We do have to take them into account when modeling behavior but, like disturbances that are often unpredictable and undetectable, variations in feedback functions are handled automatically by a correctly functioning (dynamically stable) living control system.

RM: While your description of registering for a test does’t include any feedback functions (it would get ridiculously – and unnecessarily – complex if it did) it is an excellent description of the hierarchy of perceptual variables that must be controlled in order to control the highest level perceptual variable: registration status.

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

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

[From Rick Marken (2016.07.01.0915)]

···

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.30.20.30]

MT: I wonder why?

RM: I took “why you have not yet understood” to mean something like “why you have not yet accepted”, where I heard “understood” to mean something like what it means in the phrase “It’s understood that …”.

MT: It rather sounds as though you are pleased with your

inability…

RM: No, I was pleased with your saying that you understood why I didn’t accept the concept of atenfel as being necessary for explaining social behavior using PCT.

MT: You say that you do not like to think of the environmental feedback

path (EFP) of a control unit as including the parts of the hierarchy
below that control process.

RM: Correct. I prefer to think of them as the variable means that are used to control higher level perceptions.

MT: For you the EFP starts and ends at the

organism’s skin, and in that external part of the path between the
unit’s output and its input there exist no control processes or
other feedback loops – only passive physical connectors.

RM: None that are part of the behaving system itself, true.

MT: To you, apparently it matters not whether someone has stolen your

bicycle, because the environmental feedback function involving
walking or driving still allows you to control your perception of
location.

RM: I think you see the bicycle as part of the environmental feedback function that connects an actor’s outputs to her perceptual goal – her destination. I see the bicycle as a set of perceptual variables that, when controlled properly, get the actor to her destination. For example, one variable that must be controlled is the forward movement of the bike. This variable is controlled by means of controlling for rotation of the pedals and for a balanced bike (among other things). The pedals are rotated by exerting the appropriate forces on them. The force required to produce the perception of rotation depends on the physical laws (the feedback function) that relate the force applied to the pedals to the perception of pedal movement. At a higher level, the perception of forward movement depends on the physical laws (the feedback function) that relate pedal rotation rate to the perception of forward motion.

RM: Stealing a bike certainly removes the feedback functions, such as those mentioned above – between output force and pedal movement and between pedal movement and forward movement of the bike. But I see the loss of the feedback functions as resulting from the loss of variables to control. Stealing the bike seems to me to be a disturbance - a pretty overwhelming one – to the variables you control when riding the bike to a destination; those variables – pedal rotation, balance, forward motion – are no longer there for you to control (except in imagination). So there is no longer a physical feedback connection between your output (force applied to the no longer present pedals) and those perceptual variables.

RM: So I see stealing a bike as an example of an interpersonal conflict, where two people (the thief and the owner) want the same variables (the variable aspects of the bike) in different reference states. I think the existing PCT model, sans atenfels, can handle this kind of social interaction just fine.

RM: I think it is far more important (and productive) to test to see how well the existing PCT model can explain data, such as data on interpersonal interactions, before inventing new theoretical constructs to explain anecdotes. And in order to do this you have to collect data to test the model against.

Best

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

            MT: Now I think I understand why you have not yet

understood what an atenfel is, or the various ways (some
of which were explained to you) the concept is useful
when dealing with interactions among control units.

RM: Great! I hope so.

[Martin Taylor 2016.07.01.13.01] Canada Day

[From Rick Marken (2016.07.01.0915)]

I find your comments quite mystifying. I thought I understood why

you have not understood the concept of an atenfel, but I fear that
the problem lies even deeper than I had imagined. For a
quarter-century, I have thought that we had the same idea about the
basics of PCT, but I’m beginning to think that maybe we don’t. Let’s
see if we can converge on a problem that is not simply wordsmithing.

You almost defined an atenfel ("the variable means that are used to

control [higher level] perceptions"), but then you deny it by saying
that the means by which the output of a control unit influences the
perception are not part of the environmental feedback path. I find
this very strange. Perhaps we can limit this part of the discussion
to that one point.

My question now is what parts of the connection between output and

perceptual input of any one elementary control unit you consider to
be part of its environmental feedback path, what parts of the
connection you do not consider to be part of its environmental
feedback path, and why are those parts classified in one way rather
than the other?

Much seems to hinge on your answer, especially your reasons.

Martin
···

[Martin Taylor 2016.06.30.20.30]

            MT: You say that you

do not like to think of the environmental feedback path
(EFP) of a control unit as including the parts of the
hierarchy below that control process.

          RM: Correct. I prefer to think of them as the variable

means that are used to control higher level perceptions.

            MT: For you the EFP

starts and ends at the organism’s skin, and in that
external part of the path between the unit’s output and
its input there exist no control processes or other
feedback loops – only passive physical connectors.

          RM: None that are part of the behaving system itself,

true.

            MT: To you,

apparently it matters not whether someone has stolen
your bicycle, because the environmental feedback
function involving walking or driving still allows you
to control your perception of location.

          RM: I think you see the bicycle as part of the

environmental feedback function that connects an actor’s
outputs to her perceptual goal – her destination. I see
the bicycle as a set of perceptual variables that, when
controlled properly, get the actor to her destination. For
example, one variable that must be controlled is the
forward movement of the bike. This variable is controlled
by means of controlling for rotation of the pedals and for
a balanced bike (among other things). The pedals are
rotated by exerting the appropriate forces on them. The
force required to produce the perception of rotation
depends on the physical laws (the feedback function) that
relate the force applied to the pedals to the perception
of pedal movement. At a higher level, the perception of
forward movement depends on the physical laws (the
feedback function) that relate pedal rotation rate to the
perception of forward motion.

          RM: Stealing a bike certainly removes the feedback

functions, such as those mentioned above – between output
force and pedal movement and between pedal movement and
forward movement of the bike. But I see the loss of the
feedback functions as resulting from the loss of variables
to control. Stealing the bike seems to me to be a
disturbance - a pretty overwhelming one – to the
variables you control when riding the bike to a
destination; those variables – pedal rotation, balance,
forward motion – are no longer there for you to control
(except in imagination). So there is no longer a physical
feedback connection between your output (force applied to
the no longer present pedals) and those perceptual
variables.

          RM: So I see stealing a bike as an example of an

interpersonal conflict, where two people (the thief and
the owner) want the same variables (the variable aspects
of the bike) in different reference states. I think the
existing PCT model, sans atenfels, can handle this kind of
social interaction just fine.

          RM: I think it is far more important (and productive)

to test to see how well the existing PCT model can explain
data, such as data on interpersonal interactions, before
inventing new theoretical constructs to explain anecdotes.
And in order to do this you have to collect data to test
the model against.

Best

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

[From Rick Marken (2016.07.01.1300)]

···

[Martin Taylor 2016.07.01.13.01] Canada Day

MT: I find your comments quite mystifying. I thought I understood why

you have not understood the concept of an atenfel, but I fear that
the problem lies even deeper than I had imagined. For a
quarter-century, I have thought that we had the same idea about the
basics of PCT,

RM: I think we agree about some of the basics and disagree about others.

MT: but I'm beginning to think that maybe we don't. Let's

see if we can converge on a problem that is not simply wordsmithing.

RM: OK.

MT: You almost defined an atenfel ("the variable means that are used to

control [higher level] perceptions"), but then you deny it by saying
that the means by which the output of a control unit influences the
perception are not part of the environmental feedback path. I find
this very strange. Perhaps we can limit this part of the discussion
to that one point.

RM: I said that? If so, maybe I was referring to the outputs from a higher level system in a control hierarchy that contribute to the references for lower level control systems. The outputs of the lowest level control systems – the outputs that drive the muscles and glands – are definitely part of the environmental feedback function…

MT: My question now is what parts of the connection between output and

perceptual input of any one elementary control unit you consider to
be part of its environmental feedback path, what parts of the
connection you do not consider to be part of its environmental
feedback path, and why are those parts classified in one way rather
than the other?

RM: As I said above, the only outputs I consider to be part of the connection between output and controlled input are those that connect directly to the muscles and glands. I see why you could say that there is a hierarchy of control systems in the feedback path between a higher level system’s output and the perception controlled by that higher level system. But I would not count that hierarchy of control systems as part of the environmental feedback path. The only environmental feedback path, from my perspective, is the one that goes through the environment.

RM: Maybe my point can be made more clearly using a diagram, this one from Bill 4th Byte article.

What we have here is a two level control hierarchy controlling the perception of the forces exerted by the three muscles at the bottom of the diagram – the muscles being the environment of the control system. The top level systems are controlling the perception of the direction of force (force exerted by all three muscles in the X and Y direction) as well as the perception of the total force exerted by the muscles together (muscle tonus). They do this by varying the outputs they send to the lower level systems that are controlling the force generated by a muscle.

RM: Looking at just the top control system on the left, which happens to be controlling a perception of force exerted in the X direction, you would apparently say that the feedback function is everything between the output of that system and the perception of the direction of force that this system controls. So this would include the three lower level systems that are the means used by the X direction control system to control the direction of force; it would also include the muscles in the environment that convert the outputs of the lower level systems into the perceptual inputs controlled by both the lower systems and the higher level X direction control systems.

RM: Where we differ, apparently, is that you consider the lower level control systems to be part of the environmental feedback path connecting the output of the higher level X direction control system to its controlled input.I don’t because those systems are not in the environment. And also because any links that exist between output and input in an environmental feedback path cannot be varied by the system controlling that input; for example, the links between the forces exerted on the steering wheel and the direction of your car (and there are many) cannot be varied by the system steering the car. However, it is possible to vary the lower level control systems (in terms of the references for the perceptions they control) that are in the feedback path between a higher level system and the perception it controls.

RM: So the role of lower level systems in the feedback path between higher level system outputs and the perceptions they control is quite different than the role of the environmental components of that feedback path. Also, only the components of the environmental feedback path can be manipulated from outside the system. The control systems inside the organism that are part of the feedback path but not part of the environmental feedback path are not accessible from outside the system.

RM: So it seems to me that what you are calling “atenfels” may already exist in the PCT model as the lower level control systems that are the means by which higher levels systems achieve their goals. If this is true, then “atenfels” can be seen as components of the feedback path between a higher level system’s output and its controlled input. But they are not part of the environmental feedback function.

RM: If I have that wrong, perhaps you could use the diagram of the two level hierarchy above to show me where the atenfels are.

Best

Rick

Much seems to hinge on your answer, especially your reasons.



Martin


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

            MT: You say that you

do not like to think of the environmental feedback path
(EFP) of a control unit as including the parts of the
hierarchy below that control process.

          RM: Correct. I prefer to think of them as the variable

means that are used to control higher level perceptions.

            MT: For you the EFP

starts and ends at the organism’s skin, and in that
external part of the path between the unit’s output and
its input there exist no control processes or other
feedback loops – only passive physical connectors.

          RM: None that are part of the behaving system itself,

true.

            MT: To you,

apparently it matters not whether someone has stolen
your bicycle, because the environmental feedback
function involving walking or driving still allows you
to control your perception of location.

          RM: I think you see the bicycle as part of the

environmental feedback function that connects an actor’s
outputs to her perceptual goal – her destination. I see
the bicycle as a set of perceptual variables that, when
controlled properly, get the actor to her destination. For
example, one variable that must be controlled is the
forward movement of the bike. This variable is controlled
by means of controlling for rotation of the pedals and for
a balanced bike (among other things). The pedals are
rotated by exerting the appropriate forces on them. The
force required to produce the perception of rotation
depends on the physical laws (the feedback function) that
relate the force applied to the pedals to the perception
of pedal movement. At a higher level, the perception of
forward movement depends on the physical laws (the
feedback function) that relate pedal rotation rate to the
perception of forward motion.

          RM: Stealing a bike certainly removes the feedback

functions, such as those mentioned above – between output
force and pedal movement and between pedal movement and
forward movement of the bike. But I see the loss of the
feedback functions as resulting from the loss of variables
to control. Stealing the bike seems to me to be a
disturbance - a pretty overwhelming one – to the
variables you control when riding the bike to a
destination; those variables – pedal rotation, balance,
forward motion – are no longer there for you to control
(except in imagination). So there is no longer a physical
feedback connection between your output (force applied to
the no longer present pedals) and those perceptual
variables.

          RM: So I see stealing a bike as an example of an

interpersonal conflict, where two people (the thief and
the owner) want the same variables (the variable aspects
of the bike) in different reference states. I think the
existing PCT model, sans atenfels, can handle this kind of
social interaction just fine.

          RM: I think it is far more important (and productive)

to test to see how well the existing PCT model can explain
data, such as data on interpersonal interactions, before
inventing new theoretical constructs to explain anecdotes.
And in order to do this you have to collect data to test
the model against.

Best

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