Two Meanings of Control

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and
research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something
we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)”: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position
of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)”: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller
against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions
– current, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception
we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away
from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control
your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances.
We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle
but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in
our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the
perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of
reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering
wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected
from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well).
In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)”: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)”: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – current, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand
and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a
consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that
causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control
that perception in PCT terms.”
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying
that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and
research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something
we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)”: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position
of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)”: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller
against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions
– current, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception
we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away
from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control
your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances.
We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle
but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in
our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the
perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of
reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering
wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected
from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well).
In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.”
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)”: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)”: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – current, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

···

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

Â

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

Â

[Eetu Pikkarainen  2017-10-23]

Â

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

Â

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized): Â

Â

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

Â

Eetu

Â

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

Â

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

Â

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

Â

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

Â

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

Â

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

Â

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

Â

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – current, past and thosse shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

Â

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

Â

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

Â

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

Â

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Â

Eetu

Â

 Please, regard all my statements as questions,

 no matter how they are formulated.

Â

Â

Â

Â

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Â

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

Â

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

Â

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

Â

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

Â

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

Â

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

Â

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car.  PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Â

Fred Nickols

–

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

[FredNickols]

Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

Fred Nickols

···

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)<

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – cuurrent, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

–
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

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1235)]

···

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

RM: Gee, I thought it was Boris!

Best

RickÂ

Fred Nickols
Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

–

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

Â

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

Â

[Eetu Pikkarainen  2017-10-23]

Â

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

Â

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized): Â

Â

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)<

Â

Eetu

Â

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

Â

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

Â

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

Â

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

Â

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

Â

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

Â

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

Â

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – current, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

Â

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

Â

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

Â

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

Â

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Â

Eetu

Â

 Please, regard all my statements as questions,

 no matter how they are formulated.

Â

Â

Â

Â

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Â

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

Â

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

Â

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

Â

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

Â

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

Â

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

Â

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car.  PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Â

Fred Nickols

–
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

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

[FredNickols]

From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.1549 ET)

Do you have any comments about what Eetu and I were discussing?

Fred Nickols

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1235)]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

RM: Gee, I thought it was Boris!

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – current, past and those shared by other peoplee. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

–

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

–

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

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.25.1740)]

···

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.1549 ET)

Â

FN: Do you have any comments about what Eetu and I were discussing?

RM: Sorry for the delay. Sure, I can coment.Â

RM: You started by saying: “It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!”

RM: First, I see two very different audiences who are not accepting PCT: laypeople and scientists. I think the word “control” has a lot to do with why PCT has not gained acceptance with laypeople. To them "control" often conjures up images of unpleasant things like oppression and dictatorship. This, I believe, is the “common sense” image of “control”. We wrote “Controlling People” for the layperson in order to try to dispel this as the only image of “control”. In the book we acknowledge that “control” can refer to controlling other people but we point out that it can also refer to being skilled – being “in control”; and we point out that these two images are two sides of the same coin – the coin of human nature. So at least two advocates of PCT (Tim and me) have not simply hewed to the idea that the common sense view of “control” is wrong. Â

RM: The reason PCT has not been accepted by scientists has nothing to do with problems with the word “control” (although many scientists misinterpret the word “control” to be synonymous with “cause”). Scientists who have taken the trouble to study PCT and still reject it do so for the reasons Bill gives in his Foreword to the forthcoming LCS: IV: "…when they see that [PCT] means their life’s
work could end up mostly in the trash-can, their…reaction is simply to
think "That idea is obviously wrong."Â

RM: These are the acceptance problems that PCT has faced since it was first developed. I think that PCT itself says that there is no particularly good way to deal with these problems; trying to “sell” PCT with clever re-wording or by ignoring misconceptions about PCT can 't change the fact that PCT (when correctly understood) is a disturbance to ideas that are very important to these audiences. All we can do is hope that PCT will eventually become the accepted theory in scientific psychology and laypeople will take the scientists word for it (as they did with evolution by natural selection, though there are still a good number of holdouts).Â

RM: I personally find that the best way for me to deal with lack of acceptance of PCT is to lower the gain on the goal of getting PCT accepted. I just enjoy the beauty of the theory and know that it will eventually be accepted if I keep doing good work on it.

Best

Rick

Â

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

Â

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1235)]

Â

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

Â

RM: Gee, I thought it was Boris!

Â

Best

Â

RickÂ

Â

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

Â

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

Â

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

Â

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

Â

[Eetu Pikkarainen  2017-10-23]

Â

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

Â

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized): Â

Â

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

Â

Eetu

Â

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

Â

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

Â

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

Â

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

Â

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

Â

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

Â

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

Â

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – current, past annd those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

Â

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

Â

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

Â

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

Â

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Â

Eetu

Â

 Please, regard all my statements as questions,

 no matter how they are formulated.

Â

Â

Â

Â

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Â

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

Â

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

Â

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

Â

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

Â

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

Â

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

Â

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car.  PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Â

Fred Nickols

Â

–

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

Â

–

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

–
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

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-31-16:02]

···

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.25.1740)]

Thanks Rick for comments. It seems a little that you exclude some audience and talk only about laymen and scientific psychologists. For me one interesting audience is members of other - especially human - sciences where
I include myself. (And in a way for human living we are all amateurs.) For me PCT was not a new problem but rather a solution for my long time theoretical problems. My experience now is that educationalists, sociologists and semioticians have been very interested
and positive to PCT when I have tried to introduce it. But I have a feeling that it is extremely important how – with which cconcepts – you introduce it for people to unnderstand at all and not to understand all wrong.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.1549 ET)

FN: Do you have any comments about what Eetu and I were discussing?

RM: Sorry for the delay.
Sure, I can coment.

RM: You started by saying: “It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at
odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!”

RM: First, I see two very different audiences who are not accepting PCT: laypeople and scientists. I think the word “control” has a lot to do with why PCT has not gained acceptance with laypeople.
To them “control” often conjures up images of unpleasant things like oppression and dictatorship. This, I believe, is the “common sense” image of “control”. We wrote “Controlling People” for the layperson in order to try to dispel this as the only image of
“control”. In the book we acknowledge that “control” can refer to controlling other people but we point out that it can also refer to being skilled – being “in control”; and we point out that these two images are two sides of the same coin – the coin of
human nature. So at least two advocates of PCT (Tim and me) have not simply hewed to the idea that the common sense view of “control” is wrong.

RM: The reason PCT has not been accepted by scientists has nothing to do with problems with the word “control” (although many scientists misinterpret the word “control” to be synonymous with “cause”). Scientists who have taken the trouble
to study PCT and still reject it do so for the reasons Bill gives in his Foreword to the forthcoming LCS: IV: "… when they see that [PCT] means their life’s work could end up mostly in the trash-can,
their…reaction is simply to think “That idea is obviously wrong.”

RM: These are the acceptance problems that PCT has faced since it was first developed. I think that PCT itself says that there is no particularly good way to deal with these problems;
trying to “sell” PCT with clever re-wording or by ignoring misconceptions about PCT can 't change the fact that PCT (when correctly understood) is a disturbance to ideas that are very important to these audiences. All we can do is hope that PCT will eventually
become the accepted theory in scientific psychology and laypeople will take the scientists word for it (as they did with evolution by natural selection, though there are still a good number of holdouts).

RM: I personally find that the best way for me to deal with lack of acceptance of PCT is to lower the gain on the goal of getting PCT accepted. I just enjoy the beauty of the theory
and know that it will eventually be accepted if I keep doing good work on it.

Best

Rick

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1235)]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

RM: Gee, I thought it was Boris!

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected
but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a
consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that
causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control
that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

/span>

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I
think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control
our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the
same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround
some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely
expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in
way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external
(or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and
states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – currennt, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin
or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing
that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the
wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just
the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference
value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally
matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to
us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful
things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently
our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control
is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control
the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some
reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right
fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said
to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment
of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

–

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

–

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

–

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Down

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 9:35 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1235)]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

RM: Gee, I thought it was Boris!

HB : Rick you know that you admitted that you are outgoing yourself in stupidity, so I will not take seriously your words. I think that »giants« means persons who understand PCT and speccially understand how orgsnimas function. And you are not among them. And you don’t understand how organisms fumction, you don’t understand PCT. In the matter of fact you are giant for destroying PCT.

But anyway I’ll be glad when you’ll understand so much PCT as I do, And when you’ll understand 30 c% of how organisms function as I do. We know that you are »giant« of RCT (Ricks Control Theorry). Stop »peeping« and »cheeping« Rick, We are waiting for your real arguments about »«Control of behavior«, »Controlled Perceptual Variable« and so on …. .

As »giants« of PCT are concerned there aren’t many left.

Henry Yin is with no doubt on first place with Kent McClelland. They both proved their understanding with remarkable articles. I’d speccially like to point out Henrys’ article 2014 where he originally upgraded PCT, and Kents’ article 2004.

Then Rupert Young and Bob Hintz proved their understanding here on CSGnet. I still don’t know where to place Bruce Nevin. He is promising something with real time perception and how imagination »replace the gaps« in perceptual control hierarchy.

. It’s quite hard question, And I hope he’ll succed in solving the »equatation«. Then I’ll try to conclude how much he understand PCT.

All in all there aren’t many »giants« left in PCT.

The problem Fred pointed out with »giants« is also connected to the question how much all on CSGnet understand how organisms function. There’s probably few of them. For now I know that I understand and Richard Pfau wrote about organisma functioning not just from view of PCT but also from biological view (Maturana). We cooperated in this part before book was published. It seems that I’m the only one on this forum who talked to Maturana. He also asked me to send him copy of his book in Slovene language. So if anybody will visit »Instituto Matriztico« in Santiago he can ask to check whether I’m telling the truth. Book has my dedication and sign.

The biggest problem I see is, whether ,members has any background in physilogical knowledge is in their understanding of organisms fucntioning which is limiting one in producing imginational constructs which have no connection to »real Reality«. So physiological and biological knowledge can limit the production of cognition about how organisms function. Let us remember.

Bill P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) :

Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms.

HB : I’ve seen only couple of books or articles that include or are trying to accomplish this biological and physiological becakground as the priority for PCT advancement. These are : Henry Yin, Kent McClelland, and Richard Pfau. So I think that they have advantage in respect to others as understanding of PCT is concerned. Speccially Richard Pfau showed a great width in using all kind of knowledge (biological, physiological, psychological….) Â to support PCT. I think that iss the way for PCT to progress in understanding how organisms function not in playing with joystick or mouse and imagining things about PCT that don’t exist.

Everything what is written on CSGnet should be in »correspondance« with what Bill wrote about PCT. Maybe Martin can explain why so little »correspondance« exist with Bills’ literature on CSGnet forum. Is »correposndance« of perception to reality really that process which define perception on all levels of hierarchy ?

CSGnet forum is in memoriam to Bill and Mary Powers not for imaginational constructs of some members. All models and defitnions in PCT has to be in accordance to how organisms function. They are meant for better understanding of organisms functioning.

Bill did a great job. The furndaments of organisms model are very firm. There are some problems that should be upgraded.

One upgrade was contributed by Herny Yin. So I’m asking myself if PCT will be upgraded more or not ? For now nothing is happening. So the future of PCT is uncertain. Still nobody solved the question Dag was asking about. How to avoid conflict in diagram on p.191 (B:CP, 2005) ??? If you don’t solve that riddel, you’ll never understand how organisms function and thus all »theories« will be private with no possibility to match them to some whole reference.

Maybe »giant« Ricky will tell us how to solve the ridle. Ordinary Boris could solve the problem. But most of you already know that.

Boris

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – current, past and those shaared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

–

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

–

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Dear Eetu,

EP : My experience now is that educationalists, sociologists and semioticians have been very interested and positive to PCT when I have tried to introduce it. But I have a feeling that it is extremely important how – with which concepts – you introduce it for people to uo understand at all and not to understand all wrong.

HB : I’m dealing with the problem you are mentioning bellow for a long time here on CSGnet.Â

I found out that whatever people experienced in life to be good or bad for their control it will aproximately form their way of keeping »homeostais« and their future way of behaving. It’s not necessary but usually people behave in line of »the smallest effort« or the easiest way to comfort life.Â

It’s seems the way of thinking, feeling, acting….wich they preserve iif it is effective for control. Maybe we can call it »habitual« way of life or »stiffness« or whatever if I understood what is meant by »stiffness«. Important is that it’s usefull for their internal control.

So if I understood right you’ll be dealing with people who doesn’t know anything about PCT.

I think it’s good that you first explore how they are used to keep their control in hierarchy. I’m trying on CSGnet to persuade people that their perceptions have to »correspond« to PCT literature, but there is no effect. The more I citate from Bills literature the more they pull on their own It’s obviously that they understand PCT in accordance to what they want to read. So that it will »fit« in their way of thinking, theories etc. I think that Piaget called it »assimilation«. If I try to translate it in PCT, it seems that people are sinchronising what they perceive with their used control »patterns« inside. It’s maybe because of Hebbs rule. The more frequently neurons fire together, the more chances are that they will link toghether and preserve neuron chain speccially if people are frequently repeating the way of their control. I think this is good to understand when you try to edcuate any people in PCT.Â

It seems that poeple are creating »reorganizational circuits in nervous system in the way which they learned to suit them well for their optimal control. And they will hardly change that. All members that I’ve seen talking here on CSGnet show these characteristic. Including me J.

It’s seems that the way how people leraned to control (keep their intrinsic variables in reference states) is the optimal way to :Â keep their homeostatical state, which include the way of thinking, feeling, acting… It includes all individual ccharacteristics of personality. They will hardly change their way of thinking if their way of life is giving them enough satisfaction.

And the problem is of course that one who tries to educate PCT, has to underdstand it perfectly. If the one who is doing PCT education is oscilating between theories is better that he doesn’t do it.

Best regards,

Boris

Â

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:07 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-31-16:02]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.25.1740)]

Thanks Rick for comments. It seems a little that you exclude some audience and talk only about laymen and scientific psychologists. For me one interesting audience is members of other - especially human - sciences where I include myself. (And in a way for human living we are all amateurs.) For me PCT was not a new problem but rather a solution for my long time theoretical problems. My experience now is that educationalists, sociologists and semioticians have been very interested and positive to PCT when I have tried to introduce it. But I have a feeling that it is extremely important how – with which concepts – you introduce it for people to understandd at all and not to understand all wrong.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.1549 ET)

FN: Do you have any comments about what Eetu and I were discussing?

RM: Sorry for the delay. Sure, I can coment.

RM: You started by saying: “It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!”

RM: First, I see two very different audiences who are not accepting PCT: laypeople and scientists. I think the word “control” has a lot to do with why PCT has not gained acceptance with laypeople. To them “control” often conjures up images of unpleasant things like oppression and dictatorship. This, I believe, is the “common sense” image of “control”. We wrote “Controlling People” for the layperson in order to try to dispel this as the only image of “control”. In the book we acknowledge that “control” can refer to controlling other people but we point out that it can also refer to being skilled – being “in control”; and we point out that these two images are two sides of the same coin – the coin of human nature. So at least two advocates of PCT (Tim and me) have not simply hewed to the idea that the common sense view of “control” is wrong.

RM: The reason PCT has not been accepted by scientists has nothing to do with problems with the word “control” (although many scientists misinterpret the word “control” to be synonymous with “cause”). Scientists who have taken the trouble to study PCT and still reject it do so for the reasons Bill gives in his Foreword to the forthcoming LCS: IV: "…when they see that [PCT] means their life’s work could end up mostly in the trash-can, their…reaction is simply to think “That idea is obviously wrong.”

RM: These are the acceptance problems that PCT has faced since it was first developed. I think that PCT itself says that there is no particularly good way to deal with these problems; trying to “sell” PCT with clever re-wording or by ignoring misconceptions about PCT can 't change the fact that PCT (when correctly understood) is a disturbance to ideas that are very important to these audiences. All we can do is hope that PCT will eventually become the accepted theory in scientific psychology and laypeople will take the scientists word for it (as they did with evolution by natural selection, though there are still a good number of holdouts).

RM: I personally find that the best way for me to deal with lack of acceptance of PCT is to lower the gain on the goal of getting PCT accepted. I just enjoy the beauty of the theory and know that it will eventually be accepted if I keep doing good work on it.

Best

Rick

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1235)]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

RM: Gee, I thought it was Boris!

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – currrent, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

–

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

–

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

–

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

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-11-01.18:01]

Dear Boris,

First I must say that I don’t think I am doing any PCT education. In my teaching I only try to mention to students in suitable connections that there exists such less known but interesting
theory. To colleagues in seminars and conferences (and publications) I try tell how I understand and utilize PCT conception at the moment. I say that the theory is new to me and that if anyone becomes interested they must consult B:CP.

I agree that people often try to continue their habitual ways of thinking with least effort. I describe it as central feature of the non-scientific every day reason. But in science (so
I teach) it should be different. Here we are – or shouldd be – actively and voluntarily seeking faullts in our current thoughts and trying new ways of thinking. (This is of course an ideal.)

I think that when I am telling about PCT it is generally best to start from the idea of self-preservation, that any organism - from the most simple to most complex - must control its
intrinsic variables to stay alive. From that I can continue to interaction with environment, the must of affecting and stabilizing things in the environment. Only after that it is possible to start to compare organism to thermostat and draw technical diagrams.
Thus it goes from soft and warm to hard and technical.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

Dear Eetu,

EP : My experience now is that educationalists, sociologists and semioticians have been very interested and positive to PCT when I have tried to introduce it. But I have a feeling that it is extremely important how –
wiith which concepts – you introduce it for peeople to understand at all and not to understand all wrong.

HB : I’m dealing with the problem you are mentioning bellow for a long time here on CSGnet.

I found out that whatever people experienced in life to be good or bad for their control it will aproximately form their way of keeping »homeostais« and their future way of behaving. It’s not necessary
but usually people behave in line of »the smallest effort« or the easiest way to comfort life.

It’s seems the way of thinking, feeling, acting….wich they preserve if it is effective foor control. Maybe we can call it »habitual« way of life or »stiffness« or whatever if I understood what is meant
by »stiffness«. Important is that it’s usefull for their internal control.

So if I understood right you’ll be dealing with people who doesn’t know anything about PCT.

I think it’s good that you first explore how they are used to keep their control in hierarchy. I’m trying on CSGnet to persuade people that their perceptions have to »correspond« to PCT literature,
but there is no effect. The more I citate from Bills literature the more they pull on their own It’s obviously that they understand PCT in accordance to what they want to read. So that it will »fit« in their way of thinking, theories etc. I think that Piaget
called it »assimilation«. If I try to translate it in PCT, it seems that people are sinchronising what they perceive with their used control »patterns« inside. It’s maybe because of Hebbs rule. The more frequently neurons fire together, the more chances are
that they will link toghether and preserve neuron chain speccially if people are frequently repeating the way of their control. I think this is good to understand when you try to edcuate any people in PCT.

It seems that poeple are creating »reorganizational circuits in nervous system in the way which they learned to suit them well for their optimal control. And they will hardly change that. All members
that I’ve seen talking here on CSGnet show these characteristic. Including me
J.

It’s seems that the way how people leraned to control (keep their intrinsic variables in reference states) is the optimal way to : keep their homeostatical state, which include the way of thinking,
feeling, acting… It includes all indiividual characteristics of personality. They will hardly change their way of thinking if their way of life is giving them enough satisfaction.

And the problem is of course that one who tries to educate PCT, has to underdstand it perfectly. If the one who is doing PCT education is oscilating between theories is better that he doesn’t do it.

Best regards,

Boris

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:07 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-31-16:02]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.25.1740)]

Thanks Rick for comments. It seems a little that you exclude some audience and talk only about laymen and scientific psychologists. For me one interesting audience is members of other - especially human - sciences where
I include myself. (And in a way for human living we are all amateurs.) For me PCT was not a new problem but rather a solution for my long time theoretical problems. My experience now is that educationalists, sociologists and semioticians have been very interested
and positive to PCT when I have tried to introduce it. But I have a feeling that it is extremely important how – with whichh concepts – you introduce it for people to understand at all and not to understand all wrong.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.1549 ET)

FN: Do you have any comments about what Eetu and I were discussing?

RM: Sorry for the delay.
Sure, I can coment.

RM: You started by saying: “It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at
odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!”

RM: First, I see two very different audiences who are not accepting PCT: laypeople and scientists. I think the word “control” has a lot to do with why PCT has not gained acceptance with laypeople.
To them “control” often conjures up images of unpleasant things like oppression and dictatorship. This, I believe, is the “common sense” image of “control”. We wrote “Controlling People” for the layperson in order to try to dispel this as the only image of
“control”. In the book we acknowledge that “control” can refer to controlling other people but we point out that it can also refer to being skilled – being “in control”; and we point out that these two images are two sides of the same coin – the coin of
human nature. So at least two advocates of PCT (Tim and me) have not simply hewed to the idea that the common sense view of “control” is wrong.

RM: The reason PCT has not been accepted by scientists has nothing to do with problems with the word “control” (although many scientists misinterpret the word “control” to be synonymous with “cause”). Scientists who have taken the trouble
to study PCT and still reject it do so for the reasons Bill gives in his Foreword to the forthcoming LCS: IV: "… when they see that [PCT] means their life’s work could end up mostly in the trash-can,
their…reaction is simply to think “That idea is obviously wrong.”

RM: These are the acceptance problems that PCT has faced since it was first developed. I think that PCT itself says that there is no particularly good way to deal with these problems;
trying to “sell” PCT with clever re-wording or by ignoring misconceptions about PCT can 't change the fact that PCT (when correctly understood) is a disturbance to ideas that are very important to these audiences. All we can do is hope that PCT will eventually
become the accepted theory in scientific psychology and laypeople will take the scientists word for it (as they did with evolution by natural selection, though there are still a good number of holdouts).

RM: I personally find that the best way for me to deal with lack of acceptance of PCT is to lower the gain on the goal of getting PCT accepted. I just enjoy the beauty of the theory
and know that it will eventually be accepted if I keep doing good work on it.

Best

Rick

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1235)]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us >
wrote:

FN: Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

RM: Gee, I thought it was Boris!

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected
but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a
consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that
causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control
that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

<

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I
think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control
our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the
same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround
some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely
expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in
way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external
(or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and
states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – currrent, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin
or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing
that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the
wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just
the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference
value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally
matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to
us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful
things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently
our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control
is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control
the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some
reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right
fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said
to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment
of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

–

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

–

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

–

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Dear Eetu.

What you descibeed is perfect approach to think and speak about PCT.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 5:25 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-11-01.18:01]

Dear Boris,

First I must say that I don’t think I am doing any PCT education. In my teaching I only try to mention to students in suitable connections that there exists such less known but interesting theory. To colleagues in seminars and conferences (and publications) I try tell how I understand and utilize PCT conception at the moment. I say that the theory is new to me and that if anyone becomes interested they must consult B:CP.

I agree that people often try to continue their habitual ways of thinking with least effort. I describe it as central feature of the non-scientific every day reason. But in science (so I teach) it should be different. Here we are – or should be – activtively and voluntarily seeking faults in our current thoughts and trying new ways of thinking. (This is of course an ideal.)

I think that when I am telling about PCT it is generally best to start from the idea of self-preservation, that any organism - from the most simple to most complex - must control its intrinsic variables to stay alive. From that I can continue to interaction with environment, the must of affecting and stabilizing things in the environment. Only after that it is possible to start to compare organism to thermostat and draw technical diagrams. Thus it goes from soft and warm to hard and technical.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

Dear Eetu,

EP : My experience now is that educationalists, sociologists and semioticians have been very interested and positive to PCT when I have tried to introduce it. But I have a feeling that it is extremely important how – with which concepts  “ you introduce it for people to understand at all and not to understand all wrong.

HB : I’m dealing with the problem you are mentioning bellow for a long time here on CSGnet.

I found out that whatever people experienced in life to be good or bad for their control it will aproximately form their way of keeping »homeostais« and their future way of behaving. It’s not necessary but usually people behave in line of »the smallest effort« or the easiest way to comfort life.

It’s seems the way of thinking, feeling, acting….wich they preserve if it is effective for control. Maybe we cann call it »habitual« way of life or »stiffness« or whatever if I understood what is meant by »stiffness«. Important is that it’s usefull for their internal control.

So if I understood right you’ll be dealing with people who doesn’t know anything about PCT.

I think it’s good that you first explore how they are used to keep their control in hierarchy. I’m trying on CSGnet to persuade people that their perceptions have to »correspond« to PCT literature, but there is no effect. The more I citate from Bills literature the more they pull on their own It’s obviously that they understand PCT in accordance to what they want to read. So that it will »fit« in their way of thinking, theories etc. I think that Piaget called it »assimilation«. If I try to translate it in PCT, it seems that people are sinchronising what they perceive with their used control »patterns« inside. It’s maybe because of Hebbs rule. The more frequently neurons fire together, the more chances are that they will link toghether and preserve neuron chain speccially if people are frequently repeating the way of their control. I think this is good to understand when you try to edcuate any people in PCT.

It seems that poeple are creating »reorganizational circuits in nervous system in the way which they learned to suit them well for their optimal control. And they will hardly change that. All members that I’ve seen talking here on CSGnet show these characteristic. Including me J.

It’s seems that the way how people leraned to control (keep their intrinsic variables in reference states) is the optimal way to : keep their homeostatical state, which include the way of thinking, feeling, acting… It includes all individual characteristics of personality. They will hardly change their way of thinking if their way of life is giving them enough satisfaction.

And the problem is of course that one who tries to educate PCT, has to underdstand it perfectly. If the one who is doing PCT education is oscilating between theories is better that he doesn’t do it.

Best regards,

Boris

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:07 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-31-16:02]

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.25.1740)]

Thanks Rick for comments. It seems a little that you exclude some audience and talk only about laymen and scientific psychologists. For me one interesting audience is members of other - especially human - sciences where I include myself. (And in a way for human living we are all amateurs.) For me PCT was not a new problem but rather a solution for my long time theoretical problems. My experience now is that educationalists, sociologists and semioticians have been very interested and positive to PCT when I have tried to introduce it. But I have a feeling that it is extremely important how – with which concepts – you in introduce it for people to understand at all and not to understand all wrong.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.1549 ET)

FN: Do you have any comments about what Eetu and I were discussing?

RM: Sorry for the delay. Sure, I can coment.

RM: You started by saying: “It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!”

RM: First, I see two very different audiences who are not accepting PCT: laypeople and scientists. I think the word “control” has a lot to do with why PCT has not gained acceptance with laypeople. To them “control” often conjures up images of unpleasant things like oppression and dictatorship. This, I believe, is the “common sense” image of “control”. We wrote “Controlling People” for the layperson in order to try to dispel this as the only image of “control”. In the book we acknowledge that “control” can refer to controlling other people but we point out that it can also refer to being skilled – being “in control”; and we point out that these two images are two sides of the same coin – the coin of human nature. So at least two advocates of PCT (Tim and me) have not simply hewed to the idea that the common sense view of “control” is wrong.

RM: The reason PCT has not been accepted by scientists has nothing to do with problems with the word “control” (although many scientists misinterpret the word “control” to be synonymous with “cause”). Scientists who have taken the trouble to study PCT and still reject it do so for the reasons Bill gives in his Foreword to the forthcoming LCS: IV: "…when they see that [PCT] means their life’s work could end up mostly in the trash-can, their…reaction is simply to think “That idea is obviously wrong.”

RM: These are the acceptance problems that PCT has faced since it was first developed. I think that PCT itself says that there is no particularly good way to deal with these problems; trying to “sell” PCT with clever re-wording or by ignoring misconceptions about PCT can 't change the fact that PCT (when correctly understood) is a disturbance to ideas that are very important to these audiences. All we can do is hope that PCT will eventually become the accepted theory in scientific psychology and laypeople will take the scientists word for it (as they did with evolution by natural selection, though there are still a good number of holdouts).

RM: I personally find that the best way for me to deal with lack of acceptance of PCT is to lower the gain on the goal of getting PCT accepted. I just enjoy the beauty of the theory and know that it will eventually be accepted if I keep doing good work on it.

Best

Rick

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:35 PM

To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1235)]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

FN: Yes, we do: it is Dag Forsell.

RM: Gee, I thought it was Boris!

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.10.23.1150)}

Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0806 ET)]

FN: That all makes sense to me, Eetu. Let’s see if any of the PCT giants weigh in and see what they have to say.

RM: There is only one PCT giant on this net and we all know who that is;-)

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 7:50 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-23]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.23.0637 ET)]

[EP] Actually the equation was meant to be simpler. No (mathematical) functions at all but only that control in ordinary sense consists of two interconnected but still different processes: stabilization on the one hand and control of perception on the other hand. So I would restate your statement in this way (changes italicized):

[EP] “Control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a consequence (or function?) of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that causes our perception which we wish to control and stabilizing it depends on being able to control that perception in PCT terms.�
(Perhaps too complicated sentence for my English…)

/span>

Eetu

[FN] I’m not sure I grasp all the implications of the equation but, overall, it makes sense to me. I suppose the measure of that is for me to restate what I think you’re saying. So, here goes: I think you’re saying that control, in the ordinary or layman’s sense, is a function of being able to stabilize some environmental variable that we wish to control and that stabilizing it depends on being able to control our perception of it in PCT terms.

Fred Nickols

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:34 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Two Meanings of Control

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-10-22]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.10.21.1100 ET)]

[EP] Fred, I quite agree and as a new comer I have all the time concerned myself how one should talk about PCT to those who have never heard about it and at the same time accurately. There are as in many sciences and research programs many technicalities which require the special language and cannot be simply translated to laymen. But the basic ideas of PCT are very near to the common sense just needing to turnaround some ways of thought and to pay attention to something we usually do not think about. Now, after your message I first thought that I got a new idea about that, but then I realized that it is just a simplified verbal description of the control loop. Concisely expressed the idea is this:

[EP] Control(-e) = [ Stabilization(-e) + Control(-p) ]

[EP] “Control(-e)�: Experiential control, the colloquial and common sense concept of control, according to which we or some subject can make some object act in way we or that subject wants. You can control the position of your car, parents can (or at least try) to control the behavior of their children, I can control myself (in some situations) etc. - in this sense of control-e.

[EP] “Stabilization(-e)�: Empirical stabilization, (at least in principle) measurable stabilization of some property or a value of some variable in the external (or internal) environment by the output effects of the controller against disturbances. (Disturbances being any other forces - except the action of the controller - which may affect that property or variable.)

[EP] Control(-p): Perceptual control, the mechanism (assumed by PCT) which enables the above mentioned phenomena of control. We know about the properties and states of affairs in our environment only via our perceptions – current, past and those shared by other people. So when we say that we control something in our environment, say room temperature, we are always controlling our perceptions of warmth in our skin or of the thermometer or in some other way.

[EP] So the ordinary thought or feeling that we control something is based on a two-partite process where we are controlling our perception of something by stabilizing that something to the state where it causes the perception we want to get. The stabilization happens so that we affect that something by our doings into the opposite direction than the possible disturbances. we try to keep that something where it causes the wanted perception - and the disturbances try to move it away from there. It is important to stress that the stabilization here does not mean anything like concreting something immobile forever, but it can be very momentary and flexible process.

[EP] In a strict PCT theoretical sense you don’t and cannot control anything in the environment but only your perceptions. But don’t worry, the result is just the same thanks to the stabilization you do when you control your perceptions. Why we cannot control anything but perceptions? The general definition of control goes like this: Causing the value of some variable to become same or near to some predefined reference value and keeping it there against all disturbances. We set those reference values by ourselves and we set them specifically and only for our perceptions. Then we just affect something in the environment so much and in such a way that our perception finally matches with our reference for it. Very simple in principle but in practice of course often requires very versatile and sophisticated ways to act.

[EP] What is the difference between perceptions and those somethings in the environment which we try to stabilize? Perceptions are the most familiar thing to us but presumably we know nothing about those somethings in our environment except that they (presumably?) cause our perceptions by affecting our sense organs and that we can affect them by for example our muscles. So we don’t know what strange and wonderful things there are in our environment but we know only the perceptions as effects of those somethings to the sensory system in us. Secondly we know from our long (personal and evolutive) experience how our actions seem to affect those something and subsequently our perceptions.

[EP] Do you agree with this and does that seem understandable?

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

[FN:]

It occurs to me that one of the reasons PCT is not gaining as wide an acceptance and influence as most of us would like to see is that the PCT view of control is at odds with a common sense view and, worse, instead of reconciling the two, that is, showing how both are valid and how they fit together, many if not most PCT advocates simply hew to the argument that the common sense view is wrong. It’s not!

Consider the regularly used example of driving a car; more specifically, keeping it more or less in the center of its lane. Common sense tells me that I control the position of my car and I do so by turning the steering wheel this way or that. In other words, I exercise control, I make the car do what I want.

From a more technical, control systems perspective, some variable (e.g., the car’s position in its lane) is under control when that variable is brought to some reference condition or standard and kept there, protected from all but insurmountable or overwhelming disturbances.

So now let’s look in more detail at controlling the car’s position in its lane.

The reference condition for the car’s position is centered in its lane.

How do I assess that? I look out the windshield at various aspects of my environment (e.g., the yellow center line, the right side lane marker, my front right fender, my front left fender, and perhaps others as well). In other words, I have a perception of the car’s position in its lane and it is through controlling that perception that I exercise whatever control over the position of the car that I might be said to have.

There is no external reference condition (e.g., 18 inches from the right lane marker); just my internal reference condition. There is no external assessment of the car’s position; just my perception of its position.

So, in the end, common sense tells me that I control the position of the car. PCT tells me how I manage to do that.

Fred Nickols

–

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

–

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

–

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

[PHILIP_JERAIR_YERANO]

It is unwise to discuss pct on the merit of its explanatory power. It is generally viewed that a theory gains acceptance not because of how it explains things differently, but rather beacuse of how it’s predictions differ from the predictions of other theories. If I may wonder, what predictions does pct offer that are different than those from other theories? In Marken’s book, he states that pct predicts the subject will control its own perception rather than be controlled by external stimuli. Marken predicts, for example, that the subject’s actions correlate to the disturbance (distance between the cursor and the target) and not to the stimulus (position of the cursor). While this is true, it is not the type of prediction that science is founded upon. This prediction involves values (disturbance and stimulus) that are not physically in the real world. As such, do you think it is acceptable to be led to a new theory using these experiments as justification? What predictions does pct make about the values of physical quantities that are different than those from the other theories? Furthermore, do any psychology theories make predictions about the values of physical quantities?

[EetuP]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-11-02 8:59]

Philip, that’s interesting question. My view is that it is very difficult to predict human action. Some even say it is impossible. Any way as far I know sciences like psychology have
not managed to create very reliable and at the same time interesting and important predictions. (Exceptions are perhaps predictions of purely physiological values.) I hope someone will prove me wrong. There is kind of a simple explanation for this: all predictions
about human action can be either self-realizing or self-cancelling. This means that if the subject happens to know the prediction she can decide to act either according to it or against it.

But PCT gives a credible scientific explanation why that prediction is so difficult. It is because humans and other organisms do not only react to stimuli (in regular ways) but they
have their own goals i.e. references, which are not measurable for an observer. Perhaps one could imagine that in the future some kind of complex brain scanner equipment could measure the references (and the whole hierarchical control structure) of a human
being. Then the reliable prediction could be possible. But (luckily) we are still very far from that.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

···

It is unwise to discuss pct on the merit of its explanatory power. It is generally viewed that a theory gains acceptance not because of how it explains things differently, but rather beacuse of how it’s predictions differ from the predictions
of other theories. If I may wonder, what predictions does pct offer that are different than those from other theories? In Marken’s book, he states that
pct predicts the subject will control its own perception rather than be controlled by external stimuli . Marken predicts, for example, that the subject’s actions correlate to the disturbance (distance between the cursor and the target) and not to the
stimulus (position of the cursor). While this is true, it is not the type of prediction that science is founded upon. This prediction involves values (disturbance and stimulus) that are not physically in the real world. As such, do you think it is acceptable
to be led to a new theory using these experiments as justification? What predictions does pct make
about the values of physical quantities that are different than those from the other theories? Furthermore, do
any psychology theories make predictions about the values of physical quantities?