Incredibly good PCT thinking Eetu,
Both cases (sitting and thinking and sleeping) show that there is no »cannonical« control in inner and outer environment.
In the case of sitting and thinking in the chair (for example) we can make fatal mistake. Observer see that thinker is not controlling anything in the environment. So if he uses »canonical« control (to the extend that Thinker is controlling inside is also controlled outside) he went into »cannonical« trap. Because it is »reversable« relation we can conclude that if nothing is controled outside, also nothing is controlled inside. So »cannonical« conclusion (if we don’t properly use definition of PCT) is that Thinker is an empty »black box« as he is not controlling anything in internal environment to the extend that he is controlling outside.
The problem of this approach is that it is traying to conclude from one case of control (usualy tracking experiment) on all examples of possible behaviors. And most behaviors during a day in real reality does not fit into this model.
So I think that if we try to conclude from special cases in »cannonical« way will always lead us to new control theory or at least will not explain other behaviors. My oppinion is that Bill tryed to make general model which could explain all behaviors. And by my oppinion he succeded so I don’t see any obstacle why we shouldn’t use his model. My proposal through these years was diagram in LCS III and definitions in B:CP. Of course this is my interpretation of PCT which could be the bases for conversations on CSGnet.
I think that starting »stone« of wrong »cannonical« approach is Rick with his neverending analyses and wrong generalization on the basis of »tracking experiment«. It seems that this is the only thing he can do perfectly. It’s not wrong. Wrong is that he wanted to change on one case Bills’ general theory and that he tryed to persuade others that he is right with many manipulative means.
»Tracking experiment« can give a very strong ilussion of »cannonical« control in both environments because it is coming to such a precise result. But this is extreme case (0.99). That’s why ilussion is so strong. I think that in normal life situations nothing is »controlled« with such a high correlation so it’s right to talk about controlling in internal environment and affecting outer environment for the purposes of control in inner environment.Â
Instead of manipulating with Bills’ theory it would be better if he would make his own theory RCT as I proposed him many times (it’s in the archives) and he wouldn’t make such a mess and confussion on CSGnet.
All this was probably not necesary for doing it for years. I should probably explain to Rick how control loop really function in simple words. But he didn’t want to talk. He insulted me saying that he rather watch »football« than waste time with talking to me. And this is a mess he made on CSGnet in these years with his »stupidity« as he marked himself. I know that it’s also my fault, but I can’t go out of my skin.
So Rick was manipulating with all kinds of means among other are also »paranormal« conclussions. He probably noticed that »Qne-experimen« theory has holes which I showed him many times. So he started producing increadible constructs which should probably lower the gap between PCT and his »one-expriment« theory which I called RCT (Rick Control Theory).
Here is list of some »Paranormal control« nonsenses that Rick invented in his »RCT journey« through these years.
-
People control people all the ime
-
All events in control loop happen at the same time.
-
There is not only perception but also some »extrasensory perception«
-
There is always some »controlled variable« in environment of Living control system
-
Organisms are generaly protected from disturbances
-
To the extent that LCS controls inside it also controls outside.
-
Behavior is itself a controlled variable
-
There is some »Controlled Perceptual Variable«….
-
There are some »side effects« of output on »controlled variable« in external environment… So it seems that are some »controlledd effects« of output on CV and some »side« or noncontrolled effects on environment.
-
Rick has some Telepathic ability for reading people mind with TCV
-
There seems to be some »Third eye« or third »z control unit«, beside x and y (left and right eye), for analyzing objects moving in 3 D space (x,y,z). The case with toy helicopter. It seems that nervous system is functioning with independent control units only in 2-dimensions (x,y).
Ithink that Rick even wanted to change PCT diagram with inserting »controlled variable« into PCT diagram (he started immediatelly after Bill died but I stopped him) as he was affirming that it is ALWAYS CONTROLLED VARIABLE in outer environment of controlling person. That means that »controlled variable« has to be all the time in environment of LCS.
But it was clever move from Powers ladies when they decided that nothing will be changed in PCT. I hope that they will always stay on this view point no matter how hard will be preausre from Rick and his »servants«. There were also couple times tendencies that PCT would be changed into »selfregulation« theory. But Powers ladies decided right not to change it. There was also my contribution to that.
From Ricks’ point of veiw there were so many nonsense written here on CSGnet, that I doubt that ever anybody will take PCT seriously if he will go through archives. And we have to count here Ricks’ books and articles which are mostly based on »Behavior is control«, »controlled variable« in outer environment and so on.
I am warning CSGnet for years to what extend of possible »nonsense« can RCT push PCT, but nobody listened. Martin was the only support and Kent. So I was really shocked when Martin announced that RCT is in the game. But I beleive that was just temporarely. He is too good thinker to fall into Ricks’ RCT net.
I think personally that CSGnet should start operating also as educational forum for PCT. And first I think Powers ladies should hire a physiologist or better neurophysiologist od neuropsychologist like Henry Yin is who could explain the basics of nervous system functioning. I think that is a good way which could in many ways limit the imagination and abstract thinking, mathematical interpretations of living organisms functioning which lead to such an extreme manipulative example as Rick is. CSGnet forum has to be equiped with knowledge so that it could recognize nonsense when it appears.
And of course. One day mystery of diagram on p. 191. (B:CP, 2005) in Bill-Dags version has to be solved if PCT is to be completed.
Best,
Boris
···
From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 8:43 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: The speed�curvature power law of movements: a reappraisal
[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-11-02 9:24]
Good point, Boris!
I should have been stricter with my words. I have used to differentiate between external and internal action. The latter (for example thinking or dreaming) is not visible for an external observer and it does not affect any environmental variables outside the organism. Instead, the external action affects things in the external environment and it is especially this case that I have used to use the term “behavior� (i.e. observable action). So I think that if there is a case of external action / behavior (as there is if we are studying the movements of the subject) then the subject is controlling its certain perception(s) by affecting by its output some environmental correlates of those perceptions.
Eetu
Please, regard all my statements as questions,
no matter how they are formulated.
From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 8:38 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: The speed�curvature power law of movements: a reappraisal
Dear Eetu
From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 10:47 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: The speed�curvature power law of movements: a reappraisal
[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-11-01]
(at the risk to be ridiculed…)
I should be but as a humanist, I try not to be ashamed because of missing mathematical competence. I practice my understanding by composing a non-mathematical description of what is going on in this case of PCT and Power Law.
When a living being is producing a movement trajectory by moving itself (e.g. crawling) or its organs (e.g. hand in a drawing task) there seems to be a certain dependence between the curvature of the trajectory (proceeding straight or turning to some direction) and the speed/velocity (understood here as a moved distance along the trajectory during a time unit). The normal case is that the speed is stable on the straight line but it slows down in a curve.
Now the first question is why that slowdown in the curve takes place. The second question is why the dependence between curve and speed has those certain values, which have been observed in different situations. That latter question will be postponed.
EP : PCT view is generally that the behavior of an organism is that it controls its certain perception(s)
HB : Sorry Eetu to not agree with you. It’s not that behavior “controls perception� because behavior can’t be controlled. It just affects input generally. If you are sleeping how you are “controlling� perception with behavior ?
EP : ….by affecting by its outtput some environmental correlates of those perceptions.
HB : Output can affect some correlates of perception in environment, but it has nothing to do with control in environment. What correlate you are affecting in environment if you are observing. And what correlate you are affecting in environment if you are sitting and thinking ? You just affect input. That’s what “feedback� is.
Bill P (LCS III):
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
HB : You put it very efficiently what is important about PCT in other post :
Eetu earlier : I think that when I am telling about PCT it is generally best to start from the idea of self-preservation, that any organism - from the most simple to most complex - must control its intrinsic variables to stay alive. From that I can continue to interaction with environment, the must of affecting and stabilizing things in the environment. Only after that it is possible to start to compare organism to thermostat and draw technical diagrams. Thus it goes from soft and warm to hard and technical.
HB : It’s control in organism that is on first place and behavior just support to control in organism. That’s what Bills’ definition is talking about.
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.
HB : So you think right that what is important is preselected state in organism which includes »intrinsic variables«. Internal control is of most importance. What happens in outer environment is important but supporting to internal control. Behavior is »fired« from internal environment not external in accordance how internal environment is controlled. This is the function of internal and external effectors.
Best,
Boris
EP : So when an organism is moving it can be controlling for its distance from some object to be long (if the object is perceived as dangerous) or short (if the object is perceived as desirable). Any regularities of behavior are often assumed to be side effects of control. (Not side effects of observation.)
EP : At the moment I have no idea what the larvae are controlling in those experiments but introspectively I can imagine some possible perceptions I would control in a drawing task. First, I control seeing me a helpful aid in science making and being an obedient test subject and following to the rules. Then I would control to see the pen moving in a calm and nice way on the paper. At the same time, I control that the pen follows the guiding line as strictly as possible. I think that my output function is such that it is easier to follow a line with certain kind of curvature than with another kind. We humans get much practice to draw just certain kind of lines when we learn to draw and write. But there can also be some more general reasons why we use just those curves in our letters and typical drawings that we use. Anyway, it feels much more natural to draw a circle or looped circles than rounded polygons.
Therefore, the increased difficulty in controlling of the latter perception (following the line) would draw some effort away from the control of the first perception (keeping the steady or moderate speed). Or rather the slowing down the speed will make it easier to control the following the line. (A straight line is easier to draw with higher speed than very slowly.) So the slowdown could be a side effect of control. Perhaps something similar is going on with larvae? Is it easier for them to go straight forward? Is it an additional challenge to turn – to decide to turn and not to continue forward? Would the slowdown make it easier to control the perception of the new direction?
Is that at all where the PCT view of Power Law could begin?
Eetu
From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: 31. lokakuuta 2017 18:01
To: Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com; csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: The speed�curvature power law of movements: a reappraisal
regardless of your helicopter data and RCT mantras, it would be good if someone from CSGnet took seriously the challenge to PCT that the speed-curvature power law entails.
any figure panel of our paper proves rick’s mathematical claims wrong: the PL is not a must and when it takes place it is not trivial and can have different exponents.
now, how can “control of perception” explain that phenomenon? claiming it is an illusion because it does not fit in the dogma is like creationists insisting that dino fossils are bogus.
so, as adam and myself take this job seriously, and given how many optimal control and nonPCT theories explain the data, I think Bill would really find his edifice crumbling, or at least unable. so, take your best shot at it and really challenge your “revolutionary paradigm changing” theory of behavior.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 at 02:48, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.10.28.1745)
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:
attached
RM: Finally! Thank you, Alex. I hope the journal gives us an opportunity to respond. But for now I have only one word for you: helicopter movements. Oh, that’s two words But you know how bad I am at math;-)
Best
Rick
–
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
–
Alex Gomez-Marin
behavior-of-organisms.org