Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

[Martin Taylor 2014.12.12.23.33]

[From Rick Marken (2014.12.12.1300)]

RM: The problem with this discussion of control of behavior is that aome people have been using PCT in a most unusual way: to explain away rather than explain the phenomenon (fact) of control of behavior.

I take it that this is aimed at my insistence on the idea that control is of the variable that is directly compared with a reference value, namely the perception in PCT or the "output" in classical control theory.

But I suppose it depends on what you mean by "fact" "theory" and "control". With appropriate choice of meanings, I suppose you can talk about "the fact of control" of some environmental variable. For example, you could define an environmental variable to be "controlled" if and only if it varies less under the influence of a disturbance than it "should" (presumably according to some theory about the variable's responses to the disturbance). If you did that, then of course you can control any kind of variable observable by someone who cares to measure the variable and the disturbance, and has a viable theory about how the disturbance "should" affect the variable.

I prefer, and this is just a personal preference, to treat "control" in a more technical sense. Somewhere there is a reference value and a variable that is kept near the reference value despite other influences on that variable, which is said to be controlled. I'm going to call that variable the CV.

Maybe the CV and its reference value are observable, maybe they aren't, but that's irrelevant as to what is actually controlled. If they are, the observer has a good chance to claim observation of "the fact of control".

More often, as in what Rick is talking about as being "explained away", an observer can see something in the environment that appears to be being influenced by some effect, but that is not being affected as much as the apparent influence would seem likely to do. The observer sees nothing that might be a reference value for the thing tha doesn't change "enough", but anyway, the observer has this theory about how much it "should" change if the theory is correct, and if it doesn't then the "fact of control" is being observed.

Now in the _theory_ of perceptual control, the CV is not observable, being inside someone's head, and using the _theory_ of perceptual control, Powers devised a "Test for the Controlled variable" (TCV) to see if the CV or something like it could be figured out using the observation of "the fact of control".

The TCV is simple, but subtle. First, the tester must make a guess about what is being controlled, and what in the environment corresponds to it (this is the putative Complex Environmental Variable, or CEV. Next, the tester must determine whether the probable controller can sense what is necessary if control of the candidate CV is responsible for the effects observed. Next, the tester must determine whether the probable controller could influence the environmental variable that is being observed. Finally, the tester applies an influence (a disturbance) to the candidate CEV, and to various other possible candidate CEVs, and sees which one is least influenced as compared to the amount it would be influenced if it were not being controlled. That one is provisionally taken to correspond to the CV being sought.

The TCV never assumes that the CEV is being controlled. Sometimes, as in some of Rick's demos, there is a clear choice among discrete possibilities (which of these three cars, for example), but often there is not, and Rick has a demo of that too, where the question is whether control is of X+Y, X*Y, or some other function (undefined) of X and Y, when a subject controls size. The outside observer can see the CEV, but unless the outside observer can also see the reference value and the comparison mechanism, the CV is hidden and can be approximated or selected only by use of the TCV.

As Bill Powers as fond of saying, the only fact we have without theory are our direct perceptions. All other facts depend on theory, and that includes "the fact of control", even if it is the subtitle of LCS III.

Martin

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that 'control' can be used EITHER in a looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any variable AND within a PCT model as the control of perception, then won't our discussions be simpler? I think that the PCT model will reveal that perception (when accurately identified) is typically controlled more successfully than the control of other variables. The main challenge for this is that the controlled perceptual variable can only ever be inferred, not measured directly in the environment. So model building will be essential.
I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this discussion if one accepts this dual definition of control.
Any thoughts?
Warren

···

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

has

Warren,

It's good that you are a friend of Rick :). We all want to be. If you show
me, how you directly access to the variables in outer environment, than we
can accept dual control. But since perception is the only way to know what
is happening in any environment, there is only one control : Control of
perception. Perception is all there is. Shut all your senses and try to live
?

Best,

Boris

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:27 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that 'control' can be used EITHER in a
looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any variable AND within
a PCT model as the control of perception, then won't our discussions be
simpler? I think that the PCT model will reveal that perception (when
accurately identified) is typically controlled more successfully than the
control of other variables. The main challenge for this is that the
controlled perceptual variable can only ever be inferred, not measured
directly in the environment. So model building will be essential.
I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this discussion if
one accepts this dual definition of control.
Any thoughts?
Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

has

Hi Boris, I agree that we each control our perception, but as a happy side effect we control all kinds of aspects of our environment. If we didn't, with no food, no shelter, we would die, as simple as that.
Warren

···

On 13 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Warren,

It's good that you are a friend of Rick :). We all want to be. If you show
me, how you directly access to the variables in outer environment, than we
can accept dual control. But since perception is the only way to know what
is happening in any environment, there is only one control : Control of
perception. Perception is all there is. Shut all your senses and try to live
?

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:27 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that 'control' can be used EITHER in a
looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any variable AND within
a PCT model as the control of perception, then won't our discussions be
simpler? I think that the PCT model will reveal that perception (when
accurately identified) is typically controlled more successfully than the
control of other variables. The main challenge for this is that the
controlled perceptual variable can only ever be inferred, not measured
directly in the environment. So model building will be essential.
I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this discussion if
one accepts this dual definition of control.
Any thoughts?
Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet >> Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

has

[From Rick Marken (2014.12.13.1150)]

···

Martin Taylor (2014.12.12.23.33)–

RM: The problem with this discussion of control of behavior is that some people have been using PCT in a most unusual way: to explain away rather than explain the phenomenon (fact) of control of behavior.

MT: I take it that this is aimed at my insistence on the idea that control is of the variable that is directly compared with a reference value, namely the perception in PCT or the “output” in classical control theory.

RM: Actually, no, I wasn’t thinking of you in particular when I wrote that. I think confusion about fact and theory afflicts everyone involved in discussions on CSGNet (and I don’t exempt myself).

MT: But I suppose it depends on what you mean by “fact” “theory” and “control”. With appropriate choice of meanings, I suppose you can talk about “the fact of control” of some environmental variable. For example, you could define an environmental variable to be “controlled” if and only if it varies less under the influence of a disturbance than it “should” (presumably according to some theory about the variable’s responses to the disturbance).

RM: Yes, this is the fact of control.

MT: I prefer, and this is just a personal preference, to treat “control” in a more technical sense. Somewhere there is a reference value and a variable that is kept near the reference value despite other influences on that variable, which is said to be controlled. I’m going to call that variable the CV.

RM: I would call that a theory of control, not a more technical sense of control.

MT: Maybe the CV and its reference value are observable, maybe they aren’t, but that’s irrelevant as to what is actually controlled. If they are, the observer has a good chance to claim observation of “the fact of control”.

RM: A CV is an aspect of the environment that is under control. In theory it exists as a perceptual signal in the controlling system. But because a CV exists as an aspect of the environment of both the controlling system and observers of that system it is, in principle, always observable. It may not be directly observable via the perceptual systems of a human observer (such as the high frequency auditory echo signals that are the CV of bats) but humans have been able to develop technologies that make it possible to perceive what they are unable to perceive via their natural perceptual equipment.

MT: More often, as in what Rick is talking about as being “explained away”, an observer can see something in the environment that appears to be being influenced by some effect, but that is not being affected as much as the apparent influence would seem likely to do. The observer sees nothing that might be a reference value for the thing tha doesn’t change “enough”, but anyway, the observer has this theory about how much it “should” change if the theory is correct, and if it doesn’t then the “fact of control” is being observed.

RM: I think what you are saying is that we can observe some variable that seems to be under control but is actually not. I think this is a good point and I discuss it in more detail in my paper for LCS IV. I do it in terms of a balancing robot. You can see that the robot is controlling for being balanced (the apparent CV) by varying it’s movements (outputs). But it’s difficult to see what aspect of the robot’s environment is actually being controlled. This is where the TCV comes in.

RM: The TCV is a scientific method of getting a more precise definition of the CV. In the case of the robot, you want a definition of the CV that is more precise than “balance”; what you are doing is trying to come up with a precise, mathematical definition of the perception the robot is controlling in terms of your own perception of what the robot might be controlling. Actually, I do this in Ch. 4 of “Doing Research on Purpose” where I show how a model-based version of the TCV can provide a more precise, mathematical definition of the variable under control in a tracking task than “the distance between target and cursor”, which is the apparent CV based on casual observation.

RM: But even though casual observation will not necessarily reveal the CV that is actually under control, it will reveal that some variable is under control and the variable that is actually under control will certainly be very closely related to the variable that appears to be under control based on casual observation. So observation of the robot shows that “balance” is under control; but what exactly is the perceptual aspect of the environment that is actually being controlled – variables such as visual alignment with upright, orientation relative to gyroscopic vertical, etc – must be determined by the TCV.

MT; Now in the theory of perceptual control, the CV is not observable,

RM: The CV is not directly observable by looking into a person’s head, of course. But as I said above, the aspect of the environment that is the correlate of the CV (the variable called q.i in diagrams of a control system) can be perceived by the observer; the TCV allows the observer to verify that his perception of q.i, the CV, corresponds to the controller’s perception. So in this sense the CV is definitely observable. If CV’s were not observable then there would be no point to having a science aimed at understanding the behavior of living control systems since the behavior of living control systems is organized around the variables they control: CVs. So knowing what CVs an organism is controlling is central to understanding the behavior of a living control system.

MT: The TCV is simple, but subtle. First, the tester must make a guess about what is being controlled, and what in the environment corresponds to it (this is the putative Complex Environmental Variable, or CEV. Next, the tester must determine whether the probable controller can sense what is necessary if control of the candidate CV is responsible for the effects observed. Next, the tester must determine whether the probable controller could influence the environmental variable that is being observed. Finally, the tester applies an influence (a disturbance) to the candidate CEV, and to various other possible candidate CEVs, and sees which one is least influenced as compared to the amount it would be influenced if it were not being controlled. That one is provisionally taken to correspond to the CV being sought.

RM: Exactly right! Your CEV is exactly equivalent to q.o, which is the CV.

MT: The TCV never assumes that the CEV is being controlled.

RM: Actually, that’s exactly what it assumes.

MT: Sometimes, as in some of Rick’s demos, there is a clear choice among discrete possibilities (which of these three cars, for example), but often there is not, and Rick has a demo of that too, where the question is whether control is of X+Y, X*Y, or some other function (undefined) of X and Y, when a subject controls size. The outside observer can see the CEV, but unless the outside observer can also see the reference value and the comparison mechanism, the CV is hidden and can be approximated or selected only by use of the TCV.

RM: When the outside observer sees what you call the CEV he is, for all intents and purposes, seeing the CV – the perception that the controller is controlling.

MT: As Bill Powers as fond of saying, the only fact we have without theory are our direct perceptions.

RM: That’s right. And the observer’s direct perceptions of the behavior of a living control system are the facts explained by the theory of control: PCT.

MT: All other facts depend on theory, and that includes “the fact of control”, even if it is the subtitle of LCS III.

RM: Now you’ve gone in a circle. If, as Bill says (and I agree) the only facts we have are our perceptions then there are no other facts than what we perceive. So there are no “other” facts that depend on theory; all facts that depend on perception, not theory. Control is a fact because we perceive it. It is a fact that (like all facts) is explained by theory. It is certainly not a fact that depends on theory; there is no such thing.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

In nature there’s no blemish but the mind

None can be called deformed but the unkind.

Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

Hi Warren,

You said it right it's just "side effect" of control. It's means of control.
Perception is controlled...

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:13 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

WM :
Hi Boris, I agree that we each control our perception, but as a happy side
effect we control all kinds of aspects of our environment.

HB :
Do you see here two control process ? I see only one. Control of
perception...and side effects (means of control).

WM :
...If we didn't, with no food, no shelter, we would die, as simple as that.

HB :
You get everything what you need with "control of perception". There is no
other control process. Simple as that...

Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Warren,

It's good that you are a friend of Rick :). We all want to be. If you
show me, how you directly access to the variables in outer
environment, than we can accept dual control. But since perception is
the only way to know what is happening in any environment, there is
only one control : Control of perception. Perception is all there is.
Shut all your senses and try to live ?

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:27 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that 'control' can be used EITHER
in a looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any variable
AND within a PCT model as the control of perception, then won't our
discussions be simpler? I think that the PCT model will reveal that
perception (when accurately identified) is typically controlled more
successfully than the control of other variables. The main challenge
for this is that the controlled perceptual variable can only ever be
inferred, not measured directly in the environment. So model building will

be essential.

I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this
discussion if one accepts this dual definition of control.
Any thoughts?
Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via >>> csgnet >> Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

has

Hi Boris, and Martin,
I am thinking there are multiple explanations over different timescales that we may be missing.
Within the loop of a perceptual control system, the environment is the means for perceptual control. As a consequence I would assume the environment will be stabilised to a certain extent during this process.
In addition, perceptual control systems are reorganised to the extent that they lead to states that deviate from intrinsic reference values. I understand Bill as saying these are states critical for survival such as blood glucose levels for example. It is deviations from these states that drive the leading of functions and other parameters within a perpetual control system. My opinion is that these states need to be objectively controlled for survival. It is the actual blood glucose level that affects the metabolism not the perceived level, even though it is the perceived level that drives reorganisation. Evolution acts on actual survival, not perceived chances of survival.
This dialogue reminds me of Bill's early inventions. He developed a control system that could judge the accuracy of a ray to trace the shape of a light grating to an impressive level of definition. That system worked to control its own input, but that meant nothing to its human users. Only the controlled results in the environment - the highly accurate light gratings - were important.
I just can't see any problem with systems that control their input also controlling objective aspects of their internal and external environment in the process. Like Rick I would rather save the term control for the control of any variable as a phenomenon that is measurable, and save control of perception as the theoretical model (PCT). Not only do I think this is correct but it then allows us to compare theories attempting to explain the same agreed phenomenon.
Any thoughts?
Warren

···

On 14 Dec 2014, at 06:27, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Hi Warren,

You said it right it's just "side effect" of control. It's means of control.
Perception is controlled...

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:13 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

WM :
Hi Boris, I agree that we each control our perception, but as a happy side
effect we control all kinds of aspects of our environment.

HB :
Do you see here two control process ? I see only one. Control of
perception...and side effects (means of control).

WM :
...If we didn't, with no food, no shelter, we would die, as simple as that.

HB :
You get everything what you need with "control of perception". There is no
other control process. Simple as that...

Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via >> csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Warren,

It's good that you are a friend of Rick :). We all want to be. If you
show me, how you directly access to the variables in outer
environment, than we can accept dual control. But since perception is
the only way to know what is happening in any environment, there is
only one control : Control of perception. Perception is all there is.
Shut all your senses and try to live ?

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:27 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that 'control' can be used EITHER
in a looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any variable
AND within a PCT model as the control of perception, then won't our
discussions be simpler? I think that the PCT model will reveal that
perception (when accurately identified) is typically controlled more
successfully than the control of other variables. The main challenge
for this is that the controlled perceptual variable can only ever be
inferred, not measured directly in the environment. So model building will

be essential.

I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this
discussion if one accepts this dual definition of control.
Any thoughts?
Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via >>>> csgnet >>> Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

has

Hi Warren,

I always considered you as gentlmen. But with protecting Rick, you are not
doing any favour to him or PCT. If you'll insist I'll answer your questions
and explanations. But as you directly adress your post to me and Martin, I'd
advise that if you want to talk about the model of inside structure of
living beings, that we move to ECACS. There Martin is moderator and he never
threatend me that he will delete me from ECACS although I "behaved"
sometimes emotional.

I started to feel very uncomfortable and unwanted here on CSGnet...So think
about...:slight_smile:

Best,

Boris

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:15 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi Boris, and Martin,
I am thinking there are multiple explanations over different timescales that
we may be missing.
Within the loop of a perceptual control system, the environment is the means
for perceptual control. As a consequence I would assume the environment will
be stabilised to a certain extent during this process.
In addition, perceptual control systems are reorganised to the extent that
they lead to states that deviate from intrinsic reference values. I
understand Bill as saying these are states critical for survival such as
blood glucose levels for example. It is deviations from these states that
drive the leading of functions and other parameters within a perpetual
control system. My opinion is that these states need to be objectively
controlled for survival. It is the actual blood glucose level that affects
the metabolism not the perceived level, even though it is the perceived
level that drives reorganisation. Evolution acts on actual survival, not
perceived chances of survival.
This dialogue reminds me of Bill's early inventions. He developed a control
system that could judge the accuracy of a ray to trace the shape of a light
grating to an impressive level of definition. That system worked to control
its own input, but that meant nothing to its human users. Only the
controlled results in the environment - the highly accurate light gratings -
were important.
I just can't see any problem with systems that control their input also
controlling objective aspects of their internal and external environment in
the process. Like Rick I would rather save the term control for the control
of any variable as a phenomenon that is measurable, and save control of
perception as the theoretical model (PCT). Not only do I think this is
correct but it then allows us to compare theories attempting to explain the
same agreed phenomenon.
Any thoughts?
Warren

On 14 Dec 2014, at 06:27, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Hi Warren,

You said it right it's just "side effect" of control. It's means of

control.

Perception is controlled...

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:13 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

WM :
Hi Boris, I agree that we each control our perception, but as a happy
side effect we control all kinds of aspects of our environment.

HB :
Do you see here two control process ? I see only one. Control of
perception...and side effects (means of control).

WM :
...If we didn't, with no food, no shelter, we would die, as simple as

that.

HB :
You get everything what you need with "control of perception". There
is no other control process. Simple as that...

Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net >>> via >> csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Warren,

It's good that you are a friend of Rick :). We all want to be. If you
show me, how you directly access to the variables in outer
environment, than we can accept dual control. But since perception is
the only way to know what is happening in any environment, there is
only one control : Control of perception. Perception is all there is.
Shut all your senses and try to live ?

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:27 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that 'control' can be used
EITHER in a looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any
variable AND within a PCT model as the control of perception, then
won't our discussions be simpler? I think that the PCT model will
reveal that perception (when accurately identified) is typically
controlled more successfully than the control of other variables. The
main challenge for this is that the controlled perceptual variable
can only ever be inferred, not measured directly in the environment.
So model building will

be essential.

I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this
discussion if one accepts this dual definition of control.
Any thoughts?
Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via >>>> csgnet >>> Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

has

Hi Boris, I am not trying to protect Rick at all. I am sure he can look after himself! I am just trying to express a side of the debate that I feel reflects where I stand, and it happens to overlap with Rick’s this time round!
So, let’s return to discussing it…

Warren

···

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:34 AM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Warren,

I always considered you as gentlmen. But with protecting Rick, you are not

doing any favour to him or PCT. If you’ll insist I’ll answer your questions

and explanations. But as you directly adress your post to me and Martin, I’d

advise that if you want to talk about the model of inside structure of

living beings, that we move to ECACS. There Martin is moderator and he never

threatend me that he will delete me from ECACS although I “behaved”

sometimes emotional.

I started to feel very uncomfortable and unwanted here on CSGnet…So think

about…:slight_smile:

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:15 PM

To: boris.hartman@masicom.net

Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi Boris, and Martin,

I am thinking there are multiple explanations over different timescales that

we may be missing.

Within the loop of a perceptual control system, the environment is the means

for perceptual control. As a consequence I would assume the environment will

be stabilised to a certain extent during this process.

In addition, perceptual control systems are reorganised to the extent that

they lead to states that deviate from intrinsic reference values. I

understand Bill as saying these are states critical for survival such as

blood glucose levels for example. It is deviations from these states that

drive the leading of functions and other parameters within a perpetual

control system. My opinion is that these states need to be objectively

controlled for survival. It is the actual blood glucose level that affects

the metabolism not the perceived level, even though it is the perceived

level that drives reorganisation. Evolution acts on actual survival, not

perceived chances of survival.

This dialogue reminds me of Bill’s early inventions. He developed a control

system that could judge the accuracy of a ray to trace the shape of a light

grating to an impressive level of definition. That system worked to control

its own input, but that meant nothing to its human users. Only the

controlled results in the environment - the highly accurate light gratings -

were important.

I just can’t see any problem with systems that control their input also

controlling objective aspects of their internal and external environment in

the process. Like Rick I would rather save the term control for the control

of any variable as a phenomenon that is measurable, and save control of

perception as the theoretical model (PCT). Not only do I think this is

correct but it then allows us to compare theories attempting to explain the

same agreed phenomenon.

Any thoughts?

Warren

On 14 Dec 2014, at 06:27, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via

csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Hi Warren,

You said it right it’s just “side effect” of control. It’s means of

control.

Perception is controlled…

-----Original Message-----

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:13 PM

To: boris.hartman@masicom.net

Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

WM :

Hi Boris, I agree that we each control our perception, but as a happy

side effect we control all kinds of aspects of our environment.

HB :

Do you see here two control process ? I see only one. Control of

perception…and side effects (means of control).

WM :

…If we didn’t, with no food, no shelter, we would die, as simple as

that.

HB :

You get everything what you need with “control of perception”. There

is no other control process. Simple as that…

Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net

via

csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Warren,

It’s good that you are a friend of Rick :). We all want to be. If you

show me, how you directly access to the variables in outer

environment, than we can accept dual control. But since perception is

the only way to know what is happening in any environment, there is

only one control : Control of perception. Perception is all there is.

Shut all your senses and try to live ?

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----

From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)

[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:27 AM

To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net

Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that ‘control’ can be used

EITHER in a looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any

variable AND within a PCT model as the control of perception, then

won’t our discussions be simpler? I think that the PCT model will

reveal that perception (when accurately identified) is typically

controlled more successfully than the control of other variables. The

main challenge for this is that the controlled perceptual variable

can only ever be inferred, not measured directly in the environment.

So model building will

be essential.

I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this

discussion if one accepts this dual definition of control.

Any thoughts?

Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via

csgnet

Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

has

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

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

Hi Warren

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:15 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi Boris, and Martin,
I am thinking there are multiple explanations over different timescales that
we may be missing.

HB :
Could be, But for now there seems to be nothing missing if Bill is talking
about the "Fact of Control".

WM :
Within the loop of a perceptual control system, the environment is the means
for perceptual control. As a consequence I would assume the environment will
be stabilised to a certain extent during this process.

HB :
Which loop you have in mind and which environment ? Can you explain what you
mean with " the environment is the means for perceptual control" ?

WM :
In addition, perceptual control systems are reorganised to the extent that
they lead to states that deviate from intrinsic reference values.

HB :
You mean the LCS is reorganizing to the extent that lead to the state that
is minimaly deviating from intrinic reference level ot we could say that
"essential variables" are in physiological limits (intrinsic reference
values). That's how organism survive. Or what did you mean ?

WM :
I understand Bill as saying these are states critical for survival such as
blood glucose levels for example. It is deviations from these states that
drive the leading of functions and other parameters within a perpetual
control system.

HB :
You are using odd terminology. What do you meant with "states critical for
survival" ? What menas "leading of functions and other parameters" ?

WM :
My opinion is that these states need to be objectively controlled for
survival. It is the actual blood glucose level that affects the metabolism
not the perceived level, even though it is the perceived level that drives
reorganisation.

HB :
I don't understand this one.

WM :
Evolution acts on actual survival, not perceived chances of survival.

HB :
Sorry I can't get this one either. Evolution is not acting on anything.
Organisms with developed "perceptual control" survived "time scale" starting
from about 5 bilion years ago.
But I don't understand what you mean by "perceived" chances for survival".
You think that somebody is perceived chances for survival (God for example)
? Evrything what you said Warren has no sense to me. Maybe I don't
understand language well :slight_smile:

WM :
This dialogue reminds me of Bill's early inventions. He developed a control
system that could judge the accuracy of a ray to trace the shape of a light
grating to an impressive level of definition. That system worked to control
its own input, but that meant nothing to its human users. Only the
controlled results in the environment - the highly accurate light gratings -
were important.

HB :
Sorry Warren I must have a really bad day. How is this connected to LCS and
"Control of perception" ?

WM :
I just can't see any problem with systems that control their input also
controlling objective aspects of their internal and external environment in
the process. Like Rick I would rather save the term control for the control
of any variable as a phenomenon that is measurable, and save control of
perception as the theoretical model (PCT).

HB :
I still don't understand what you mean with "systems that control their
input also controling objective aspects of environment" ? Do you think that
there are two control processes or there is one control process with
"effects on environment" ? If you think that there are two control
processes, one is "control of input" and other is "controlling objective
aspect of environment" than I can't agree with you ? I don't know for sure
what you want to say, as I don't understand clearly. But "controlling
objective aspect environment" - you probably meant "controlled variable"-
can't be done with "control of behavior" ? Is there any other control
process that you have in mind ?

I see the main problem in question, how can you know anything about
"controlling objective aspect of environment" if you don't perceive what is
happening in environment ? Problem is that you can't say anything about
"controlling aspects of internal and external environment" if you don't
percive it, or somebody who perceived it told you about it. Is there any
other way how can you control "objective aspect"of environment" ? What is
"objective aspect" of environment for you ?

WM :
Not only do I think this is correct but it then allows us to compare
theories attempting to explain the same agreed phenomenon.

HB :
You have all rights to beleive that this is correct. But I think it's wrong.

Any thoughts?

Boris

Warren

On 14 Dec 2014, at 06:27, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Hi Warren,

You said it right it's just "side effect" of control. It's means of

control.

Perception is controlled...

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:13 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

WM :
Hi Boris, I agree that we each control our perception, but as a happy
side effect we control all kinds of aspects of our environment.

HB :
Do you see here two control process ? I see only one. Control of
perception...and side effects (means of control).

WM :
...If we didn't, with no food, no shelter, we would die, as simple as

that.

HB :
You get everything what you need with "control of perception". There
is no other control process. Simple as that...

Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net >>> via >> csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Warren,

It's good that you are a friend of Rick :). We all want to be. If you
show me, how you directly access to the variables in outer
environment, than we can accept dual control. But since perception is
the only way to know what is happening in any environment, there is
only one control : Control of perception. Perception is all there is.
Shut all your senses and try to live ?

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:27 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that 'control' can be used
EITHER in a looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any
variable AND within a PCT model as the control of perception, then
won't our discussions be simpler? I think that the PCT model will
reveal that perception (when accurately identified) is typically
controlled more successfully than the control of other variables. The
main challenge for this is that the controlled perceptual variable
can only ever be inferred, not measured directly in the environment.
So model building will

be essential.

I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this
discussion if one accepts this dual definition of control.
Any thoughts?
Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via >>>> csgnet >>> Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

has

Hi Boris, I do think I explained myself OK originally. Are other people having problems understanding my last post?
Warren

···

On 15 Dec 2014, at 16:16, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Hi Warren

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:15 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi Boris, and Martin,
I am thinking there are multiple explanations over different timescales that
we may be missing.

HB :
Could be, But for now there seems to be nothing missing if Bill is talking
about the "Fact of Control".

WM :
Within the loop of a perceptual control system, the environment is the means
for perceptual control. As a consequence I would assume the environment will
be stabilised to a certain extent during this process.

HB :
Which loop you have in mind and which environment ? Can you explain what you
mean with " the environment is the means for perceptual control" ?

WM :
In addition, perceptual control systems are reorganised to the extent that
they lead to states that deviate from intrinsic reference values.

HB :
You mean the LCS is reorganizing to the extent that lead to the state that
is minimaly deviating from intrinic reference level ot we could say that
"essential variables" are in physiological limits (intrinsic reference
values). That's how organism survive. Or what did you mean ?

WM :
I understand Bill as saying these are states critical for survival such as
blood glucose levels for example. It is deviations from these states that
drive the leading of functions and other parameters within a perpetual
control system.

HB :
You are using odd terminology. What do you meant with "states critical for
survival" ? What menas "leading of functions and other parameters" ?

WM :
My opinion is that these states need to be objectively controlled for
survival. It is the actual blood glucose level that affects the metabolism
not the perceived level, even though it is the perceived level that drives
reorganisation.

HB :
I don't understand this one.

WM :
Evolution acts on actual survival, not perceived chances of survival.

HB :
Sorry I can't get this one either. Evolution is not acting on anything.
Organisms with developed "perceptual control" survived "time scale" starting
from about 5 bilion years ago.
But I don't understand what you mean by "perceived" chances for survival".
You think that somebody is perceived chances for survival (God for example)
? Evrything what you said Warren has no sense to me. Maybe I don't
understand language well :slight_smile:

WM :
This dialogue reminds me of Bill's early inventions. He developed a control
system that could judge the accuracy of a ray to trace the shape of a light
grating to an impressive level of definition. That system worked to control
its own input, but that meant nothing to its human users. Only the
controlled results in the environment - the highly accurate light gratings -
were important.

HB :
Sorry Warren I must have a really bad day. How is this connected to LCS and
"Control of perception" ?

WM :
I just can't see any problem with systems that control their input also
controlling objective aspects of their internal and external environment in
the process. Like Rick I would rather save the term control for the control
of any variable as a phenomenon that is measurable, and save control of
perception as the theoretical model (PCT).

HB :
I still don't understand what you mean with "systems that control their
input also controling objective aspects of environment" ? Do you think that
there are two control processes or there is one control process with
"effects on environment" ? If you think that there are two control
processes, one is "control of input" and other is "controlling objective
aspect of environment" than I can't agree with you ? I don't know for sure
what you want to say, as I don't understand clearly. But "controlling
objective aspect environment" - you probably meant "controlled variable"-
can't be done with "control of behavior" ? Is there any other control
process that you have in mind ?

I see the main problem in question, how can you know anything about
"controlling objective aspect of environment" if you don't perceive what is
happening in environment ? Problem is that you can't say anything about
"controlling aspects of internal and external environment" if you don't
percive it, or somebody who perceived it told you about it. Is there any
other way how can you control "objective aspect"of environment" ? What is
"objective aspect" of environment for you ?

WM :
Not only do I think this is correct but it then allows us to compare
theories attempting to explain the same agreed phenomenon.

HB :
You have all rights to beleive that this is correct. But I think it's wrong.

Any thoughts?

Boris

Warren

On 14 Dec 2014, at 06:27, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net via >> csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Hi Warren,

You said it right it's just "side effect" of control. It's means of

control.

Perception is controlled...

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:13 PM
To: boris.hartman@masicom.net
Cc: <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

WM :
Hi Boris, I agree that we each control our perception, but as a happy
side effect we control all kinds of aspects of our environment.

HB :
Do you see here two control process ? I see only one. Control of
perception...and side effects (means of control).

WM :
...If we didn't, with no food, no shelter, we would die, as simple as

that.

HB :
You get everything what you need with "control of perception". There
is no other control process. Simple as that...

Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 16:47, Boris Hartman (boris.hartman@masicom.net >>>> via >>> csgnet Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

Warren,

It's good that you are a friend of Rick :). We all want to be. If you
show me, how you directly access to the variables in outer
environment, than we can accept dual control. But since perception is
the only way to know what is happening in any environment, there is
only one control : Control of perception. Perception is all there is.
Shut all your senses and try to live ?

Best,

Boris

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Mansell (wmansell@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List)
[mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:27 AM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Theory and Fact (was Re: Back to Control of Behavior)

Hi, it seems that if we all accepted that 'control' can be used
EITHER in a looser way to describe the phenomenon of control of any
variable AND within a PCT model as the control of perception, then
won't our discussions be simpler? I think that the PCT model will
reveal that perception (when accurately identified) is typically
controlled more successfully than the control of other variables. The
main challenge for this is that the controlled perceptual variable
can only ever be inferred, not measured directly in the environment.
So model building will

be essential.

I actually think Martin and Rick are on the same page in this
discussion if one accepts this dual definition of control.
Any thoughts?
Warren

On 13 Dec 2014, at 05:11, Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via >>>>> csgnet >>>> Mailing List) <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu> wrote:

has