Thermodynamics

CSGnet Archive CSG2014
1

I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see how he did this?

2

[From Rick Marken (2014.08.15.1005)]

···

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see how he did this?

Hi Philip

I don’t remember Bill demonstrating anything of this kind. I think Martin Taylor is the person who has been most interested in the relationship between PCT and thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on this.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.

Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

3

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]

Since Philip has previously expressed disdain for normal Science, I

am disinclined to do so.
But if he is seriously interested, he can find the Int. J. Human
Computer Studies special issue on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the
Editorial.
Martin
PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from Philip:
--------Philip, message without ID header June 28 2014--------

···

[From Rick Marken (2014.08.15.1005)]

        On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM,

PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

            I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in

accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see
how he did this?

      Hi Philip

      I don't remember Bill demonstrating

anything of this kind. I think Martin Taylor is the person who
has been most interested in the relationship between PCT and
thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on this.

    Science does not create car and computer.  Logic

creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is
like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and
publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same
processes as science does, and science cannot define life
without realizing the concept of perceptual control system
organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It
takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only
left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask
why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to
associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it,
then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal
contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in
the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the
distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the
dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a
fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no
coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for
it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our
system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who
built the megalithic structures understood this and so they
built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system.
The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the
geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs
from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the
protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific
definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us,
perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally
prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between
psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be
of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the
humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized,
humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a
more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A
human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the
body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All
our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is
left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around
the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

    ---------- June 27--------

                  Everything in the universe,

matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A
sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See
Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the
elements have been mapped to these geometries. In
fact, the exact same geometric structures have
been observed at all ranges of the observable
universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena
to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of
galactic superclusters. …

                  So not to burst anybody's

bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science
in which everybody doesn’t know everything.
Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human
insect colony where everybody specializes because
they need to for the colony to survive.

                  -----------Earlier, quote by

Boris June 27--------

                        PJY

:

                      What does it matter if I

respect science?

                        HB

:

                        I

don’t understand how can you use something
that you are spiting on, to prove your
opinion about the source of references ?

                        Let

me repeat some sentences you used to express
your attitude to science :

  1.                    I'm sick of these new age

scientists trying to come up with stupid
adjectival juxtapositions to describe
something they hope exists.

  1.                    In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic

game called science,

  1.                    If you haven't figured it out yet,

scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream
chasers running after a science which has
gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of
pure math.

---------end quotes----------

4

Rick and I already know what I said; and If you want Rick to show you reports of enraged distainment I’ve expressed to him through personal correspendence, do not hesitate to let him know. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself, and stop archiving pointless correspondences.

Thank you for the article.

···

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]

    [From Rick Marken (2014.08.15.1005)]

Since Philip has previously expressed disdain for normal Science, I

am disinclined to do so.

But if he is seriously interested, he can find the Int. J. Human

Computer Studies special issue on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the
Editorial.

Martin



PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from Philip:



--------Philip, message without ID header June 28 2014--------
    Science does not create car and computer.  Logic

creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is
like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and
publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same
processes as science does, and science cannot define life
without realizing the concept of perceptual control system
organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It
takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only
left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask
why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to
associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it,
then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal
contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in
the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the
distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the
dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a
fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no
coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for
it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our
system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who
built the megalithic structures understood this and so they
built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system.
The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the
geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs
from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the
protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific
definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us,
perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally
prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between
psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be
of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the
humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized,
humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a
more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A
human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the
body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All
our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is
left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around
the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

        On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM,

PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

            I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in

accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see
how he did this?

      Hi Philip

      I don't remember Bill demonstrating

anything of this kind. I think Martin Taylor is the person who
has been most interested in the relationship between PCT and
thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on this.

    ---------- June 27--------

                  Everything in the universe,

matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A
sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See
Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the
elements have been mapped to these geometries. In
fact, the exact same geometric structures have
been observed at all ranges of the observable
universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena
to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of
galactic superclusters. …

                  So not to burst anybody's

bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science
in which everybody doesn’t know everything.
Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human
insect colony where everybody specializes because
they need to for the colony to survive.

                  -----------Earlier, quote by

Boris June 27--------

                        PJY

:

                      What does it matter if I

respect science?

                        HB

:

                        I

don’t understand how can you use something
that you are spiting on, to prove your
opinion about the source of references ?

                        Let

me repeat some sentences you used to express
your attitude to science :

  1.                    I'm sick of these new age

scientists trying to come up with stupid
adjectival juxtapositions to describe
something they hope exists.

  1.                    In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic

game called science,

  1.                    If you haven't figured it out yet,

scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream
chasers running after a science which has
gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of
pure math.

---------end quotes----------

5

How do I get the editorial without paying $350?

···

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:36 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

Rick and I already know what I said; and If you want Rick to show you reports of enraged distainment I’ve expressed to him through personal correspendence, do not hesitate to let him know. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself, and stop archiving pointless correspondences.

Thank you for the article.

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]

    [From Rick Marken (2014.08.15.1005)]

Since Philip has previously expressed disdain for normal Science, I

am disinclined to do so.

But if he is seriously interested, he can find the Int. J. Human

Computer Studies special issue on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the
Editorial.

Martin



PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from Philip:



--------Philip, message without ID header June 28 2014--------
    Science does not create car and computer.  Logic

creates. Science and creation are not the same. Science is
like looking at behavior as output, trying to show numbers and
publish. Creation is not this. Life does not follow the same
processes as science does, and science cannot define life
without realizing the concept of perceptual control system
organization. Survival of the fittest thinking is not good. It
takes away focus from individual’s purpose and so we are only
left with observable output of evolutionary processes. To ask
why does some animal have the shape it has, and then to
associate it with the behavior of other animals preying on it,
then you ignore the fact that the shape of almost any animal
contains the golden ratio. The golden ratio is found also in
the solar system: in the distribution of rings of saturn, in the
distance between the earth and moon and other planets, in the
dimensions of the Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
organization of the pyramids on Mars (which are organized in a
fibbonaci spiral as well as a star of david). It is no
coincidence that we find these numbers in our solar system, for
it is only in such a perfect system that we will exist. But our
system is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and the Ones who
built the megalithic structures understood this and so they
built the megaliths to protect the earth and the solar system.
The purpose of these structures was to receive as input the
geometrical flow patterns of the system and protect these inputs
from disturbance. The people who built these structures are the
protectors of the earth. They do not utilize scientific
definition, they have their own. But they are probably like us,
perceptual controllers, and there is nothing which literally
prevents us from being like them (except for conflict between
psychology and PCT). And if its done, science will no longer be
of service to us, just as it is no longer of service to the
humans who created the face on mars. If you havent realized,
humans are done evolving. You will most likely never find a
more developed thing in the universe than a human being. A
human body cannot evolve further, as already everything in the
body follows the flows in the shape of the golden geometry. All
our bones and the relations between them is Phi. All which is
left is for our backwards scientific logic to reorganize around
the intrinsic shapes and references of the system we live in.

        On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM,

PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

            I heard Bill demonstrated PCT to be in

accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. May I see
how he did this?

      Hi Philip

      I don't remember Bill demonstrating

anything of this kind. I think Martin Taylor is the person who
has been most interested in the relationship between PCT and
thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on this.

    ---------- June 27--------

                  Everything in the universe,

matter itself, is a manifestation of sound. A
sonic structure with a hierarchical geometry. See
Buckminster’s cosmic octave hierarchy. All the
elements have been mapped to these geometries. In
fact, the exact same geometric structures have
been observed at all ranges of the observable
universe, from computations of subatomic phenomena
to astronomical data regarding the coalescence of
galactic superclusters. …

                  So not to burst anybody's

bubble, I’m sorry, but I do not respect a science
in which everybody doesn’t know everything.
Contemporary science is just a joke, a big human
insect colony where everybody specializes because
they need to for the colony to survive.

                  -----------Earlier, quote by

Boris June 27--------

                        PJY

:

                      What does it matter if I

respect science?

                        HB

:

                        I

don’t understand how can you use something
that you are spiting on, to prove your
opinion about the source of references ?

                        Let

me repeat some sentences you used to express
your attitude to science :

  1.                    I'm sick of these new age

scientists trying to come up with stupid
adjectival juxtapositions to describe
something they hope exists.

  1.                    In the stupid, childish, apocalyptic

game called science,

  1.                    If you haven't figured it out yet,

scientists are a bunch of pathetic dream
chasers running after a science which has
gotten lucky by feeding off of the work of
pure math.

---------end quotes----------

6

[Martin Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]

A Library, for free?

Or you could buy the article from Elsevier at $35.95.
Or you could stop posting pointless correspondence, if you do it
only for the purpose of trolling. And then someone on this list just
might send you a copy.
Martin

···

How do I get the editorial without paying $350?

      On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:36 PM,

PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

            Rick and I already know what I said; and If you want

Rick to show you reports of enraged distainment I’ve
expressed to him through personal correspendence, do not
hesitate to let him know. Otherwise, keep your opinions
to yourself, and stop archiving pointless
correspondences.

Thank you for the article.

                On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18

AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

                    [Martin

Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]

                          [From Rick Marken

(2014.08.15.1005)]

                              On Fri, Aug 15,

2014 at 7:05 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:

                                  I heard Bill

demonstrated PCT to be in
accordance with the laws of
thermodynamics. May I see how he
did this?

                            Hi Philip

                            I don't remember

Bill demonstrating anything of this
kind. I think Martin Taylor is the
person who has been most interested in
the relationship between PCT and
thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on
this.

                    Since Philip has previously expressed disdain

for normal Science, I am disinclined to do so.

                    But if he is seriously interested, he can find

the Int. J. Human Computer Studies special issue
on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the Editorial.

                    Martin



                    PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from

Philip:

                    --------Philip, message without ID header June

28 2014--------
Science does not create car and
computer. Logic creates. Science and
creation are not the same. Science is like
looking at behavior as output, trying to
show numbers and publish. Creation is not
this. Life does not follow the same
processes as science does, and science
cannot define life without realizing the
concept of perceptual control system
organization. Survival of the fittest
thinking is not good. It takes away focus
from individual’s purpose and so we are only
left with observable output of evolutionary
processes. To ask why does some animal have
the shape it has, and then to associate it
with the behavior of other animals preying
on it, then you ignore the fact that the
shape of almost any animal contains the
golden ratio. The golden ratio is found
also in the solar system: in the
distribution of rings of saturn, in the
distance between the earth and moon and
other planets, in the dimensions of the
Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
organization of the pyramids on Mars (which
are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well
as a star of david). It is no coincidence
that we find these numbers in our solar
system, for it is only in such a perfect
system that we will exist. But our system
is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and
the Ones who built the megalithic structures
understood this and so they built the
megaliths to protect the earth and the solar
system. The purpose of these structures was
to receive as input the geometrical flow
patterns of the system and protect these
inputs from disturbance. The people who
built these structures are the protectors of
the earth. They do not utilize scientific
definition, they have their own. But they
are probably like us, perceptual
controllers, and there is nothing which
literally prevents us from being like them
(except for conflict between psychology and
PCT). And if its done, science will no
longer be of service to us, just as it is no
longer of service to the humans who created
the face on mars. If you havent realized,
humans are done evolving. You will most
likely never find a more developed thing in
the universe than a human being. A human
body cannot evolve further, as already
everything in the body follows the flows in
the shape of the golden geometry. All our
bones and the relations between them is
Phi. All which is left is for our backwards
scientific logic to reorganize around the
intrinsic shapes and references of the
system we live in.

                        ---------- June 27--------

                                      Everything

in the universe, matter
itself, is a manifestation of
sound. A sonic structure with
a hierarchical geometry. See
Buckminster’s cosmic octave
hierarchy. All the elements
have been mapped to these
geometries. In fact, the
exact same geometric
structures have been observed
at all ranges of the
observable universe, from
computations of subatomic
phenomena to astronomical data
regarding the coalescence of
galactic superclusters. …

                                      So not to

burst anybody’s bubble, I’m
sorry, but I do not respect a
science in which everybody
doesn’t know everything.
Contemporary science is just a
joke, a big human insect
colony where everybody
specializes because they
need to for the colony to
survive.

                                      -----------Earlier,

quote by Boris June 27--------

                                            PJY

:

                                          What

does it matter if I
respect science?

                                            HB

:

                                            I

don’t understand how can
you use something that
you are spiting on, to
prove your opinion about
the source of references
?

                                            Let

me repeat some sentences
you used to express your
attitude to science :

  1.                                                 I'm sick of these

new age scientists trying
to come up with stupid
adjectival
juxtapositions to describe
something they hope
exists.

  1.                                                 In the

stupid, childish,
apocalyptic game called
science,

  1.                                                 If you haven't

figured it out yet,
scientists are a bunch of
pathetic dream chasers
running after a science
which has gotten lucky
by feeding off of the work
of pure math.

                                        ---------end

quotes----------

7

Well, somebody insisted on asking what I thought about science. I only posted once or twice, it’s been months ago already. And it seemed more of a personal correspondence between me and Boris. I like how Rick pretended like it never even happened. Maybe you should too.

So, it looks like each article costs $35. Some of them you authored. Others are authored by others here. Seems like a special pct edition of the journal or something. To which article were you referring to that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?

Philip

···

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:36 PM,
PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

            Rick and I already know what I said; and If you want

Rick to show you reports of enraged distainment I’ve
expressed to him through personal correspendence, do not
hesitate to let him know. Otherwise, keep your opinions
to yourself, and stop archiving pointless
correspondences.

Thank you for the article.

                On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18

AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

                    [Martin

Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]

                          [From Rick Marken

(2014.08.15.1005)]

                    Since Philip has previously expressed disdain

for normal Science, I am disinclined to do so.

                    But if he is seriously interested, he can find

the Int. J. Human Computer Studies special issue
on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the Editorial.

                    Martin



                    PS. A few quotes from earlier messages from

Philip:

                    --------Philip, message without ID header June

28 2014--------
Science does not create car and
computer. Logic creates. Science and
creation are not the same. Science is like
looking at behavior as output, trying to
show numbers and publish. Creation is not
this. Life does not follow the same
processes as science does, and science
cannot define life without realizing the
concept of perceptual control system
organization. Survival of the fittest
thinking is not good. It takes away focus
from individual’s purpose and so we are only
left with observable output of evolutionary
processes. To ask why does some animal have
the shape it has, and then to associate it
with the behavior of other animals preying
on it, then you ignore the fact that the
shape of almost any animal contains the
golden ratio. The golden ratio is found
also in the solar system: in the
distribution of rings of saturn, in the
distance between the earth and moon and
other planets, in the dimensions of the
Great Pyramid at Giza, even in the
organization of the pyramids on Mars (which
are organized in a fibbonaci spiral as well
as a star of david). It is no coincidence
that we find these numbers in our solar
system, for it is only in such a perfect
system that we will exist. But our system
is not perfectly immune to disturbance, and
the Ones who built the megalithic structures
understood this and so they built the
megaliths to protect the earth and the solar
system. The purpose of these structures was
to receive as input the geometrical flow
patterns of the system and protect these
inputs from disturbance. The people who
built these structures are the protectors of
the earth. They do not utilize scientific
definition, they have their own. But they
are probably like us, perceptual
controllers, and there is nothing which
literally prevents us from being like them
(except for conflict between psychology and
PCT). And if its done, science will no
longer be of service to us, just as it is no
longer of service to the humans who created
the face on mars. If you havent realized,
humans are done evolving. You will most
likely never find a more developed thing in
the universe than a human being. A human
body cannot evolve further, as already
everything in the body follows the flows in
the shape of the golden geometry. All our
bones and the relations between them is
Phi. All which is left is for our backwards
scientific logic to reorganize around the
intrinsic shapes and references of the
system we live in.

                              On Fri, Aug 15,

2014 at 7:05 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:

                                  I heard Bill

demonstrated PCT to be in
accordance with the laws of
thermodynamics. May I see how he
did this?

                            Hi Philip

                            I don't remember

Bill demonstrating anything of this
kind. I think Martin Taylor is the
person who has been most interested in
the relationship between PCT and
thermodynamics. Maybe he can comment on
this.

                        ---------- June 27--------

                                      Everything

in the universe, matter
itself, is a manifestation of
sound. A sonic structure with
a hierarchical geometry. See
Buckminster’s cosmic octave
hierarchy. All the elements
have been mapped to these
geometries. In fact, the
exact same geometric
structures have been observed
at all ranges of the
observable universe, from
computations of subatomic
phenomena to astronomical data
regarding the coalescence of
galactic superclusters. …

                                      So not to

burst anybody’s bubble, I’m
sorry, but I do not respect a
science in which everybody
doesn’t know everything.
Contemporary science is just a
joke, a big human insect
colony where everybody
specializes because they
need to for the colony to
survive.

                                      -----------Earlier,

quote by Boris June 27--------

                                            PJY

:

                                          What

does it matter if I
respect science?

                                            HB

:

                                            I

don’t understand how can
you use something that
you are spiting on, to
prove your opinion about
the source of references
?

                                            Let

me repeat some sentences
you used to express your
attitude to science :

  1.                                                 I'm sick of these

new age scientists trying
to come up with stupid
adjectival
juxtapositions to describe
something they hope
exists.

  1.                                                 In the

stupid, childish,
apocalyptic game called
science,

  1.                                                 If you haven't

figured it out yet,
scientists are a bunch of
pathetic dream chasers
running after a science
which has gotten lucky
by feeding off of the work
of pure math.

                                        ---------end

quotes----------

8

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.23.33]

···

On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:

  To which article were you referring to that discussed

the laws of thermodynamics?

Philip

            [Martin Taylor

2104.08.16.17.03]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
… the Int. J. Human Computer
Studies special issue on PCT
(1999, vol 50) and read the
Editorial.

                                Martin
9

Do you have a copy, Martin?

Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill. Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in '64.

···

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.23.33]

  On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN wrote:

  To which article were you referring to that discussed

the laws of thermodynamics?

Philip

            [Martin Taylor

2104.08.16.17.03]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
… the Int. J. Human Computer
Studies special issue on PCT
(1999, vol 50) and read the
Editorial.

                                Martin
10

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.17.08.35]

I believe I have some paper reprints somewhere. I ought to have an

electronic copy of the printed version of all the papers in the
issue, but the last time I looked for one of them I could find only
draft versions of some of them. Indeed, I have a vague memory that I
only ever had paper copies for some of them. The final versions that
must have gone to the publisher seem to have got lost in the
sequence of changes of computer, or perhaps I saw some of them only
on paper. I could send you a draft version of the Editorial when I get home,
in a few days.
Can’t help you there.
Martin

···

On 2014/08/17 4:52 AM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN wrote:

Do you have a copy, Martin?

    Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill.

Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in
'64.

      On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

          [Martin Taylor

2014.08.16.23.33]

              On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN

wrote:

              To which article were you referring to

that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?

Philip

                      [Martin

Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]

                        On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

                                          [Martin

Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
… the Int. J. Human
Computer Studies special
issue on PCT (1999, vol
50) and read the
Editorial.

                                          Martin
11

Cheers

···

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.17.08.35]

  On 2014/08/17 4:52 AM, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN wrote:

Do you have a copy, Martin?

I believe I have some paper reprints somewhere. I ought to have an

electronic copy of the printed version of all the papers in the
issue, but the last time I looked for one of them I could find only
draft versions of some of them. Indeed, I have a vague memory that I
only ever had paper copies for some of them. The final versions that
must have gone to the publisher seem to have got lost in the
sequence of changes of computer, or perhaps I saw some of them only
on paper.

I could send you a draft version of the Editorial when I get home,

in a few days.

    Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill.

Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in
'64.

Can’t help you there.

Martin

      On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

          [Martin Taylor

2014.08.16.23.33]

              On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN

wrote:

              To which article were you referring to

that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?

Philip

                      [Martin

Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]

                        On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

                                          [Martin

Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
… the Int. J. Human
Computer Studies special
issue on PCT (1999, vol
50) and read the
Editorial.

                                          Martin
12

Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to this excellent paper Martin!
Warren

EditorialMartinTaylor.pdf (106 KB)

···

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

Cheers

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
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

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.17.08.35]

  On 2014/08/17 4:52 AM, PHILIP JERAIR

YERANOSIAN wrote:

Do you have a copy, Martin?

I believe I have some paper reprints somewhere. I ought to have an

electronic copy of the printed version of all the papers in the
issue, but the last time I looked for one of them I could find only
draft versions of some of them. Indeed, I have a vague memory that I
only ever had paper copies for some of them. The final versions that
must have gone to the publisher seem to have got lost in the
sequence of changes of computer, or perhaps I saw some of them only
on paper.

I could send you a draft version of the Editorial when I get home,

in a few days.

    Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill.

Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in
'64.

Can’t help you there.

Martin

      On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

          [Martin Taylor

2014.08.16.23.33]

              On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN

wrote:

              To which article were you referring to

that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?

Philip

                      [Martin

Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]

                        On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin

Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
wrote:

                                          [Martin

Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]
… the Int. J. Human
Computer Studies special
issue on PCT (1999, vol
50) and read the
Editorial.

                                          Martin
13

[From Fred Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)]

Yes, thanks, Martin. I was especially taken by the alternate PCT motto: “Many means to the same end; many ends by the same means.”

That said, I am unclear as to the link between your editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing something.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 8:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics

Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to this excellent paper Martin!

Warren

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

Cheers

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.17.08.35]

On 2014/08/17 4:52 AM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:

Do you have a copy, Martin?

I believe I have some paper reprints somewhere. I ought to have an electronic copy of the printed version of all the papers in the issue, but the last time I looked for one of them I could find only draft versions of some of them. Indeed, I have a vague memory that I only ever had paper copies for some of them. The final versions that must have gone to the publisher seem to have got lost in the sequence of changes of computer, or perhaps I saw some of them only on paper.

I could send you a draft version of the Editorial when I get home, in a few days.

Also, I have a question for those who knew Bill. Did Bill ever speak to Norbert Weiner about PCT? Weiner died in '64.

Can’t help you there.

Martin

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.23.33]

On 2014/08/16 6:59 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN wrote:

To which article were you referring to that discussed the laws of thermodynamics?

Philip

[Martin Taylor 2104.08.16.17.03]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.16.08.56]

… the Int. J. Human Computer Studies special issue on PCT (1999, vol 50) and read the Editorial.

Martin

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
Coupland I
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

14

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.21.36]

Section 2, especially the first half. I suppose it could be expanded

into a multi-page mathematical exposition, but those three
paragraphs carry the essence, and say why PCT MUST be correct, if
the laws of thermodynamics are.
Martin

··· 
        [From

Fred Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)]

        Yes,

thanks, Martin. I was especially taken by the alternate PCT
motto: “ Many means
to the same end; many ends by the same means.”

        That

said, I am unclear as to the link between your editorial and
thermodynamics. I’m probably missing something.

        Fred

Nickols

15

[From Rick Marken (2014.08.18.1915)]

···

Warren Mansell wrote:

WM: Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to this excellent paper Martin!

Thanks for posting it Warren (even though I have a hardcopy of it on my shelf). It is an excellent paper indeed!

Fred Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)–

FN: That said, I am unclear as to the link between your editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing something.

RM: Here’s the relevant quote. It’s in the section entitled “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”

MT: “Our bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away as soon as we cease to act to counter the infuences that would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of whom behaved so that they stabilized their internal chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes”.

RM: Martin is arguing that PCT is a “necessary” theory because if organisms were not organized as perceptual control systems they would move, per the second law of thermodynamics, toward a state of maximum entropy (disorder); that is, they would disintegrate. I like this argument because it is saying that there is a phenomenon to be explained and that PCT is necessary to explain it. The phenomenon is “negentropy” which is essentially the same as the phenomenon of control.

RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this internal chemistry world variables like body temperature – which is just molecular motion – will move toward a state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it; the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to the states of these variables and a control organization – a negentropy system - is needed to maintain these variables at a constant level of entropy.

RM: But PCT applies not only at the “internal chemistry” level but also at the behavioral level – the level of where the variables that are controlled are not biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the behavioral level we control variables like our relationships to other people and our political and religious commitments – variables that are totally abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your loved one walks away in a huff).

RM: So I like the idea of having a section of the paper on “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”. But I would rather that the sectoin would have said that PCT is a theory that is “necessary” in order to explain the phenomenon of control, a phenomenon that we see as purposeful behavior.

RM: By the way, I think the thermodynamic “necessity” of control theory has been long recognized in biology/physiology in the idea that the “internal chemistry” of the body is maintained in goal states by a process of control called “homoeostasis”. PCT takes the idea of “homeostasis” outside the body, so to speak, into the world of purposeful behavior in the external environment.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.

Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

16

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.22.59]

That's one sentence out of three paragraphs of relevant quote. But

from what you say next, I guess I should have made it three or
thirty pages. I thought I covered everything you mention below, but
I guess it should have been more explicitly boring.
(I don’t understand that comment; the “main disturbances” to the
system are not any laws of nature, but events originating outside
the organism that would affect states inside the system were they
not blocked or countered. Such as the examples in your next
paragraph.)
All of which is covered in the Editorial, if not in explicit detail.
If an event outside can change the state of something inside, the
odds are astronomically in favour of the change being in the
direction of increasing entropy. The examples you use are certainly
in that category.
“Control” IS the phenomenon described. It IS what is shown to be
necessary. The word Perceptual IS shown to be important. PCT isn’t
necessary to explain the phenomenon of control; it’s a description
of the process of control… No, that;'s nonsense. Homeostasis is no more than the kind of
self-organization that is seen in a stream vortex. Yes, it’s
consistent with thermodynamic laws. No, it’s not control, though
many, many, physiological processes ARE control loops that
stabilize some variable.
PCT and homeostasis are conceptually quite distinct. I do believe
that life, in the sense of perceptual control systems that produce
descendants, originally evolved out of homeostatic systems, but
that’s just a hunch. Besides, PCT works inside and outside the body. Where you have
control you have perceptual control. Where you only have homeostasis
(which can equally involve loops that pass outside the body) you
just have a negative feedback loop sustained by an external energy
supply.
Martin

···

On 2014/08/18 10:16 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken
(2014.08.18.1915)]

Warren Mansell
wrote:

          WM:

Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to
this excellent paper Martin!

Thanks for posting it Warren (even though I have a hardcopy
of it on my shelf). It is an excellent paper
indeed!

                 Fred

Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)–

                FN:

That said, I am unclear as to the link between your
editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing
something.

          RM: Here's the relevant quote. It's in the section

entitled “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”

          MT:

“Our bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away
as soon as we cease to act to counter the infuences that
would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of
whom behaved so that they stabilized their internal
chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes”.

          RM: Martin is arguing that PCT is a "necessary" theory

because if organisms were not organized as perceptual
control systems they would move, per the second law of
thermodynamics, toward a state of maximum entropy
(disorder); that is, they would disintegrate. I like this
argument because it is saying that there is a phenomenon
to be explained and that PCT is necessary to explain it.
The phenomenon is "negentropy "
which is essentially the same as the phenomenon of
control.

          RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it

is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a
system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of
the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this
internal chemistry world variables like body temperature
– which is just molecular motion – will move toward a
state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it;
the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to
the states of these variables and a control organization

– a negentropy
system - is needed to maintain these variables at a
constant level of entropy.

          RM: But PCT applies not only at the "internal

chemistry" level but also at the behavioral level – the
level of where the variables that are controlled are not
biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the
behavioral level we control variables like our
relationships to other people and our political and
religious commitments – variables that are totally
abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not
thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often
more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are
wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your
loved one walks away in a huff).

          RM: So I like the idea of having a section of the paper

on “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”. But I
would rather that the sectoin would have said that PCT is
a theory that is “necessary” in order to explain the
phenomenon of control , a phenomenon that we see as
purposeful behavior.

          RM: By the way, I think the thermodynamic "necessity"

of control theory has been long recognized in
biology/physiology in the idea that the “internal
chemistry” of the body is maintained in goal states by a
process of control called “homoeostasis”.

PCT takes the idea of “homeostasis” * outside the
body* , so to speak, into the world of purposeful
behavior in the external environment.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken ,
Ph.D.

        Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose).

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

17

[Philip 8.18.2014 8:32 PM]

Rick:

But PCT applies not only at the “internal chemistry” level but also at the behavioral level – the level of where the variables that are controlled are not biochemical but perceptual/informational…

Philip:

How exactly do you mean to distinguish between biochemical and perceptual/informational variables?

Rick:

So at the behavioral level we control variables like our relationships to other people and our political and religious commitments – variables that are totally abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not thermodynamic/entropic;

they can be but they are often more abstract, such as words…

Philip:

Be informed that the concept of entropy in communications engineering and the concept of entropy in thermodynamics are incommensurable.

From the point of view of communication, “I think your ideas are wrong”, would be a string of words translated into a pulsed output electrically conducted through a wire (i.e. an ‘information communications channel’). The channel capacity of this communications channel would determine the maximum rate at which this message can be “errorlessly transmitted” (i.e. transmitted at a bit-rate at which errors can be detected and corrected by the receiver). The value of this channel capacity function is determined by a process known as ‘hyperquantization’, which is the language-encoding scheme (i.e. the function which maps words to symbols, and thus determines the inherent amount of information any symbol can contain, and by extension, the amount of information any word in any language would statistically contain). Then we get into ergodic theory, which is Weiner’s brainchild. Ergodic theory was used to describe the statistical properties of a message which is essentially infinitely long - i.e. every word contains an infinite number of symbols, because the amount of information contained in each symbol is made infinitesimal. This theoretic technique is used to establish a calculus for the quantification of the channel capacity. So, in communications engineering, the term ‘entropy’ is used to define a measure of the amount of information in a communicated message, and this particular definition of entropy is realized through the definition of the channel capacity itself. Basically, everything about channel capacity is about trying to say that the higher the ‘entropy of a communicated message’ is, the higher is the probablity that the receiver will receive a message which is different than what the sender intended to communicate - except for the special case when the message is transmitted at a bit-rate LOWER than the channel capacity of the communications channel. If the message is transmitted at a rate below the channel capacity then message can be sent with a probability of error which can be made arbitrarily close to zero. So entropy and the channel capacity essentially defines the amount of time required to errorlessly transmit a message at a particular bit rate by exactly quantifying the minimum number of symbols required to transmit a given number of words of a language in a specific amount of time. In thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is often connotated with a measure of disorder, but information is not defined in thermodynamics or physics or biology as it is in communications engineering. So my point is to bring up the following question: when you bring in the concept of a ‘word’ causing a disturbance, what exactly does this mean? What is the controlled variable? What is the disturbance? Is it the word itself, is it the entropy of the communication itself?

visual configurations. We can talk about shapes instead of words. The relation between geometry and language. Of course, you have the DNA (language) -> protein (geometry) transformation. We know, naturally, that process of protein translation must be rate-limited by the translation-error-correction capacity of the cell. Research suggests that the cell may establish a certain measure of control over its translation error rate. The cell obviously doesn’t perceive the proteins translation error itself. So what is the controlled variable, and how does this variable exist in a closed loop negative feedback relationship with the envirionment?

Philip

···

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.22.59]

  On 2014/08/18 10:16 PM, Richard Marken

wrote:

[From Rick Marken
(2014.08.18.1915)]

That's one sentence out of three paragraphs of relevant quote. But

from what you say next, I guess I should have made it three or
thirty pages. I thought I covered everything you mention below, but
I guess it should have been more explicitly boring.

(I don't understand that comment; the "main disturbances" to the

system are not any laws of nature, but events originating outside
the organism that would affect states inside the system were they
not blocked or countered. Such as the examples in your next
paragraph.)

All of which is covered in the Editorial, if not in explicit detail.

If an event outside can change the state of something inside, the
odds are astronomically in favour of the change being in the
direction of increasing entropy. The examples you use are certainly
in that category.

"Control" IS the phenomenon described. It IS what is shown to be

necessary. The word Perceptual IS shown to be important. PCT isn’t
necessary to explain the phenomenon of control; it’s a description
of the process of control…

No, that;'s nonsense. Homeostasis is no more than the kind of

self-organization that is seen in a stream vortex. Yes, it’s
consistent with thermodynamic laws. No, it’s not control, though
many, many, physiological processes ARE control loops that
stabilize some variable.

PCT and homeostasis are conceptually quite distinct. I do believe

that life, in the sense of perceptual control systems that produce
descendants, originally evolved out of homeostatic systems, but
that’s just a hunch.

Besides, PCT works inside and outside the body. Where you have

control you have perceptual control. Where you only have homeostasis
(which can equally involve loops that pass outside the body) you
just have a negative feedback loop sustained by an external energy
supply.

Martin

Warren Mansell
wrote:

          WM:

Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to
this excellent paper Martin!

Thanks for posting it Warren (even though I have a hardcopy
of it on my shelf). It is an excellent paper
indeed!

                 Fred

Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)–

                FN:

That said, I am unclear as to the link between your
editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing
something.

          RM: Here's the relevant quote. It's in the section

entitled “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”

          MT:

“Our bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away
as soon as we cease to act to counter the infuences that
would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of
whom behaved so that they stabilized their internal
chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes”.

          RM: Martin is arguing that PCT is a "necessary" theory

because if organisms were not organized as perceptual
control systems they would move, per the second law of
thermodynamics, toward a state of maximum entropy
(disorder); that is, they would disintegrate. I like this
argument because it is saying that there is a phenomenon
to be explained and that PCT is necessary to explain it.
The phenomenon is "negentropy "
which is essentially the same as the phenomenon of
control.

          RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it

is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a
system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of
the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this
internal chemistry world variables like body temperature
– which is just molecular motion – will move toward a
state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it;
the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to
the states of these variables and a control organization

– a negentropy
system - is needed to maintain these variables at a
constant level of entropy.

          RM: But PCT applies not only at the "internal

chemistry" level but also at the behavioral level – the
level of where the variables that are controlled are not
biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the
behavioral level we control variables like our
relationships to other people and our political and
religious commitments – variables that are totally
abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not
thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often
more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are
wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your
loved one walks away in a huff).

          RM: So I like the idea of having a section of the paper

on “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”. But I
would rather that the sectoin would have said that PCT is
a theory that is “necessary” in order to explain the
phenomenon of control , a phenomenon that we see as
purposeful behavior.

          RM: By the way, I think the thermodynamic "necessity"

of control theory has been long recognized in
biology/physiology in the idea that the “internal
chemistry” of the body is maintained in goal states by a
process of control called “homoeostasis”.

PCT takes the idea of “homeostasis” * outside the
body* , so to speak, into the world of purposeful
behavior in the external environment.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken ,
Ph.D.

        Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose).

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

18

[Philip 8.18.2014 10:32 PM]

Martin:

The "error’’ is the diference, not between the actual aiming direction and the desired

aiming direction, but between the perception of the aiming direction and its reference

value. It is always perceptions that are controlled, never the outer world states to which

they correspond, even though it is the true values of the outer world states that are

important. The actions of the controller can influence the true values, but it is the

perceptual values derived from the sensors that are compared with the desired values and

controlled. The true values are unknowable, and therefore uncontrollable.

Philip:

Martin, can you comment on what you mean to emphasize by the last sentence here?

···

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:21 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:

[Philip 8.18.2014 8:32 PM]

Rick:

But PCT applies not only at the “internal chemistry” level but also at the behavioral level – the level of where the variables that are controlled are not biochemical but perceptual/informational…

Philip:

How exactly do you mean to distinguish between biochemical and perceptual/informational variables?

Rick:

So at the behavioral level we control variables like our relationships to other people and our political and religious commitments – variables that are totally abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not thermodynamic/entropic;

they can be but they are often more abstract, such as words…

Philip:

Be informed that the concept of entropy in communications engineering and the concept of entropy in thermodynamics are incommensurable.

From the point of view of communication, “I think your ideas are wrong”, would be a string of words translated into a pulsed output electrically conducted through a wire (i.e. an ‘information communications channel’). The channel capacity of this communications channel would determine the maximum rate at which this message can be “errorlessly transmitted” (i.e. transmitted at a bit-rate at which errors can be detected and corrected by the receiver). The value of this channel capacity function is determined by a process known as ‘hyperquantization’, which is the language-encoding scheme (i.e. the function which maps words to symbols, and thus determines the inherent amount of information any symbol can contain, and by extension, the amount of information any word in any language would statistically contain). Then we get into ergodic theory, which is Weiner’s brainchild. Ergodic theory was used to describe the statistical properties of a message which is essentially infinitely long - i.e. every word contains an infinite number of symbols, because the amount of information contained in each symbol is made infinitesimal. This theoretic technique is used to establish a calculus for the quantification of the channel capacity. So, in communications engineering, the term ‘entropy’ is used to define a measure of the amount of information in a communicated message, and this particular definition of entropy is realized through the definition of the channel capacity itself. Basically, everything about channel capacity is about trying to say that the higher the ‘entropy of a communicated message’ is, the higher is the probablity that the receiver will receive a message which is different than what the sender intended to communicate - except for the special case when the message is transmitted at a bit-rate LOWER than the channel capacity of the communications channel. If the message is transmitted at a rate below the channel capacity then message can be sent with a probability of error which can be made arbitrarily close to zero. So entropy and the channel capacity essentially defines the amount of time required to errorlessly transmit a message at a particular bit rate by exactly quantifying the minimum number of symbols required to transmit a given number of words of a language in a specific amount of time. In thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is often connotated with a measure of disorder, but information is not defined in thermodynamics or physics or biology as it is in communications engineering. So my point is to bring up the following question: when you bring in the concept of a ‘word’ causing a disturbance, what exactly does this mean? What is the controlled variable? What is the disturbance? Is it the word itself, is it the entropy of the communication itself?

visual configurations. We can talk about shapes instead of words. The relation between geometry and language. Of course, you have the DNA (language) -> protein (geometry) transformation. We know, naturally, that process of protein translation must be rate-limited by the translation-error-correction capacity of the cell. Research suggests that the cell may establish a certain measure of control over its translation error rate. The cell obviously doesn’t perceive the proteins translation error itself. So what is the controlled variable, and how does this variable exist in a closed loop negative feedback relationship with the envirionment?

Philip

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.22.59]

  On 2014/08/18 10:16 PM, Richard Marken

wrote:

[From Rick Marken
(2014.08.18.1915)]

That's one sentence out of three paragraphs of relevant quote. But

from what you say next, I guess I should have made it three or
thirty pages. I thought I covered everything you mention below, but
I guess it should have been more explicitly boring.

(I don't understand that comment; the "main disturbances" to the

system are not any laws of nature, but events originating outside
the organism that would affect states inside the system were they
not blocked or countered. Such as the examples in your next
paragraph.)

All of which is covered in the Editorial, if not in explicit detail.

If an event outside can change the state of something inside, the
odds are astronomically in favour of the change being in the
direction of increasing entropy. The examples you use are certainly
in that category.

"Control" IS the phenomenon described. It IS what is shown to be

necessary. The word Perceptual IS shown to be important. PCT isn’t
necessary to explain the phenomenon of control; it’s a description
of the process of control…

No, that;'s nonsense. Homeostasis is no more than the kind of

self-organization that is seen in a stream vortex. Yes, it’s
consistent with thermodynamic laws. No, it’s not control, though
many, many, physiological processes ARE control loops that
stabilize some variable.

PCT and homeostasis are conceptually quite distinct. I do believe

that life, in the sense of perceptual control systems that produce
descendants, originally evolved out of homeostatic systems, but
that’s just a hunch.

Besides, PCT works inside and outside the body. Where you have

control you have perceptual control. Where you only have homeostasis
(which can equally involve loops that pass outside the body) you
just have a negative feedback loop sustained by an external energy
supply.

Martin

Warren Mansell
wrote:

          WM:

Hi everyone, here it is. Thank you for introducing us to
this excellent paper Martin!

Thanks for posting it Warren (even though I have a hardcopy
of it on my shelf). It is an excellent paper
indeed!

                 Fred

Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)–

                FN:

That said, I am unclear as to the link between your
editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing
something.

          RM: Here's the relevant quote. It's in the section

entitled “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”

          MT:

“Our bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away
as soon as we cease to act to counter the infuences that
would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of
whom behaved so that they stabilized their internal
chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes”.

          RM: Martin is arguing that PCT is a "necessary" theory

because if organisms were not organized as perceptual
control systems they would move, per the second law of
thermodynamics, toward a state of maximum entropy
(disorder); that is, they would disintegrate. I like this
argument because it is saying that there is a phenomenon
to be explained and that PCT is necessary to explain it.
The phenomenon is "negentropy "
which is essentially the same as the phenomenon of
control.

          RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it

is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a
system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of
the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this
internal chemistry world variables like body temperature
– which is just molecular motion – will move toward a
state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it;
the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to
the states of these variables and a control organization

– a negentropy
system - is needed to maintain these variables at a
constant level of entropy.

          RM: But PCT applies not only at the "internal

chemistry" level but also at the behavioral level – the
level of where the variables that are controlled are not
biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the
behavioral level we control variables like our
relationships to other people and our political and
religious commitments – variables that are totally
abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not
thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often
more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are
wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your
loved one walks away in a huff).

          RM: So I like the idea of having a section of the paper

on “The necessity of Perceptual Control Theory”. But I
would rather that the sectoin would have said that PCT is
a theory that is “necessary” in order to explain the
phenomenon of control , a phenomenon that we see as
purposeful behavior.

          RM: By the way, I think the thermodynamic "necessity"

of control theory has been long recognized in
biology/physiology in the idea that the “internal
chemistry” of the body is maintained in goal states by a
process of control called “homoeostasis”.

PCT takes the idea of “homeostasis” * outside the
body* , so to speak, into the world of purposeful
behavior in the external environment.

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken ,
Ph.D.

        Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Research-Purpose-Experimental-Psychology/dp/0944337554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407342866&sr=8-1&keywords=doing+research+on+purpose).

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

19

[Rupert Young (2014.08.19 11.00)]

Yes, very interesting read.

I'm not familiar with Aristotle, could you point me towards relevant quotes of his?

Also could someone remind of where the James quote regarding Romeo and Juliet is in the PCT literature?
Regards,
Rupert

···

On 19/08/2014 02:38, Martin Taylor wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2014.08.18.21.36]

[From Fred Nickols (2014.08.181556 EDT)]

Yes, thanks, Martin. I was especially taken by the alternate PCT motto: “Many means to the same end; many ends by the same means.”

That said, I am unclear as to the link between your editorial and thermodynamics. I’m probably missing something.

Fred Nickols

Section 2, especially the first half. I suppose it could be expanded into a multi-page mathematical exposition, but those three paragraphs carry the essence, and say why PCT MUST be correct, if the laws of thermodynamics are.

Martin

20

Is there a distinct boundary? Ultimately, is not the function of
perceptual control, at the behavioural level, to acquire energy so
that the internal variables can be maintained? And the process of
evolution produces additional levels of control that give
flexibility in a competitive environment. Humans are “just” very
flexible energy acquirers, and although the controlled variables
(which are all inside the body) may be abstract they arose in the
context of a system that evolved to acquire energy, and maintain
internal chemistry.
Regards,
Rupert

···

[Rupert Young (2014.08.19 11.30)]

On 19/08/2014 03:16, Richard Marken wrote:

          RM: But I also dislike this argument because I think it

is too limited. It is limited to the “thermodynamics” of a
system, which mainly involve the “internal chemistry” of
the organism (as Martin notes in the quote above). In this
internal chemistry world variables like body temperature
– which is just molecular motion – will move toward a
state of increasing entropy if nothing is done about it;
the “laws of thermodynamics” are the main “disturbance” to
the states of these variables and a control organization
– a negentropy
system - is needed to maintain these variables at a
constant level of entropy.

          RM: But PCT applies not only at the "internal

chemistry" level but also at the behavioral level – the
level of where the variables that are controlled are not
biochemical but perceptual/informational. So at the
behavioral level we control variables like our
relationships to other people and our political and
religious commitments – variables that are totally
abstract. The disturbances to these variables are not
thermodynamic/entropic; they can be but they are often
more abstract, such as words (like “I think your ideas are
wrong”) or changes in visual configurations ( as when your
loved one walks away in a huff).