···
From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 11:15 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The “FIT” between PCT and my expressions of it
[Rick Marken 2019-01-23_14:12:51]
[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.01.23 1208 EST)]
EJ: Along the same lines with considering the Results of action… I like your term “Achievement Path.”
RM: Your point about the “achievement path” being a sequence of intended results of action is a good one. This has to be the case because unpredictable disturbances can affect the results of action at each point in sequence. So the “achievement path” is a sequences of controlled results; and these results have to be carried out in a particular sequence – or according to a particular program – so the achievement path itself is a controlled result – the result being a particular sequence or program. Of course, controlled results are controlled perceptions so an achievement path is a controlled sequence or program perception (when it is being carried out; when it is being planned it is a controlled imagination).
HB : So do I understand right that “Achievement path” is inside organism as consequence of inside control in organism ?
EJ: However, I’d be inclined to call the whole loop The Achievement Path, rather than just the Feedback Function portion.
RM: Well, it’s definitely not a feedback function because, as you note, there are controlled results to be produced at each step of the way to the “target” result. There are no controllable components in feedback paths. But it doesn’t make sense to me to call the “achievement path” the “whole loop”.
HB : Well I have to agree with you if I understood right.
RM : Based on your insight about the intermediate steps in the path being themselves controlled results and my observation that the path itself is a controlled result, it seems to me that the most sensible thing is to view the “achievement path” as a controlled sequence (or program) perception that is achieved by controlling lower order perceptions that make up the path in the appropriate sequence (or according to the appropriate program).
HB : I think i already agreed about this one with you, But I still don’t understand why just “control of sequence”. Does that mean that higher level references are fixed ?
EJ: At the risk of wading into soupy CSGnet waters here, let me say a word about terminology. As others have pointed out, you show your Target Variable out in the environment, and by my reading of PCT it is only one’s perception of the target variable that gets controlled.
RM: I think Fred’s “Target Variable” is analogous to the “Controlled Variable” or “Controlled Quantity” in PCT diagrams and that variable is always shown to be in the environment.
HB : I’m sorry Rick. You were doing it reall fine, but I can’t see that in Bills definitions or his diagram is roel of “controlled Quantity” you mentioned ??? “Controlled quantity” is not in “outer environment” but it is inside organism.
Bill P (B:CP):
The controlled quantity is defined strictly by the behaving system’s perceptual computers; it may or may not be identifiable as an objective (need I put in quotes?) property of, or entity in, the physical environment. In general an observer will not, therefore, be able to see what a control system is controlling
Bill P (B:CP) :
The TCV is method for identifying control organization of nervous system….
There will be ambiguous cases : the disturbance may be only weakly opposed. That effect could be due not to poor control system but to a definition of actions that are only remotely linked to the actual controlled quantity.
For example : if when you open the window I sometimes get up and close it, you might conclude that I am controlling the position of the window when in fact I only shut it if the room gets too chilly to suit me. I could be controlling sensed temperature very precisely, when necesarry, but by a variety of means : shutting the window, turning up the termostat, putting on a sweater, or exercising. You are on the track of the right controlled quantity, but haven’t got the right definition yet. It is safest to assume that an ambiguous result from TCV is the fault of the hypotehsis and to continue looking for a better definition of the controlled quantity
RM : And it is controlled right along with the perceptual signal.
HB : If you mean that “Controlled Quantity” is “controlled” along only with the “outiside” perceptual signal then it’s not necesary. There are many actions that don’t produce perceptions with any “controlled quantity”. What you are saying is not general. But “controlled quantity” is always produced through inside effectors and perception. Organisms control in internal environment 24/7 and in external from time to time. How can I persuade you that “control” is not happening outside but inside organism. Why don’t you want to except basic definition of control and make statements in accordance with it ?
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
RM : The problem with Fred’s diagram is not that the Target Variable is in the environment; the problem is that the main Target Variable is actually the “achievement path” itself.
HB : Sorry I don’t understand.
Boris
Best
Rick
If we hold firmly to that PCT insight, there’s a nice little pay-off. It immediately reminds us that of course each worker may have their own perception of the company’s target variable. In other words, there’s a need to try to communicate a common reference standard for the target. It is a coordinated venture, among many living control systems, subject to all the limitations of misalignment of goals and misdirected gain. Because it is that coordinated and communicative enterprise, however, I support your use of an environmental “Target Variable” term. It suits your audience.
All the best,
Erling
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1207 ET)
Fascinating choice of words, Erling. Moments before I received notice of your post, I changed the annotations on the Output Function to read “Contemplating, Considering, Committing” Great minds think alike.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:57 AM Erling Jorgensen EJorgensen@riverbendcmhc.org wrote:
[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.01.23 1134 EST)]
Fred Nickols (2019.01.23.1014 ET
Hi Fred. I’ve been following the discussion about your FIT diagram. Just a quick comment below.
FN: I do think that we human beings give conscious thought to some of the actions we contemplate; I know for a fact that I do. I have conversations with myself. I also have conversations with others as I try to commit to a course of action.
EJ: I think some of the difficulty comes from the language we find ourselves using. For instance, “actions we contemplate.” I’m not sure that I contemplate actions so much as outcomes. There are certain results that I might want, and the actions are just the place to start for getting there.
EJ: That’s the piece I keep having to remind myself when PCT speaks of actions or behaviors. It’s not so much about the verb, as the outcome of the verb. It’s really “a course of results” that I contemplate and commit to. But, of course, that sounds so much more stilted than calling it “a course of action.”
All the best,
Erling
Confidentiality: * This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*
Please also note: * Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.*
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
. Well I’m sure you already knew that. Why Rick and not Bill is right ? Their theories are so different that there couldn’t be any mistakes. One of them has to be right.