VS: VS: Behavior is (part of) Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

Eetu,

  The term "reference state" is in no way essential to the theory

of PCT.

  As Bill Powers pointed out, the term "reference state" is quite

useful in constructing and performing the test.Â

  It is also useful when trying to introduce people to the concepts

of PCT, especially to those that do not have even a basic
understanding of control theory.

  If you used the term "reference signal" it would immediately be

necessary to explain the basic control loop, the difference
between perception and what might actually exist in the physical
world, etc.

  "Reference State" is absolutely an appropriate term when dealing

with a model (either a computer model or even when Bill performed
the test as a demonstration for Dag).

Best, Bill

···

On 06/13/2017 03:56 AM, Eetu
Pikkarainen wrote:

        [Eetu

Pikkarainen 2017-06-13 2]

Â

        Thank you Martin for instructive account. But

my exclamation was only because Rick seemed to explicitly
state that the iron filings have a reference value to be
near the magnet. Of course the resistance against the
disturbances is crucial. Rick seems to infer so that if
there is a reference state AND the resistance for
disturbances then there is control, but there can be
references without resistance (like in the case of iron
filings and magnet) and then there is no control. I,
instead, think that references are always set by some living
subject and they are as such unobservable. So if there is
observable resistance against disturbances THEN there can be
a case of control AND if it is control THEN there must be a
reference (a preselected goal). Conceptually all depends on
reference and follows from it.

Â

Eetu

Â

Lähettäjä: Martin Taylor

9. kesäkuutata 2017 19:55
Re: VS: Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad
idea?)

Â

[Martin Taylor 2017.06.09.12.34]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-06-09]

                      EP: In strict and technical use

the definition of control – if I have
understood it right – is something like:
“causing the value (measure) of some variable
towards some reference value and keeping it
near it�.

Â

                RM:

That’s good. Though I think it’s good to add
“protected from disturbance” in order to be explicit
about why “keeping it there” is an important part of
the definition of control. It distinguishes
“control” from “cause”. For example, a magnet causes
the position of iron filings to move towards some
reference value (the position of the magnet) and
keeps it near it, but the magnet doesn’t control
this variable, as is easily demonstrated by
disturbing the iron filings by pushing them away
from the magnet. If the position of the filings were
controlled the pushing would have been resisted and,
thus, the position of the filings would be protected
from that disturbance.

EP: Are you serious?

      I think we have another kind of language issue here, not

saying what the writer thinks to be self-evident, but is not
necessarily self-evident to the reader. I should never speak
for Rick, but on this occasion I will.

      What Rick omitted saying is that if there is control, the

controlled variable will tend to return toward its “neutral”
pre-disturbance value, which we can identify with a reference
value, while the disturbance continues to act with a constant
force. If there is no control, nothing much will happen while
the disturbance continues unchanged. The variable will remain
where it went under the influence of the disturbance. No
reference value could be observed, no value toward which the
variable tends while the disturbance continues. The stone sits
where it is moved, the cloud goes where the wind takes it,
with no countervailing force acting to but them back where
they were.

      From an energy viewpoint, without control, different forces

have been acting on the variable and (in the example case)
have brought it to some kind of equilibrium state, like a ball
at the bottom of a hemispherical bowl. When the disturbance
influences the value of the variable, it adds potential
energy, like pushing the ball up the rim of the bowl. When the
disturbance goes away in the absence of control, the ball
falls down, dissipating the energy supplied by the
disturbance. If there is control and the disturbance goes away
suddenly, the countervailing force will add energy to the ball
pushing it up the opposite side of the bowl. That energy does
not come from the disturbance, but must be dissipated (or
reabsorbed by the control system) before the ball can return
to the bottom of the bowl.

      The key difference is whether the variable tends to have

changing forces applied that oppose changing disturbance
forces, or in other words, whether the energy involved in the
changes of the variable are supplied by the disturbance,.

      Martin

mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Lähetetty:
**Vastaanottaja:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe:

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.13.1825)]

···

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:

BL: Eetu,

  BL: The term "reference state" is in no way essential to the theory

of PCT.

RM: Since it refers to the phenomenon that the theory explains I think it can be considered essential to the theory;-)Â

BestÂ

Rick

  As Bill Powers pointed out, the term "reference state" is quite

useful in constructing and performing the test.Â

  It is also useful when trying to introduce people to the concepts

of PCT, especially to those that do not have even a basic
understanding of control theory.

  If you used the term "reference signal" it would immediately be

necessary to explain the basic control loop, the difference
between perception and what might actually exist in the physical
world, etc.

  "Reference State" is absolutely an appropriate term when dealing

with a model (either a computer model or even when Bill performed
the test as a demonstration for Dag).

Best, Bill

  On 06/13/2017 03:56 AM, Eetu

Pikkarainen wrote:

        [Eetu

Pikkarainen 2017-06-13 2]

Â

        Thank you Martin for instructive account. But

my exclamation was only because Rick seemed to explicitly
state that the iron filings have a reference value to be
near the magnet. Of course the resistance against the
disturbances is crucial. Rick seems to infer so that if
there is a reference state AND the resistance for
disturbances then there is control, but there can be
references without resistance (like in the case of iron
filings and magnet) and then there is no control. I,
instead, think that references are always set by some living
subject and they are as such unobservable. So if there is
observable resistance against disturbances THEN there can be
a case of control AND if it is control THEN there must be a
reference (a preselected goal). Conceptually all depends on
reference and follows from it.

Â

Eetu

Â

Lähettäjä: Martin Taylor
[mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ]
Lähetetty: 9. kesäkuutata 2017 19:55
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Re: VS: Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad
idea?)

Â

[Martin Taylor 2017.06.09.12.34]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-06-09]

                      EP: In strict and technical use

the definition of control – if I have
understood it right – is something like:
“causing the value (measure) of some variable
towards some reference value and keeping it
near it�.

Â

                RM:

That’s good. Though I think it’s good to add
“protected from disturbance” in order to be explicit
about why “keeping it there” is an important part of
the definition of control. It distinguishes
“control” from “cause”. For example, a magnet causes
the position of iron filings to move towards some
reference value (the position of the magnet) and
keeps it near it, but the magnet doesn’t control
this variable, as is easily demonstrated by
disturbing the iron filings by pushing them away
from the magnet. If the position of the filings were
controlled the pushing would have been resisted and,
thus, the position of the filings would be protected
from that disturbance.

EP: Are you serious?

      I think we have another kind of language issue here, not

saying what the writer thinks to be self-evident, but is not
necessarily self-evident to the reader. I should never speak
for Rick, but on this occasion I will.

      What Rick omitted saying is that if there is control, the

controlled variable will tend to return toward its “neutral”
pre-disturbance value, which we can identify with a reference
value, while the disturbance continues to act with a constant
force. If there is no control, nothing much will happen while
the disturbance continues unchanged. The variable will remain
where it went under the influence of the disturbance. No
reference value could be observed, no value toward which the
variable tends while the disturbance continues. The stone sits
where it is moved, the cloud goes where the wind takes it,
with no countervailing force acting to but them back where
they were.

      From an energy viewpoint, without control, different forces

have been acting on the variable and (in the example case)
have brought it to some kind of equilibrium state, like a ball
at the bottom of a hemispherical bowl. When the disturbance
influences the value of the variable, it adds potential
energy, like pushing the ball up the rim of the bowl. When the
disturbance goes away in the absence of control, the ball
falls down, dissipating the energy supplied by the
disturbance. If there is control and the disturbance goes away
suddenly, the countervailing force will add energy to the ball
pushing it up the opposite side of the bowl. That energy does
not come from the disturbance, but must be dissipated (or
reabsorbed by the control system) before the ball can return
to the bottom of the bowl.

      The key difference is whether the variable tends to have

changing forces applied that oppose changing disturbance
forces, or in other words, whether the energy involved in the
changes of the variable are supplied by the disturbance,.

      Martin

Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

I guess we disagree on that Rick. In my opinion at least, the
theory works just fine without the term. The observed aspect is
protected against disturbance… ergo control exists.Â

  Trying yet again to maybe be a little clearer about it...  The

observers notes that the environmental aspect believed to be under
control has a certain recognized state (that you are labeling as
the ‘reference state’). You apply a disturbance to that aspect
and observe that the subject returns that aspect to very near the
original state. You have confirmed that control exists. The
label was not essential to reach that conclusion.

  I most certainly do not disagree with the idea that the label

‘reference state’ is valuable in discussing such testing nor do I
deny that it actually has to exist within computer model. It
would be possible, in the first case, to carry out the discussion
using the reference signal, comparator, and perceptual input
function but then such discussions would be vastly longer and at
least seemingly more convoluted than what I just wrote.

  I'll also add that PCT explains all of the phenomenon labels that

behaviorist have been creating for centuries but that does not
mean that those labels need be an essential part of PCT.

···

On 06/13/2017 07:23 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.13.1825)]

        On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Bill

Leach wrleach@cableone.net
wrote:

BL: Eetu,

              BL: The term "reference state" is in no way essential

to the theory of PCT.

          RM: Since it refers to the phenomenon that the theory

explains I think it can be considered essential to the
theory;-)Â

BestÂ

Rick

              As Bill Powers pointed out, the term "reference

state" is quite useful in constructing and performing
the test.Â

              It is also useful when trying to introduce people to

the concepts of PCT, especially to those that do not
have even a basic understanding of control theory.

              If you used the term "reference signal" it would

immediately be necessary to explain the basic control
loop, the difference between perception and what might
actually exist in the physical world, etc.

              "Reference State" is absolutely an appropriate term

when dealing with a model (either a computer model or
even when Bill performed the test as a demonstration
for Dag).

Best, Bill

                  On

06/13/2017 03:56 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen wrote:

                        [Eetu Pikkarainen

2017-06-13 2]

Â

                        Thank

you Martin for instructive account. But my
exclamation was only because Rick seemed to
explicitly state that the iron filings have
a reference value to be near the magnet. Of
course the resistance against the
disturbances is crucial. Rick seems to infer
so that if there is a reference state AND
the resistance for disturbances then there
is control, but there can be references
without resistance (like in the case of iron
filings and magnet) and then there is no
control. I, instead, think that references
are always set by some living subject and
they are as such unobservable. So if there
is observable resistance against
disturbances THEN there can be a case of
control AND if it is control THEN there must
be a reference (a preselected goal).
Conceptually all depends on reference and
follows from it.

Â

Eetu

Â

Lähettäjä: Martin Taylor
[mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ]
Lähetetty: 9. kesäkuutata 2017
19:55
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Re: VS: Behavior is Control
(was RE: Mad idea?)

Â

[Martin Taylor 2017.06.09.12.34]

                          [Eetu

Pikkarainen 2017-06-09]

                                      EP: In strict and

technical use the definition
of control – if I have
understood it right – is
something like: “causing the
value (measure) of some
variable towards some
reference value and keeping it
near it�.

Â

                                RM:

That’s good. Though I think it’s
good to add “protected from
disturbance” in order to be explicit
about why “keeping it there” is an
important part of the definition of
control. It distinguishes “control”
from “cause”. For example, a magnet
causes the position of iron filings
to move towards some reference value
(the position of the magnet) and
keeps it near it, but the magnet
doesn’t control this variable, as is
easily demonstrated by disturbing
the iron filings by pushing them
away from the magnet. If the
position of the filings were
controlled the pushing would have
been resisted and, thus, the
position of the filings would be
protected from that disturbance.

EP: Are you serious?

                      I think we have another kind of language issue

here, not saying what the writer thinks to be
self-evident, but is not necessarily
self-evident to the reader. I should never
speak for Rick, but on this occasion I will.

                      What Rick omitted saying is that if there is

control, the controlled variable will tend to
return toward its “neutral” pre-disturbance
value, which we can identify with a reference
value, while the disturbance continues to act
with a constant force. If there is no control,
nothing much will happen while the disturbance
continues unchanged. The variable will remain
where it went under the influence of the
disturbance. No reference value could be
observed, no value toward which the variable
tends while the disturbance continues. The
stone sits where it is moved, the cloud goes
where the wind takes it, with no
countervailing force acting to but them back
where they were.

                      From an energy viewpoint, without control,

different forces have been acting on the
variable and (in the example case) have
brought it to some kind of equilibrium state,
like a ball at the bottom of a hemispherical
bowl. When the disturbance influences the
value of the variable, it adds potential
energy, like pushing the ball up the rim of
the bowl. When the disturbance goes away in
the absence of control, the ball falls down,
dissipating the energy supplied by the
disturbance. If there is control and the
disturbance goes away suddenly, the
countervailing force will add energy to the
ball pushing it up the opposite side of the
bowl. That energy does not come from the
disturbance, but must be dissipated (or
reabsorbed by the control system) before the
ball can return to the bottom of the bowl.

                      The key difference is whether the variable

tends to have changing forces applied that
oppose changing disturbance forces, or in
other words, whether the energy involved in
the changes of the variable are supplied by
the disturbance,.

                      Martin


Richard S. MarkenÂ

                                  "Perfection

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

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.14.1520)]

···

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:

BL: The term “reference state” is in no way essential to the theory of PCT.
Â

RM: Since it refers to the phenomenon that the theory explains I think it can be considered essential to the theory;-)Â

  BL: I guess we disagree on that Rick.  In my opinion at least, the

theory works just fine without the term. The observed aspect is
protected against disturbance… ergo control exists.Â

RM: Yes, of course. It’s not the term “reference state” that is essential to the theory. After all, the theory works just fine without this term – or any other term, for that matter. What I think is essential to the theory is an understanding of the *phenomenon *to which the term “reference state” points. I think an understanding of this phenomenon is essential because it keeps PCT from being a purely theoretical exercise, un-grounded in the empirical observations that the theory is designed to explain.Â

  BL: Trying yet again to maybe be a little clearer about it...  The

observers notes that the environmental aspect believed to be under
control has a certain recognized state (that you are labeling as
the ‘reference state’). You apply a disturbance to that aspect
and observe that the subject returns that aspect to very near the
original state. You have confirmed that control exists. The
label was not essential to reach that conclusion.

RM: The term “reference state” refers to the state of a controlled variable. Test for the Controlled Variable (TCV) works whether this reference state is fixed or variable (the fact that the TCV works even when the reference state of the controlled variable is variable is demonstrated in my “Mind Readings” demo: http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html).Â

RM: And the point of the TCV is not to show that control exists but, rather, to determine the precise nature of the variables that are under control. That’s why an understanding of the phenomenon to which  “reference state” points is so essential to the theory of PCT. The reference state is the constant or varying value of a controlled variable. Different behaviors can be seen to involve keeping different kinds of controlled variables in reference states. PCT explains this observation in terms of the control of a hierarchy of different types of perceptual variable. So the main task of PCT science is to test this explanation of behavior as the control of a hierarchy of different types of perception and this is done using the TCV.Â

RM: According to PCT, behavior is the control of perception. But by keeping in mind that this theory was developed to explain the existence of reference states for different kinds of controlled variables we can see that one of the main goals of research aimed at understanding  behavior is to learn (using the TCV) what these perceptual variables are and how they are organized.Â

RM: Powers proposed that there are about 10 different kinds of perceptual variables that correspond to observed controlled variables and that they are arranged hierarchically. Most of B:CP was dedicated to describing this aspect of the model. The concept of reference states calls attention to the fact that the hierarchy of perceptual control described in B:CP is not “received wisdom” but, rather, a theory that can be empirically tested using the TCV.Â

Best

Rick

Â

  I most certainly do not disagree with the idea that the label

‘reference state’ is valuable in discussing such testing nor do I
deny that it actually has to exist within computer model. It
would be possible, in the first case, to carry out the discussion
using the reference signal, comparator, and perceptual input
function but then such discussions would be vastly longer and at
least seemingly more convoluted than what I just wrote.

  I'll also add that PCT explains all of the phenomenon labels that

behaviorist have been creating for centuries but that does not
mean that those labels need be an essential part of PCT.

  On 06/13/2017 07:23 PM, Richard Marken

wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.13.1825)]


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

        On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Bill

Leach wrleach@cableone.net
wrote:

BL: Eetu,

              BL: The term "reference state" is in no way essential

to the theory of PCT.

          RM: Since it refers to the phenomenon that the theory

explains I think it can be considered essential to the
theory;-)Â

BestÂ

Rick

              As Bill Powers pointed out, the term "reference

state" is quite useful in constructing and performing
the test.Â

              It is also useful when trying to introduce people to

the concepts of PCT, especially to those that do not
have even a basic understanding of control theory.

              If you used the term "reference signal" it would

immediately be necessary to explain the basic control
loop, the difference between perception and what might
actually exist in the physical world, etc.

              "Reference State" is absolutely an appropriate term

when dealing with a model (either a computer model or
even when Bill performed the test as a demonstration
for Dag).

Best, Bill

                  On

06/13/2017 03:56 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen wrote:

                        [Eetu Pikkarainen

2017-06-13 2]

Â

                        Thank

you Martin for instructive account. But my
exclamation was only because Rick seemed to
explicitly state that the iron filings have
a reference value to be near the magnet. Of
course the resistance against the
disturbances is crucial. Rick seems to infer
so that if there is a reference state AND
the resistance for disturbances then there
is control, but there can be references
without resistance (like in the case of iron
filings and magnet) and then there is no
control. I, instead, think that references
are always set by some living subject and
they are as such unobservable. So if there
is observable resistance against
disturbances THEN there can be a case of
control AND if it is control THEN there must
be a reference (a preselected goal).
Conceptually all depends on reference and
follows from it.

Â

Eetu

Â

Lähettäjä: Martin Taylor
[mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ]
Lähetetty: 9. kesäkuutata 2017
19:55
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Re: VS: Behavior is Control
(was RE: Mad idea?)

Â

[Martin Taylor 2017.06.09.12.34]

                          [Eetu

Pikkarainen 2017-06-09]

                                      EP: In strict and

technical use the definition
of control – if I have
understood it right – is
something like: “causing the
value (measure) of some
variable towards some
reference value and keeping it
near it�.

Â

                                RM:

That’s good. Though I think it’s
good to add “protected from
disturbance” in order to be explicit
about why “keeping it there” is an
important part of the definition of
control. It distinguishes “control”
from “cause”. For example, a magnet
causes the position of iron filings
to move towards some reference value
(the position of the magnet) and
keeps it near it, but the magnet
doesn’t control this variable, as is
easily demonstrated by disturbing
the iron filings by pushing them
away from the magnet. If the
position of the filings were
controlled the pushing would have
been resisted and, thus, the
position of the filings would be
protected from that disturbance.

EP: Are you serious?

                      I think we have another kind of language issue

here, not saying what the writer thinks to be
self-evident, but is not necessarily
self-evident to the reader. I should never
speak for Rick, but on this occasion I will.

                      What Rick omitted saying is that if there is

control, the controlled variable will tend to
return toward its “neutral” pre-disturbance
value, which we can identify with a reference
value, while the disturbance continues to act
with a constant force. If there is no control,
nothing much will happen while the disturbance
continues unchanged. The variable will remain
where it went under the influence of the
disturbance. No reference value could be
observed, no value toward which the variable
tends while the disturbance continues. The
stone sits where it is moved, the cloud goes
where the wind takes it, with no
countervailing force acting to but them back
where they were.

                      From an energy viewpoint, without control,

different forces have been acting on the
variable and (in the example case) have
brought it to some kind of equilibrium state,
like a ball at the bottom of a hemispherical
bowl. When the disturbance influences the
value of the variable, it adds potential
energy, like pushing the ball up the rim of
the bowl. When the disturbance goes away in
the absence of control, the ball falls down,
dissipating the energy supplied by the
disturbance. If there is control and the
disturbance goes away suddenly, the
countervailing force will add energy to the
ball pushing it up the opposite side of the
bowl. That energy does not come from the
disturbance, but must be dissipated (or
reabsorbed by the control system) before the
ball can return to the bottom of the bowl.

                      The key difference is whether the variable

tends to have changing forces applied that
oppose changing disturbance forces, or in
other words, whether the energy involved in
the changes of the variable are supplied by
the disturbance,.

                      Martin


Richard S. MarkenÂ

                                  "Perfection

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

Again, thanks for your patience Rick (characteristic that Bill
Powers had in spades!).

  I accept what you have said here.  What I also see here is what

Warren pointed out who knows how many messages back and in what
thread, that you are not saying the reference state has anything
at all to do with the behavior of the subject. It is strictly a
tool of the observer used to understand the observed behavior of
the subject (from the PCT perspective).

  In the Mind Readings demo, is the reference state the position

that the object would have were not the computers actions not
disturbed by the test subject?

···

On 06/14/2017 04:18 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.14.1520)]

          On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:39 PM,

Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net
wrote:

                        BL: The

term “reference state” is in no way
essential to the theory of PCT.
Â

                      RM: Since

it refers to the phenomenon that the theory
explains I think it can be considered
essential to the theory;-)Â

                BL: I guess we disagree on that Rick.  In my

opinion at least, the theory works just fine without
the term. The observed aspect is protected against
disturbance… ergo control exists.Â

            RM: Yes, of course. It's not the term "reference

state" that is essential to the theory. After all, the
theory works just fine without this term – or any other
term, for that matter. What I think is essential to the
theory is an understanding of the *phenomenon * to
which the term “reference state” points. I think an
understanding of this phenomenon is essential because it
keeps PCT from being a purely theoretical exercise,
un-grounded in the empirical observations that the
theory is designed to explain.Â

                BL: Trying yet again to maybe be a little clearer

about it…Â The observers notes that the
environmental aspect believed to be under control
has a certain recognized state (that you are
labeling as the ‘reference state’). You apply a
disturbance to that aspect and observe that the
subject returns that aspect to very near the
original state. You have confirmed that control
exists. The label was not essential to reach that
conclusion.

            RM: The term "reference state" refers to the state of

a controlled variable. Test for the Controlled Variable
(TCV) works whether this reference state is fixed or
variable (the fact that the TCV works even when the
reference state of the controlled variable is variable
is demonstrated in my “Mind Readings” demo: http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html).Â

            RM: And the point of the TCV is not to show that

control exists but, rather, to determine the precise
nature of the variables that are under control. That’s
why an understanding of the phenomenon to which
 “reference state” points is so essential to the theory
of PCT. The reference state is the constant or varying
value of a controlled variable. Different behaviors can
be seen to involve keeping different kinds of controlled
variables in reference states. PCT explains this
observation in terms of the control of a hierarchy of
different types of perceptual variable. So the main task
of PCT science is to test this explanation of behavior
as the control of a hierarchy of different types of
perception and this is done using the TCV.Â

            RM: According to PCT, behavior is the control of

perception. But by keeping in mind that this theory was
developed to explain the existence of reference states
for different kinds of controlled variables we can see
that one of the main goals of research aimed at
understanding  behavior is to learn (using the TCV) what
these perceptual variables are and how they are
organized.Â

            RM: Powers proposed that there are about 10 different

kinds of perceptual variables that correspond to
observed controlled variables and that they are arranged
hierarchically. Most of B:CP was dedicated to describing
this aspect of the model. The concept of reference
states calls attention to the fact that the hierarchy of
perceptual control described in B:CP is not “received
wisdom” but, rather, a theory that can be empirically
tested using the TCV.Â

Best

Rick

Â

                I most certainly do not disagree with the idea that

the label ‘reference state’ is valuable in
discussing such testing nor do I deny that it
actually has to exist within computer model. It
would be possible, in the first case, to carry out
the discussion using the reference signal,
comparator, and perceptual input function but then
such discussions would be vastly longer and at least
seemingly more convoluted than what I just wrote.

                I'll also add that PCT explains all of the

phenomenon labels that behaviorist have been
creating for centuries but that does not mean that
those labels need be an essential part of PCT.

                    On

06/13/2017 07:23 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

                      [From Rick Marken

(2017.06.13.1825)]

                          On Tue, Jun 13,

2017 at 4:31 PM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net
wrote:

BL: Eetu,

                                BL: The term "reference state" is

in no way essential to the theory of
PCT.

                            RM: Since it refers to the phenomenon

that the theory explains I think it can
be considered essential to the
theory;-)Â

BestÂ

Rick

                                As Bill Powers pointed out, the

term “reference state” is quite
useful in constructing and
performing the test.Â

                                It is also useful when trying to

introduce people to the concepts of
PCT, especially to those that do not
have even a basic understanding of
control theory.

                                If you used the term "reference

signal" it would immediately be
necessary to explain the basic
control loop, the difference between
perception and what might actually
exist in the physical world, etc.

                                "Reference State" is absolutely an

appropriate term when dealing with a
model (either a computer model or
even when Bill performed the test as
a demonstration for Dag).

Best, Bill

                                    On

06/13/2017 03:56 AM, Eetu
Pikkarainen wrote:

                                          [Eetu

Pikkarainen 2017-06-13 2]

Â

                                          Thank you

Martin for instructive
account. But my
exclamation was only
because Rick seemed to
explicitly state that the
iron filings have a
reference value to be near
the magnet. Of course the
resistance against the
disturbances is crucial.
Rick seems to infer so
that if there is a
reference state AND the
resistance for
disturbances then there is
control, but there can be
references without
resistance (like in the
case of iron filings and
magnet) and then there is
no control. I, instead,
think that references are
always set by some living
subject and they are as
such unobservable. So if
there is observable
resistance against
disturbances THEN there
can be a case of control
AND if it is control THEN
there must be a reference
(a preselected goal).
Conceptually all depends
on reference and follows
from it.

Â

Eetu

Â

Lähettäjä:
Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net ]
Lähetetty: 9.
kesäkuutata 2017 19:55
Vastaanottaja:
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Re: VS:
Behavior is Control
(was RE: Mad idea?)

Â

                                        [Martin Taylor

2017.06.09.12.34]

                                            [Eetu

Pikkarainen 2017-06-09]

                                                      EP:

In strict and
technical use
the definition
of control –
if I have
understood it
right – is
something
like: “causing
the value
(measure) of
some variable
towards some
reference
value and
keeping it
near it�.

Â

                                                  RM: That's good. Though I think it's good to

add “protected
from disturbance”
in order to be
explicit about why
“keeping it there”
is an important
part of the
definition of
control. It
distinguishes
“control” from
“cause”. For
example, a magnet
causes the
position of iron
filings to move
towards some
reference value
(the position of
the magnet) and
keeps it near it,
but the magnet
doesn’t control
this variable, as
is easily
demonstrated by
disturbing the
iron filings by
pushing them away
from the magnet.
If the position of
the filings were
controlled the
pushing would have
been resisted and,
thus, the position
of the filings
would be protected
from that
disturbance.

EP: Are you serious?

                                        I think we have another kind

of language issue here, not
saying what the writer
thinks to be self-evident,
but is not necessarily
self-evident to the reader.
I should never speak for
Rick, but on this occasion I
will.

                                        What Rick omitted saying is

that if there is control,
the controlled variable will
tend to return toward its
“neutral” pre-disturbance
value, which we can identify
with a reference value,
while the disturbance
continues to act with a
constant force. If there is
no control, nothing much
will happen while the
disturbance continues
unchanged. The variable will
remain where it went under
the influence of the
disturbance. No reference
value could be observed, no
value toward which the
variable tends while the
disturbance continues. The
stone sits where it is
moved, the cloud goes where
the wind takes it, with no
countervailing force acting
to but them back where they
were.

                                        From an energy viewpoint,

without control, different
forces have been acting on
the variable and (in the
example case) have brought
it to some kind of
equilibrium state, like a
ball at the bottom of a
hemispherical bowl. When the
disturbance influences the
value of the variable, it
adds potential energy, like
pushing the ball up the rim
of the bowl. When the
disturbance goes away in the
absence of control, the ball
falls down, dissipating the
energy supplied by the
disturbance. If there is
control and the disturbance
goes away suddenly, the
countervailing force will
add energy to the ball
pushing it up the opposite
side of the bowl. That
energy does not come from
the disturbance, but must be
dissipated (or reabsorbed by
the control system) before
the ball can return to the
bottom of the bowl.

                                        The key difference is

whether the variable tends
to have changing forces
applied that oppose changing
disturbance forces, or in
other words, whether the
energy involved in the
changes of the variable are
supplied by the
disturbance,.

                                        Martin


Richard
S. MarkenÂ

                                                    "Perfection

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

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.15.0810)]

···

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:

  BL: In the Mind Readings demo, is the reference state the position

that the object would have were not the computers actions not
disturbed by the test subject?

RM: The reference state of a controlled variable is the constant or variable state in which that variable is being maintained. In the Mind Reading demo, (www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html)Â the reference state is the observed position of the avatar that is being controlled. So when you are intentionally moving (controlling), say, Homer around the screen (in order to dodge donuts), Homer’s observed movements are the varying reference state of Homer’s position on the screen (the controlled variable) and the observed movements of the unintentionally moved (uncontrolled) avatars are just (as Homer himself said at the end of one episode) “just a bunch of stuff that happened”.Â

RM: If you keep controlling Homer for a few seconds the computer, which is continuously doing the TCV on all three avatars, will figure out that Homer’s position is the controlled variable and Homer will turn into Mr. Burns so that the variations in the reference state of the controlled variable are made public, so to speak.

RM: When you “change your mind” (change the variable you are controlling) and start controlling the position of a different avatar, say Lisa, then Lisa’s position becomes the varying reference state of a controlled variable, Â fact that is, again, made public when Mr. Burns turns back into Homer (indicating that Homer’s position is no longer being controlled) and Lisa soon morphs into Mr. Burns.Â

Best

Rick

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

Down

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 3:24 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: VS: VS: Behavior is (part of) Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.13.1825)]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:

BL: Eetu,

BL: The term “reference state” is in no way essential to the theory of PCT.

RM: Since it refers to the phenomenon that the theory explains I think it can be considered essential to the theory;-)

HB : Sorry Bill I have to agree with Rick although very unwillingly. But only on the condition that »reference states« referers to states in the controlling system which are genetically defined. Then it is essential part of PCT. It’s about how organisms are controlling.

Boris

Best

Rick

As Bill Powers pointed out, the term “reference state” is quite useful in constructing and performing the test.

It is also useful when trying to introduce people to the concepts of PCT, especially to those that do not have even a basic understanding of control theory.

If you used the term “reference signal” it would immediately be necessary to explain the basic control loop, the difference between perception and what might actually exist in the physical world, etc.

“Reference State” is absolutely an appropriate term when dealing with a model (either a computer model or even when Bill performed the test as a demonstration for Dag).

Best, Bill

On 06/13/2017 03:56 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen wrote:

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-06-13 2]

Thank you Martin for instructive account. But my exclamation was only because Rick seemed to explicitly state that the iron filings have a reference value to be near the magnet. Of course the resistance against the disturbances is crucial. Rick seems to infer so that if there is a reference state AND the resistance for disturbances then there is control, but there can be references without resistance (like in the case of iron filings and magnet) and then there is no control. I, instead, think that references are always set by some living subject and they are as such unobservable. So if there is observable resistance against disturbances THEN there can be a case of control AND if it is control THEN there must be a reference (a preselected goal). Conceptually all depends on reference and follows from it.

Eetu

Lähettäjä: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Lähetetty: 9. kesäkuutata 2017 19:55
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Re: VS: Behavior is Control (was RE: Mad idea?)

[Martin Taylor 2017.06.09.12.34]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-06-09]

EP: In strict and technical use the definition of control – if I have understood it rightt – is something like: “causing the value (measure) of some variable towards some reference value and keeping it near itâ€?.

RM: That’s good. Though I think it’s good to add “protected from disturbance” in order to be explicit about why “keeping it there” is an important part of the definition of control. It distinguishes “control” from “cause”. For example, a magnet causes the position of iron filings to move towards some reference value (the position of the magnet) and keeps it near it, but the magnet doesn’t control this variable, as is easily demonstrated by disturbing the iron filings by pushing them away from the magnet. If the position of the filings were controlled the pushing would have been resisted and, thus, the position of the filings would be protected from that disturbance.

EP: Are you serious?

I think we have another kind of language issue here, not saying what the writer thinks to be self-evident, but is not necessarily self-evident to the reader. I should never speak for Rick, but on this occasion I will.

What Rick omitted saying is that if there is control, the controlled variable will tend to return toward its “neutral” pre-disturbance value, which we can identify with a reference value, while the disturbance continues to act with a constant force. If there is no control, nothing much will happen while the disturbance continues unchanged. The variable will remain where it went under the influence of the disturbance. No reference value could be observed, no value toward which the variable tends while the disturbance continues. The stone sits where it is moved, the cloud goes where the wind takes it, with no countervailing force acting to but them back where they were.

From an energy viewpoint, without control, different forces have been acting on the variable and (in the example case) have brought it to some kind of equilibrium state, like a ball at the bottom of a hemispherical bowl. When the disturbance influences the value of the variable, it adds potential energy, like pushing the ball up the rim of the bowl. When the disturbance goes away in the absence of control, the ball falls down, dissipating the energy supplied by the disturbance. If there is control and the disturbance goes away suddenly, the countervailing force will add energy to the ball pushing it up the opposite side of the bowl. That energy does not come from the disturbance, but must be dissipated (or reabsorbed by the control system) before the ball can return to the bottom of the bowl.

The key difference is whether the variable tends to have changing forces applied that oppose changing disturbance forces, or in other words, whether the energy involved in the changes of the variable are supplied by the disturbance,.

Martin

Richard S. Marken

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