Suppose you throw a ball and are trying to control where it lands. There seems to be something wrong with the notion of “controlling where it lands”. Once the ball leaves your hand, it is no longer subject to feedback; and therefore you cannot control where it lands. You can indeed control the velocity at which the ball leaves your hand. And you can vary this velocity with the next ball throw. But this does not seem to fall into the feedback control scheme. This seems to fall into the stimulus-response scheme.
It seems to me that controlling where the ball lands ties to controlling how it is thrown.
Fred Nickols
···
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
âAssistance at A Distanceâ?
www.nickols.us
[From Bruce Abbott (2018.07.04.1730 EDT)]
Once the ball leaves the thrower’s hand, it is traveling ballistically (literally, as a ball travels!). The controlling actions are done before that time, establishing the ball’s speed, angle with respect to horizontal, and direction before it leaves her hand. The thrower can even compensate for any expected effects of wind. If the ball encounters no unexpected disturbances along its trajectory, it will indeed go where the thrower intended, within some margin of error.
If the thrower sees that the ball has gone off course, she can attempt to compensate for this error on the next throw, as you suggest. But contrary to your suspicion that “this does not seem to fall into the feedback control scheme,� there is indeed feedback operating here: the error between intended and perceived ball trajectory produces a compensatory change in output on the next throw that will, if conditions are still the same as before, tend to reduce the error on that throw. The situation is similar to the game of “hot and cold,� in which a person wearing a blindfold is guided by onlookers to announce whether the seeker’s current direction is leading him closer or further away from the goal.
Even our simulations of continuous control operate this way. On each computer iteration, output on the next iteration is based on error in the current iteration. Although sensing and acting are taking place across a series of discrete moments, there is still feedback and control.
Bruce A.
···
From: PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 4:24 PM
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: throwing
Suppose you throw a ball and are trying to control where it lands. There seems to be something wrong with the notion of “controlling where it lands”. Once the ball leaves your hand, it is no longer subject to feedback; and therefore you cannot control where it lands. You can indeed control the velocity at which the ball leaves your hand. And you can vary this velocity with the next ball throw. But this does not seem to fall into the feedback control scheme. This seems to fall into the stimulus-response scheme.
[[Martin Taylor 2018.07.04.
Suppose you throw a ball and are trying to control where it lands. There seems to be something wrong with the notion of "controlling where it lands". Once the ball leaves your hand, it is no longer subject to feedback; and therefore you cannot control where it lands. You can indeed control the velocity at which the ball leaves your hand. And you can vary this velocity with the next ball throw. But this does not seem to fall into the feedback control scheme. This seems to fall into the stimulus-response scheme.
It's easy to see why you might be misled into calling this situation "stimulus-response". a century and more or so of behaviourists would agree with you. But when you look closer, it's wrong. For one thing, a SR interpretation would say that seeing the throwing target would always elicit a throwing action, which clearly is not the case. It is indeed true that once the ball leaves your hand you can't influence where it goes, but where it goes is causally related to how you throw, among other things such as wind. As Fred Nickols said: "It seems to me that controlling where the ball lands ties to controlling how it is thrown."
Fred's comment might seem to be a throwaway line, but it isn't. It says that this probably isn't the first time you have thrown something either at a target or just to observe what happens. Before long, you have reorganized to use your muscles in such a way that you will at least get the ball near the target, where "near" means different things for a 5-year-old and for a major league pitcher. When you throw at a target, everything is part of a well adjusted (if you don't have Parkinson's disease or some similar problem) part of your control hierarchy. At some point in time, you control for having a ball land at a certain place in space. In your hierarchy, you distribute reference values through several levels of control -- sequences, configurations, and so forth -- and eventually produce a whole lot of temporally coordinated waveforms for the reference values of many muscle tensions. The ball is thrown.
After the ball is thrown, if you have another chance to throw at the same target, the uppermost of those control loops will be able to adjust the reference values it sends, so as to aim at an amended target. At the same time, some reorganization might be occurring. You get more accurate with practice.
The lack of feedback for your perception of the instantaneous position of the ball in flight doesn't make the throwing Stimulus-Response within you. From the ball's perspective, it is, since the "stimulus" of force in a particular direction produces a "response" of acceleration in that direction. The ball has no feedback to enable it to decide where to go and how fast to go there.
You might also check out the PCT issue (1999) of the Internation Journal of Human-Computer Studies. My Editorial there has this in the form of ship gunnery (something at which Fred Nickols was a professional). I don't remember whether any of the other papers in that issue also dealt with the "fire-and-forget" ballistic control question.
Martin
···
On 2018/07/4 4:24 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
It seems that PCT and the stimulus response scheme are identical if the stimulus is a choice.
···
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Suppose you throw a ball and are trying to control where it lands. There seems to be something wrong with the notion of “controlling where it lands”. Once the ball leaves your hand, it is no longer subject to feedback; and therefore you cannot control where it lands. You can indeed control the velocity at which the ball leaves your hand. And you can vary this velocity with the next ball throw. But this does not seem to fall into the feedback control scheme. This seems to fall into the stimulus-response scheme.
[[Martin Taylor 2018.07.04.On 2018/07/4 4:24 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
It’s easy to see why you might be misled into calling this situation “stimulus-response”. a century and more or so of behaviourists would agree with you. But when you look closer, it’s wrong. For one thing, a SR interpretation would say that seeing the throwing target would always elicit a throwing action, which clearly is not the case. It is indeed true that once the ball leaves your hand you can’t influence where it goes, but where it goes is causally related to how you throw, among other things such as wind. As Fred Nickols said: “It seems to me that controlling where the ball lands ties to controlling how it is thrown.”
Fred’s comment might seem to be a throwaway line, but it isn’t. It says that this probably isn’t the first time you have thrown something either at a target or just to observe what happens. Before long, you have reorganized to use your muscles in such a way that you will at least get the ball near the target, where “near” means different things for a 5-year-old and for a major league pitcher. When you throw at a target, everything is part of a well adjusted (if you don’t have Parkinson’s disease or some similar problem) part of your control hierarchy. At some point in time, you control for having a ball land at a certain place in space. In your hierarchy, you distribute reference values through several levels of control – sequences, configurations, and so forth – and eventually produce a whole lot of temporally coordinated waveforms for the reference values of many muscle tensions. The ball is thrown.
After the ball is thrown, if you have another chance to throw at the same target, the uppermost of those control loops will be able to adjust the reference values it sends, so as to aim at an amended target. At the same time, some reorganization might be occurring. You get more accurate with practice.
The lack of feedback for your perception of the instantaneous position of the ball in flight doesn’t make the throwing Stimulus-Response within you. From the ball’s perspective, it is, since the “stimulus” of force in a particular direction produces a “response” of acceleration in that direction. The ball has no feedback to enable it to decide where to go and how fast to go there.
You might also check out the PCT issue (1999) of the Internation Journal of Human-Computer Studies. My Editorial there has this in the form of ship gunnery (something at which Fred Nickols was a professional). I don’t remember whether any of the other papers in that issue also dealt with the “fire-and-forget” ballistic control question.
Martin
Is that an assertion, a hypothesis, your belief or a challenge?
···
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Suppose you throw a ball and are trying to control where it lands. There seems to be something wrong with the notion of “controlling where it lands”. Once the ball leaves your hand, it is no longer subject to feedback; and therefore you cannot control where it lands. You can indeed control the velocity at which the ball leaves your hand. And you can vary this velocity with the next ball throw. But this does not seem to fall into the feedback control scheme. This seems to fall into the stimulus-response scheme.
[[Martin Taylor 2018.07.04.On 2018/07/4 4:24 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
It’s easy to see why you might be misled into calling this situation “stimulus-response”. a century and more or so of behaviourists would agree with you. But when you look closer, it’s wrong. For one thing, a SR interpretation would say that seeing the throwing target would always elicit a throwing action, which clearly is not the case. It is indeed true that once the ball leaves your hand you can’t influence where it goes, but where it goes is causally related to how you throw, among other things such as wind. As Fred Nickols said: “It seems to me that controlling where the ball lands ties to controlling how it is thrown.”
Fred’s comment might seem to be a throwaway line, but it isn’t. It says that this probably isn’t the first time you have thrown something either at a target or just to observe what happens. Before long, you have reorganized to use your muscles in such a way that you will at least get the ball near the target, where “near” means different things for a 5-year-old and for a major league pitcher. When you throw at a target, everything is part of a well adjusted (if you don’t have Parkinson’s disease or some similar problem) part of your control hierarchy. At some point in time, you control for having a ball land at a certain place in space. In your hierarchy, you distribute reference values through several levels of control – sequences, configurations, and so forth – and eventually produce a whole lot of temporally coordinated waveforms for the reference values of many muscle tensions. The ball is thrown.
After the ball is thrown, if you have another chance to throw at the same target, the uppermost of those control loops will be able to adjust the reference values it sends, so as to aim at an amended target. At the same time, some reorganization might be occurring. You get more accurate with practice.
The lack of feedback for your perception of the instantaneous position of the ball in flight doesn’t make the throwing Stimulus-Response within you. From the ball’s perspective, it is, since the “stimulus” of force in a particular direction produces a “response” of acceleration in that direction. The ball has no feedback to enable it to decide where to go and how fast to go there.
You might also check out the PCT issue (1999) of the Internation Journal of Human-Computer Studies. My Editorial there has this in the form of ship gunnery (something at which Fred Nickols was a professional). I don’t remember whether any of the other papers in that issue also dealt with the “fire-and-forget” ballistic control question.
Martin
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
âAssistance at A Distanceâ?
www.nickols.us
I suppose it’s an inference. The difference between PCT and SR seems to be a coordinate transformation. Instead of the position of the cursor on the retina, its the position of the cursor on the screen taken as stimulus.
···
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:
Is that an assertion, a hypothesis, your belief or a challenge?
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:39 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
It seems that PCT and the stimulus response scheme are identical if the stimulus is a choice.Â
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
âAssistance at A Distanceâ?
www.nickols.us
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Suppose you throw a ball and are trying to control where it lands. There seems to be something wrong with the notion of “controlling where it lands”. Once the ball leaves your hand, it is no longer subject to feedback; and therefore you cannot control where it lands. You can indeed control the velocity at which the ball leaves your hand. And you can vary this velocity with the next ball throw. But this does not seem to fall into the feedback control scheme. This seems to fall into the stimulus-response scheme.
[[Martin Taylor 2018.07.04.On 2018/07/4 4:24 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
It’s easy to see why you might be misled into calling this situation “stimulus-response”. a century and more or so of behaviourists would agree with you. But when you look closer, it’s wrong. For one thing, a SR interpretation would say that seeing the throwing target would always elicit a throwing action, which clearly is not the case. It is indeed true that once the ball leaves your hand you can’t influence where it goes, but where it goes is causally related to how you throw, among other things such as wind. As Fred Nickols said: “It seems to me that controlling where the ball lands ties to controlling how it is thrown.”
Fred’s comment might seem to be a throwaway line, but it isn’t. It says that this probably isn’t the first time you have thrown something either at a target or just to observe what happens. Before long, you have reorganized to use your muscles in such a way that you will at least get the ball near the target, where “near” means different things for a 5-year-old and for a major league pitcher. When you throw at a target, everything is part of a well adjusted (if you don’t have Parkinson’s disease or some similar problem) part of your control hierarchy. At some point in time, you control for having a ball land at a certain place in space. In your hierarchy, you distribute reference values through several levels of control – sequences, configurations, and so forth – and eventually produce a whole lot of temporally coordinated waveforms for the reference values of many muscle tensions. The ball is thrown.
After the ball is thrown, if you have another chance to throw at the same target, the uppermost of those control loops will be able to adjust the reference values it sends, so as to aim at an amended target. At the same time, some reorganization might be occurring. You get more accurate with practice.
The lack of feedback for your perception of the instantaneous position of the ball in flight doesn’t make the throwing Stimulus-Response within you. From the ball’s perspective, it is, since the “stimulus” of force in a particular direction produces a “response” of acceleration in that direction. The ball has no feedback to enable it to decide where to go and how fast to go there.
You might also check out the PCT issue (1999) of the Internation Journal of Human-Computer Studies. My Editorial there has this in the form of ship gunnery (something at which Fred Nickols was a professional). I don’t remember whether any of the other papers in that issue also dealt with the “fire-and-forget” ballistic control question.
Martin
···
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:02 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
I suppose it’s an inference. The difference between PCT and SR seems to be a coordinate transformation. Instead of the position of the cursor on the retina, its the position of the cursor on the screen taken as stimulus.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:
Is that an assertion, a hypothesis, your belief or a challenge?
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:39 PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
It seems that PCT and the stimulus response scheme are identical if the stimulus is a choice.Â
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
âAssistance at A Distanceâ?
www.nickols.us
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
Suppose you throw a ball and are trying to control where it lands. There seems to be something wrong with the notion of “controlling where it lands”. Once the ball leaves your hand, it is no longer subject to feedback; and therefore you cannot control where it lands. You can indeed control the velocity at which the ball leaves your hand. And you can vary this velocity with the next ball throw. But this does not seem to fall into the feedback control scheme. This seems to fall into the stimulus-response scheme.
[[Martin Taylor 2018.07.04.On 2018/07/4 4:24 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
It’s easy to see why you might be misled into calling this situation “stimulus-response”. a century and more or so of behaviourists would agree with you. But when you look closer, it’s wrong. For one thing, a SR interpretation would say that seeing the throwing target would always elicit a throwing action, which clearly is not the case. It is indeed true that once the ball leaves your hand you can’t influence where it goes, but where it goes is causally related to how you throw, among other things such as wind. As Fred Nickols said: “It seems to me that controlling where the ball lands ties to controlling how it is thrown.”
Fred’s comment might seem to be a throwaway line, but it isn’t. It says that this probably isn’t the first time you have thrown something either at a target or just to observe what happens. Before long, you have reorganized to use your muscles in such a way that you will at least get the ball near the target, where “near” means different things for a 5-year-old and for a major league pitcher. When you throw at a target, everything is part of a well adjusted (if you don’t have Parkinson’s disease or some similar problem) part of your control hierarchy. At some point in time, you control for having a ball land at a certain place in space. In your hierarchy, you distribute reference values through several levels of control – sequences, configurations, and so forth – and eventually produce a whole lot of temporally coordinated waveforms for the reference values of many muscle tensions. The ball is thrown.
After the ball is thrown, if you have another chance to throw at the same target, the uppermost of those control loops will be able to adjust the reference values it sends, so as to aim at an amended target. At the same time, some reorganization might be occurring. You get more accurate with practice.
The lack of feedback for your perception of the instantaneous position of the ball in flight doesn’t make the throwing Stimulus-Response within you. From the ball’s perspective, it is, since the “stimulus” of force in a particular direction produces a “response” of acceleration in that direction. The ball has no feedback to enable it to decide where to go and how fast to go there.
You might also check out the PCT issue (1999) of the Internation Journal of Human-Computer Studies. My Editorial there has this in the form of ship gunnery (something at which Fred Nickols was a professional). I don’t remember whether any of the other papers in that issue also dealt with the “fire-and-forget” ballistic control question.
Martin
[Martin Taylor 2018.07.04.20.31]
Philip, it might save some of us a lot of time if you were to read
CAREFULLY B:CP. Or re-read it more carefully if you have already
skimmed it to get your weird assessments of what PCT claims or is
about.
I, for one, will respond to your questions/assertions once again
when I see evidence that they are based on an understanding of the
fundamentals of PCT in at least an elementary way, rather than being
a scattershot bunch of stuff that seems totally divorced from any
inkling of the nature of control, let alone the workings of the
Powers control hierarchy.
Ask yourself whether you can properly explain to yourself the role
of asymmetry in the placement of loop gain in a control loop. I
guess that would be step 1 of maybe 20 in getting a clear notion of
hierarchic control.
Martin.
···
On 2018/07/4 7:34 PM, PHILIP JERAIR
YERANOSIAN ( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
pyeranos@ucla.edu
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:02 PM, PHILIPJERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:I suppose it's an inference. The differencebetween PCT and SR seems to be a coordinate
transformation. Instead of the position of the cursor on
the retina, its the position of the cursor on the screen
taken as stimulus.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51PM, Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com
wrote:Is that an assertion, ahypothesis, your belief or a challenge?
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:39PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
It seems that PCT and thestimulus response scheme are identical
if the stimulus is a choice.Â
On Wed, Jul4, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:Suppose you throw a ball andare trying to control where it
lands. There seems to be
something wrong with the
notion of “controlling where
it lands”. Once the ball
leaves your hand, it is no
longer subject to feedback;
and therefore you cannot
control where it lands. You
can indeed control the
velocity at which the ball
leaves your hand. And you can
vary this velocity with the
next ball throw. But this does
not seem to fall into the
feedback control scheme. This
seems to fall into the
stimulus-response scheme.
[[Martin
Taylor 2018.07.04.On 2018/07/4 4:24 PM, PHILIPJERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:It's easy to see why you might bemisled into calling this situation
“stimulus-response”. a century and
more or so of behaviourists would
agree with you. But when you look
closer, it’s wrong. For one thing,
a SR interpretation would say that
seeing the throwing target would
always elicit a throwing action,
which clearly is not the case. It
is indeed true that once the ball
leaves your hand you can’t
influence where it goes, but where
it goes is causally related to how
you throw, among other things such
as wind. As Fred Nickols said: “It
seems to me that controlling where
the ball lands ties to controlling
how it is thrown.”Fred's comment might seem to be athrowaway line, but it isn’t. It
says that this probably isn’t the
first time you have thrown
something either at a target or
just to observe what happens.
Before long, you have reorganized
to use your muscles in such a way
that you will at least get the
ball near the target, where “near”
means different things for a
5-year-old and for a major league
pitcher. When you throw at a
target, everything is part of a
well adjusted (if you don’t have
Parkinson’s disease or some
similar problem) part of your
control hierarchy. At some point
in time, you control for having a
ball land at a certain place in
space. In your hierarchy, you
distribute reference values
through several levels of control
– sequences, configurations, and
so forth – and eventually produce
a whole lot of temporally
coordinated waveforms for the
reference values of many muscle
tensions. The ball is thrown.After the ball is thrown, if youhave another chance to throw at
the same target, the uppermost of
those control loops will be able
to adjust the reference values it
sends, so as to aim at an amended
target. At the same time, some
reorganization might be occurring.
You get more accurate with
practice.The lack of feedback for yourperception of the instantaneous
position of the ball in flight
doesn’t make the throwing
Stimulus-Response within you. From
the ball’s perspective, it is,
since the “stimulus” of force in a
particular direction produces a
“response” of acceleration in that
direction. The ball has no
feedback to enable it to decide
where to go and how fast to go
there.You might also check out the PCTissue (1999) of the Internation
Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
My Editorial there has this in the
form of ship gunnery (something at
which Fred Nickols was a
professional). I don’t remember
whether any of the other papers in
that issue also dealt with the
“fire-and-forget” ballistic
control question.Martin
–
Fred
NickolsDistance Consulting LLC “Assistance at A Distance� [www.nickols.us](http://www.nickols.us)
The role of asymmetry in the placement of loop gain was explained in LCSIII in the context of whether the perception or the error signal is weighted.
···
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.07.04.20.31]
Philip, it might save some of us a lot of time if you were to readCAREFULLY B:CP. Or re-read it more carefully if you have already
skimmed it to get your weird assessments of what PCT claims or is
about.I, for one, will respond to your questions/assertions once againwhen I see evidence that they are based on an understanding of the
fundamentals of PCT in at least an elementary way, rather than being
a scattershot bunch of stuff that seems totally divorced from any
inkling of the nature of control, let alone the workings of the
Powers control hierarchy.Ask yourself whether you can properly explain to yourself the roleof asymmetry in the placement of loop gain in a control loop. I
guess that would be step 1 of maybe 20 in getting a clear notion of
hierarchic control.Martin. On 2018/07/4 7:34 PM, PHILIP JERAIRYERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:02 PM, PHILIP
JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:
I suppose it's an inference. The differencebetween PCT and SR seems to be a coordinate
transformation. Instead of the position of the cursor on
the retina, its the position of the cursor on the screen
taken as stimulus.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51
PM, Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com
wrote:
Is that an assertion, ahypothesis, your belief or a challenge?
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:39PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
It seems that PCT and thestimulus response scheme are identical
if the stimulus is a choice.Â
–
Fred
NickolsDistance Consulting LLC âAssistance at A Distanceâ? [www.nickols.us](http://www.nickols.us)
On Wed, Jul
4, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:
Suppose you throw a ball andare trying to control where it
lands. There seems to be
something wrong with the
notion of “controlling where
it lands”. Once the ball
leaves your hand, it is no
longer subject to feedback;
and therefore you cannot
control where it lands. You
can indeed control the
velocity at which the ball
leaves your hand. And you can
vary this velocity with the
next ball throw. But this does
not seem to fall into the
feedback control scheme. This
seems to fall into the
stimulus-response scheme.
[[Martin
Taylor 2018.07.04.On 2018/07/4 4:24 PM, PHILIPJERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:It's easy to see why you might bemisled into calling this situation
“stimulus-response”. a century and
more or so of behaviourists would
agree with you. But when you look
closer, it’s wrong. For one thing,
a SR interpretation would say that
seeing the throwing target would
always elicit a throwing action,
which clearly is not the case. It
is indeed true that once the ball
leaves your hand you can’t
influence where it goes, but where
it goes is causally related to how
you throw, among other things such
as wind. As Fred Nickols said: “It
seems to me that controlling where
the ball lands ties to controlling
how it is thrown.”Fred's comment might seem to be athrowaway line, but it isn’t. It
says that this probably isn’t the
first time you have thrown
something either at a target or
just to observe what happens.
Before long, you have reorganized
to use your muscles in such a way
that you will at least get the
ball near the target, where “near”
means different things for a
5-year-old and for a major league
pitcher. When you throw at a
target, everything is part of a
well adjusted (if you don’t have
Parkinson’s disease or some
similar problem) part of your
control hierarchy. At some point
in time, you control for having a
ball land at a certain place in
space. In your hierarchy, you
distribute reference values
through several levels of control
– sequences, configurations, and
so forth – and eventually produce
a whole lot of temporally
coordinated waveforms for the
reference values of many muscle
tensions. The ball is thrown.After the ball is thrown, if youhave another chance to throw at
the same target, the uppermost of
those control loops will be able
to adjust the reference values it
sends, so as to aim at an amended
target. At the same time, some
reorganization might be occurring.
You get more accurate with
practice.The lack of feedback for yourperception of the instantaneous
position of the ball in flight
doesn’t make the throwing
Stimulus-Response within you. From
the ball’s perspective, it is,
since the “stimulus” of force in a
particular direction produces a
“response” of acceleration in that
direction. The ball has no
feedback to enable it to decide
where to go and how fast to go
there.You might also check out the PCTissue (1999) of the Internation
Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
My Editorial there has this in the
form of ship gunnery (something at
which Fred Nickols was a
professional). I don’t remember
whether any of the other papers in
that issue also dealt with the
“fire-and-forget” ballistic
control question.Martin
···
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM, PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu wrote:
The role of asymmetry in the placement of loop gain was explained in LCSIII in the context of whether the perception or the error signal is weighted.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.07.04.20.31]
Philip, it might save some of us a lot of time if you were to readCAREFULLY B:CP. Or re-read it more carefully if you have already
skimmed it to get your weird assessments of what PCT claims or is
about.I, for one, will respond to your questions/assertions once againwhen I see evidence that they are based on an understanding of the
fundamentals of PCT in at least an elementary way, rather than being
a scattershot bunch of stuff that seems totally divorced from any
inkling of the nature of control, let alone the workings of the
Powers control hierarchy.Ask yourself whether you can properly explain to yourself the roleof asymmetry in the placement of loop gain in a control loop. I
guess that would be step 1 of maybe 20 in getting a clear notion of
hierarchic control.Martin. On 2018/07/4 7:34 PM, PHILIP JERAIRYERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:02 PM, PHILIP
JERAIR YERANOSIAN pyeranos@ucla.edu
wrote:
I suppose it's an inference. The differencebetween PCT and SR seems to be a coordinate
transformation. Instead of the position of the cursor on
the retina, its the position of the cursor on the screen
taken as stimulus.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:51
PM, Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com
wrote:
Is that an assertion, ahypothesis, your belief or a challenge?
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:39PM PHILIP JERAIR YERANOSIAN <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
It seems that PCT and thestimulus response scheme are identical
if the stimulus is a choice.Â
–
Fred
NickolsDistance Consulting LLC âAssistance at A Distanceâ? [www.nickols.us](http://www.nickols.us)
On Wed, Jul
4, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
wrote:
Suppose you throw a ball andare trying to control where it
lands. There seems to be
something wrong with the
notion of “controlling where
it lands”. Once the ball
leaves your hand, it is no
longer subject to feedback;
and therefore you cannot
control where it lands. You
can indeed control the
velocity at which the ball
leaves your hand. And you can
vary this velocity with the
next ball throw. But this does
not seem to fall into the
feedback control scheme. This
seems to fall into the
stimulus-response scheme.
[[Martin
Taylor 2018.07.04.On 2018/07/4 4:24 PM, PHILIPJERAIR YERANOSIAN (pyeranos@ucla.edu
via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:It's easy to see why you might bemisled into calling this situation
“stimulus-response”. a century and
more or so of behaviourists would
agree with you. But when you look
closer, it’s wrong. For one thing,
a SR interpretation would say that
seeing the throwing target would
always elicit a throwing action,
which clearly is not the case. It
is indeed true that once the ball
leaves your hand you can’t
influence where it goes, but where
it goes is causally related to how
you throw, among other things such
as wind. As Fred Nickols said: “It
seems to me that controlling where
the ball lands ties to controlling
how it is thrown.”Fred's comment might seem to be athrowaway line, but it isn’t. It
says that this probably isn’t the
first time you have thrown
something either at a target or
just to observe what happens.
Before long, you have reorganized
to use your muscles in such a way
that you will at least get the
ball near the target, where “near”
means different things for a
5-year-old and for a major league
pitcher. When you throw at a
target, everything is part of a
well adjusted (if you don’t have
Parkinson’s disease or some
similar problem) part of your
control hierarchy. At some point
in time, you control for having a
ball land at a certain place in
space. In your hierarchy, you
distribute reference values
through several levels of control
– sequences, configurations, and
so forth – and eventually produce
a whole lot of temporally
coordinated waveforms for the
reference values of many muscle
tensions. The ball is thrown.After the ball is thrown, if youhave another chance to throw at
the same target, the uppermost of
those control loops will be able
to adjust the reference values it
sends, so as to aim at an amended
target. At the same time, some
reorganization might be occurring.
You get more accurate with
practice.The lack of feedback for yourperception of the instantaneous
position of the ball in flight
doesn’t make the throwing
Stimulus-Response within you. From
the ball’s perspective, it is,
since the “stimulus” of force in a
particular direction produces a
“response” of acceleration in that
direction. The ball has no
feedback to enable it to decide
where to go and how fast to go
there.You might also check out the PCTissue (1999) of the Internation
Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
My Editorial there has this in the
form of ship gunnery (something at
which Fred Nickols was a
professional). I don’t remember
whether any of the other papers in
that issue also dealt with the
“fire-and-forget” ballistic
control question.Martin