To accept a theory (was Re: Control Is)

[Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.09.1430)]

Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have

never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is
primary: in PCT”.

What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual

control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any
other) ONLY perception is controlled. It’s the reason Powers
entitled his book “Behaviour: the control of perception” rather than
“Perception: the control of behaviour”. The idea (theory) that only
perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going
back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the
only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions.

From here, I'll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do,

while I kibbitz.

There's nothing wrong with liking a theory for its "beauty". It's

what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t
what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect).
However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed,
such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of
gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten.
“Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there
are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are * femmes
fatales*.

As has become clear over the decades. It's not a very scientific

position to take.

Which you say above was not true.

Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot

of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I
suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT
paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then
was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be
thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

That's an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I'd like to believe it

to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think
all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know
it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the
related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and
biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it
would eventually be proven.

···

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:21 PM,
Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

              WM: Hi Rick, sorry but I don't see the link between

your suggestion I agree with Martin about control of
perception being primary in PCT, and my question about
how we decide to integrate the research findings you
mention such as LI that may inform us about input
functions - that have largely accumulated within the
S-R domain - with PCT. Are they linked?

          RM:  The link is that both the ideas -- the idea that

“control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend
on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

          ...I'm prepared to accept the fact that many people

who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best
explanation of human nature are controlling for it because
they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account
for data.

          RM: ...Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise

one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it
would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

          Powers "data first" approach to the development (and

explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the
first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions
about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because
I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the
theory’s ability to account for the data…

          RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI)

and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”.
I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT
purports to be, must be able to account for all data
relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical
framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew,
includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R)
framework of experimental psychology.

          And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data

collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of
experimental psychology] data;

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.11.1440)

···

Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

RM: Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have

never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is
primary: in PCT”.

MT: What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual

control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any
other) ONLY perception is controlled.

RM: But that’s not true. What is also controlled is Qi, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception the system controls. If this were not the case – if Qi were not controlled when perception is controlled – then the TCV would be impossible to do. But the TCV is possible, as demonstrated most dramatically by my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). In that demo the computer is able to determine which of the 3 avatars is being controlled (moved intentionally) by seeing which movement path is being protected from disturbances. The movement path that is being protected from disturbance is the controlled quantity, Qi.Â

RM: If all that was controlled by a control system was perception then the computer would not be able to tell which of the 3 avatars is being controlled. Indeed, if all that was controlled by a controlled system was perception it would be impossible to do the TCV. This would also make it impossible to test the PCT model of human nature. Indeed, it would make the scientific study of living control systems impossible.Â

RM: So this is why I object to what I see as your “theory first” approach, which sees the theoretical perception as the only thing that is controlled by a control system. It seems to rule out a scientific approach to the study of living control systems, which is the approach I prefer.Â

 BestÂ

Rick

MT: The idea (theory) that only

perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going
back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the
only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions

From here, I'll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do,

while I kibbitz.

There's nothing wrong with liking a theory for its "beauty". It's

what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t
what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect).
However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed,
such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of
gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten.
“Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there
are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are * femmes
fatales*.

As has become clear over the decades. It's not a very scientific

position to take.

Which you say above was not true.
Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot

of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I
suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT
paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then
was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be
thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

That's an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I'd like to believe it

to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think
all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know
it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the
related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and
biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it
would eventually be proven.

--------------



I write the above not to argue with Rick, because he does it well

enough for himself, but to correct possible misconceptions some of
his readers may have. I do believe Rick on one thing he says of
himself: "
Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to
gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince
me to revise mine."

Martin


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: Â The link is that both the ideas -- the idea that

“control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend
on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

          ...I'm prepared to accept the fact that many people

who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best
explanation of human nature are controlling for it because
they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account
for data.

          RM: ...Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise

one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it
would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

          Powers "data first" approach to the development (and

explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the
first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions
about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because
I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the
theory’s ability to account for the data…

          RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI)

and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”.
I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT
purports to be, must be able to account for all data
relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical
framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew,
includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R)
framework of experimental psychology.

          And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data

collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of
experimental psychology] data;

Hi Rick and Martin, surely the truth is neither that only perception is controlled nor that aspects of the environment are never controlled. The view I have been trying to out across is that the control of an aspect/function of the environment is controlled via the control of perception of that aspect of the environment. In instances where control is working well there will be no differences between them. But I am always fascinated in the exceptions - the instances where control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of control of an aspect of the environment, and whether this might be revealed by experimentation. Maybe this only occurs in the imagination mode, or in virtual reality (for example where depth information is fully synthesised and doesn’t exist in a real environment)? Or maybe the kind of experiment in which different participants have different perceptions of the same environmental variable, like the parallax issue we discussed?

Warren

···

Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

RM: Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have

never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is
primary: in PCT”.

MT: What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual

control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any
other) ONLY perception is controlled.

RM: But that’s not true. What is also controlled is Qi, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception the system controls. If this were not the case – if Qi were not controlled when perception is controlled – then the TCV would be impossible to do. But the TCV is possible, as demonstrated most dramatically by my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). In that demo the computer is able to determine which of the 3 avatars is being controlled (moved intentionally) by seeing which movement path is being protected from disturbances. The movement path that is being protected from disturbance is the controlled quantity, Qi.

RM: If all that was controlled by a control system was perception then the computer would not be able to tell which of the 3 avatars is being controlled. Indeed, if all that was controlled by a controlled system was perception it would be impossible to do the TCV. This would also make it impossible to test the PCT model of human nature. Indeed, it would make the scientific study of living control systems impossible.

RM: So this is why I object to what I see as your “theory first” approach, which sees the theoretical perception as the only thing that is controlled by a control system. It seems to rule out a scientific approach to the study of living control systems, which is the approach I prefer.

Best

Rick

MT: The idea (theory) that only

perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going
back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the
only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions

From here, I'll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do,

while I kibbitz.

There's nothing wrong with liking a theory for its "beauty". It's

what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t
what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect).
However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed,
such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of
gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten.
“Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there
are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are * femmes
fatales*.

As has become clear over the decades. It's not a very scientific

position to take.

Which you say above was not true.
Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot

of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I
suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT
paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then
was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be
thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

That's an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I'd like to believe it

to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think
all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know
it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the
related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and
biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it
would eventually be proven.

--------------



I write the above not to argue with Rick, because he does it well

enough for himself, but to correct possible misconceptions some of
his readers may have. I do believe Rick on one thing he says of
himself: "
Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to
gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince
me to revise mine."

Martin


Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM:  The link is that both the ideas -- the idea that

“control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend
on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

          ...I'm prepared to accept the fact that many people

who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best
explanation of human nature are controlling for it because
they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account
for data.

          RM: ...Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise

one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it
would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

          Powers "data first" approach to the development (and

explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the
first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions
about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because
I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the
theory’s ability to account for the data…

          RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI)

and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”.
I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT
purports to be, must be able to account for all data
relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical
framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew,
includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R)
framework of experimental psychology.

          And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data

collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of
experimental psychology] data;

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.12.1025)]

···

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick and Martin, surely the truth is neither that only perception is controlled nor that aspects of the environment are never controlled. The view I have been trying to out across is that the control of an aspect/function of the environment is controlled via the control of perception of that aspect of the environment.

RM: And that is precisely the view of control that I have been trying to get across since it is the PCT view.Â

Â

WM: In instances where control is working well there will be no differences between them.

RM: And there will be no difference between them when control is working poorly. In PCT the perceptual variable corresponds to the aspect of the environment that is controlled, whether that control is working well or poorly. The quality of control of a perceptual aspect of the environment is determined by the gain, slowing and transport lag in the control loop.

Â

WM: But I am always fascinated in the exceptions - the instances where control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of control of an aspect of the environment,

RM: And I’m fascinated by the idea that the control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment. I would like to be shown how this can be shown.Â

Â

WM: and whether this might be revealed by experimentation.

RM: If it can be “shown” then it certainly can be revealed by experimentation. But I think this is again a case of taking theory for fact. The perceptual signal is a theoretical construct that accounts for the fact that an aspect of the environment has been observed to be under control. So the idea that control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment seems to be equivalent to saying that the theory that explains a fact can be shown to be partially independent of that fact. Which is why I would be extremely interested in finding out how this is “shown” to be true.Â

Â

WM: Maybe this only occurs in the imagination mode,

RM: Yes, in this case the perceptual signal, which is (in theory) being controlled in imagination, is completely independent of the environment since the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the imagined perception is not under control at all.Â

Â

WM: or in virtual reality (for example where depth information is fully synthesised and doesn’t exist in a real environment)?

 RM: No, you are (in theory) still controlling a perception that corresponds to an aspect of that synthesized environment. Actually, virtual reality would provide a great platform for testing to determine which visual and auditory variables people control when doing things like catching fly balls or maintaining their balance. This is because it allows you to introduce precisely measurable disturbances to the hypothetically controlled variables. For example, using virtual reality it would be easy to introduce precise variations in trajectory during the flight of a virtual fly ball to test hypotheses about the optical aspect of that trajectory that is under control.Â

WM: Or maybe the kind of experiment in which different participants have different perceptions of the same environmental variable, like the parallax issue we discussed?

RM: Control of the parallax view of the knot and dot is not an example of control of perception being partially independent of control of the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception. The aspect of the environment that is controlled is the parallax function the physical distance between knot and dot; in theory, the perceptual variable controlled corresponds to the this aspect of the environment.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

WarrenÂ

On 11 Feb 2017, at 22:43, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.11.1440)


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

RM: Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have

never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is
primary: in PCT”.

MT: What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual

control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any
other) ONLY perception is controlled.

RM: But that’s not true. What is also controlled is Qi, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception the system controls. If this were not the case – if Qi were not controlled when perception is controlled – then the TCV would be impossible to do. But the TCV is possible, as demonstrated most dramatically by my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). In that demo the computer is able to determine which of the 3 avatars is being controlled (moved intentionally) by seeing which movement path is being protected from disturbances. The movement path that is being protected from disturbance is the controlled quantity, Qi.Â

RM: If all that was controlled by a control system was perception then the computer would not be able to tell which of the 3 avatars is being controlled. Indeed, if all that was controlled by a controlled system was perception it would be impossible to do the TCV. This would also make it impossible to test the PCT model of human nature. Indeed, it would make the scientific study of living control systems impossible.Â

RM: So this is why I object to what I see as your “theory first” approach, which sees the theoretical perception as the only thing that is controlled by a control system. It seems to rule out a scientific approach to the study of living control systems, which is the approach I prefer.Â

 BestÂ

Rick

MT: The idea (theory) that only

perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going
back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the
only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions

From here, I'll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do,

while I kibbitz.

There's nothing wrong with liking a theory for its "beauty". It's

what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t
what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect).
However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed,
such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of
gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten.
“Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there
are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are * femmes
fatales*.

As has become clear over the decades. It's not a very scientific

position to take.

Which you say above was not true.
Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot

of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I
suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT
paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then
was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be
thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

That's an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I'd like to believe it

to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think
all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know
it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the
related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and
biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it
would eventually be proven.

--------------



I write the above not to argue with Rick, because he does it well

enough for himself, but to correct possible misconceptions some of
his readers may have. I do believe Rick on one thing he says of
himself: "
Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to
gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince
me to revise mine."

Martin


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: Â The link is that both the ideas -- the idea that

“control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend
on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

          ...I'm prepared to accept the fact that many people

who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best
explanation of human nature are controlling for it because
they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account
for data.

          RM: ...Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise

one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it
would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

          Powers "data first" approach to the development (and

explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the
first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions
about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because
I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the
theory’s ability to account for the data…

          RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI)

and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”.
I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT
purports to be, must be able to account for all data
relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical
framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew,
includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R)
framework of experimental psychology.

          And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data

collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of
experimental psychology] data;

Hi Rick, glad you agree about the imagination mode. I also agree that VR would be a great experimentation tool. I hate to break it to you though, but virtual reality isn’t actually a real environment!

···

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick and Martin, surely the truth is neither that only perception is controlled nor that aspects of the environment are never controlled. The view I have been trying to out across is that the control of an aspect/function of the environment is controlled via the control of perception of that aspect of the environment.

RM: And that is precisely the view of control that I have been trying to get across since it is the PCT view.

WM: In instances where control is working well there will be no differences between them.

RM: And there will be no difference between them when control is working poorly. In PCT the perceptual variable corresponds to the aspect of the environment that is controlled, whether that control is working well or poorly. The quality of control of a perceptual aspect of the environment is determined by the gain, slowing and transport lag in the control loop.

WM: But I am always fascinated in the exceptions - the instances where control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of control of an aspect of the environment,

RM: And I’m fascinated by the idea that the control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment. I would like to be shown how this can be shown.

WM: and whether this might be revealed by experimentation.

RM: If it can be “shown” then it certainly can be revealed by experimentation. But I think this is again a case of taking theory for fact. The perceptual signal is a theoretical construct that accounts for the fact that an aspect of the environment has been observed to be under control. So the idea that control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment seems to be equivalent to saying that the theory that explains a fact can be shown to be partially independent of that fact. Which is why I would be extremely interested in finding out how this is “shown” to be true.

WM: Maybe this only occurs in the imagination mode,

RM: Yes, in this case the perceptual signal, which is (in theory) being controlled in imagination, is completely independent of the environment since the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the imagined perception is not under control at all.

WM: or in virtual reality (for example where depth information is fully synthesised and doesn’t exist in a real environment)?

RM: No, you are (in theory) still controlling a perception that corresponds to an aspect of that synthesized environment. Actually, virtual reality would provide a great platform for testing to determine which visual and auditory variables people control when doing things like catching fly balls or maintaining their balance. This is because it allows you to introduce precisely measurable disturbances to the hypothetically controlled variables. For example, using virtual reality it would be easy to introduce precise variations in trajectory during the flight of a virtual fly ball to test hypotheses about the optical aspect of that trajectory that is under control.

WM: Or maybe the kind of experiment in which different participants have different perceptions of the same environmental variable, like the parallax issue we discussed?

RM: Control of the parallax view of the knot and dot is not an example of control of perception being partially independent of control of the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception. The aspect of the environment that is controlled is the parallax function the physical distance between knot and dot; in theory, the perceptual variable controlled corresponds to the this aspect of the environment.

Best

Rick

Warren

On 11 Feb 2017, at 22:43, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.11.1440)


Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

RM: Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have

never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is
primary: in PCT”.

MT: What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual

control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any
other) ONLY perception is controlled.

RM: But that’s not true. What is also controlled is Qi, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception the system controls. If this were not the case – if Qi were not controlled when perception is controlled – then the TCV would be impossible to do. But the TCV is possible, as demonstrated most dramatically by my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). In that demo the computer is able to determine which of the 3 avatars is being controlled (moved intentionally) by seeing which movement path is being protected from disturbances. The movement path that is being protected from disturbance is the controlled quantity, Qi.

RM: If all that was controlled by a control system was perception then the computer would not be able to tell which of the 3 avatars is being controlled. Indeed, if all that was controlled by a controlled system was perception it would be impossible to do the TCV. This would also make it impossible to test the PCT model of human nature. Indeed, it would make the scientific study of living control systems impossible.

RM: So this is why I object to what I see as your “theory first” approach, which sees the theoretical perception as the only thing that is controlled by a control system. It seems to rule out a scientific approach to the study of living control systems, which is the approach I prefer.

Best

Rick

MT: The idea (theory) that only

perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going
back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the
only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions

From here, I'll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do,

while I kibbitz.

There's nothing wrong with liking a theory for its "beauty". It's

what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t
what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect).
However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed,
such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of
gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten.
“Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there
are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are * femmes
fatales*.

As has become clear over the decades. It's not a very scientific

position to take.

Which you say above was not true.
Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot

of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I
suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT
paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then
was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be
thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

That's an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I'd like to believe it

to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think
all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know
it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the
related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and
biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it
would eventually be proven.

--------------



I write the above not to argue with Rick, because he does it well

enough for himself, but to correct possible misconceptions some of
his readers may have. I do believe Rick on one thing he says of
himself: "
Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to
gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince
me to revise mine."

Martin


Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM:  The link is that both the ideas -- the idea that

“control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend
on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

          ...I'm prepared to accept the fact that many people

who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best
explanation of human nature are controlling for it because
they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account
for data.

          RM: ...Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise

one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it
would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

          Powers "data first" approach to the development (and

explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the
first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions
about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because
I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the
theory’s ability to account for the data…

          RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI)

and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”.
I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT
purports to be, must be able to account for all data
relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical
framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew,
includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R)
framework of experimental psychology.

          And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data

collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of
experimental psychology] data;

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.13.0915)]

···

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick, glad you agree about the imagination mode. I also agree that VR would be a great experimentation tool. I hate to break it to you though, but virtual reality isn’t actually a real environment!Â

RM: VR is certainly a real environment. It consistent of physical variables having an effect on your sensory systems (like a movie, also in the environment) with the extra added attraction that your outputs have an effect on the state of those same physical variables. VR is also an excellent demonstration of the fact that what you think of as the “real” environment is actually perceptions based on the effects of physical variables on your sensory systems.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

On 12 Feb 2017, at 18:26, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.12.1025)]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick and Martin, surely the truth is neither that only perception is controlled nor that aspects of the environment are never controlled. The view I have been trying to out across is that the control of an aspect/function of the environment is controlled via the control of perception of that aspect of the environment.

RM: And that is precisely the view of control that I have been trying to get across since it is the PCT view.Â

Â

WM: In instances where control is working well there will be no differences between them.

RM: And there will be no difference between them when control is working poorly. In PCT the perceptual variable corresponds to the aspect of the environment that is controlled, whether that control is working well or poorly. The quality of control of a perceptual aspect of the environment is determined by the gain, slowing and transport lag in the control loop.

Â

WM: But I am always fascinated in the exceptions - the instances where control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of control of an aspect of the environment,

RM: And I’m fascinated by the idea that the control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment. I would like to be shown how this can be shown.Â

Â

WM: and whether this might be revealed by experimentation.

RM: If it can be “shown” then it certainly can be revealed by experimentation. But I think this is again a case of taking theory for fact. The perceptual signal is a theoretical construct that accounts for the fact that an aspect of the environment has been observed to be under control. So the idea that control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment seems to be equivalent to saying that the theory that explains a fact can be shown to be partially independent of that fact. Which is why I would be extremely interested in finding out how this is “shown” to be true.Â

Â

WM: Maybe this only occurs in the imagination mode,

RM: Yes, in this case the perceptual signal, which is (in theory) being controlled in imagination, is completely independent of the environment since the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the imagined perception is not under control at all.Â

Â

WM: or in virtual reality (for example where depth information is fully synthesised and doesn’t exist in a real environment)?

 RM: No, you are (in theory) still controlling a perception that corresponds to an aspect of that synthesized environment. Actually, virtual reality would provide a great platform for testing to determine which visual and auditory variables people control when doing things like catching fly balls or maintaining their balance. This is because it allows you to introduce precisely measurable disturbances to the hypothetically controlled variables. For example, using virtual reality it would be easy to introduce precise variations in trajectory during the flight of a virtual fly ball to test hypotheses about the optical aspect of that trajectory that is under control.Â

WM: Or maybe the kind of experiment in which different participants have different perceptions of the same environmental variable, like the parallax issue we discussed?

RM: Control of the parallax view of the knot and dot is not an example of control of perception being partially independent of control of the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception. The aspect of the environment that is controlled is the parallax function the physical distance between knot and dot; in theory, the perceptual variable controlled corresponds to the this aspect of the environment.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

WarrenÂ

On 11 Feb 2017, at 22:43, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.11.1440)


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

RM: Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have

never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is
primary: in PCT”.

MT: What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual

control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any
other) ONLY perception is controlled.

RM: But that’s not true. What is also controlled is Qi, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception the system controls. If this were not the case – if Qi were not controlled when perception is controlled – then the TCV would be impossible to do. But the TCV is possible, as demonstrated most dramatically by my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). In that demo the computer is able to determine which of the 3 avatars is being controlled (moved intentionally) by seeing which movement path is being protected from disturbances. The movement path that is being protected from disturbance is the controlled quantity, Qi.Â

RM: If all that was controlled by a control system was perception then the computer would not be able to tell which of the 3 avatars is being controlled. Indeed, if all that was controlled by a controlled system was perception it would be impossible to do the TCV. This would also make it impossible to test the PCT model of human nature. Indeed, it would make the scientific study of living control systems impossible.Â

RM: So this is why I object to what I see as your “theory first” approach, which sees the theoretical perception as the only thing that is controlled by a control system. It seems to rule out a scientific approach to the study of living control systems, which is the approach I prefer.Â

 BestÂ

Rick

MT: The idea (theory) that only

perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going
back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the
only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions

From here, I'll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do,

while I kibbitz.

There's nothing wrong with liking a theory for its "beauty". It's

what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t
what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect).
However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed,
such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of
gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten.
“Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there
are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are * femmes
fatales*.

As has become clear over the decades. It's not a very scientific

position to take.

Which you say above was not true.
Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot

of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I
suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT
paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then
was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be
thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

That's an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I'd like to believe it

to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think
all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know
it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the
related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and
biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it
would eventually be proven.

--------------



I write the above not to argue with Rick, because he does it well

enough for himself, but to correct possible misconceptions some of
his readers may have. I do believe Rick on one thing he says of
himself: "
Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to
gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince
me to revise mine."

Martin


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: Â The link is that both the ideas -- the idea that

“control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend
on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

          ...I'm prepared to accept the fact that many people

who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best
explanation of human nature are controlling for it because
they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account
for data.

          RM: ...Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise

one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it
would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

          Powers "data first" approach to the development (and

explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the
first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions
about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because
I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the
theory’s ability to account for the data…

          RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI)

and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”.
I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT
purports to be, must be able to account for all data
relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical
framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew,
includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R)
framework of experimental psychology.

          And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data

collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of
experimental psychology] data;

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Now I am lost! A movie isn’t a real environment either. I love computer-animated children’s animations - Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Inside Out, etc. Those towns and cities and houses in the movie aren’t real. Yes there are physical quantities - light coming from the screen patterned in a way that we think those places are real. Within a 2D movie we soon realise this. However in a 3D movie or in VR, it all seems more real, even though, again it is not. But that illusion is presumably created by a very clever feedback function within the 3D movie and VR technology that sends out a different signal depending on the perspective of the viewer, as if it were a real environment. So the environment of the VR machine itself and its signals is real in its own way, but what it is trying to represent within the viewer is not real; it is purely constructed but with a sophisticated computation to emulate a real environment. Now I can’t work out if I am disagreeing or agreeing with your main point!

···

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.13.0915)]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick, glad you agree about the imagination mode. I also agree that VR would be a great experimentation tool. I hate to break it to you though, but virtual reality isn’t actually a real environment!Â

RM: VR is certainly a real environment. It consistent of physical variables having an effect on your sensory systems (like a movie, also in the environment) with the extra added attraction that your outputs have an effect on the state of those same physical variables. VR is also an excellent demonstration of the fact that what you think of as the “real” environment is actually perceptions based on the effects of physical variables on your sensory systems.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

On 12 Feb 2017, at 18:26, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.12.1025)]


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick and Martin, surely the truth is neither that only perception is controlled nor that aspects of the environment are never controlled. The view I have been trying to out across is that the control of an aspect/function of the environment is controlled via the control of perception of that aspect of the environment.

RM: And that is precisely the view of control that I have been trying to get across since it is the PCT view.Â

Â

WM: In instances where control is working well there will be no differences between them.

RM: And there will be no difference between them when control is working poorly. In PCT the perceptual variable corresponds to the aspect of the environment that is controlled, whether that control is working well or poorly. The quality of control of a perceptual aspect of the environment is determined by the gain, slowing and transport lag in the control loop.

Â

WM: But I am always fascinated in the exceptions - the instances where control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of control of an aspect of the environment,

RM: And I’m fascinated by the idea that the control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment. I would like to be shown how this can be shown.Â

Â

WM: and whether this might be revealed by experimentation.

RM: If it can be “shown” then it certainly can be revealed by experimentation. But I think this is again a case of taking theory for fact. The perceptual signal is a theoretical construct that accounts for the fact that an aspect of the environment has been observed to be under control. So the idea that control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment seems to be equivalent to saying that the theory that explains a fact can be shown to be partially independent of that fact. Which is why I would be extremely interested in finding out how this is “shown” to be true.Â

Â

WM: Maybe this only occurs in the imagination mode,

RM: Yes, in this case the perceptual signal, which is (in theory) being controlled in imagination, is completely independent of the environment since the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the imagined perception is not under control at all.Â

Â

WM: or in virtual reality (for example where depth information is fully synthesised and doesn’t exist in a real environment)?

 RM: No, you are (in theory) still controlling a perception that corresponds to an aspect of that synthesized environment. Actually, virtual reality would provide a great platform for testing to determine which visual and auditory variables people control when doing things like catching fly balls or maintaining their balance. This is because it allows you to introduce precisely measurable disturbances to the hypothetically controlled variables. For example, using virtual reality it would be easy to introduce precise variations in trajectory during the flight of a virtual fly ball to test hypotheses about the optical aspect of that trajectory that is under control.Â

WM: Or maybe the kind of experiment in which different participants have different perceptions of the same environmental variable, like the parallax issue we discussed?

RM: Control of the parallax view of the knot and dot is not an example of control of perception being partially independent of control of the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception. The aspect of the environment that is controlled is the parallax function the physical distance between knot and dot; in theory, the perceptual variable controlled corresponds to the this aspect of the environment.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

WarrenÂ

On 11 Feb 2017, at 22:43, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.11.1440)


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

RM: Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have

never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is
primary: in PCT”.

MT: What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual

control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any
other) ONLY perception is controlled.

RM: But that’s not true. What is also controlled is Qi, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception the system controls. If this were not the case – if Qi were not controlled when perception is controlled – then the TCV would be impossible to do. But the TCV is possible, as demonstrated most dramatically by my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). In that demo the computer is able to determine which of the 3 avatars is being controlled (moved intentionally) by seeing which movement path is being protected from disturbances. The movement path that is being protected from disturbance is the controlled quantity, Qi.Â

RM: If all that was controlled by a control system was perception then the computer would not be able to tell which of the 3 avatars is being controlled. Indeed, if all that was controlled by a controlled system was perception it would be impossible to do the TCV. This would also make it impossible to test the PCT model of human nature. Indeed, it would make the scientific study of living control systems impossible.Â

RM: So this is why I object to what I see as your “theory first” approach, which sees the theoretical perception as the only thing that is controlled by a control system. It seems to rule out a scientific approach to the study of living control systems, which is the approach I prefer.Â

 BestÂ

Rick

MT: The idea (theory) that only

perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going
back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the
only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions

From here, I'll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do,

while I kibbitz.

There's nothing wrong with liking a theory for its "beauty". It's

what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t
what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect).
However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed,
such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of
gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten.
“Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there
are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are * femmes
fatales*.

As has become clear over the decades. It's not a very scientific

position to take.

Which you say above was not true.
Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot

of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I
suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT
paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then
was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be
thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

That's an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I'd like to believe it

to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think
all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know
it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the
related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and
biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it
would eventually be proven.

--------------



I write the above not to argue with Rick, because he does it well

enough for himself, but to correct possible misconceptions some of
his readers may have. I do believe Rick on one thing he says of
himself: "
Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to
gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince
me to revise mine."

Martin


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: Â The link is that both the ideas -- the idea that

“control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend
on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

          ...I'm prepared to accept the fact that many people

who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best
explanation of human nature are controlling for it because
they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account
for data.

          RM: ...Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise

one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it
would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

          Powers "data first" approach to the development (and

explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the
first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions
about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because
I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the
theory’s ability to account for the data…

          RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI)

and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”.
I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT
purports to be, must be able to account for all data
relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical
framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew,
includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R)
framework of experimental psychology.

          And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data

collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of
experimental psychology] data;

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

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

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.13.1005)]

···

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Now I am lost! A movie isn’t a real environment either.

RM: The environment, in PCT, is whatever is on the “other side” of your nervous system. Does that help?

Best

Rick

I love computer-animated children’s animations - Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Inside Out, etc. Those towns and cities and houses in the movie aren’t real. Yes there are physical quantities - light coming from the screen patterned in a way that we think those places are real. Within a 2D movie we soon realise this. However in a 3D movie or in VR, it all seems more real, even though, again it is not. But that illusion is presumably created by a very clever feedback function within the 3D movie and VR technology that sends out a different signal depending on the perspective of the viewer, as if it were a real environment. So the environment of the VR machine itself and its signals is real in its own way, but what it is trying to represent within the viewer is not real; it is purely constructed but with a sophisticated computation to emulate a real environment. Now I can’t work out if I am disagreeing or agreeing with your main point!

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.13.0915)]


Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

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

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick, glad you agree about the imagination mode. I also agree that VR would be a great experimentation tool. I hate to break it to you though, but virtual reality isn’t actually a real environment!Â

RM: VR is certainly a real environment. It consistent of physical variables having an effect on your sensory systems (like a movie, also in the environment) with the extra added attraction that your outputs have an effect on the state of those same physical variables. VR is also an excellent demonstration of the fact that what you think of as the “real” environment is actually perceptions based on the effects of physical variables on your sensory systems.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

On 12 Feb 2017, at 18:26, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.12.1025)]


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Hi Rick and Martin, surely the truth is neither that only perception is controlled nor that aspects of the environment are never controlled. The view I have been trying to out across is that the control of an aspect/function of the environment is controlled via the control of perception of that aspect of the environment.

RM: And that is precisely the view of control that I have been trying to get across since it is the PCT view.Â

Â

WM: In instances where control is working well there will be no differences between them.

RM: And there will be no difference between them when control is working poorly. In PCT the perceptual variable corresponds to the aspect of the environment that is controlled, whether that control is working well or poorly. The quality of control of a perceptual aspect of the environment is determined by the gain, slowing and transport lag in the control loop.

Â

WM: But I am always fascinated in the exceptions - the instances where control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of control of an aspect of the environment,

RM: And I’m fascinated by the idea that the control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment. I would like to be shown how this can be shown.Â

Â

WM: and whether this might be revealed by experimentation.

RM: If it can be “shown” then it certainly can be revealed by experimentation. But I think this is again a case of taking theory for fact. The perceptual signal is a theoretical construct that accounts for the fact that an aspect of the environment has been observed to be under control. So the idea that control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of the environment seems to be equivalent to saying that the theory that explains a fact can be shown to be partially independent of that fact. Which is why I would be extremely interested in finding out how this is “shown” to be true.Â

Â

WM: Maybe this only occurs in the imagination mode,

RM: Yes, in this case the perceptual signal, which is (in theory) being controlled in imagination, is completely independent of the environment since the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the imagined perception is not under control at all.Â

Â

WM: or in virtual reality (for example where depth information is fully synthesised and doesn’t exist in a real environment)?

 RM: No, you are (in theory) still controlling a perception that corresponds to an aspect of that synthesized environment. Actually, virtual reality would provide a great platform for testing to determine which visual and auditory variables people control when doing things like catching fly balls or maintaining their balance. This is because it allows you to introduce precisely measurable disturbances to the hypothetically controlled variables. For example, using virtual reality it would be easy to introduce precise variations in trajectory during the flight of a virtual fly ball to test hypotheses about the optical aspect of that trajectory that is under control.Â

WM: Or maybe the kind of experiment in which different participants have different perceptions of the same environmental variable, like the parallax issue we discussed?

RM: Control of the parallax view of the knot and dot is not an example of control of perception being partially independent of control of the aspect of the environment that corresponds to that perception. The aspect of the environment that is controlled is the parallax function the physical distance between knot and dot; in theory, the perceptual variable controlled corresponds to the this aspect of the environment.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

WarrenÂ

On 11 Feb 2017, at 22:43, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.11.1440)


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

RM: Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have

never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is
primary: in PCT”.

MT: What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual

control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any
other) ONLY perception is controlled.

RM: But that’s not true. What is also controlled is Qi, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception the system controls. If this were not the case – if Qi were not controlled when perception is controlled – then the TCV would be impossible to do. But the TCV is possible, as demonstrated most dramatically by my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). In that demo the computer is able to determine which of the 3 avatars is being controlled (moved intentionally) by seeing which movement path is being protected from disturbances. The movement path that is being protected from disturbance is the controlled quantity, Qi.Â

RM: If all that was controlled by a control system was perception then the computer would not be able to tell which of the 3 avatars is being controlled. Indeed, if all that was controlled by a controlled system was perception it would be impossible to do the TCV. This would also make it impossible to test the PCT model of human nature. Indeed, it would make the scientific study of living control systems impossible.Â

RM: So this is why I object to what I see as your “theory first” approach, which sees the theoretical perception as the only thing that is controlled by a control system. It seems to rule out a scientific approach to the study of living control systems, which is the approach I prefer.Â

 BestÂ

Rick

MT: The idea (theory) that only

perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going
back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the
only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions

From here, I'll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do,

while I kibbitz.

There's nothing wrong with liking a theory for its "beauty". It's

what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t
what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect).
However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed,
such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of
gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten.
“Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there
are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are * femmes
fatales*.

As has become clear over the decades. It's not a very scientific

position to take.

Which you say above was not true.
Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot

of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I
suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT
paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then
was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be
thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

That's an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I'd like to believe it

to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think
all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know
it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the
related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and
biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it
would eventually be proven.

--------------



I write the above not to argue with Rick, because he does it well

enough for himself, but to correct possible misconceptions some of
his readers may have. I do believe Rick on one thing he says of
himself: "
Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to
gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince
me to revise mine."

Martin


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: Â The link is that both the ideas -- the idea that

“control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend
on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

          ...I'm prepared to accept the fact that many people

who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best
explanation of human nature are controlling for it because
they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account
for data.

          RM: ...Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise

one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it
would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

          Powers "data first" approach to the development (and

explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the
first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions
about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because
I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the
theory’s ability to account for the data…

          RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI)

and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”.
I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT
purports to be, must be able to account for all data
relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical
framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew,
includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R)
framework of experimental psychology.

          And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data

collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of
experimental psychology] data;

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Hi Warren.

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 8:03 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: To accept a theory (was Re: Control Is)

Hi Rick and Martin, surely the truth is neither that only perception is controlled nor that aspects of the environment are never controlled.

HB : To prove that »aspects of environment are controlled« you need to prove that you can »control your behavior«. If you don’t do that we could think that you are second »superman« who can affect environment thorugh extra output like Telekinesis that »control« things outside without any physical means. Do you understand Warren that you started with Parapsychology, Occultims as Rick is doing quite some time ??? Bill already proved with physiological means that we can’t »Control behavior«. So how will you prove that »aspect of environment« is »controlled« allong with what is happening in your mind ?

WM : The view I have been trying to out across is that the control of an aspect/function of the environment is controlled via the control of perception of that aspect of the environment.

HB : In which direction. That aspect of environment is controlled to the extend that perception is controlled or that physical variables are tranformed into perceptual signal and will be controlled in comparator (on 1. level there is no aspect of environment transformed into perceptual signal). Which time line you’ll speak in favour ???

WM : In instances where control is working well there will be no differences between them. But I am always fascinated in the exceptions - the instances where control of perception can be shown to be partially independent of control of an aspect of the environment, and whether this might be revealed by experimentation.

HB : Anyway generally speaking there is no »controlled aspect of environment« in the Bills diagram. Generaly speaking there are just effects of input on output mixed with disturbances (added effects). Whatever you are trying to discover with experiments it will have to be in accordance to physilogical facts about how human function…. I hope I eexplaimed clear enough where you are making a mistake and what you have to prove if you want us to beleive you that »aspect of outer environment is controlled« ? So be a scientist and prove it that we can »Control behavior«. How othewise »aspect of outer environment » can be controlled ?

WM : Maybe this only occurs in the imagination mode, or in virtual reality (for example where depth information is fully synthesised and doesn’t exist in a real environment)? Or maybe the kind of experiment in which different participants have different perceptions of the same environmental variable, like the parallax issue we discussed?

HB : Different participants always have different perception of the same environmentla variable…. J.

Boris

Warren

On 11 Feb 2017, at 22:43, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.11.1440)

Martin Taylor 2017.02.10.12.37]

RM: The link is that both the ideas – the idea that “control of perception is primary” and that “facts depend on theory” – betray a “theory first” approach to PCT.

RM: Those words are rather strange, at least as concerns me. I have never said, nor, I hope, suggested, that “control of perception is primary: in PCT”.

MT: What I have said is that according to the theory of perceptual control (in whatever form, whether Powers’s Hierarchical PCT or any other) ONLY perception is controlled.

RM: But that’s not true. What is also controlled is Qi, the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the perception the system controls. If this were not the case – if Qi were not controlled when perception is controlled – then the TCV would be impossible to do. But the TCV is possible, as demonstrated most dramatically by my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). In that demo the computer is able to determine which of the 3 avatars is being controlled (moved intentionally) by seeing which movement path is being protected from disturbances. The movement path that is being protected from disturbance is the controlled quantity, Qi.

RM: If all that was controlled by a control system was perception then the computer would not be able to tell which of the 3 avatars is being controlled. Indeed, if all that was controlled by a controlled system was perception it would be impossible to do the TCV. This would also make it impossible to test the PCT model of human nature. Indeed, it would make the scientific study of living control systems impossible.

RM: So this is why I object to what I see as your “theory first” approach, which sees the theoretical perception as the only thing that is controlled by a control system. It seems to rule out a scientific approach to the study of living control systems, which is the approach I prefer.

Best

Rick

MT: The idea (theory) that only perception can be controlled is based on the idea (theory), going back at least to Plato and strongly endorsed by Powers, that the only facts of which we can be sure are our perceptions

From here, I’ll let Rick argue with himself, as he likes to do, while I kibbitz.

…I’m prepared to accept the fact that many people who, like me, are controlling for PCT being the best explanation of human nature are controlling for it because they like the theory rather than it’s ability to account for data.

There’s nothing wrong with liking a theory for its “beauty”. It’s what led Einstein to Relativity Theory, after all. But that wasn’t what he got his Nobel for (it was the photo-electric effect). However, if it hadn’t accounted for data not previously observed, such as gravitational lensing and last year’s two observations of gravitational waves, Relativity Theory would now be long forgotten. “Beauty” can be a seductive guide in science, as in life, and there are probably as many beautifully wrong theories as there are femmes fatales.

RM: …Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince me to revise mine.

As has become clear over the decades. It’s not a very scientific position to take.

Powers “data first” approach to the development (and explanation) of PCT is what attracted me to PCT in the first place. It wasn’t because I had some preconceptions about how behavior should be explained. It wasn’t because I thought the theory was attractive. It was because of the theory’s ability to account for the data…

Which you say above was not true.

RM: One last point about the lateral inhibition (LI) and receptive field data collected in an “S-R framework”. I believe that a complete theory of behavior, which PCT purports to be, must be able to account for all data relevant to that behavior, regardless of the theoretical framework in which it was collected. This, as Powers knew, includes all the data collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of experimental psychology.

Apart from the self-contradiction, this does also contradict a lot of what Rick and to some extent Powers attacked me for when I suggested that some, or even most, data obtained under non-PCT paradigms could and should be explained by PCT. Their approach then was that although there might be some useful data, it all should be thrown away and data gathering started afresh.

And PCT does this account for this [MT: all the data collected within the causal (or S-R) framework of experimental psychology] data;

That’s an extraordinarily sweeping statement. I’d like to believe it to be true, and I have faith that it is true (because I don’t think all those data should be thrown away), but I don’t think I will know it in my lifetime. Bill thought it would take centuries to prove the related proposition that PCT could account for all human (and biological) behaviour, but like most of us here, had faith that it would eventually be proven.


I write the above not to argue with Rick, because he does it well enough for himself, but to correct possible misconceptions some of his readers may have. I do believe Rick on one thing he says of himself: " Maybe it is possible to be convinced to revise one’s approach to gaining knowledge. But I’m afraid it would be impossible to convince me to revise mine."

Martin

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery