you are really "good student" :)) You are progressing very well.
There's stil some "black points".
As usualy I put my text into yours.
···
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Marken" <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Using PCT as a Framework for Behavior Change
[From Rick Marken (2012.06.22.0900)]
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:06 AM, boris_upc <boris.hartman@masicom.net> > wrote:
BH: Sorry Rick that I jump in the conversation...I have again
troubles with your definition...
No problem.
RM: I don't understand. What do initial conditions have to do with it?
To measure the success of control (it seems to me) you have to know
what control is. I define it as the maintenance of a variable in a
pre-defined state, protected from disturbance.
HB : Bill defined CONTROL as (B:CP) : "Achievement and maintainance
of a preselected PERCEPTUAL STATE in the controlling system,
through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of
disturbances".
Do you feel the difference ? I think if you are talking about PCT
(perceptual control theory), there must be at least one word about
perception in the "definition".
RM: Perceptions _are_ variables. Perceptions are controlled variables
from the point of view of the controlling system; they are aspects of
the environment from the point of view of the person measuring the
success of the controlling done by he controller. Think of it in terms
of the basic tracking task that we use to illustrate the nature of
control (see for example
Nature of Control). From the
controller's perspective what is controlled is a perceptual variable
-- a perception of the distance between target and cursor.
HB : Well Rick, I think this is superb explanation. It really reminds me
on Bills' precise PCT thinking. Stick to it. That's the way to go.
RM : From the observer's perspective, what is controlled is an aspect of the
environment: the distance between target and cursor which can be
measured in pixels.
HB : I praised you to soon 
Observer is not controlling the "objective world" - the distance
between target and cursor which can be measured in pixels -
but is controlling the perception of the distance, too.
Obsever is living control system too. He can control only perception.
You said nicely by yourself before : perceptions are controlled
variables in any living control system.
Observer is controlling perception....
RM : So I use the word "variable" rather than
"perceptual variable" in my definition of control above because the
success of control (in the tracking task, for example) is measured in
terms of what from the observer's perspective is a variable aspect of
the external environment.
HB : Again, remember Rick, we can't know anything about
"objective world" without perception. All there is,
is our "perceptual world" of individuals on which
bases we can make a connclusion of some "objective world"
but we still didn't find the way to perfect agreement.
There are disagreements and coflicts
about who percept what, all the time
You find for yourself that between you and Bill there are
differences in "control thinking" and misunderstandings
"that can be resolved though more detailed discussion,
demonstration, modeling and/or testing.
Language, no matter how expertly used, will never be
perfectly clear (non-vague) or unambiguous".
You see you said it for yourself in your discussion with Bill
that there will be always differences in your
perception of "real machine" and in controlling.
The differences will be always present and that is
because you are genetically different control systems with your unique
characteristics and thus unique "control thinking". Why not accept your
individuality and originality in "control thinking" ? Why you want to be so
like Bill ?
Even in atomic physics and in astronomy (better not mention
other sciences like psychology, sociology and so on)
there are different interperetations of their perceptual
results (measures) of the "objective world".
Neither "simulating" control system nor observer as a control system
knows nothing about "objective world", if there is no perception.
Perception is all there is. From whatever angel of living control systems
you take it.
BH: And what did you mean by protecting variable from disturbances ?
RM: Acting to keep the variable in a reference state, which often
means acting to counter disturbances that would move the variable from
that state.
HB : I still don't understand what you meant by "protecting". In
dictionary I found term "protect" what
could mean : shelter, sheltering; screening;
safeguard; guarding against. You Americans will probably
know better what does it mean
I tried to translate in PCT thinking and it could mean
disturbances that didn't affect "controlled variable" yet
as something is preventing them from doing that.
So I suppose that "protect function" from disturbances
could have some "reflexes".
But in literature is quiite obvious that primary physiological control
systems work on the bases off counteracting (compensating)
of disturbances as Bill proposed.
By my oppinion "counteracting" means that
disturbances have already affected "controlled variable" and
that is what's happening all the time in physiology of organism.
All the time "intrinsic", "essential" variables are affected by
disturbances and produce "intrinsic error"
Control systems in organism percept that and act to
"anihilate" (counteract, compensate) the effect of
disturbances to some predefined state.
I understood Bill's explanation of control system in
that direction. So I think that primary process in control systems
is counteraction and term "protection" could be
meachanism beside counteraction for some situations.
Maybe we could make it equal to "feed-forward" control,
which is, if I remember right, not anymore actual or valid
concept in PCT as Bill quite convincing showed.
BH: As I see it, it seems to me that you are talking about variable
as something that exist outside the organism as some
"objective variable" which is maintained in some preselected state
and protected from disturbances...Did I missed something ?
RM: No. See my discussion above. A controlled variable is _both_ a
perceptual and an environmental variable, depending on one's
perspective.
HB : There is only "one" perspective - perceptual.
On what bases can you say, that one environmental
variable is controlled or exist ?
How can you know that there is some "objective",
environmental variable in "external" world to "control it directly" ?
Because you said so...Others said so...Who said so ?
I beleive that in PCT judgement about state of any environmental
variable can be done only on the bases of perception.
BH: I always understood PCT as theory of living control system
that all can do, is to control perception.
RM: Yes, but those perceptions are a function of environmental
variables; that's part of PCT as well. So when a control system is
controlling a perceptual variable it is also controlling an aspect of
the physical environment that corresponds to that perception.
HB : Right. Again superb explanation. Stick to it :))
RM : Here thinking about a thermostat may be helpful;
the thermostat controls a > perceptual representation
of an aspect of the environment > (temperature)
and, in the process it controls the actual temperature.
BH : Different thermostats can dfferently (aproximately) measure
"actual temperature". What does it mean "actual temperature" ?
If you find me two thermostats that will
show exactly the same temperature of "external" enviroment,
and than some "objective observer" who will confirm that temperature
of an aspect of environemnt is exactly the same as thermostats
show, I'll beleive you.
BH: So in the PCT definition of control at least something like
perception should be mentioned. I think that Bill's "definition"
is much better.
Maybe it's better to read and quote masters of PCT
as I give you a hint ? :))
Actually, in your next post you quote a definition of control by the
master di tutti masters, Bill Powers himself, that leaves out
perception. You quoted Bill approvingly when he said: "We control
variables, not things". No mention of perception. And it's not
necessary.
HB : In my next post I didin't quote a "DEFINITION of control by
master di tutti masters, Bill Powers himself, that leaves out
perception".
Please find me where I mentioned the word "definition".
It's just your illusion (perception). Some relative perception,
"definition" of control was introduced only in this post by you.
In the next post, "control" was used in another
context and I clearly understood what Bill wanted to say.
It was just a "chat", tea-time talking :)). No definitions. Just
optional explanations. I understood it as methodical procedure
of understandable clarifying of "person control". You see, my
perceptual view is affected by my profession :))
RM : I readily understood what he meant: we control variables
which are perceptual variables from the point of view of the
controlling system and variable aspects of the environment from the
point of view of the observer of the system.
HB : Beside your some superb explanations, you are all the time
thinking that somebody (observer) "see directly" to
"variable in physical environment" which is part
of some "objective world" or can we say "real machine"
as Ashby called it.
Any living control unit can "see" the "objective world" only through
a perception and it's more or less accurate or inacurate (ilusions,
halucinations, dreams, ...). Always there are endless
perceptual interpretations of the same "physical enviroment"
by different people, who more or less differently percept it.
Look anywhere in books, news-papers, Twitter, blogs,
political, family, PCT querell...
There are differences in perceptions anywhere, sometimes
of the same "objective events" which bear great differences
in interpretations. I suppose on the bases of different control of
perception on different hierarchical levels..
There is no unique "understandig" of "objective world" or
"real machine". People work only with perceptual 2aproximations".
We can't "see" directly how "real world" look like. We
can make conclusions only on the bases of our
and others perceptions, if we are "willing" to "exchange"..
But in "exchange" of perception you have perception of
percetion of perception....depends how many "exchanges"
you made.
All are just perceptions as Bill showed. There is no
difference between control systems,
whether they are obervers or not. They all control perception.
Perception is all there is to control.
Please read more of PCT masters :)). You are progressing
very, very good.
I found some more good PCT reading : Timothy Carey. Very good.
Best,
Boris
