Watch Your p's and Qi's

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.23.1210)]

RM: The relationship between the controlled perception (symbolized p) and the controlled quantity (symbolized Qi) has created some confusion so I have drawn a couple of diagrams to illustrate the relationship. The diagrams depict the situation in my Control of Perception demo where the subject (you) controls the angle (rather than the shape or area) of the displayed rectangle. You might want to try this demo before reading any further. The demo is at:

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html

RM: The PCT view of your behavior when you are controlling the angle of the rectangle is illustrated in the figure below (this and the next figure are attached in a PowerPoint file in case there is a problem seeing them clearly in the email) . First note that PCT distinguishes between the environment (also known as reality), shown below the dashed line, and the control system (the organism), shown above the line. The control system is controlling some variable aspect of the environment, in this case the angle of the rectangle on the computer display.

image354.png

RM: The environment is made up of the physical variables and entities postulated by the models of physics and chemistry. But in the diagram it looks like the environment consists of a mouse and a laptop computer displaying a blue rectangle at a slight angle with respect to vertical. But these are your own perceptions of what is in the environment side of the diagram. Perhaps a better way to depict what constitutes the environment (reality) in PCT is shown in the next figure. Â

image355.png

RM: Here the environment is represented as an array of points of varying intensity and wavelength,. You can still make out a computer and mouse – that’s you perceptual systems at work again – but I think this way of depicting the environment makes it clearer that what is presumed to be out there in the environment is a collection of physical variables like the intensity and wavelength of light energy and entities, like atoms. It’s our perceptual systems that organize this “booming, buzzing confusion” into things like computers, mice and so on. Actually, it’s the booming, buzzing confusion of the sensory effects of the physical variables and entities that our perceptual systems organize into computers, mice, and so on

RM: So with that understanding in hand, let’s trace out the processes that are taking place (according to PCT) when you control the angle of the displayed rectangle. Let’s start with the physical variables in the environment. This array of energy stimulates receptors in the retina via the laws of optics. An array of these receptors, called a receptive field, is the input to a neural network that is a perceptual function that produces a perceptual signal, p, that is proportional to the angle, q, of the line on the screen relative to vertical. (Actually, the computation of the angle perception is most likely carried out by a perceptual function that is higher up in the optical pathway but we will assume for simplicity that it is done at the retinal level).Â

RM: The perceptual signal is a train of neural impulses carried by the cell body (axon) of the neuron leaving the receptive field network, the rate of impulses (spikes) being proportional to q. So the greater the spike rate, the greater the angle that is perceived. And this is the first place where things could get confusing because, when you are doing this control task, what you perceive is the angle of the blue rectangle relative to vertical, not a varying rate of neural impulses. But it is this rate of impulses – the perceptual signal --, in theory, is being controlled. Why that train of impulses looks like a varying angle rather than something else is, I believe, what is called the “hard problem” of consciousness. It is actually a problem of understanding perception and I solve it to my own satisfaction by assuming that that’s the way it looks when you are the neuron carrying the varying rates of neural impulses.Â

RM: The perceptual signal, measured in spikes/q is the first step in the PCT model of control of the angle in the Control of Perception demo. The next steps are shown clearly in both figures: The neuron carrying the perceptual signal, p, and a neuron carrying the reference signal, r, synapse with opposite signs (one is excitatory and the other inhibitory) on a neuron carrying the error signal, e. The spike rate of the reference signal, like that of the perceptual signal, is in spikes/q; in this way the spike rate of the reference signal “specifies” the spike rate of the perceptual signal. The result of the opposite effects of the perceptual and reference signal on the neuron carry the error signal is the firing rate of the error signal, e, neuron represents something close to the arithmetic difference between r and p: e = r-p. This error signal neuron ultimately drives the muscular output that moves the mouse. So the spike rate of the error signal causes an amount of force to be produced by the muscles; so the error signal is in spike rate per unit force (which are Newtons, N, in the figures).Â

RM: The forces produced by the muscles (as a result of the error signal) have their effects on the external environment. Their immediate effect is on the position of the mouse, which is the output variable, o. The output variable in a control loop is a physical variable measured in physical units. In this case, the output variable – mouse movement-- is measured in units of distance moved per units of force exerted: cm/N. These mouse movements affect, via the computer, the physical variables that correspond to the perception of the angle of the blue rectangle, q. These physical variables are also affected by a disturbance variable, d, produced by the computer. The physical variables that correspond to variations in p, the perception of q, stimulate,via the laws of optics, the receptors that make up the receptive field that calculates p, the perceptual (spike rate) value of q, and we are back to the beginning, closing the loop from input (stimulation of the receptive field receptors) back to the same input. The loop is completed via the feedback function that links the output (mouse movements) by the laws of physics and optics to the input (stimulation of the receptive field receptors).Â

RM: Note that Qi does not show up in this loop. This was done to emphasize the fact that there is no Qi in the environment. All that is in the environment are physical variables – the v’s in Figure 1 of Powers’ 1973 Science article (reprinted on p. 66 of LCS I). Qi doesn’t exist unless there is an observer around to perceive it. When you control the angle of the blue rectangle in the Control of Perception demo – keeping it at 0 degrees relative to vertical – and do it with no one watching you, the only observer is the computer itself. This is shown in the figures as the line coming out of the computer and computing Qi = q = sin-1(x/y), where x and y stand for the physical variables that are the basis for the computation of q. If the computer were not computing q then Qi would not exist and the only place where q would exist during this demo would be as a perception in the person doing the demo, a perception produced by computations carried out by the neural network that makes up the receptive field.Â

RM: So, in summary, what is called Qi, the controlled input variable, is the observer’s perception of the perception that a controller is controlling. So Qi is p from the observer’s perspective (if there is an observer). If there is no observer, then all that is controlled is p, a perceptual variable constructed by perceptual functions such as the receptive fields in the Figures above.Â

RM: One last point. Qi is important in PCT because it is the basic data of PCT. It is a variable that an observer can see is being controlled. So Qi is a perception for the observer; p is part of the observer’s theoretical explanation of how this control is being done.Â

Best regards

Rick

ControlledPerception&Quantity.pptx (972 KB)

···


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

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-02-24]

Than you Rick for this long and detailed explanation, and thank you Bruce for your clear minded comments.

I want to make some comments too

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.23.1210)]

···

RM: … The control system is controlling some variable aspect of the environment, in this case the angle of the rectangle on the computer display.

EP: I believe this here is one main source of debates in this list.

I (and many others, I think) have understood that one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking controlling (only and just) its perceptions. All the other processes
that happen are consequences and “tools” for this basic phenomenon. The organism affects, stabilizes and adjusts part of its environment for to control its perception to its reference level. This is the core of PCT theory, isn’t it?

I understand perfectly that in most if not in all cases control requires certain kind of affecting to the environment. AND that the only way to empirically study the phenomenon / fact of control is to observe just
what happens in the environment. AND that this takes place via observer’s perceptions.

But still this does not require the conclusions you make about the core and the metaphysics of PCT.

RM: The environment is made up of the physical variables and entities postulated by the models of physics and chemistry. But in the diagram it looks like the environment consists of a mouse
and a laptop computer displaying a blue rectangle at a slight angle with respect to vertical. But these are your own perceptions of what is in the environment side of the diagram. Perhaps a better way to depict what constitutes the environment (reality) in
PCT is shown in the next figure.

EP: Earlier [From Rick Marken (2017.02.16.1600)] you said: “The environment according to PCT is made up of (among other things) atoms that vary in mass and valence, not
(among other things) people that vary in color and size.� Those “among other things� make this ontology of course quite vague, and easy to defend, but still it does not seem sound. Firstly I have understood that the physicists today regard subatomic particles
more fundamental than atoms, but I don’t believe that they think that nothing else exists in the universe. If atoms exist, do molecules exist? If molecules exist, do liquids exist? And mixtures of liquids? If organ molecules exist, do cells exist? etc.

As for the diagram, those which look like mouse and laptop are not my perceptions, they are your drawings. I did not put them there, but you did
J

RM: Here the environment is represented as an array of points of varying intensity and wavelength,. You can still make out a computer and mouse – that’s you perceptual systems at work again
– but I think this way of depicting the environment makes it clearer that what is presumed to be out there in the environment is a collection of physical variables like the intensity and wavelength of light energy and entities, like atoms. It’s our perceptual
systems that organize this “booming, buzzing confusion” into things like computers, mice and so on. Actually, it’s the booming, buzzing confusion of the sensory effects of the physical variables and entities that our perceptual systems organize into computers,
mice, and so on

EP: Don’t you think that physicists wear those kind of raster filters on their eyes? Seriously, let’s think that there were that kind on raster in the environment – as there really iis in the screen of the computer
where your demos take place! If the controller perceives there something, say an angle, couldn’t that be a consequence of a certain kind of combination of brighter and darker points? Now you say that there are only points, no combinations of points? Anyway
let’s say that there is some kind of “state of affairs� which has a probability to cause a perception of a certain angle in the controller. This same state of affairs has also a probability to cause a perception of similar angle in the observer. This strange
phenomenon is what makes your empirical research of control possible, if I understand at all? Now if both the controller and the observer close their eyes, does that change essentially that state of affairs in the screen? If not then that state of screen still
has the same probability to cause similar angle perception if these people look at it again. There is a state of affairs independently of any perceiver. I would call it existence.

EP: So now we have three different things: 1) the state of affairs, let’s call it SOA(a), which has that property to cause a certain kind of perception in certain kind of perceivers, 2) the perception of angle in controller
PC(a) and 3) the perception of angle in observer PO(a). Now the controller wants to control her perception to a certain reference value: to see a different angle than that which she sees, let’s call this new perception PC(a1). Now in normal cases this will
happen so that she mobilizes a complicated causal chain which finally affects the SOA(a) so that there appears a new state of affairs (we can call it SOA(a1)), which will create in her that new perception PC(a1). An because the existing something in the environment
changed it follows (not surprisingly) that also the observer has now a new perception PO(a1), which (again not surprisingly) is similar to PC(a1).

EP: Respectively, in different occasions, it is much simpler and more natural and even more scientific to accept that there exist many kind of bigger and smaller objects – presumably all consiisting of atoms or subatomic
particles or something like that) – in the environment whiich we perceive via the effects they cause to our receptors. Their existence make it understandable how we can control our perceptions by affecting those objects and why we can have similar perceptions
that other people and why we can even cooperate when controlling our own perceptions. I can’t see how this way of thinking could make empirical research more difficult or less reliable.

Best

Eetu

RM: So with that understanding in hand, let’s trace out the processes that are taking place (according to PCT) when you control the angle of the displayed rectangle. Let’s start with the physical variables in the environment.
This array of energy stimulates receptors in the retina via the laws of optics. An array of these receptors, called a receptive field, is the input to a neural network that is a perceptual function that produces a perceptual signal, p, that is proportional
to the angle, kk of the line on the screen relative to vertical. (Actually, the computation of the angle perception is most likely carried out by a perceptual function that is higher up in the optical pathway but we will assume for simplicity that it is done
at the retinal level).

RM: The perceptual signal is a train of neural impulses carried by the cell body (axon) of the neuron leaving the receptive field network, the rate of impulses (spikes) being proportional to k. So the greater the
spike rate, the greater the angle that is perceived. And this is the first place where things could get confusing because, when you are doing this control task, what you perceive is the angle of the blue rectangle relative to vertical, not a varying rate of
neural impulses. But it is this rate of impulses – the perceptual signal --, in theory, is being controlled. Why that train of impulses looks like a varying angle rather than something else is, I believe, what is called the “hard problem” of consciousness.
It is actually a problem of understanding perception and I solve it to my own satisfaction by assuming that that’s the way it looks when you are the neuron carrying the varying rates of neural impulses.

RM: The perceptual signal, measured in spikes// is the first step in the PCT model of control of the angle in the Control of Perception demo. The next steps are shown clearly in both figures: The neuron carrying the
perceptual signal, p, and a neuron carrying the reference signal, r, synapse with opposite signs (one is excitatory and the other inhibitory) on a neuron carrying the error signal, e. The spike rate of the reference signal, like that of the perceptual signal,
is in spikes//; in this way the spike rate of the reference signal “specifies” the spike rate of the perceptual signal. The result of the opposite effects of the perceptual and reference signal on the neuron carry the error signal is the firing rate of the
error signal, e, neuron represents something close to the arithmetic difference between r and p: e = r-p. This error signal neuron ultimately drives the muscular output that moves the mouse. So the spike rate of the error signal causes an amount of force to
be produced by the muscles; so the error signal is in spike rate per unit force (which are Newtons, N, in the figures).

RM: The forces produced by the muscles (as a result of the error signal) have their effects on the external environment. Their immediate effect is on the position of the mouse, which is the output variable, o. The
output variable in a control loop is a physical variable measured in physical units. In this case, the output variable – mouse movement-- is measured in units of distance moved per units of force exerted: cm/N. These mouse movements affect, via the computer,
the physical variables that correspond to the perception of the angle of the blue rectangle, // These physical variables are also affected by a disturbance variable, d, produced by the computer. The physical variables that correspond to variations in p, the
perception of dd stimulate,via the laws of optics, the receptors that make up the receptive field that calculates p, the perceptual (spike rate) value of , and we are back to the beginning, closing the loop from input (stimulation of the receptive field receptors)
back to the same input. The loop is completed via the feedback function that links the output (mouse movements) by the laws of physics and optics to the input (stimulation of the receptive field receptors).

RM: Note that Qi does not show up in this loop. This was done to emphasize the fact that there is no Qi in the environment. All that is in the environment are physical variables – the v’s in Figure 1 of Powers’ 1973
Science article (reprinted on p. 66 of LCS I). Qi doesn’t exist unless there is an observer around to perceive it. When you control the angle of the blue rectangle in the Control of Perception demo – keeping it at 0 degrees relative to vertical – and do
it with no one watching you, the only observer is the computer itself. This is shown in the figures as the line coming out of the computer and computing Qi = QQ= sin-1(x/y), where x and y stand for the physical variables that are the basis for the computation
of . If the computer were not computing then Qi would not exist and the only place where would exist during this demo would be as a perception in the person doing the demo, a perception produced by computations carried out by the neural network that makes
up the receptive field.

RM: So, in summary, what is called Qi, the controlled input variable, is the observer’s perception of the perception that a controller is controlling. So Qi is p from the observer’s perspective (if there is an observer).
If there is no observer, then all that is controlled is p, a perceptual variable constructed by perceptual functions such as the receptive fields in the Figures above.

RM: One last point. Qi is important in PCT because it is the basic data of PCT. It is a variable that an observer can see is being controlled. So Qi is a perception for the observer; p is part of the observer’s theoretical
explanation of how this control is being done.

Best regards

Rick

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

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.02.24.1015 EST)]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-02-24] –

BA: And thank you, Eetu, for your clear exposition. I have only one correction to suggest. You state that “one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking controlling (only and just) its perceptions.� You seem to be saying that the control system does not control Qi, although I doubt that this was your intention. As you say, “strictly speaking,� the control system directly controls only that which it perceives, p. However, I will argue that controlling p is only the means by which the system controls Qi, and that the control of Qi is the reason why controlling p is useful to the individual.

BA: By controlling its perceptions, the system also controls the environmental correlates of those controlled perceptions. Controlling p requires taking actions in the environment that affect Qi, and it is those effects on Qi, out there in the real world, that allow the individual to function successfully. A person who is able to control her hunger (keeping it near a zero reference level) by eating only imaginary food soon will perish. The usual case, of course, is that keeping the perception of hunger § near a reference value of zero entails consuming real food, which has the effect of nourishing the body while also reducing p. It is this effect of keeping the body nourished that makes controlling hunger worthwhile.

BA: Consider what happens when the link between p and Qi is lost. A rat whose lateral hypothalamus has been destroyed no longer shows any interest in food, and would starve to death amid plenty if the experimenter did not keep it alive through force feeding. One way to account for this finding is to assume that the lateral hypothalamus (or nerve fibers passing through it) is an essential part of a brain circuit that transduces the bodily state of nutrition (Qi) into a perception of hunger-level §. If destroying the lateral hypothalamus causes p to be equal to the reference value of zero no matter what the state of Qi, the rat will never eat, as in fact is observed to happen. If p no longer relates to Qi, it may still be possible to control p, but doing so will no longer confer its essential benefit. We control p *in order to control Qi.* Conversely, because it has only p to go on, a control system can control Qi only by controlling p.

Bruce

EP: Thank you Rick for this long and detailed explanation, and thank you Bruce for your clear minded comments.

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.24.2300 PST)]

···

Eetu Pikkarainen (2017-02-24)

RM: … The control system is controlling some variable aspect of the environment, in this case the angle of the rectangle on the computer display.

EP: I believe this here is one main source of debates in this list.

EP: I (and many others, I think) have understood that one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking controlling (only and just) its perceptions.

RM: Yes, that is certainly one of Bill’s main insights.Â

EP: All the other processes
that happen are consequences and “tools” for this basic phenomenon. The organism affects, stabilizes and adjusts part of its environment for to control its perception to its reference level. This is the core of PCT theory, isn’t it?

RM: Yes.

EP: I understand perfectly that in most if not in all cases control requires certain kind of affecting to the environment.

RM: Control always requires affecting the aspect of the environment that is controlled; the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the controlled perception. The only time control doesn’t involve affecting the environment is when controlling is done in imagination.Â

EP: AND that the only way to empirically study the phenomenon / fact of control is to observe just
what happens in the environment. AND that this takes place via observer’s perceptions.

RM: Yes, but I think it’s better to say that we study control by determining the aspect (function) of the environment that is under control. When we have identified that aspect of the environment, we have identified the controlled variable, Qi, that corresponds to the perception that is being controlled.Â

EP: But still this does not require the conclusions you make about the core and the metaphysics of PCT.

RM: I don’t think I am dealing in metaphysics; just plain old PCT. The relationship between Qi and p is really not as metaphysical as it may seem. I suggest that you read the section on the “Coin Game” in B:CP and then play the game with a friend, with you as E and your friends as S. When you see the aspect of the arrangement of the  coins that your friend is trying to maintain (control) you are seeing Qi. In the example in B:CP Bill describes the observer (E) discovering that the controller (S) is trying to maintain a “zig zag” pattern. E’s perception of that “zig zag” pattern is the reference state of Qi – the pattern of coins. S’s perception of that “zig zag” pattern is the reference state of p – also the pattern of coins.Â

RM: The environment is made up of the physical variables and entities postulated by the models of physics and chemistry. …

EP: Earlier [From Rick Marken (2017.02.16.1600)] you said: “The environment according to PCT is made up of  (among other things) atoms that vary in mass and valence, not
(among other things) people that vary in color and size.� Those “among other things� make this ontology of course quite vague, and easy to defend, but still it does not seem sound.

RM: All I meant to say is that the “environment” (or reality) in PCT is what our current best models of physics and chemistry say it is. Our perceptions are presumed to be constructed from the sensory effects of this environment. But the fact is that our models of the perceptual functions that produce the perceptual variables that are (in theory) what is being controlled never really describe these functions in terms environmental variables or the sensory effects thereof. The input to perceptual functions in our models are always variables that are themselves presumably functions of the sensory effects of environmental variables. For example, in the “What is Size” demo, the area variable is defined as Qi = h * w, where h and w are the height and width of the rectangle. But h and w are not really environmental or sensory variables; they are perceptions themselves; functions of the state of the receptors in an area of the retina.Â

EP: As for the diagram, those which look like mouse and laptop are not my perceptions, they are your drawings. I did not put them there, but you did
J

RM: They are your perceptions because they are being constructed by the perceptual functions in your nervous system, just as they are in mine. Maybe what is hard to understand is that all those things out there that seem so real are your perceptions. The people, the computers, the tables and chairs, the racquetball that hit me squarely in the ear today and hurt like hell – all are perceptions constructed by your perceptual functions. They are constructed from real physical variables – the fact that everything you experience is perception doesn’t mean everything is make-believe or an illusion; There is really stuff out there  – the world of physical variables – that is the basis of the look and feel and heft of the table I’m working on, for example. What our perceptual functions do is organize this reality into the variables that we perceive and can control. I’m sure we perceive that reality as we do – in terms of objects with shape, weight, movement, relationships to other objects, etc, for example – because this is the adaptive way to perceive the reality on the other side of our senses.Â

EP: Respectively, in different occasions, it is much simpler and more natural and even more scientific to accept that there exist many kind of bigger and smaller objects – presumably all coonsisting of atoms or subatomic
particles or something like that) – in the environment which we peerceive via the effects they cause to our receptors. Their existence make it understandable how we can control our perceptions by affecting those objects and why we can have similar perceptions
that other people and why we can even cooperate when controlling our own perceptions. I can’t see how this way of thinking could make empirical research more difficult or less reliable.

RM: I don’t either. The way you state it, it sounds like you are saying what I am saying – that there is a real world of physical variables that are the basis of our perceptions. The only thing that makes empirical research more difficult – actually impossible – is the idea that Qi, the researcher’s perception of the controlled variable, is an object in the environment that is perceived, with varying levels of accuracy and controlled by the control system. I believe it is this idea that has resulted in so few researchers doing the kind of research Powers hoped would be done to test and develop his model of purposeful behavior; research aimed at discovering the kinds of variables – the kinds of Qi – that organisms control.Â

Best regards

Rick

Â

Â

Best

Eetu

Â

Â

Â

RM: So with that understanding in hand, let’s trace out the processes that are taking place (according to PCT) when you control the angle of the displayed rectangle. Let’s start with the physical variables in the environment.
This array of energy stimulates receptors in the retina via the laws of optics. An array of these receptors, called a receptive field, is the input to a neural network that is a perceptual function that produces a perceptual signal, p, that is proportional
to the angle, kk of the line on the screen relative to vertical. (Actually, the computation of the angle perception is most likely carried out by a perceptual function that is higher up in the optical pathway but we will assume for simplicity that it is done
at the retinal level).Â

Â

RM: The perceptual signal is a train of neural impulses carried by the cell body (axon) of the neuron leaving the receptive field network, the rate of impulses (spikes) being proportional to k. So the greater the
spike rate, the greater the angle that is perceived. And this is the first place where things could get confusing because, when you are doing this control task, what you perceive is the angle of the blue rectangle relative to vertical, not a varying rate of
neural impulses. But it is this rate of impulses – the perceptual signal --, in theory, is being controlled. Why that train of impulses looks like a varying angle rather than something else is, I believe, what is called the “hard problem” of consciousness.
It is actually a problem of understanding perception and I solve it to my own satisfaction by assuming that that’s the way it looks when you are the neuron carrying the varying rates of neural impulses.Â

Â

RM: The perceptual signal, measured in spikes//Â is the first step in the PCT model of control of the angle in the Control of Perception demo. The next steps are shown clearly in both figures: The neuron carrying the
perceptual signal, p, and a neuron carrying the reference signal, r, synapse with opposite signs (one is excitatory and the other inhibitory) on a neuron carrying the error signal, e. The spike rate of the reference signal, like that of the perceptual signal,
is in spikes//; in this way the spike rate of the reference signal “specifies” the spike rate of the perceptual signal. The result of the opposite effects of the perceptual and reference signal on the neuron carry the error signal is the firing rate of the
error signal, e, neuron represents something close to the arithmetic difference between r and p: e = r-p. This error signal neuron ultimately drives the muscular output that moves the mouse. So the spike rate of the error signal causes an amount of force to
be produced by the muscles; so the error signal is in spike rate per unit force (which are Newtons, N, in the figures).Â

Â

RM: The forces produced by the muscles (as a result of the error signal) have their effects on the external environment. Their immediate effect is on the position of the mouse, which is the output variable, o. The
output variable in a control loop is a physical variable measured in physical units. In this case, the output variable – mouse movement-- is measured in units of distance moved per units of force exerted: cm/N. These mouse movements affect, via the computer,
the physical variables that correspond to the perception of the angle of the blue rectangle, // These physical variables are also affected by a disturbance variable, d, produced by the computer. The physical variables that correspond to variations in p, the
perception of dd stimulate,via the laws of optics, the receptors that make up the receptive field that calculates p, the perceptual (spike rate) value of  , and we are back to the beginning, closing the loop from input (stimulation of the receptive field receptors)
back to the same input. The loop is completed via the feedback function that links the output (mouse movements) by the laws of physics and optics to the input (stimulation of the receptive field receptors).Â

Â

RM: Note that Qi does not show up in this loop. This was done to emphasize the fact that there is no Qi in the environment. All that is in the environment are physical variables – the v’s in Figure 1 of Powers’ 1973
Science article (reprinted on p. 66 of LCS I). Qi doesn’t exist unless there is an observer around to perceive it. When you control the angle of the blue rectangle in the Control of Perception demo – keeping it at 0 degrees relative to vertical – and do
it with no one watching you, the only observer is the computer itself. This is shown in the figures as the line coming out of the computer and computing Qi = QQ= sin-1(x/y), where x and y stand for the physical variables that are the basis for the computation
of  . If the computer were not computing   then Qi would not exist and the only place where   would exist during this demo would be as a perception in the person doing the demo, a perception produced by computations carried out by the neural network that makes
up the receptive field.Â

Â

RM: So, in summary, what is called Qi, the controlled input variable, is the observer’s perception of the perception that a controller is controlling. So Qi is p from the observer’s perspective (if there is an observer).
If there is no observer, then all that is controlled is p, a perceptual variable constructed by perceptual functions such as the receptive fields in the Figures above.Â

Â

RM: One last point. Qi is important in PCT because it is the basic data of PCT. It is a variable that an observer can see is being controlled. So Qi is a perception for the observer; p is part of the observer’s theoretical
explanation of how this control is being done.Â

Â

Best regards

Â

Rick

Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you

have nothing left to take away.�

               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.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.26.1650)]

···

RM: Right. It would have been better to say that control always involves acting to influence how environmental variables – variables outside the control system – Â affect the sensory inputs to that system.Â

RM: The term “aspect” refers to a feature or characteristic of something, in this case of the physical (environmental) variables that physics and chemistry say are the environment outside our senses. Qi is variable that is a function of these variables; it is not itself an environmental variable

RM: Perhaps. But so our control models have been able to account for on the order of 99% of the variance in behavior without including any imagination component. Nevertheless, it would be nice to see a demonstration of the role of imagination in control. But this would require actually doing something more than just talking about it as a possibility. It would involve actually doing some research.

RM: Yes, this is why I think it’s better to say that control always involves acting to influence how environmental variables  affect the sensory inputs to that control system. You can do this by acting in a way that directly affecting the environment – as when you lift a cup of tea to your lips – or by acting tn a way that influences the way the environment affects you – such as when you run to catch a fly ball; you are influencing the way the light from the ball affects your retinal receptors rather than having a direct effect on the ball itself.Â

RM: The iris is, indeed, the output of a control system that is controlling the amount of light falling on the retina. Sensory adaptation just influences how the light is perceived, so it is part of the function that determine the perceptual variable that is actually being controlled by this control system.

RM: In PCT, the basis of Qi are environmental (physical) variables; Qi itself is variable aspect (function) of those variables. Maybe this will be clearer if you think of examples of Qi that are more abstract than things like a patern of coins – things like the degree of honesty in a communication. We see that people control for various degrees of “honesty”; therefore honesty qualifies as a controlled variable, Qi. But is “honesty” something that is really in the environment. I don’t think so. I think “honesty” is a perception that is constructed from lower level perceptions that are ultimately constructed from the sensory effects of environmental (physical) variables. But when we see a person “telling it like it is” or “lying through his teeth” it seems like these states of “honesty” are actually “out there” in the environment. But, of course, it is only the basis of these perceptions that is out there. In this case we know this because people seem to differ in what they perceive as “honesty”, clearly indicating that people are constructing different perceptions of what they call “honesty”

RM: Well, then there we jolly well are, aren’t we.Â

RM: Exactly. Though I would say this is always, not generally, the case.

RM: Again, I’d rather say that the elementary particles are a theoretical explanation of the observed tracks in the bubble chamber.

RM: Again this seems a bit backwards but still is basically correct. I would say that the unperceivable phenomenon of the control of perception is used to explain (not prove) the observed control (stabilization against disturbance). The variable that is seen to be stabilized is Qi, the controlled quantity or controlled variable. The perception, p, is the theoretical correlate of Qi.Â

RM: No, controlled variable is the correct term because it is the variable that we see being controlled. The idea that this is happening because a perception corresponding to that variable is being controlled is, as you note, an unperceivable phenomenon – a theory of how the observed variable, Qi, is controlled.Â

RM: If you didn’t see that your friend was controlling the pattern of coins then why explain the behavior with control theory?

RM: In theory, yes, But there is pretty solid evidence that this is the case.

RM: No, its a in him perception that presumably corresponds to your perception, Qi.Â

RM: No, strictly speaking it does have a reference state; it’s the state of Qi (the pattern of coins) that can be seen to be protected from your disturbances. What Qi doesn’t have is an explanation of why it exists; why the coins are kept in a particular arrangement (zig-zag, say). The explanation is the reference signal. The reference state of a controlled variable, Qi, is a fact; the reference signal is a theoretical explanation of that fact. Variation in the state of a controlled variable is a fact; the perceptual signal is a theoretical explanation of that fact.

RM: Correct!

RM: The perceived always knows what Qi is; that’s her perception. What she doesn’t know is the environmental basis of this perception. Remember, Qi is a function of the sensory effects of environmental variables, which we call v’s, just as p is. That is Qi = f(v1, v2…vn) Â just as p= f(v1, v2…vn) .

RM: Right! And Po = Qi.Â

RM: Most images are a result of someone’s actions. But what we see those drawing to be is constructed by our perceptual functions. That’s why people can see things in images that were not created by humans, like seeing dragons in the clouds.

RM: I don’t see what why. Qi is the researcher’s perception of the aspect of the environment that a control system is controlling.Â

RM: That’s not loose speaking. That is exactly correct!

RM: Right!Â

No, that’s just incorrectly speaking. All we control are our perceptions. We are, at the same time, controlling the environmental correlate of those perceptions, which an observer (if there is one) will see as Qi.Â

RM: I believe it is this idea that has resulted in so few researchers doing the kind of research Powers hoped would be done to test and develop his model of purposeful behavior; research aimed at discovering the kinds of variables – the kinds of Qi – that
organisms control.

RM: The “ontological and conceptual solutions” you see me as making have not been problematic for me since I have have been doing (and publishing) PCT research for over 30 years and they haven’t gotten in the way. Those on the other side of this argument, who have apparently have not been making these problematic “ontological and conceptual solutions”, have also not done (or published) any PCT research that I know of. So for the time being I’ll stick with my “ontological and conceptual solutions”; apparently they work for me,even if they don’t work for others.

BestÂ

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

[eetu pikkarainen 2017-02-26 2]

RM: Control always requires affecting the aspect of the environment that is controlled; the aspect of the environment that corresponds to the controlled perception.

 EP: The truth of this statement depends on the two vague concepts in it. A control unit always affects its immediate environment, but these local environments can be inside the the organism.

EP: Secondly what means “aspect” here? Â

 RM: The only time control doesn’t involve affecting the environment is when controlling is done in imagination.

 EP: Perhaps imagination is (must be) mixed in all control because memory is used there too?

EP: This is not however so central here, but what do you think about the idea of “turning the blind eye” type of control? This means for example a situation in horror
movie or in traffic accident where the person does not want to see what she sees (because it causes too strong error), and closes her eyes. This is effective control of perception but it does not affect the source of the perception in the environment.

EP: I would
think that the at least is some cases the sensory adaptation described by Bruce could be this kind of control of perception. Think about the way how the iris of the eye the tries to keep the amount of light, and thus the brightness of the perception, in suitable
limits, control it to the reference.

RM: Yes, but I think it’s better to say that we study control by determining the aspect (function) of the environment that is under control.

EP: This sounds that we agree that the variable Qi, or the state of affairs like I called it (or rather the one aspect of it) really is in the environment and it is a different thing than the perception to which it corresponds?

EP: The disagreement is that I still stand pat that in the control loop, only and just the perception is controlled and all the other processes in the loop are causes and results of this control.

EP: In science generally
the perceivable causes and results are used to study and explain the studied subject matters, which often are unperceivable themselves.

EP : For example the perceivable tracks in the bubble cabin (hopefully right term in English) are used as signs of as such unperceivable
elementary particles.

EP: In similar way the perceivable stabilization of something in the environment (as a consequence of the subject’s behavior and against the disturbances) is used to explain or point or prove the unperceivable phenomenon of the control of
perception.

RM: When we have identified that aspect of the environment, we have identified the controlled variable, Qi, that corresponds to the perception that is being controlled.

EP: OK, but strictly speaking not “controlled variable”, but just the variable, which corresponds the controlled perception.

RM: The relationship between Qi and p is really not as metaphysical as it may seem. I suggest that you read the section on the “Coin Game” in B:CP …

EP: Yes, I agree this: “When you see the aspect of the arrangement of the coins that your friend is trying to maintain (control) you are seeing Qi.� except of course the bracketed “control�

EP: My friend is controlling his perception of the arrangement,

his
perception of the Qi

EP: – and yes tries to mainttain it in the environment. But because Qi is in environment it has no reference state, strictly speaking.

EP: I think that E’s reference (as purpose) is not to see the “zig zag� pattern, but infer from the pattern of
the coins (the Qi) what the reference of S is?

 RM: All I meant to say is that the “environment” (or reality) in PCT is what our current best models of physics and chemistry say it is. Â

EP: I think I understand what you mean: We never know what are the variables and their values in the environment. We only have their corresponding variables and values in our own perceptions. The observer does not know the variables and their values in the
environment i.e. she never knows what the Qi or the state of affairs is.

EP: But she knows what the variables and values are in her own perception (Po = perception of the observer).

EP: I think that for empirical research this can be a rational procedure, but it is confusing to change the terms. Qi is (df) the environmental input quantity to the sensory functions of the controller. If you instead want to talk about observer’s perception,
it is OK, but I think you should call it Po or something which is better explicitly understandable.

 RM: Excellent suggestion!

EP:… What in your diagram looks like mouse, is an image you drew or pasted there. It is not constructed by my perceptual functions but rather by your output via drawing program.

EP: …We do not perceive other’s perceptions. But as fatal to common understanding
is the idea that environmental input quantity (=Qi) is the same thing as the researcher’s perception.

EP: We don’t (now loosely speaking) control or try to control the perceptions of other people.

EP: We are strictly speaking controlling only our own perceptions

EP: and
loosely speaking we are trying to control (strictly speaking maintain, affect, stabilize etc.) the corresponding environmental variable (CEV) or input quantity (Qi) –

 EP: As I said earlier I don’t believe that that kind of research requires those problematic ontological and conceptual solutions.Â

There is a lot of bullshit on CSGnet from Rick. So I’ll try to summerize and answer. What a mess…

RM :Alas, it appears that this was one of the few times Bill was wrong.

HB : It’s vica verse Rick. You appear to be wrong not Bill. You don’t understand PCT and that’s why you think that Bill appeared to be wrong. You have to undertsand first what you are reading. You obviously don’t.

RM : I am well aware of the fact that a control system keeps the controlled quantity (Qi) in a reference state by acting on the environment (the v variables in the Science article) so as to move, p,the perceptual correlate of Qi, toward the state specified by the reference signal in the control system and keep it there, protected from disturbances.

HB : The »controlled quantity« is generally not kept in reference state in outer environment. Speccially not the v variables. But you can keep perception near reference state (perception that is to be controlled). Or try to. There is no control in outer environment. There is no reference state in Q.I. See Bills’ diagram (LCS III). Q.I. is just added effects, nothing else. And here is something what can give you the right feeling for PCT or what is controlled.

Bill P.:

Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make the perception of the glass change from »on thhe table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception…

HB : If you don’t know what you are doing to reality how can you control anything ? It’s other mechanisms that are present here. That’s why PCT is so specific and unique and different from RCT and behvirola and self-regulaton theoris. But the »secret mechanism« is sure not Telekinesis that can transfer »control« into outer environment simultaneously when perception is controlled. You got it wrong and Warren with you.

You are not acting on the enviromment to keep some »controlled quantity« in some »reference state« or to keep some »aspect of environment in some reference state«, but you act to keep the world of perceptions alter… and keep the organism in reference state wwhich is genetically defined.

There is no »simultaneous control« in outer environment, because you are simply not aware what you are doing to reality. But you are aware of perceptions which are controlled. So the control loop can not control twice : in organism and outside. Speccially not simultaneously as you and Warren try to present.

BA: The simple answer is that control systems control perceptions.

RM: And by doing so they are controlling the aspects of the environment that correspond to those perceptions.

HB : No they are not Rick. The outer environment is not controlled as you are not aware what you are doing to reality. How many times do we have to tell you that there is no simultaneous (double) control in organism and outer environment. This will show clearly example with saying »Hello« to people arround, and example of sleeping, sunshining, and so on… What you are sayinng is simply not true, it doesn’t feet into »real experiences«. There is no »simultaneous control« in outer environment what definitions of control clearly sho. It’s just control in the controlling system.

Bill P :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

HB : Why don’t you do your homework and do the test »saying hello« to people on the street. Are you afraid that results will not match your RCT ??? It’s realistic fear.

The ilussion of »controlling the aspect« of environment comes from simple example of pereceptual control like« tracking task« or »knot over dot«. In complex human relationship there will be no trace of cohereny with control in outer environment. You can’t control outer environment and you can’t control other people. But the effects of control can be seen outside if you are acquanted with PCT.

HB : The second problem you have Rick is to prove that you can tranfser »Control of perception« into environmental control. We already establishd that you can’t do that with behavior, because you can’t control behavior. So with what you will transfer control into «aspect of environment« ??? Telekinesis ? Is this Occultist forum ???

So if I can conclude from all the mess Rick produced :

  1.   There is some »controlled vaiable« in environment of LCS, which is controlled through acting on environment
    
  2.   Control of behavior or Telekinesis. Somehow Rick and Warren managed to transfer »control of perception« simultaneously (at the same time) into outer environment… So at the same time when percpetion is controlled is also controlled some »aspect of environment«
    
  3.   Control is tranffered into organism through »controlled perception« (symbolized p) or »controlled perceptual variable« (symbolized CPV)
    
  4.   Risk is protected from disturbances so he is simply »untouchable«
    
  5.   He has some extrasensory perception.
    
  6.   Rick can exactly determine the »reference« of other people so he has also some ability of Telephaty.
    

The only problem is that such a RCT control theory does not match PCT but Occultism and Parapsychology. Also I can’t find terms which Rick is using in Bills’ books.

So if summerize what Rick is talking about we can made his RCT definitons of control loop :

  1.   CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected from disturbances.
    
  2.   OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
    
  3.   FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
    
  4.   INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
    
  5.   COMPARATOR : ????
    

This seems to be the »Control loop« Rick is trying to sell instead of PCT definitions. Now we have to go through PCT definitions of control loop. Why do I have to do it so many times ?

Bill P (B:CP):

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.

Bill P (B:CP):

OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system…

Bill P (LCS III):

:…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.

Bill P (B:CP) :

COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.

HB : WE can see clearly that Ricks’ definitions are totally out of line of PCT. We can say that they are »orthogonal« to PCT. RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) has nothing to do with PCT.

So I’m asking Rick for the last time to provide evidences where did he find the PCT control loop to be working like he showed in RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory). I’m speccially interested if Rick can provide evidences how can »control« in organism and environment be executed simultaneously or at the same time (Telekinesis), how can he exactly know which references people have (Telephaty), how his »extrasensory perception« works and speccially how can he be »protected from disturbances« in »reality« not only in his theory.

If anybody is interested he can continue with further reading down….

image001155.jpg

image00286.png

image0077.png

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:09 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

[From Rick Marken (2017.02.23.1210)]

RM: The relationship between the controlled perception (symbolized p) and the controlled quantity (symbolized Qi) has created some confusion so I have drawn a couple of diagrams to illustrate the relationship.

HB : Rick there is no »controlled perception« . Where the hell did you see this term in Bills’ books. ??? Bills’ PCT is just opposite. See definitions.

Perceptual signal is blank. See B:CP. There is no control in his structure. There is no »controlled quantiy« in outer environment in the sense that is controlled outside to form »controlled perception«. You are destroying whole Bills’ work just because of your egoistic nature to take care of yourself and your useless demos and books. What do you want to achieve with this bullshit ???

RM : The diagrams depict the situation in my Control of Perception demo where the subject (you) controls the angle (rather than the shape or area) of the displayed rectangle. You might want to try this demo before reading any further. The demo is at:

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html

HB : Show us how this works with sleeping, sunshininng, walking down the street and saying hello to poeple, catching the baseball and so on….

Don’t you understand that your RCT is working just in your RCT world and just in some cases. Its’ even not working in »baseball catch«. Stop confusing people.

RM: The PCT view

HB : It’s not PCT view. It’s RCT view.

of your behavior when you are controlling the angle of the rectangle is illustrated in the figure below (this and the next figure are attached in a PowerPoint file in case there is a problem seeing them clearly in the email) . First note that PCT distinguishes between the environment (also known as reality), shown below the dashed line, and the control system (the organism), shown above the line.

HB : This could go through.

RM : The control system is controlling some variable aspect of the environment, in this case the angle of the rectangle on the computer display.

HB : Where do you see that control system is controlling some variable aspect of environment. How do you see that ?

Inline image 2

RM: The environment is made up of the physical variables and entities postulated by the models of physics and chemistry. But in the diagram it looks like the environment consists of a mouse and a laptop computer displaying a blue rectangle at a slight angle with respect to vertical. But these are your own perceptions of what is in the environment side of the diagram. Perhaps a better way to depict what constitutes the environment (reality) in PCT is shown in the next figure.

HB : If it is PCT where we can see Bill’s diagram ? So Rick explain to us with Bills’ diagram how it works ? Why do you avoid PCT explanation ?

cid:image003.jpg@01D23694.7341FD90

Inline image 3

RM: Here the environment is represented as an array of points of varying intensity and wavelength,. You can still make out a computer and mouse – that’s you perceptual systems at work again – but I think this way of depicting the environment makes it clearer that what is presumed

HB : Now what it’s gone be. You are presuming that something is outside or you are »controlling« with your behavior what is outside ?

RM : ….to be out there in the environment is a collection of physical variables like the intensity and wavelength of light energy and entities, like atoms. It’s our perceptual systems that organize this “booming, buzzing confusion” into things like computers, mice and so on. Actually, it’s the booming, buzzing confusion of the sensory effects of the physical variables and entities that our perceptual systems organize into computers, mice, and so on

HB : But simultaneously (at the same time) nothing is controlled in environment.

The main mistake you are making Rick is that you don’t understand what is general theory about how organisms function. You are all the time wrongly connecting control of Living Control Systems with »control in outer environment«. Do you understand what your mistake is ? Generaly control is what Bill used in his definition of control and you are not using it.

RM: So with that understanding in hand, let’s trace out the processes that are taking place (according to PCT) when you control the angle of the displayed rectangle. Let’s start with the physical variables in the environment. This array of energy stimulates receptors in the retina via the laws of optics. An array of these receptors, called a receptive field, is the input to a neural network that is a perceptual function that produces a perceptual signal, p,

HB : So it’s perceptual signal not »controlled perception« or »Controlled Perceptual Variable« ???

RM : ….that is proportional to the angle,&nnbsp;q, of the line on the screen relative to vertical. (Actually, the computation of the angle perception is most likely carried out by a perceptual function that is higher up in the optical pathway but we will assume for simplicity that it is done at the retinal level).

HB : You are simplifying too much. It’s not done at the retina level. You are simplifying beacuse you don’t understand how integration of signals work on higher levels of hierarchy. You don’t understand PCT. That’s why you are simplifying. Whatever you think that it’s carried higher through optical pathway it’s not even »most likely« equal to what is done at retina level. So your asumption is wrong. See how hierarchy works in B:CP. Â

RM: The perceptual signal is a train of neural impulses carried by the cell body (axon) of the neuron leaving the receptive field network, the rate of impulses (spikes) being proportional to q.

HB : You just have to open one physiological book and see how structure of eye-ball and photoreceptors and ganglions look like and waht they do. Cell body is not the same as axon. What a mess….

RM : So the greater the spike rate, the greater the angle that is perceived. And this is the first place where things could get confusing because, when you are doing this control task, what you perceive is the angle of the blue rectangle relative to vertical, not a varying rate of neural impulses. But it is this rate of impulses – the perceptual signal --, in theory, is being controlled. Why that train of impulses looks like a varying angle rather than something else is, I believe, what is called the “hard problem” of consciousness. It is actually a problem of understanding perception and I solve it to my own satisfaction by assuming that that’s the way it looks when you are the neuron carrying the varying rates of neural impulses.

HB : Rick did you consider option of visiting a psychiatrist or at least psychotherapist. You need help.

RM: The perceptual signal, measured in spikes/q is the first step in the PCT model of control of the angle in the Control of Perception demo.

HB : Where in PCT books or any kind of PCT literature can we find this ? PCT model of »control of the angle« ? Not your books or literature. PCT books.

RM : The next steps are shown clearly in both figures: The neuron carrying the perceptual signal, p, and a neuron carrying the reference signal, r, synapse with opposite signs (one is excitatory and the other inhibitory) on a neuron carrying the error signal, e. The spike rate of the reference signal, like that of the perceptual signal, is in spikes/q; in this way the spike rate of the reference signal “specifies” the spike rate of the perceptual signal. The result of the opposite effects of the perceptual and reference signal on the neuron carry the error signal is the firing rate of the error signal, e, neuron represents something close to the arithmetic difference between r and p: e = r-p. This error signal neuron ultimately drives the muscular output that moves the mouse. So the spike rate of the error signal causes an amount of force to be produced by the muscles; so the error signal is in spike rate per unit force (which are Newtons, N, in the figures).

HB : Again find some physiological book and clear your head with what is what.

RM: The forces produced by the muscles (as a result of the error signal) have their effects on the external environment. Their immediate effect is on the position of the mouse, which is the output variable, o. The output variable in a control loop is a physical variable measured in physical units. In this case, the output variable – mouse movement-- is measured in units of distance moved per units of force exerted: cm/N. These mouse movements affect, via the computer, the physical variables that correspond to the perception of the angle of the blue rectangle, q. These physical variables are also affected by a disturbance variable, d, produced by the computer. The physical variables that correspond to variations in p, the perception of q, stimulate,via the laws of optics, the receptors that make up the receptive field that calculates p,

HB : Where did you get this one ? Receptors »calculate« p ? Usually human sensors (photoreceptors) are just converters not calculators. But in you RCT anything is possible.

RM : …the perceptual (spike rate) value of q, and we are back to the beginning, closing the loop from input (stimulation of the receptive field receptors) back to the same input. The loop is completed via the feedback function that links the output (mouse movements) by the laws of physics and optics to the input (stimulation of the receptive field receptors).

HB : So what here is exactly »controlled variable in environment« or »controlled aspect of environment« by theory of RCT ?

RM: Note that Qi does not show up in this loop.

HB : In which loop does it show ? So Qi is something what is not a part of control loop but still sometimes it appears in control loop ?

RM : This was done to emphasize the fact that there is no Qi in the environment.

HB : How do you Rick explain presence of Qi in Bills’ diagram ?

Bill P :

cid:image003.jpg@01D23694.7341FD90

HB : It seems that Bruce and Huddy already explained you what are you missing with interpretation of diagram in LCS I in the continuation of your post so I’ll stop here.

Boris

All that is in the environment are physical variables – the v’s in Figure 1 of Powers’ 1973 Science article (reprinted on p. 66 of LCS I). Qi doesn’t exist unless there is an observer around to perceive it. When you control the angle of the blue rectangle in the Control of Perception demo – keeping it at 0 degrees relative to vertical – and do it with no one watching you, the only observer is the computer itself. This is shown in the figures as the line coming out of the computer and computing Qi = q = sin-1(x/y), where x and y stand for the physical variables that are the basis for the computation of q. If the computer were not computing q then Qi would not exist and the only place where q would exist during this demo would be as a perception in the person doing the demo, a perception produced by computations carried out by the neural network that makes up the receptive field.

RM: So, in summary, what is called Qi, the controlled input variable, is the observer’s perception of the perception that a controller is controlling. So Qi is p from the observer’s perspective (if there is an observer). If there is no observer, then all that is controlled is p, a perceptual variable constructed by perceptual functions such as the receptive fields in the Figures above.

RM: One last point. Qi is important in PCT because it is the basic data of PCT. It is a variable that an observer can see is being controlled. So Qi is a perception for the observer; p is part of the observer’s theoretical explanation of how this control is being done.

Best regards

Rick

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

Dear Eetu. I wouldn’t beleive everything that can be »heard« on this forum. I think it’s better to check it in PCT definitions which also explain the loop in LCS III.

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Thanks Bruce again, this is very important note and point!

This and your next message about adaptation are very hepful and illuminating.

What I mean is that the “control strictly speaking” or “controlling directly” on the one hand and the “control loosely speaking” or “controlling indirectly” are TWO important things that belong together (as thick as thieves - hopefully right saying in English), like all of the other parts of the loop. Only the whole loop can control anything. But still I think that it is intellectually corrupting to call two different (however similar) concepts with the ​same term. It causes unnecessary fights in areas like science where strictness is exceptionally important.

One thing is a consequence of the other - they cannot be the same.

I doesn’t sound very good if you have to say that “PCT is a theory of control, loosely speaking”, I think?

Loosely speaking we can say that in the feedback path of the control loop, the controller controls B by controlling A, D by controlling C and so on and finally that controllers perception is controlled by its controlling X. But strictly speaking - I think - there should be (beforehand) their own reference level for all of these claimed controls?

Loosely speaking, Fred was quite right with his suggestion [From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)] that we control in the every phase of the loop.

HB : No Eetu. The control is not happening in the whole loop. If you think like this you’ll have to support this statement with evidence how control is transffered to environment via neuromuscular connection. How ? And how control enters the organism through perceptual signal ? How control is distributed in the perceptual signal ? This is the problem Rick has from the beggining of our conversation some years ago. He is misleading forum with his RCT, wrong interpretation of PCT which includes the »control happening in the whole loop«. The easiest way to check this assumption is to make physiological tour arround the loop, which was already done by Powers in B:CP. And that’s how we got PCT.

If you look at the definitons of loop »elements« you’ll see that there is no control in all of them (post to Rick). So also from PCT definitions we can conclude that control is not present in the whole control loop. It works in PCT sense something like this :

Bill P and others (2011) Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms. At the core concept of the theory is the observation that living things control perceived environment by means of their behavior. Consequently, the phenomen of control takes center stage in PCT, with observable behavior playing an important but supporting role.

HB : Behavior is playing a supporting role in control loop. It doesn’t carry control.

Bill P :

Using the internal point of view, we can understand many aspects of behavior by seeing control as control of perception rather than of an objective world.

HB : We can see that there is no control in »objective« world. So there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment or the correlate to »Controlled perception« through »Control of behavior« as Rick is writing.  Â

Bill P :

A control system controls what it senses, and what it senses is the result of applying a continuous transformaton process to the elementary sensory inputs to the nervous system.

HB : This is feed-back. The control system controls perception with adding effects to disturbances. Comparator is the only place in organism where control happens. No control is happening outside. When percpetion is controlled there is no other »simultaneous control in outer environment« as Rick and Warren are trying to present. These explanations don’t follow PCT definitions. If you do this you’ll have to introduce Telekinesis to transfer control to outer environment as Rick is doing.

Applying continuos process in environment means effects of output to the sensors. Feed-back is »effects of output on input«. There is no control in output effects. Otherwise I beleive that Bill would define »controlled effects to environment« what would mean that behavior is control. But this is not so. See diagrma in LCS III.Â

And of course there can’t be any control in sensor effects. So there is no »Controlled Perceptual variable« or »Controlled Perception«. Anyway there is no such term in PCT. Rick inventied them to wrongly support his RCT with wrong definitions (please see post to Rick)

Dear Eetu. If you want to follow the control loop in PCT sense you just have to follow defintions or PCT and physiological evidences that show how control loop works in organism. And I beleive you will have no problem determining what PCT is about and how control is distributed in »control loop«.

EP : Of course it is necessary for the organism that it can affect, stabilize and adjust its environment so that it can stay alive and keep its error signals near zero. But this ability has not developed to affect the environment but to keep the organism itself alive i.e. its internal stucture and state in the reference limits.

HB : Right. The cells developed into structures that can achieve and maintain their »internal structrue« in the predefined state (genetically defined).Â

Boris

Eetu


Lähettäjä: Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com
Lähetetty: 24. helmikuuta 2017 17:16
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.02.24.1015 EST)]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-02-24] –

EP: Thank you Rick for this long and detailed explanation, and thank you Bruce for your clear minded comments.

BA: And thank you, Eetu, for your clear exposition. I have only one correction to suggest. You state that “one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking controlling (only and just) its perceptions.� You seem to be saying that the control system does not control Qi, although I doubt that this was your intention. As you say, “strictly speaking,� the control system directly controls only that which it perceives, p. However, I will argue that controlling p is only the means by which the system controls Qi, and that the control of Qi is the reason why controlling p is useful to the individual.

BA: By controlling its perceptions, the system also controls the environmental correlates of those controlled perceptions. Controlling p requires taking actions in the environment that affect Qi, and it is those effects on Qi, out there in the real world, that allow the individual to function successfully. A person who is able to control her hunger (keeping it near a zero reference level) by eating only imaginary food soon will perish. The usual case, of course, is that keeping the perception of hunger § near a reference value of zero entails consuming real food, which has the effect of nourishing the body while also reducing p. It is this effect of keeping the body nourished that makes controlling hunger worthwhile.

BA: Consider what happens when the link between p and Qi is lost. A rat whose lateral hypothalamus has been destroyed no longer shows any interest in food, and would starve to death amid plenty if the experimenter did not keep it alive through force feeding. One way to account for this finding is to assume that the lateral hypothalamus (or nerve fibers passing through it) is an essential part of a brain circuit that transduces the bodily state of nutrition (Qi) into a perception of hunger-level §. If destroying the lateral hypothalamus causes p to be equal to the reference value of zero no matter what the state of Qi, the rat will never eat, as in fact is observed to happen. If p no longer relates to Qi, it may still be possible to control p, but doing so will no longer confer its essential benefit. We control p in order to control Qi. Conversely, because it has only p to go on, a control system can control Qi only by controlling p.

Bruce

Dear Eetu. I wouldn’t beleive everything that can be »heard« on this forum. I think it’s better to check it in PCT definitions which also explain the loop in LCS III.

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Thanks Bruce again, this is very important note and point!

This and your next message about adaptation are very hepful and illuminating.

What I mean is that the “control strictly speaking” or “controlling directly” on the one hand and the “control loosely speaking” or “controlling indirectly” are TWO important things that belong together (as thick as thieves - hopefully right saying in English), like all of the other parts of the loop. Only the whole loop can control anything. But still I think that it is intellectually corrupting to call two different (however similar) concepts with the ​same term. It causes unnecessary fights in areas like science where strictness is exceptionally important.

One thing is a consequence of the other - they cannot be the same.

I doesn’t sound very good if you have to say that “PCT is a theory of control, loosely speaking”, I think?

Loosely speaking we can say that in the feedback path of the control loop, the controller controls B by controlling A, D by controlling C and so on and finally that controllers perception is controlled by its controlling X. But strictly speaking - I think - there should be (beforehand) their own reference level for all of these claimed controls?

Loosely speaking, Fred was quite right with his suggestion [From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)] that we control in the every phase of the loop.

HB : No Eetu. The control is not happening in the whole loop. If you think like this you’ll have to support this statement with evidence how control is transffered to environment via neuromuscular connection. How ? And how control enters the organism through perceptual signal ? How control is distributed in the perceptual signal ? This is the problem Rick has from the beggining of our conversation some years ago. He is misleading forum with his RCT, wrong interpretation of PCT which includes the »control happening in the whole loop«. The easiest way to check this assumption is to make physiological tour arround the loop, which was already done by Powers in B:CP. And that’s how we got PCT.

If you look at the definitons of loop »elements« you’ll see that there is no control in all of them (post to Rick). So also from PCT definitions we can conclude that control is not present in the whole control loop. It works in PCT sense something like this :

Bill P and others (2011) Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms. At the core concept of the theory is the observation that living things control perceived environment by means of their behavior. Consequently, the phenomen of control takes center stage in PCT, with observable behavior playing an important but supporting role.

HB : Behavior is playing a supporting role in control loop. It doesn’t carry control.

Bill P :

Using the internal point of view, we can understand many aspects of behavior by seeing control as control of perception rather than of an objective world.

HB : We can see that there is no control in »objective« world. So there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment or the correlate to »Controlled perception« through »Control of behavior« as Rick is writing.

Bill P :

A control system controls what it senses, and what it senses is the result of applying a continuous transformaton process to the elementary sensory inputs to the nervous system.

HB : This is feed-back. The control system controls perception with adding effects to disturbances. Comparator is the only place in organism where control happens. No control is happening outside. When percpetion is controlled there is no other »simultaneous control in outer environment« as Rick and Warren are trying to present. These explanations don’t follow PCT definitions. If you do this you’ll have to introduce Telekinesis to transfer control to outer environment as Rick is doing.

Applying continuos process in environment means effects of output to the sensors. Feed-back is »effects of output on input«. There is no control in output effects. Otherwise I beleive that Bill would define »controlled effects to environment« what would mean that behavior is control. But this is not so. See diagrma in LCS III.

And of course there can’t be any control in sensor effects. So there is no »Controlled Perceptual variable« or »Controlled Perception«. Anyway there is no such term in PCT. Rick inventied them to wrongly support his RCT with wrong definitions (please see post to Rick)

Dear Eetu. If you want to follow the control loop in PCT sense you just have to follow defintions or PCT and physiological evidences that show how control loop works in organism. And I beleive you will have no problem determining what PCT is about and how control is distributed in »control loop«.

EP : Of course it is necessary for the organism that it can affect, stabilize and adjust its environment so that it can stay alive and keep its error signals near zero. But this ability has not developed to affect the environment but to keep the organism itself alive i.e. its internal stucture and state in the reference limits.

HB : Right. The cells developed into structures that can achieve and maintain their »internal structrue« in the predefined state (genetically defined).

Boris

Eetu


Lähettäjä: Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com
Lähetetty: 24. helmikuuta 2017 17:16
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.02.24.1015 EST)]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-02-24] –

EP: Thank you Rick for this long and detailed explanation, and thank you Bruce for your clear minded comments.

BA: And thank you, Eetu, for your clear exposition. I have only one correction to suggest. You state that “one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking controlling (only and just) its perceptions.� You seem to be saying that the control system does not control Qi, although I doubt that this was your intention. As you say, “strictly speaking,� the control system directly controls only that which it perceives, p. However, I will argue that controlling p is only the means by which the system controls Qi, and that the control of Qi is the reason why controlling p is useful to the individual.

BA: By controlling its perceptions, the system also controls the environmental correlates of those controlled perceptions. Controlling p requires taking actions in the environment that affect Qi, and it is those effects on Qi, out there in the real world, that allow the individual to function successfully. A person who is able to control her hunger (keeping it near a zero reference level) by eating only imaginary food soon will perish. The usual case, of course, is that keeping the perception of hunger § near a reference value of zero entails consuming real food, which has the effect of nourishing the body while also reducing p. It is this effect of keeping the body nourished that makes controlling hunger worthwhile.

BA: Consider what happens when the link between p and Qi is lost. A rat whose lateral hypothalamus has been destroyed no longer shows any interest in food, and would starve to death amid plenty if the experimenter did not keep it alive through force feeding. One way to account for this finding is to assume that the lateral hypothalamus (or nerve fibers passing through it) is an essential part of a brain circuit that transduces the bodily state of nutrition (Qi) into a perception of hunger-level §. If destroying the lateral hypothalamus causes p to be equal to the reference value of zero no matter what the state of Qi, the rat will never eat, as in fact is observed to happen. If p no longer relates to Qi, it may still be possible to control p, but doing so will no longer confer its essential benefit. We control p in order to control Qi. Conversely, because it has only p to go on, a control system can control Qi only by controlling p.

Bruce

[Chad Green (2017.03.02.1214 EST)]

“The same basic complementarity may be viewed as arising from an infinite regression of process levels within and without man, leading to the ultimate essence of reality in both directions, ‘atman’ within and
‘brahman’ without in terms of the Vedanta—which are then recognized as identical.â€? - Erich Jantsch (Evolution)

Best,

Chad

···

Chad T. Green, PMP
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1575

“To the humble, courageous, ‘great’ ones among us who exemplify how leadership is a choice, not a position.� - Stephen Covey (The 8th Habit)

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:52 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Boris, Rick knows everything you are stating about PCT and agrees with it. He doesn’t have an RCT. He is trying to describe the control of elements and functions of the environment that provide us with evidence for PCT independently from
PCT, and explain to us why these need to be stated separately from PCT itself from a scientific, empirical standpoint.

Yet, because PCT has the benefit of also being used to explain the experimenter’s motives and perception, a second stage can be carried out, which I think you are describing, where we try to explain not just what we observe in the experiment
but we model the experimenter controlling their perception too. I think this is also a worthwhile enterprise but for different reasons.

I have a suspicion both you and Rick will disagree with my representation of both your views. I could have got them slightly wrong. But I wonder whether the main reason is that you are using PCT for different explanatory purposes. I am
rather expecting you will both try to tell me they are fundamentally incompatible with one another and with Bill’s vision of PCT, but I see them as complementary.

All the best,

Warren

On 2 Mar 2017, at 14:11, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Dear Eetu. I wouldn’t beleive everything that can be »heard« on this forum. I think it’s better to check it in PCT definitions which also explain the loop in LCS III.

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Thanks Bruce again, this is very important note and point!

This and your next message about adaptation are very hepful and illuminating.

What I mean is that the “control strictly speaking” or “controlling directly” on the one hand and the “control loosely speaking” or “controlling indirectly” are TWO important things that belong together
(as thick as thieves - hopefully right saying in English), like all of the other parts of the loop. Only the whole loop can control anything. But still I think that it is intellectually corrupting to call two different (however similar) concepts with the ​same
term. It causes unnecessary fights in areas like science where strictness is exceptionally important.

One thing is a consequence of the other - they cannot be the same.

I doesn’t sound very good if you have to say that “PCT is a theory of control, loosely speaking”, I think?

Loosely speaking we can say that in the feedback path of the control loop, the controller controls B by controlling A, D by controlling C and so on and finally that controllers perception is controlled
by its controlling X. But strictly speaking - I think - there should be (beforehand) their own reference level for all of these claimed controls?

Loosely speaking, Fred was quite right with his suggestion [From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950
ET)] that we control in the every phase of the loop.

HB : No Eetu. The control is not happening in the whole loop. If you think like this you’ll have to support this statement with evidence
how control is transffered to environment via neuromuscular connection . How ? And how control enters the organism through perceptual signal ? How control is distributed in the perceptual signal ? This
is the problem Rick has from the beggining of our conversation some years ago. He is misleading forum with his RCT, wrong interpretation of PCT which includes the »control happening in the whole loop«. The easiest way to check this assumption is to make physiological
tour arround the loop, which was already done by Powers in B:CP. And that’s how we got PCT.

If you look at the definitons of loop »elements« you’ll see that there is no control in all of them (post to Rick). So also from PCT definitions we can conclude that control is
not present in the whole control loop. It works in PCT sense something like this :

Bill P and others
(2011) Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms. At the core concept of the theory is the observation that living things control perceived environment by means
of their behavior. Consequently, the phenomen of control takes center stage in PCT, with observable behavior playing an important but supporting role.

HB : Behavior is playing a supporting role in control loop. It doesn’t carry control.

Bill P :

Using the internal point of view, we can understand many aspects of behavior by seeing control as control of perception rather than of an objective world.

HB : We can see that there is no control in »objective« world. So there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment or the correlate to »Controlled perception« through »Control
of behavior« as Rick is writing.

Bill P :

A control system controls what it senses, and what it senses is the result of applying a continuous transformaton process to the elementary sensory inputs to the nervous system.

HB : This is feed-back. The control system controls perception with adding effects to disturbances. Comparator is the only place in organism where control happens. No control
is happening outside. When percpetion is controlled there is no other »simultaneous control in outer environment« as Rick and Warren are trying to present. These explanations don’t follow PCT definitions. If you do this you’ll have to introduce Telekinesis
to transfer control to outer environment as Rick is doing.

Applying continuos process in environment means effects of output to the sensors. Feed-back is »effects of output on input«. There is no control in output effects. Otherwise I
beleive that Bill would define »controlled effects to environment« what would mean that behavior is control. But this is not so. See diagrma in LCS III.

And of course there can’t be any control in sensor effects. So there is no »Controlled Perceptual variable« or »Controlled Perception«. Anyway there is no such term in PCT. Rick
inventied them to wrongly support his RCT with wrong definitions (please see post to Rick)

Dear Eetu. If you want to follow the control loop in PCT sense you just have to follow defintions or PCT and physiological evidences that show how control loop works in organism.
And I beleive you will have no problem determining what PCT is about and how control is distributed in »control loop«.

EP : Of course it is necessary for the organism that it can affect, stabilize and adjust its environment so that it can stay alive
and keep its error signals near zero. But this ability has not developed to affect the environment but to keep the organism itself alive i.e. its internal stucture and state in the reference limits.

HB : Right. The cells developed into structures that can achieve and maintain their »internal structrue« in the predefined state (genetically defined).

Boris

Eetu


Lähettäjä: Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com
Lähetetty: 24. helmikuuta 2017 17:16
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.02.24.1015 EST)]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-02-24] –

EP: Thank you Rick for this long and detailed explanation, and thank you Bruce for your clear minded comments.

BA: And thank you, Eetu, for your clear exposition. I have only one correction to suggest. You state that “one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking
controlling (only and just) its perceptions.� You seem to be saying that the control system does not control Qi, although I doubt that this was your intention. As you say, “strictly speaking,� the control system directly controls
only that which it perceives, p. However, I will argue that controlling p is only the means by which the system controls Qi, and that the control of Qi is the reason why controlling p is useful to the individual.

BA: By controlling its perceptions, the system also controls the environmental correlates of those controlled perceptions. Controlling p requires taking actions in the environment that affect Qi, and it is
those effects on Qi, out there in the real world, that allow the individual to function successfully. A person who is able to control her hunger (keeping it near a zero reference level) by eating only imaginary food soon will perish. The usual case, of course,
is that keeping the perception of hunger (p) near a reference value of zero entails consuming real food, which has the effect of nourishing the body while also reducing p. It is this effect of keeping the body nourished that makes controlling hunger worthwhile.

BA: Consider what happens when the link between p and Qi is lost. A rat whose lateral hypothalamus has been destroyed no longer shows any interest in food, and would starve to death amid plenty if the experimenter
did not keep it alive through force feeding. One way to account for this finding is to assume that the lateral hypothalamus (or nerve fibers passing through it) is an essential part of a brain circuit that transduces the bodily state of nutrition (Qi) into
a perception of hunger-level (p). If destroying the lateral hypothalamus causes p to be equal to the reference value of zero no matter what the state of Qi, the rat will never eat, as in fact is observed to happen. If p no longer relates to Qi, it may still
be possible to control p, but doing so will no longer confer its essential benefit. We control p
in order to control Qi. Conversely, because it has only p to go on, a control system can control Qi
only by controlling p.

Bruce

Dear Eetu…

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 8:23 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Warren, I partially agree with your diagnosis.

I see there at least two issues which make Rick’s PCT seem like RTC. First is his empirism. He is not interested in speculations about how the inside of a controlling organism works, …Â ÂÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

HB : The basic structure of PCT hierarchy is strongly supported with physiological evidences. For todays’ stage of science is top one what was again confirmed by Henry Yin . But as you said there are speculations at higher levels what makes PCT no less credible.

PCT includes the basics of physiolgical evidences how organisms work. It’s completely in aacordance also with how medicine help people get cured or save their lives. Even medicine is not perfect, but that’s what we have on this stage of human development. Also Henry Yin started form this point. I wormly recommend you reading his article.

My oppinion is that when you once »bulit« a firm (stable) bases, the »building« will be steady (stable) even if you make some mistakes on higher level . You can correct them. But the trouble is if you build weak or wrong bases and the whole »building« is collapsing all the time.

So on todays’ stage of science I see PCT as high class theory about secrets of human life and society.

EP : …but only in what an observer can perceive in his own environment (and additionally what the computer of the observer can register). The second is that he uses the PCT conceptions so that they are applied to this empirism: what others think that must be inside the organism he thinks it must be outside and perceivable. This is a problem in use of terms and concepts and I think this is the original contradiction.

Then one more problem is the radical empirism and its ontological commitments, which require Rick to situate the input quantity inside the observer while others think it is in the environment.

What makes Boris to react so surprisingly harshly and violently, that it is difficult to understand for newcomers, must be the history of frustrations in the discussions. This same history, however, seems to make those reactions futile, because Rick’s reaction is to dismiss them.

HB : Well dear Eetu. You are a good psychologist although I’m sorry if I qualifyed you as somewho you are not. I didn’t mean to insult you in anyway but just to honor your very good sensibility for people which is necesary if you work on the field of education.

Me and Rick are in »war« for quite some years and it »burst into flames« mostly because his stetement that »people control people all the time«. You can see Ricks’ post and my asnwers to his imputations about how discussion with Bill went into quite sharp conflict. But probably his last insult that he rather watch »football« than talk to me was the real end of our friendly discussions which we have in ealier stage of our acquaintance about year 2007. Now in the time when we could talk seriously about RCT problems he watches »football« and I watch tenis, table tennis, volleyball, basketball, …. J

EP :Â Â A somewhat sad situation.

HB : Dear Eetu I’m not taking it that way. As I wrote in post to Alex, we need »top« scientific evidences and when Rick will have them for his RCT definitions, I hope he’ll answer my challenge to show them. That’s all we need, dont’ we ?

Boris

Eetu


Lähettäjä: Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com
Lähetetty: 2. maaliskuuta 2017 16:52
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: Re: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Boris, Rick knows everything you are stating about PCT and agrees with it. He doesn’t have an RCT. He is trying to describe the control of elements and functions of the environment that provide us with evidence for PCT independently from PCT, and explain to us why these need to be stated separately from PCT itself from a scientific, empirical standpoint.

Yet, because PCT has the benefit of also being used to explain the experimenter’s motives and perception, a second stage can be carried out, which I think you are describing, where we try to explain not just what we observe in the experiment but we model the experimenter controlling their perception too. I think this is also a worthwhile enterprise but for different reasons.

I have a suspicion both you and Rick will disagree with my representation of both your views. I could have got them slightly wrong. But I wonder whether the main reason is that you are using PCT for different explanatory purposes. I am rather expecting you will both try to tell me they are fundamentally incompatible with one another and with Bill’s vision of PCT, but I see them as complementary.

All the best,

Warren

On 2 Mar 2017, at 14:11, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Dear Eetu. I wouldn’t beleive everything that can be »heard« on this forum. I think it’s better to check it in PCT definitions which also explain the loop in LCS III.

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Thanks Bruce again, this is very important note and point!

This and your next message about adaptation are very hepful and illuminating.

What I mean is that the “control strictly speaking” or “controlling directly” on the one hand and the “control loosely speaking” or “controlling indirectly” are TWO important things that belong together (as thick as thieves - hopefully right saying in English), like all of the other parts of the loop. Only the whole loop can control anything. But still I think that it is intellectually corrupting to call two different (however similar) concepts with the ​same term. It causes unnecessary fights in areas like science where strictness is exceptionally important.

One thing is a consequence of the other - they cannot be the same.

I doesn’t sound very good if you have to say that “PCT is a theory of control, loosely speaking”, I think?

Loosely speaking we can say that in the feedback path of the control loop, the controller controls B by controlling A, D by controlling C and so on and finally that controllers perception is controlled by its controlling X. But strictly speaking - I think - there should be (beforehand) their own reference level for all of these claimed controls?

Loosely speaking, Fred was quite right with his suggestion [From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)] that we control in the every phase of the loop.

HB : No Eetu. The control is not happening in the whole loop. If you think like this you’ll have to support this statement with evidence how control is transffered to environment via neuromuscular connection. How ? And how control enters the organism through perceptual signal ? How control is distributed in the perceptual signal ? This is the problem Rick has from the beggining of our conversation some years ago. He is misleading forum with his RCT, wrong interpretation of PCT which includes the »control happening in the whole loop«. The easiest way to check this assumption is to make physiological tour arround the loop, which was already done by Powers in B:CP. And that’s how we got PCT.

If you look at the definitons of loop »elements« you’ll see that there is no control in all of them (post to Rick). So also from PCT definitions we can conclude that control is not present in the whole control loop. It works in PCT sense something like this :

Bill P and others (2011) Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms. At the core concept of the theory is the observation that living things control perceived environment by means of their behavior. Consequently, the phenomen of control takes center stage in PCT, with observable behavior playing an important but supporting role.

HB : Behavior is playing a supporting role in control loop. It doesn’t carry control.

Bill P :

Using the internal point of view, we can understand many aspects of behavior by seeing control as control of perception rather than of an objective world.

HB : We can see that there is no control in »objective« world. So there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment or the correlate to »Controlled perception« through »Control of behavior« as Rick is writing.

Bill P :

A control system controls what it senses, and what it senses is the result of applying a continuous transformaton process to the elementary sensory inputs to the nervous system.

HB : This is feed-back. The control system controls perception with adding effects to disturbances. Comparator is the only place in organism where control happens. No control is happening outside. When percpetion is controlled there is no other »simultaneous control in outer environment« as Rick and Warren are trying to present. These explanations don’t follow PCT definitions. If you do this you’ll have to introduce Telekinesis to transfer control to outer environment as Rick is doing.

Applying continuos process in environment means effects of output to the sensors. Feed-back is »effects of output on input«. There is no control in output effects. Otherwise I beleive that Bill would define »controlled effects to environment« what would mean that behavior is control. But this is not so. See diagrma in LCS III.

And of course there can’t be any control in sensor effects. So there is no »Controlled Perceptual variable« or »Controlled Perception«. Anyway there is no such term in PCT. Rick inventied them to wrongly support his RCT with wrong definitions (please see post to Rick)

Dear Eetu. If you want to follow the control loop in PCT sense you just have to follow defintions or PCT and physiological evidences that show how control loop works in organism. And I beleive you will have no problem determining what PCT is about and how control is distributed in »control loop«.

EP : Of course it is necessary for the organism that it can affect, stabilize and adjust its environment so that it can stay alive and keep its error signals near zero. But this ability has not developed to affect the environment but to keep the organism itself alive i.e. its internal stucture and state in the reference limits.

HB : Right. The cells developed into structures that can achieve and maintain their »internal structrue« in the predefined state (genetically defined).

Boris

Eetu


Lähettäjä: Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com
Lähetetty: 24. helmikuuta 2017 17:16
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.02.24.1015 EST)]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-02-24] –

EP: Thank you Rick for this long and detailed explanation, and thank you Bruce for your clear minded comments.

BA: And thank you, Eetu, for your clear exposition. I have only one correction to suggest. You state that “one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking controlling (only and just) its perceptions.� You seem to be saying that the control system does not control Qi, although I doubt that this was your intention. As you say, “strictly speaking,� the control system directly controls only that which it perceives, p. However, I will argue that controlling p is only the means by which the system controls Qi, and that the control of Qi is the reason why controlling p is useful to the individual.

BA: By controlling its perceptions, the system also controls the environmental correlates of those controlled perceptions. Controlling p requires taking actions in the environment that affect Qi, and it is those effects on Qi, out there in the real world, that allow the individual to function successfully. A person who is able to control her hunger (keeping it near a zero reference level) by eating only imaginary food soon will perish. The usual case, of course, is that keeping the perception of hunger (p) near a reference value of zero entails consuming real food, which has the effect of nourishing the body while also reducing p. It is this effect of keeping the body nourished that makes controlling hunger worthwhile.

BA: Consider what happens when the link between p and Qi is lost. A rat whose lateral hypothalamus has been destroyed no longer shows any interest in food, and would starve to death amid plenty if the experimenter did not keep it alive through force feeding. One way to account for this finding is to assume that the lateral hypothalamus (or nerve fibers passing through it) is an essential part of a brain circuit that transduces the bodily state of nutrition (Qi) into a perception of hunger-level (p). If destroying the lateral hypothalamus causes p to be equal to the reference value of zero no matter what the state of Qi, the rat will never eat, as in fact is observed to happen. If p no longer relates to Qi, it may still be possible to control p, but doing so will no longer confer its essential benefit. We control p in order to control Qi. Conversely, because it has only p to go on, a control system can control Qi only by controlling p.

Bruce

Dear Eetu,

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Dear Boris,

Thank you for your “reinforcing” comment.

I agree quite whole heartedly. I said that the control, as the core idea of PCT, is the control of just and only the perception. Nothing else is controlled. The idea, as I understand it, is NOT that ALSO perception is controlled, but that ONLY AND JUST perceptiont is controlled.

HB : Agree.

This control, to take place, requires the whole loop but all else that happens along the loop is only consequences (and prerequisites) of control.

HB : Agree.

The confusing problem is that a) we empirically perceive only the consequences of control in environment and b) in everyday and loose talk we naturally tend to say that we control something in the environment when we should say that we control our perception of that something - and if that something changes it is a consequence of our control.

HB : Agree.

There seems to be (at least) these two strong pressures that cause many in this list say something like “(of course) also the environment is controlled when perception is controlled”. Even though they certainly do know that this is loose talk. In strict talk environmental change or stabilization is just a consequence of control.

HB : Agree.

EP : But if we allow that loose talk then we have no reason why not say that all consequences of control are control.

HB : Yes . Control by definition in PCT is meant for internal organization of LCS. So whatever is happening in organism can be »loosely« perceived outside by observer. If the observer is PCT thinker, »loosely« TCV can be realized. In this manner we can guess (as Bill used to say) what people are really controlling. There are also other methods to guess what people are controlling. Bill described some in »Coin-game« (B:CP). But I think people invent many methods for guessing what other people are controlling.

Control is always happening inside organism.

EP : So I suggest that we should say clearly when we talk in loose and when in strict sense, and perhaps avoid loose talk in the list. When we talk strictly we should use a certain term, different from control, when we refer to environmental consequences of control. I do not know which is best: affect, constrain, manipulate, stabilize etc. Perhaps it doesn’t even matter, if it is just not control.

HB : Good reasoning. But if we have to decide for one term I would bet on stabilize. I have some reasons :

  1.   One of the best sociologists (although for me is the best) Kent McClelland is using this term. I really respect him as a scientist and I beleive he knows why he is using this term. If you didn't read anything from him I warmly suggest you his writings.
    
  2.   I beleive I have physiological evidences to support term stability.
    
  3.   Term stability is by my oppinion showing some loose »simetry« in »efects of organism on environment« and »effects of environment on organism« although control is asymetry between organism and environment.
    
  4.   Ashby used terms »stability« and »ultrastability« to denote organisms functioning in respect to »influences« from environment.
    

The a) pressure above: empirical perceivability of the control only in its environmental consequences is the reason for Rick to keep it central. But even he seems to say only in a loose meaning that environment is controlled, because the Qi discussion showed that actually for him it is the observer’s – his – perceptions, which are controtrolled by the test subject’s action. At least so I have now understood it.

Eetu


Lähettäjä: Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net
Lähetetty: 2. maaliskuuta 2017 16:11
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Dear Eetu. I wouldn’t beleive everything that can be »heard« on this forum. I think it’s better to check it in PCT definitions which also explain the loop in LCS III.

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Thanks Bruce again, this is very important note and point!

This and your next message about adaptation are very hepful and illuminating.

What I mean is that the “control strictly speaking” or “controlling directly” on the one hand and the “control loosely speaking” or “controlling indirectly” are TWO important things that belong together (as thick as thieves - hopefully right saying in English), like all of the other parts of the loop. Only the whole loop can control anything. But still I think that it is intellectually corrupting to call two different (however similar) concepts with the ​same term. It causes unnecessary fights in areas like science where strictness is exceptionally important.

One thing is a consequence of the other - they cannot be the same.

I doesn’t sound very good if you have to say that “PCT is a theory of control, loosely speaking”, I think?

Loosely speaking we can say that in the feedback path of the control loop, the controller controls B by controlling A, D by controlling C and so on and finally that controllers perception is controlled by its controlling X. But strictly speaking - I think - there should be (beforehand) their own reference level for all of these claimed controls?

Loosely speaking, Fred was quite right with his suggestion [From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)] that we control in the every phase of the loop.

HB : No Eetu. The control is not happening in the whole loop. If you think like this you’ll have to support this statement with evidence how control is transffered to environment via neuromuscular connection. How ? And how control enters the organism through perceptual signal ? How control is distributed in the perceptual signal ? This is the problem Rick has from the beggining of our conversation some years ago. He is misleading forum with his RCT, wrong interpretation of PCT which includes the »control happening in the whole loop«. The easiest way to check this assumption is to make physiological tour arround the loop, which was already done by Powers in B:CP. And that’s how we got PCT.

If you look at the definitons of loop »elements« you’ll see that there is no control in all of them (post to Rick). So also from PCT definitions we can conclude that control is not present in the whole control loop. It works in PCT sense something like this :

Bill P and others (2011) Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms. At the core concept of the theory is the observation that living things control perceived environment by means of their behavior. Consequently, the phenomen of control takes center stage in PCT, with observable behavior playing an important but supporting role.

HB : Behavior is playing a supporting role in control loop. It doesn’t carry control.

Bill P :

Using the internal point of view, we can understand many aspects of behavior by seeing control as control of perception rather than of an objective world.

HB : We can see that there is no control in »objective« world. So there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment or the correlate to »Controlled perception« through »Control of behavior« as Rick is writing.

Bill P :

A control system controls what it senses, and what it senses is the result of applying a continuous transformaton process to the elementary sensory inputs to the nervous system.

HB : This is feed-back. The control system controls perception with adding effects to disturbances. Comparator is the only place in organism where control happens. No control is happening outside. When percpetion is controlled there is no other »simultaneous control in outer environment« as Rick and Warren are trying to present. These explanations don’t follow PCT definitions. If you do this you’ll have to introduce Telekinesis to transfer control to outer environment as Rick is doing.

Applying continuos process in environment means effects of output to the sensors. Feed-back is »effects of output on input«. There is no control in output effects. Otherwise I beleive that Bill would define »controlled effects to environment« what would mean that behavior is control. But this is not so. See diagrma in LCS III.

And of course there can’t be any control in sensor effects. So there is no »Controlled Perceptual variable« or »Controlled Perception«. Anyway there is no such term in PCT. Rick inventied them to wrongly support his RCT with wrong definitions (please see post to Rick)

Dear Eetu. If you want to follow the control loop in PCT sense you just have to follow defintions or PCT and physiological evidences that show how control loop works in organism. And I beleive you will have no problem determining what PCT is about and how control is distributed in »control loop«.

EP : Of course it is necessary for the organism that it can affect, stabilize and adjust its environment so that it can stay alive and keep its error signals near zero. But this ability has not developed to affect the environment but to keep the organism itself alive i.e. its internal stucture and state in the reference limits.

HB : Right. The cells developed into structures that can achieve and maintain their »internal structrue« in the predefined state (genetically defined).

Boris

Eetu


Lähettäjä: Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com
Lähetetty: 24. helmikuuta 2017 17:16
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.02.24.1015 EST)]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-02-24] –

EP: Thank you Rick for this long and detailed explanation, and thank you Bruce for your clear minded comments.

BA: And thank you, Eetu, for your clear exposition. I have only one correction to suggest. You state that “one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking controlling (only and just) its perceptions.� You seem to be saying that the control system does not control Qi, although I doubt that this was your intention. As you say, “strictly speaking,� the control system directly controls only that which it perceives, p. However, I will argue that controlling p is only the means by which the system controls Qi, and that the control of Qi is the reason why controlling p is useful to the individual.

BA: By controlling its perceptions, the system also controls the environmental correlates of those controlled perceptions. Controlling p requires taking actions in the environment that affect Qi, and it is those effects on Qi, out there in the real world, that allow the individual to function successfully. A person who is able to control her hunger (keeping it near a zero reference level) by eating only imaginary food soon will perish. The usual case, of course, is that keeping the perception of hunger § near a reference value of zero entails consuming real food, which has the effect of nourishing the body while also reducing p. It is this effect of keeping the body nourished that makes controlling hunger worthwhile.

BA: Consider what happens when the link between p and Qi is lost. A rat whose lateral hypothalamus has been destroyed no longer shows any interest in food, and would starve to death amid plenty if the experimenter did not keep it alive through force feeding. One way to account for this finding is to assume that the lateral hypothalamus (or nerve fibers passing through it) is an essential part of a brain circuit that transduces the bodily state of nutrition (Qi) into a perception of hunger-level §. If destroying the lateral hypothalamus causes p to be equal to the reference value of zero no matter what the state of Qi, the rat will never eat, as in fact is observed to happen. If p no longer relates to Qi, it may still be possible to control p, but doing so will no longer confer its essential benefit. We control p in order to control Qi. Conversely, because it has only p to go on, a control system can control Qi only by controlling p.

Bruce

Dear Warren…

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 3:52 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Boris, Rick knows everything you are stating about PCT and agrees with it.

HB : As I said many times before I somehow like you. I have nothing against you. But I have against Rick. When he will start using Bills’ defitnions of PCT and stop using Occultist elements, I’ll beleive that Rick agrees with PCT. Until then I’ll »correct« him anytime when he will cross the line of PCT. See post to Rick and tell me where do you see that Rick knows everything what I’m stating about PCT. His RCT is so clear that it can’t be more. So when I’ll see that Rick starts to use PCT defintions I’ll know that he agrees with PCT. Not before.

WM : He doesn’t have an RCT.

HB : See post to him and tell me where do you see any similarity in his (RCT) and Bill’s basic definitions about control loop ? RCT is just opposite to PCT. Be serious Warren. You could be perspective scientist and PCT »next generation«. But if you’ll continue defending Rick, PCT will disapear.

WM : He is trying to describe the control of elements and functions of the environment that provide us with evidence for PCT independently from PCT,

HB : Right. He is doing his RCT independently from PCT and that’s how he made himself a problem. If he is providing something idependantly from PCT that means that he is not using PCT. And that’s exactly what is happening. He is providing NON-PCT theory which is called RCT.

WM : ….and explain to us why these need to be stated sepaarately from PCT itself from a scientific, empirical standpoint.

HB : There is no science in his RCT definitions. Most of scientific evidences were already used in PCT by Bill Powers. All you and Rick have to do is to read it right.

I asked Rick many times to present scientific evidences for RCT statements and he did nothing. Whatever he is doing independantly of PCT is nonsence. It’s not in the range of PCT.Â

The most problematic are his »Parapsychological« or » Occultist« findings (Telekinesis, Telephaty, protected from bullits….and other superman ablitiies) to solve the problem of »Control in outer environment«. He can’t solve it. But Bill did with PCT. He just have to read it right.Â

WM : Yet, because PCT has the benefit of also being used to explain the experimenter’s motives and perception, a second stage can be carried out, which I think you are describing, where we try to explain not just what we observe in the experiment but we model the experimenter controlling their perception too.

HB : Yes I noticed it. But the control of perception of observer works in the same way as controllers. I warned you about it but you are not listening. I’m not the only one who noticed that you could solve the problems which you face in experiments if you would use PCT instead of RCT explanation. You got the right results, but you are making wrong interpretation. If you would use PCT interpretation you wouldn’t have any problems. I’m really sorry for you Warren.

You are promising potential for PCT but not under »patron« of Rick.

I offered you help twice, but you didn’t except it. What could I do more ? You and Powers ladies were mixing friendship with science. Maybe something has changed as I saw Barbs’ post in which she is valuating PCT and efforts for improving PCT in the right manner.

I don’t mix relationship with science. And you shouldn’t too Warren. I just value Bills’ work with scientific arguments. I don’t mix mine and Bills’ relationship into scientific explanations of PCT as you are doing with your »blind« friendship to Rick. And Rick is a fox. He is using you.

You’ll have problems in interpretation of your work as long you will use RCT. I think that your intentions (goals) are right, but the means are wrong. You should stop using RCT and start using PCT.

WM : I think this is also a worthwhile enterprise but for different reasons.

HB : Which reasons ?

WM : I have a suspicion both you and Rick will disagree with my representation of both your views.

HB : I didn’t see any representations of both our views. But you can make interpetation of post I sent recently to Rick about differences between PCT and RCT. You can use also CSGnet archive to establish where and when Ricks’ definitions of RCT appeared on CSGnet forum. They were and are appearing all the time. It’s Ricks’ nightmare. Bill was »protecting« and supporting him in his RCT. I understand they were friends. But as I said before. Science has nothing to do with friendship. Now Rick is on his own and he has a chance to uncover his scientific evidences to support his RCT. But he is not doing it. Why ? Maybe because there aren’t any evidences for RCT ?

WM : I could have got them slightly wrong. But I wonder whether the main reason is that you are using PCT for different explanatory purposes.

HB : I use PCT just for purposes of explaining what Bills’ PCT is about. My arguments are from Bills’ books or from physiological »facts« or our conversations. Ricks’ arguments are mostly from his imagination and sitting behind the computer and »simulating« something. And of course he is getting to wrong general conclussions and wrong explanations about what PCT is about as he doesn’t check it in »reality« as normal scientists do. That was also Bills’ recommendation but Rick is not listening. I went into the »natur2« and drive in the wind, I went on the street and say to people hello, to see their »reactions«. Everything what I found out was in aacrodance with PCT not RCT. You can check my conclussions by doing the same experiment.  Â

WM : I am rather expecting you will both try to tell me they are fundamentally incompatible with one another and with Bill’s vision of PCT, but I see them as complementary.

HB :

See my post to Rick and you will understand why Ricks’ RCT is not compatible with PCT. It simply doesn’t follow PCT definitions about control loop. They are fundamental for understanding PCT whether you are explaning it quantitativelly or qualitativelly. And Ricks’ definitions are totaly out of PCT line. Show me where they are complementary ? Show me how PCT definition of control match Ricks RCT definition of control ? It’s just opposite.

Best,

Boris

All the best,

Warren

On 2 Mar 2017, at 14:11, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Dear Eetu. I wouldn’t beleive everything that can be »heard« on this forum. I think it’s better to check it in PCT definitions which also explain the loop in LCS III.

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:51 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

Thanks Bruce again, this is very important note and point!

This and your next message about adaptation are very hepful and illuminating.

What I mean is that the “control strictly speaking” or “controlling directly” on the one hand and the “control loosely speaking” or “controlling indirectly” are TWO important things that belong together (as thick as thieves - hopefully right saying in English), like all of the other parts of the loop. Only the whole loop can control anything. But still I think that it is intellectually corrupting to call two different (however similar) concepts with the ​same term. It causes unnecessary fights in areas like science where strictness is exceptionally important.

One thing is a consequence of the other - they cannot be the same.

I doesn’t sound very good if you have to say that “PCT is a theory of control, loosely speaking”, I think?

Loosely speaking we can say that in the feedback path of the control loop, the controller controls B by controlling A, D by controlling C and so on and finally that controllers perception is controlled by its controlling X. But strictly speaking - I think - there should be (beforehand) their own reference level for all of these claimed controls?

Loosely speaking, Fred was quite right with his suggestion [From Fred Nickols (2017.01.29.0950 ET)] that we control in the every phase of the loop.

HB : No Eetu. The control is not happening in the whole loop. If you think like this you’ll have to support this statement with evidence how control is transffered to environment via neuromuscular connection. How ? And how control enters the organism through perceptual signal ? How control is distributed in the perceptual signal ? This is the problem Rick has from the beggining of our conversation some years ago. He is misleading forum with his RCT, wrong interpretation of PCT which includes the »control happening in the whole loop«. The easiest way to check this assumption is to make physiological tour arround the loop, which was already done by Powers in B:CP. And that’s how we got PCT.

If you look at the definitons of loop »elements« you’ll see that there is no control in all of them (post to Rick). So also from PCT definitions we can conclude that control is not present in the whole control loop. It works in PCT sense something like this :

Bill P and others (2011) Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms. At the core concept of the theory is the observation that living things control perceived environment by means of their behavior. Consequently, the phenomen of control takes center stage in PCT, with observable behavior playing an important but supporting role.

HB : Behavior is playing a supporting role in control loop. It doesn’t carry control.

Bill P :

Using the internal point of view, we can understand many aspects of behavior by seeing control as control of perception rather than of an objective world.

HB : We can see that there is no control in »objective« world. So there is no »controlled variable« in outer environment or the correlate to »Controlled perception« through »Control of behavior« as Rick is writing.

Bill P :

A control system controls what it senses, and what it senses is the result of applying a continuous transformaton process to the elementary sensory inputs to the nervous system.

HB : This is feed-back. The control system controls perception with adding effects to disturbances. Comparator is the only place in organism where control happens. No control is happening outside. When percpetion is controlled there is no other »simultaneous control in outer environment« as Rick and Warren are trying to present. These explanations don’t follow PCT definitions. If you do this you’ll have to introduce Telekinesis to transfer control to outer environment as Rick is doing.

Applying continuos process in environment means effects of output to the sensors. Feed-back is »effects of output on input«. There is no control in output effects. Otherwise I beleive that Bill would define »controlled effects to environment« what would mean that behavior is control. But this is not so. See diagrma in LCS III.

And of course there can’t be any control in sensor effects. So there is no »Controlled Perceptual variable« or »Controlled Perception«. Anyway there is no such term in PCT. Rick inventied them to wrongly support his RCT with wrong definitions (please see post to Rick)

Dear Eetu. If you want to follow the control loop in PCT sense you just have to follow defintions or PCT and physiological evidences that show how control loop works in organism. And I beleive you will have no problem determining what PCT is about and how control is distributed in »control loop«.

EP : Of course it is necessary for the organism that it can affect, stabilize and adjust its environment so that it can stay alive and keep its error signals near zero. But this ability has not developed to affect the environment but to keep the organism itself alive i.e. its internal stucture and state in the reference limits.

HB : Right. The cells developed into structures that can achieve and maintain their »internal structrue« in the predefined state (genetically defined).

Boris

Eetu


Lähettäjä: Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com
Lähetetty: 24. helmikuuta 2017 17:16
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: Watch Your p’s and Qi’s

[From Bruce Abbott (2017.02.24.1015 EST)]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2017-02-24] –

EP: Thank you Rick for this long and detailed explanation, and thank you Bruce for your clear minded comments.

BA: And thank you, Eetu, for your clear exposition. I have only one correction to suggest. You state that “one of the main strength and originality in Powers insight is that control system is strictly speaking controlling (only and just) its perceptions.� You seem to be saying that the control system does not control Qi, although I doubt that this was your intention. As you say, “strictly speaking,� the control system directly controls only that which it perceives, p. However, I will argue that controlling p is only the means by which the system controls Qi, and that the control of Qi is the reason why controlling p is useful to the individual.

BA: By controlling its perceptions, the system also controls the environmental correlates of those controlled perceptions. Controlling p requires taking actions in the environment that affect Qi, and it is those effects on Qi, out there in the real world, that allow the individual to function successfully. A person who is able to control her hunger (keeping it near a zero reference level) by eating only imaginary food soon will perish. The usual case, of course, is that keeping the perception of hunger (p) near a reference value of zero entails consuming real food, which has the effect of nourishing the body while also reducing p. It is this effect of keeping the body nourished that makes controlling hunger worthwhile.

BA: Consider what happens when the link between p and Qi is lost. A rat whose lateral hypothalamus has been destroyed no longer shows any interest in food, and would starve to death amid plenty if the experimenter did not keep it alive through force feeding. One way to account for this finding is to assume that the lateral hypothalamus (or nerve fibers passing through it) is an essential part of a brain circuit that transduces the bodily state of nutrition (Qi) into a perception of hunger-level (p). If destroying the lateral hypothalamus causes p to be equal to the reference value of zero no matter what the state of Qi, the rat will never eat, as in fact is observed to happen. If p no longer relates to Qi, it may still be possible to control p, but doing so will no longer confer its essential benefit. We control p in order to control Qi. Conversely, because it has only p to go on, a control system can control Qi only by controlling p.

Bruce

[From Rupert Young (2017.04.01 17.40)]

(From Rick Marken (2017.02.23.1210)]

      RM: The relationship between the controlled perception

(symbolized p) and the controlled quantity (symbolized Qi) has
created some confusion so I have drawn a couple of diagrams to
illustrate the relationship.

  Due to time constraints I've missed, and had to abandon, about

200 CSG messages, so apologies if these queries have already been
addressed.

  Here's a couple of scenarios. Do the interpretations coincide

with what you are saying?

  •     When in the shower you turn the dial in order to control the
    
    feeling of heat on your skin. That is, you are controlling an
    internal perceptual (neural) signal (p) derived from the sensors
    on the skin. Turning the dial changes the physical parameters
    (speed of molecules) of the water which we perceive as
    temperature. In other words, there is a physical variable (i) in
    the environment that is independent of the controller, but is
    being affected by the controller in order to control the
    perception. One might say that the environmental variable is
    being controlled. But is it? The environmental variable is also
    independent in the sense that it can be measured by an observer,
    who will observe that the variable is brought to consistent
    value. The observed measurement (perception) we call qi. We
    could say that i, p and qi are synchronised in that changes in i
    are reflected in p and qi. If there is no observer there is no
    qi, but there is still p and i. If there is also no controller
    there is no p, but there is still i.
  •     Wherever you are your iris system is controlling the
    
    perception of the amount of light falling on the retina. You may
    be sitting on your sofa seemingly doing nothing but your iris
    system will still be controlling the perceived light, by
    changing the iris size. However, there is no environmental
    variable (external to the eye) that synchronises with p. The
    light in the environment might be changing quite a bit, but you
    are not doing anything that affects that variation. So, it would
    not be valid to say that there is an environmental variable
    being controlled. Also there is no qi even if an observer is
    present, because the observer does not have access to an
    environmental variable (i) that is synchronised with p. I guess
    we could say that i is related to the number of photons inside
    the, but an observer can not directly measure that info.
    To the question of what is being controlled; p, i or qi. In both
    situations p is being controlled, as is always the case. Is i
    being controlled? It would seem more valid to say that the value
    of i is synchronised with p due to the physical relationship
    between the two. This is like two ends of a lever; I’ll call lp
    and li. When you press one (lp), the other (li) also moves, but
    you are only pressing lp and not li. Similarly, it is only p that
    is being controlled, and not i (or qi).

Rupert

···

The diagrams depict the situation in my * Control of
Perception* demo where the subject (you) controls the
angle (rather than the shape or area) of the displayed
rectangle. You might want to try this demo before reading any
further. The demo is at:

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html

      RM: The PCT view of your behavior when you are controlling

the angle of the rectangle is illustrated in the figure below
(this and the next figure are attached in a PowerPoint file in
case there is a problem seeing them clearly in the email) .
First note that PCT distinguishes between the environment
(also known as reality), shown below the dashed line, and the
control system (the organism), shown above the line. The
control system is controlling some variable aspect of the
environment, in this case the angle of the rectangle on the
computer display.

Inline image 2

      RM: The environment is made up of the physical variables

and entities postulated by the models of physics and
chemistry. But in the diagram it looks like the environment
consists of a mouse and a laptop computer displaying a blue
rectangle at a slight angle with respect to vertical. But
these are your own perceptions of what is in the
environment side of the diagram. Perhaps a better way to
depict what constitutes the environment (reality) in PCT is
shown in the next figure. Â

Inline image 3

      RM: Here the environment is represented as an array of

points of varying intensity and wavelength,. You can still
make out a computer and mouse – that’s you perceptual systems
at work again – but I think this way of depicting the
environment makes it clearer that what is presumed to be out
there in the environment is a collection of physical variables
like the intensity and wavelength of light energy and
entities, like atoms. It’s our perceptual systems that
organize this “booming, buzzing confusion” into things like
computers, mice and so on. Actually, it’s the booming, buzzing
confusion of the sensory effects of the physical
variables and entities that our perceptual systems organize
into computers, mice, and so on

      RM: So with that understanding in hand, let's trace out the

processes that are taking place (according to PCT) when you
control the angle of the displayed rectangle. Let’s start with
the physical variables in the environment. This array of
energy stimulates receptors in the retina via the laws of
optics. An array of these receptors, called a * receptive
field* , is the input to a neural network that is a
perceptual function that produces a perceptual signal, p, that
is proportional to the angle, q,  of
the line on the screen relative to vertical. (Actually, the
computation of the angle perception is most likely carried out
by a perceptual function that is higher up in the optical
pathway but we will assume for simplicity that it is done at
the retinal level).Â

      RM: The perceptual signal is a train of neural impulses

carried by the cell body (axon) of the neuron leaving the
receptive field network, the rate of impulses (spikes) being
proportional to q .Â
So the greater the spike rate, the greater the angle that is
perceived. And this is the first place where things could get
confusing because, when you are doing this control task, what
you perceive is the angle of the blue rectangle relative to
vertical, not a varying rate of neural impulses. But it is
this rate of impulses – the perceptual signal --, in theory,
is being controlled. Why that train of impulses looks like a
varying angle rather than something else is, I believe, what
is called the “hard problem” of consciousness. It is actually
a problem of understanding perception and I solve it to my own
satisfaction by assuming that that’s the way it looks when youare the neuron carrying the varying rates of neural
impulses.Â

RM: The perceptual signal, measured in spikes/q  is
the first step in the PCT model of control of the angle in the
Control of Perception demo. The next steps are shown clearly
in both figures: The neuron carrying the perceptual signal, p,
and a neuron carrying the reference signal, r, synapse with
opposite signs (one is excitatory and the other inhibitory) on
a neuron carrying the error signal, e. The spike rate of the
reference signal, like that of the perceptual signal, is in
spikes/q ;
in this way the spike rate of the reference signal “specifies”
the spike rate of the perceptual signal. The result of the
opposite effects of the perceptual and reference signal on the
neuron carry the error signal is the firing rate of the error
signal, e, neuron represents something close to the arithmetic
difference between r and p: e = r-p. This error signal neuron
ultimately drives the muscular output that moves the mouse. So
the spike rate of the error signal causes an amount of force
to be produced by the muscles; so the error signal is in spike
rate per unit force (which are Newtons, N, in the figures).Â

      RM: The forces produced by the muscles (as a result of the

error signal) have their effects on the external environment.
Their immediate effect is on the position of the mouse, which
is the output variable, o. The output variable in a control
loop is a physical variable measured in physical units. In
this case, the output variable – mouse movement-- is measured
in units of distance moved per units of force exerted: cm/N.
These mouse movements affect, via the computer, the physical
variables that correspond to the perception of the angle of
the blue rectangle, q. These
physical variables are also affected by a disturbance
variable, d, produced by the computer. The physical variables
that correspond to variations in p, the perception of q,  stimulate,via
the laws of optics, the receptors that make up the receptive
field that calculates p, the perceptual (spike rate) value of q ,
and we are back to the beginning, closing the loop from input
(stimulation of the receptive field receptors) back to the
same input. The loop is completed via the * feedback
function* that links the output (mouse movements) by the
laws of physics and optics to the input (stimulation of the
receptive field receptors).Â

      RM: Note that Qi does not show up in this loop. This was

done to emphasize the fact that there is no Qi in the
environment. All that is in the environment are physical
variables – the v’s in Figure 1 of Powers’ 1973 Science
article (reprinted on p. 66 of LCS I). Qi doesn’t exist unless
there is an observer around to perceive it. When you control
the angle of the blue rectangle in the Control of Perception
demo – keeping it at 0 degrees relative to vertical – and do
it with no one watching you, the only observer is the computer
itself. This is shown in the figures as the line coming out of
the computer and computing Qi =
q = sin-1(x/y), where x and y stand for the physical variables that are the basis for the
computation of q. If the computer were not computing q then Qi would not exist and the only place
where q would exist during this demo would be as a
perception in the person doing the demo, a perception
produced by computations carried out by the neural network
that makes up the receptive field.Â

          RM: So, in summary, what is called Qi, the

controlled input variable, is the observer’s perception of
the perception that a controller is controlling. So Qi is
p from the observer’s perspective (if there is an
observer). If there is no observer, then all that is
controlled is p, a perceptual variable constructed by
perceptual functions such as the receptive fields in the
Figures above.Â

          RM: One last point. Qi is important in PCT

because it is the basic data of PCT. It is a variable that
an observer can see is being controlled. So Qi is a
perception for the observer; p is part of the observer’s
theoretical explanation of how this control is being
done.Â

        Best

regards

Rick


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 (2017.04.01.1910)]

···

Rupert Young (2017.04.01 17.40)–

  RY: Here's a couple of scenarios. Do the interpretations coincide

with what you are saying?

  •     When in the shower you turn the dial in order to control the
    
    feeling of heat on your skin. That is, you are controlling an
    internal perceptual (neural) signal (p) derived from the sensors
    on the skin. Turning the dial changes the physical parameters
    (speed of molecules) of the water which we perceive as
    temperature. In other words, there is a physical variable (i) in
    the environment that is independent of the controller, but is
    being affected by the controller in order to control the
    perception. One might say that the environmental variable is
    being controlled. But is it? The environmental variable is also
    independent in the sense that it can be measured by an observer,
    who will observe that the variable is brought to consistent
    value. The observed measurement (perception) we call qi. We
    could say that i, p and qi are synchronised in that changes in i
    are reflected in p and qi. If there is no observer there is no
    qi, but there is still p and i. If there is also no controller
    there is no p, but there is still i.

RM: I agree that the observed measurement is q.i. But q.i doesn’t even have to be a formal measurement (like that taken be a thermometer); it could just be our own perception of water temperature. What we observe is that this variable, q.i, (whether the thermometer reading or the feeling of the temperature of the water) is being controlled because it remains in a reference state, protected from disturbances. If we want to build a model (or a robot) that controls temperature we give it a perceptual function that produces a perceptual variable, p, that corresponds to q.i. The perceptual variable produces p as a function of the presumed physical basis of q.i, which you call i and in this case is the speed of molecular motion. So the perceptual variable, p, is unquestionably the same as the controlled variable, q.i, perceived by the observer because the PCT model accounts for the observation that q.i is controlled by assuming that a perceptual variable, p, that corresponds to q.i, is controlled.Â

Â

  •     RY: Wherever you are your iris system is controlling the
    
    perception of the amount of light falling on the retina. You may
    be sitting on your sofa seemingly doing nothing but your iris
    system will still be controlling the perceived light, by
    changing the iris size. However, there is no environmental
    variable (external to the eye) that synchronises with p.

RM: There is rarely, if ever, an environmental variable that “synchronizes” with p because the controlled variable, q.i, that is accounted for by p, is typically a function of environmental variables: p = q.i = f(i.1, i.2…i.n) where f() is the perceptual function that produces the perception of the controlled variable for both the observer (q.i) and the model (p).Â

Â

  •     RY: The
    
    light in the environment might be changing quite a bit, but you
    are not doing anything that affects that variation. So, it would
    not be valid to say that there is an environmental variable
    being controlled.

RM: Yes, that’s another sense in which an environmental variable is not controlled. Environmental variables are disturbances to a controlled perception. They are independent variables; variables that are not directly affected by the actions of the control system. It’s perceptual functions of the sensory effects of environmental variables, q.i, that can be seen by an observer to be controlled and are assumed to be controlled by the controller as p.Â

  •     RY: Also there is no qi even if an observer is
    
    present, because the observer does not have access to an
    environmental variable (i) that is synchronised with p. I guess
    we could say that i is related to the number of photons inside
    the, but an observer can not directly measure that info.

RM: Right. That’s why I object to calling q,i an environmental variables. q.i (and, correspondingly, p) are functions of environmental variables; they are perceptions. Â

  RY: To the question of what is being controlled; p, i or qi. In both

situations p is being controlled, as is always the case.

RM: The observer sees that q.i, the observer’s perception of the controlled variable, is being controlled. Presumably (according to PCT) this is happening because the controller is controlling a perception, p, that corresponds to q.i. The variable i is the environmental variable (actually, environmental variables) of which q.i (and, hence, p) is presumably a function; i is never controlled; a function (perception) of i is controlled.Â

  RY: Is i

being controlled?

RM: No.Â

  RY: It would seem more valid to say that the value

of i is synchronised with p due to the physical relationship
between the two. This is like two ends of a lever; I’ll call lp
and li. When you press one (lp), the other (li) also moves, but
you are only pressing lp and not li. Similarly, it is only p that
is being controlled, and not i (or qi).

RM: Again, the easiest way to think about this is in terms of the “coin game” described in B:CP. If S is controlling the pattern of coins then the varying pattern of coins as seen by E is q.i. The varying pattern of the coins as seen by S is p. The pattern of coins that E sees being maintained in a reference state (“zig-zag” in the example in B:CP) is the reference state of q.i, called q.i*. The reference state of the coins, q.i*, is assumed to exist because S is a control system with a reference specification, r, for p, that corresponds to q.i*. Â Â

Best regards

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

[Martin Taylor 2017.04.01.23.09]

[From Rupert Young (2017.04.01 17.40)]

(From Rick Marken (2017.02.23.1210)]

        RM: The relationship between the controlled perception

(symbolized p) and the controlled quantity (symbolized Qi)
has created some confusion so I have drawn a couple of
diagrams to illustrate the relationship.

    Due to time constraints I've missed, and had to abandon, about

200 CSG messages, so apologies if these queries have already
been addressed.

You haven't missed much.
    Here's a couple of scenarios. Do the interpretations coincide

with what you are saying?

I can't talk to what Rick is saying, but I can respond from my own

viewpoint.

  •       When in the shower you turn the dial in order to control the
    
    feeling of heat on your skin. That is, you are controlling an
    internal perceptual (neural) signal (p) derived from the
    sensors on the skin. Turning the dial changes the physical
    parameters (speed of molecules) of the water which we perceive
    as temperature. In other words, there is a physical variable
    (i) in the environment
We have to be careful not to get mixed up. What you call "i" is what

Bill Powers always called “qi”, but you later use “qi” for something
else entirely.

  •       that is independent of the controller, but is being
    
    affected by the controller in order to control the perception.
    One might say that the environmental variable is being
    controlled. But is it? The environmental variable is also
    independent in the sense that it can be measured by an
    observer,
It can if the observer can perceive exactly the same environmental

variables that enter into the value qi (your “i”) and has a
perceptual function that combines these inputs in exactly the same
way as does the “controller”. But it can be measured approximately
by an observer who perceived the important constituent variables of
qi and combines them in a similar way. That observer is not
observing qi, but is observing a variable correlated with it.

  •       who will observe that the variable is brought to consistent
    
    value. The observed measurement (perception) we call qi.
Not historically. Historically, the variable "qi" is a variable

value at the point in the control loop where the disturbance
combines with the output to create the value that is perceived and
controlled.

  •       We could say that i, p and qi are synchronised in that
    
    changes in i are reflected in p and qi. If there is no
    observer there is no qi, but there is still p and i. If there
    is also no controller there is no p, but there is still i.
Allowing for the change from the normal usage of variable names,

this is reasonably accurate, but with one modification (I will call
the “observer’s qi” “qi(Obs)”. If there is no controller, that
perceiving system may still be working with the inputs that create
qi(Classical) (your “i”), so there’s an intermediate stage at which
there is p and “i”, but no control. The three variables are not
exactly synchronized for two reasons. There is a transport lag and
introduced noise between your “i” and p, so p does not exactly
change as “i” does, and changes in p are delayed with respect to
changes in “l”. And qi(Obs) need not change as “i” does, unless the
observer’s perceptual function is exactly the same as that of the
controller and is provided with exactly the same input components of
“i”.

  •       Wherever you are your iris system is controlling the
    
    perception of the amount of light falling on the retina. You
    may be sitting on your sofa seemingly doing nothing but your
    iris system will still be controlling the perceived light, by
    changing the iris size. However, there is no environmental
    variable (external to the eye) that synchronises with p.
Correct. The variable is in the environment of the control unit, but

not in the environment of the organism (person).

  •       The light in the environment might be changing quite a bit,
    
    but you are not doing anything that affects that variation.
Correct. That's not being controlled.
  •       So, it would not be valid to say that there is an
    
    environmental variable being controlled.
Incorrect. When we talk about a control unit, much of its

environment (lower level perceptions and lower-level control units
to which it sends reference values) is inside the organism. You are
using “environment” in two different ways at once.

  •       Also there is no qi even if an observer is present, because
    
    the observer does not have access to an environmental variable
    (i) that is synchronised with p. I guess we could say that i
    is related to the number of photons inside the eye, but an
    observer can not directly measure that info.
True, usually, but one might imagine some future machine that would

be able to make that measurement (or maybe one exists already, for
all I know).

    To the question of what is being controlled; p, i or qi. In

both situations p is being controlled, as is always the case. Is
i being controlled? It would seem more valid to say that the
value of i is synchronised with p due to the physical
relationship between the two.

I like that way of putting it. But it's handy in everyday speech to

say that “i” is controlled, because that’s all anyone outside the
organism can see, and its value changes are, as you say, more or
less synchronized with changes in p. Its only when you are trying to
be precise that the difference matters.

    This is like two ends of a lever; I'll call lp and li. When

you press one (lp), the other (li) also moves, but you are only
pressing lp and not li. Similarly, it is only p that is being
controlled, and not i (or qi).

Yes.

Martin

[From Rupert Young (2017.04.02 22.20)]

[From Rick Marken (2017.04.01.1910)]

Rupert Young (2017.04.01 17.40)–

      RY: Here's a couple of scenarios. Do the interpretations

coincide with what you are saying?

  • When in the shower you turn …

RM: I agree that the observed measurement is q.i. …

(Martin Taylor 2017.04.01.23.09]

  •         Wherever you are your iris system is controlling the
    
    perception of the amount of light falling on the retina. You
    may be sitting on your sofa seemingly doing nothing but your
    iris system will still be controlling the perceived light,
    by changing the iris size. However, there is no
    environmental variable (external to the eye) that
    synchronises with p.
    Correct. The variable is in the environment of the control unit,
    but not in the environment of the organism (person).
  •         The light in the environment might be changing quite a
    
    bit, but you are not doing anything that affects that
    variation.
  Correct. That's not being controlled.
A rare moment of general consensus I think, with just some

differences in terminology. :slight_smile:

Rupert