Website updated

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

[From Dag Forssell (2005 Aug 18, 10:00 pm)]

I have just updated the website www.livingcontrolsystems.com to reflect Tim Carey's book (still being polished before final relase later this year).

Those who already have Tim's book may note the addition of a Postscript, available in its entirety.

A new intro piece by myself, Once Around the Loop, is found at http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/other_pct.html

There are updates and polish throughout. Gary Cziko pointed out that I had neglected to provide text under images for anyone who surfs with images turned off, so that is one detail.

It has been a long day. Time for evening news, a glass of wine and bed.

2

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.19.0822 MDT)]

Dag Forssell (2005 Aug 18, 10:00 pm)]

I have just updated the website www.livingcontrolsystems.com to reflect Tim Carey's book (still being polished before final relase later this year).

Dag, that web site is looking better and better. Your little piece, Once Around the Loop, has shaped up into a really good paper -- it pays to keep fussing with things.

Now at the risk of embarrassing Rick, I have to write the following.

I would like to call special attention to an appendix that is mentioned here:

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/powers_runkel_contents.html\\

The Appendix is by Rick Marken, and it's called Teaching Dogma in Psychology. It's Rick's farewell address at Augsburg College, in which he gives his reasons for not wanting to teach conventional ideas any more. It's a wonderful introduction to control theory for psychologists, including all the reasons why psychologists might and might not want to learn about it. Reading it now, some 20 years after it was written, I realize that Rick's grasp of control theory and its implications was fully formed even in the first year that the Control Systems Group existed.

I think that many people who have joined the Hate Rick Club forget that they themselves played a major part in creating the escalating conflicts that nearly wrecked CSGnet, and for that matter, the CSG. It may be true that when goaded sufficiently, Rick resorted to counterproductive modes of argument (e.g., he lost it). But that was never the beginning. The beginning was almost always a statement by someone who knew less than Rick did about PCT, or at least forgot, temporarily, what he or she knew.

I wish that people would examine what preceded the blowups, which was almost always someone trying to push some idea that was really not consistent with PCT -- and which Rick, lacking my tact (or the tact that I once thought I had), immediately objected to, quite correctly if not always gently. In reply, Rick was attacked for being a thought policeman, for being closed-minded, for being arrogant in insisting on "PCT purity." And of course that infuriated him, and Rick infuriated is not the Rick of Teaching Dogma in Psychology. When he is angry Rick pours gasoline on the flames. Or he used to. But I have yet to see a case where he lit the match.

I have recently been told (not for the first time) by one of my oldest and dearest friends in the CSG that if Rick shows up at a meeting, this person will leave. If Rick is included in a discussion, this person will cease to participate. There are others who have expressed similar, if not quite such extreme, views -- despite the considerable degree of support given to Rick by a significant group of others on CSGnet. What all these people cite as justification is what was said at the peak of a conflict. Nobody seems to want to consider how there came to be a conflict in the first place, before the escalation got under way. I have never seen a one-sided conflict. I don't think that there is a single person involved who could say he or she is free of responsibility for making things worse, then worse again, and then still worse. Each person, focusing on the intransigence and excesses of the other, fails to see his or her own intransigence and excesses. If you simply focus on who said the most hurtful things just before everything collapsed, you will miss the point that the phenomenon of conflict arises from opposing goals and actions, and an inability to reorganize fast enough. It takes at least two to create, maintain, and increase a conflict. But it only takes one to nurture it for years and years and years.

After considerable wresting with my own conflicts, I have decided that I will not make the choice I am being pressured to make. I expect other people to resolve conflicts, not to exacerbate them. I will not take sides in what is basically a pathological social relationship. I do not want to encourage people who indulge in tempers or hold childish grudges -- either one -- or who otherwise hunker down and refuse to change. Such behavior is against
the interests of the CSG and a direct threat to my life's work.

Read the Appendix linked to above. See if you think the man who write that eloquent farewell address as he uprooted himself to follow the banner of PCT should be declared anathema and banned from the company of all Right Thinkers. Myself, I think that would be a really dumb idea and I don't intend to do it.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.19.1140)]

Dag Forssell (2005 Aug 18, 10:00 pm)

A new intro piece by myself, Once Around the Loop, is found at
http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/other_pct.html

This is an excellent essay, Dag. Very clear and well written. There is only
one place where I see room for improvement, and this is in the paragraph
describing the input function. The problems start with the first sentence:
"Signals from all these sensors are processed by the input function (i)".
This gives the impression that all sensors enter a single input function. I
know you know that this is not the case, but I think it's important to make
this clear in order to avoid giving the impression that PCT views human
behavior in terms on one big control loop. Of course, you are discussing
only a single loop in the essay. But I still think it would be clearer to
say something like: "Signals from all these sensors are processed by many
different input (i) functions in many different control loops. A set of
sensory signals entering one of these input functions is shown in Figure
One".

I think a more serious problem exists in your description of how memory
affects perception. You start this right off in the second sentence of the
paragraph when you say "...the input function should again be thought of as
a neural network that receives the various [sensory] signals and constructs
interpretations of them using both the current input and signals retrieved
from memory". I don't believe that the PCT model of perception says anything
about perceptions being constructed from sensory _and_ memory signals. In
all the working PCT models I know of, perceptual signals are constructed
only as a function of sensory and/or low order perceptual signals. Yet most
of your discussion of the input function assumes that perception is based,
at least in part, on memory signals. I think this gives a somewhat
misleading idea of the role of perception (and memory) in the PCT model.
Perception is a function of sensory input. Memory is made up of stored
perceptual signals that can be compared to incoming perceptions (in which
case they function as reference signals) or replayed as thoughts
(imaginings).

I would suggest rewriting the paragraph on the input function with the aim
of explaining that it is differences in the nature of these functions across
people that lead people to construct (and, thus, control) different
perceptions (such as "meaning" perceptions) of the same external reality
(what you call "the same thing").

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

4

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.19.1316 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.08.19.1140) --

I don't believe that the PCT model of perception says anything
about perceptions being constructed from sensory _and_ memory signals. In
all the working PCT models I know of, perceptual signals are constructed
only as a function of sensory and/or low order perceptual signals.

That's true, but does it have to be true always? I'm thinking of cases where not all the information necessary to form a perceptual signal is present, yet we go ahead and control things in terms of what is present. What if we simply supply missing bits from imagination so as to get the error to zero? This would be true with a single signal is constructed from multiple lower-order signals; some of those lower-order signals might be imagined.

It's true that basing any control action primarily on imagined signals is a bad idea, since you don't know what you're really doing to the environment. I wouldn't want to ride in a car with a driver who is imagining that the car is still on the road while a crosswind is pushing it off.

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.19.1400)]

Bill Powers (2005.08.19.1316 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2005.08.19.1140) --

I don't believe that the PCT model of perception says anything
about perceptions being constructed from sensory _and_ memory signals. In
all the working PCT models I know of, perceptual signals are constructed
only as a function of sensory and/or low order perceptual signals.

That's true, but does it have to be true always?

Of course not. It seems to me, however, that the extent to which it is not
true -- that is, the extent to which perception is based on _both_ sensory
and memory signals -- is an empirical matter. So far, as far as I know, we
have not had to add memory inputs into the perceptual function of a control
model in order account for a particular behavior. Maybe someday we will.
That would be great.

I'm thinking of
cases where not all the information necessary to form a perceptual
signal is present, yet we go ahead and control things in terms of
what is present. What if we simply supply missing bits from
imagination so as to get the error to zero? This would be true with a
single signal is constructed from multiple lower-order signals; some
of those lower-order signals might be imagined.

It's true that basing any control action primarily on imagined
signals is a bad idea, since you don't know what you're really doing
to the environment. I wouldn't want to ride in a car with a driver
who is imagining that the car is still on the road while a crosswind
is pushing it off.

In his introductory discussion of the control loop, Dag talks about the
perceptual function as though we already knew that memory signals are
definitely required as inputs to the perceptual function in order to model
the controlling done by people.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

6

This is Phil Runkel commenting on Rick Marken�s of 05.08.19.1140, writing about Dag Forssell�s of 05.08.18.10 pm:

Rick:

I agree with you about being clear about the multiplicity of feedback loops. Dag does have a very clear statement about that in the note under the figure, but it would be just as well, I think, to add a few words at the paragraph you mention.

Then you write about where perception is �based,� which leaves me wondering what you can mean. I had it in my head that memory was always functioning whenever the loop was active. I�m not sure either, what Dag means by �interpretations� in the sentence of his that you quote.

Maybe �interpreting� goes on in comparators? Multiple comparators?

On page 217 of the first edition of B:CP, in the paragraph beginning �We do not need,� (and similarly on page 219 of the second edition), we find: �all behavior consists of reproducing past perceptions� and �all reference signals are retrieved recordings of past perceptual signals.�

I suppose Dag could do some clarifying here, but it seems to me that remembering and perceiving are always going on, and the two are so close to simultaneous (in respect to some �single� perception) that the idea of intimate connections that I think Dag was striving for could be a good feature of an introductory essay like this.

--Phil R.

7

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.20.0840)]

This is Phil Runkel commenting on Rick Marken’s of 05.08.19.1140, writing about Dag Forssell’s of 05.08.18.10 pm:

Then you write about where perception is “based,” which leaves me wondering what you can mean.

I think you must be referring to this, the only place where I used the term "based":

Yet most of your discussion of the input function assumes that perception is based, at least in part, on memory signals.

What I meant was that Dag's argument suggests that the argument to the input function includes both sensory (s) and memory (m) signals. That is, Dag is saying that p = i(s,m). My point was that, while this may be true, there is no good evidence that it is true. One the other hand, we have many models that work quite well, picking up 99%+ of the variance in the behavior to be explained, under the assumption that p = i(s).

  I had it in my head that memory was always functioning whenever the loop was active.

Based on my own experience, I would say that memory -- in the form of recall of previously experienced perceptions in the form of imaginations -- is indeed functioning in some systems while perceptual control is going on in others. But I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether p = i(m,s), as Dag says, or p =i(s), as in the current PCT model of control.

On page 217 of the first edition of B:CP, in the paragraph beginning “We do not need,” (and similarly on page 219 of the second edition), we find: “all behavior consists of reproducing past perceptions” and “all reference signals are retrieved recordings of past perceptual signals.”

Yes. In this discussion in B:CP I believe that the "past perceptions" function as reference signals. What Bill is saying, I believe, is that all reference signals are memories of past perceptions. I think this is a little extreme, though. I bet we come into the world with some reference signals built in -- corresponding to perceptions we have never experienced and, thus, cannot have stored as memories.

I suppose Dag could do some clarifying here, but it seems to me that remembering and perceiving are always going on, and the two are so close to simultaneous (in respect to some “single” perception) that the idea of intimate connections that I think Dag was striving for could be a good feature of an introductory essay like this.

If it's really important to you and Dag that the "memory signals hypothesis" (the hypothesis that memory signals are among the inputs to the input function) be part of the discussion of the control loop , then I would recommend that the appropriate diagram at least be included in Figure One. Right now, the discussion in the paragraph on the input function concerns things that are not shown in Figure One. It would be easy to fix this up; all Dag would have to do would be to add something like this to Figure One:

                               ^
                               > perceptual signal
                               >
                      > input function |
                         ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
                         > > > > > > >
                       memory sensory

This just shows that some set of inputs into the input function are from memory (and lines should show that these signals have their origin inside the system) and from the senses (which are stimulated from outside the system).

Best

Rick

···

----
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

8

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.20.1002 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.08.20.0840)–

On page 217 of the first edition
of B:CP, in the paragraph beginning �We do not need,� (and similarly on
page 219 of the second edition), we find: �all behavior consists of
reproducing past perceptions� and �all reference signals are retrieved
recordings of past perceptual signals.�

Yes. In this discussion in B:CP I believe that the “past
perceptions” function as reference signals. What Bill is saying, I
believe, is that all reference signals are memories of past perceptions.
I think this is a little extreme, though. I bet we come into the world
with some reference signals built in – corresponding to perceptions we
have never experienced and, thus, cannot have stored as
memories.

There are two different subjects being mixed together in this discussion.
One is the source of reference signals; the other is the source of
perceptual signals. In Chapter 15 of BCP, I was constructing an
hypothesis, not saying how things really are. The point of this
hypothesis was to account for two indisputable phenomena: remembering
past experiences, and acting to make present perceptions match past
perceptions. Both are taken care of by the proposal expressed as
“All behavior consists of reproducing past
perceptions.”
That postulate is more general than it needs to be, and it’s not specific
enough because it doesn’t take levels of perception into account. I have
commented several times to the effect that this postulate probably
shouldn’t be applied at the lower orders of control, where lower-order
reference signals probably come directly from higher-order output
functions.
As to perceptions being functions of lower-order inputs and memories at
the same time, I think I ruled that out by postulating those switches,
which make sure that a perceptual input to a given level comes
either from lower-order perceptual signals, or from
short-circuited lower-order reference signals, but not both at once. If
you allow a given perception to consist of partly real and partly
imaginary components, then the controlled perception is not being
affected by behavior in the right way. It would be affected both by real
actions in the external world, plus disturbances, and by simply changing
an output signal from the higher system. I don’t think that would produce
control of either the real or the imagined perception.

Please examine Fig. 15.3. You will see that the inputs to the input
function simply come from lower-order systems – never from the
imagination connection at the level shown. The downcoming address signal
from above enters memory, which then produces a reference signal made of
past perceptions recorded from the input function of the depicted system
(Note that you can remember remembering a perception). That reference
signal then either enters the local comparator where it produces real
behavior, or it is short-circuited and sent back up to the higher system
in the same channel where normal perceptual signals would go. In either
case, the upgoing perceptual signal matches the reference signal set by
the higher system. As far as higher systems are concerned, the
upgoing signal is a normal input signal generated as a result of sending
a reference signal to a lower-order system. And note also that neither a
real nor a remembered perceptual signal from this level enters the input
function of the control system at this level.

What this means is that for each input to the higher-order input
function, the signal is coming either from actual perceptions generated
by a lower-order system’s input function, or from that lower system’s
reference signal – but never from both. A given perceptual signal is
either real or imagined, but is never a mixture of both, like 60% real
and 40% imagined. It’s either all real, or all imagined. And the
imagination connection at the level shown in the diagram contributes
imagined information to the higher system, not to the system shown.

This means that a higher-level perception may be a function of some real
and some imagined perceptions, but that higher system can’t tell the
difference. If perception p is a function of lower-level perceptions p1,
p2, and p3, that continues to be the case whether p1 or p1 or p3 happens
to be real or imaginary. Each lower-level perception received is either
totally imagined, or totally real: it makes no difference to the higher
system, except that if a given input signal is imagined, control is
better than it could be if actions were required. A higher-level
perception becomes more easily controllable if some or all of the inputs
to the input function at that level are imaginary.

One way to look at this is that the imagination connection allows a
control system at a given level to lie to the higher-level system that is
setting its reference signal. The lower-level system is telling the
higher one that the specified input has been produced through behavior
when in fact it has not.

The result is that we DO NOT have a case where the inputs to a given
input function consist of a set of real perceptions, and another set of
imagined perceptions entering in parallel to the first set (as you drew
it, Rick). There is only one set of incoming perceptual signals. Each
signal in that set comes either from a real lower-order perceptual
signal, or from the reference signal being sent to the system that
normally produces that perceptual signal, but never from both.

Model it, Rick (or Bruce A.) You’ll see.

Best,

Bill P.

9

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.20.1420)]

Bill Powers (2005.08.20.1002 MDT)--

As to perceptions being functions of lower-order inputs and memories at the same time, I think I ruled that out by postulating those switches, which make sure that a perceptual input to a given level comes either from lower-order perceptual signals, or from short-circuited lower-order reference signals, but not both at once.

Then I think you'll agree that Dag's discussion of the input function should be revised since, as it is written, it is very easy to understand it as saying what I drew in my figure: that perceptions are functions of lower order inputs and memories.

If you allow a given perception to consist of partly real and partly imaginary components, then the controlled perception is not being affected by behavior in the right way..

Please examine Fig. 15.3. You will see that the inputs to the input function simply come from lower-order systems -- never from the imagination connection at the level shown. And note also that neither a real nor a remembered perceptual signal from this level enters the input function of the control system at this level.

There is only one set of incoming perceptual signals. Each signal in that set comes either from a real lower-order perceptual signal, or from the reference signal being sent to the system that normally produces that perceptual signal, but never from both.

Model it, Rick (or Bruce A.) You'll see.

I already have. People can see how it works using the Spreadsheet Hierarchy model, which is available at http://www.mindreadings.com/demolist.html. The effect of having some perceptual signals coming from imagination (replayed references) can be seen by entering an asterisk above the system(s) whose perceptual signals are to be imagined. The effect is quite interesting, I think. What happens is that control (from the point of view of all systems in the hierarchy) remains good (compare the average error measures for each level of the hierarchy before and after putting a system or systems into imagination mode). The problem is that the system in imagination mode has lost control of the environmental correlate of the controlled perceptual variable, it just doesn't know it. In other words, from the perspective of the control system, everything is under control but from the perspective of an outside observer, some variable -- the one that is perceived in imagination model -- is not. This looks to me like a good model of insanity (or of Bush's Iraq policy, which is basically the same thing).

Best regards

Rick

···

---

Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

10

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.20.1825 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.08.20.1420)–

Model it, Rick (or Bruce A.)
You’ll see.

I already have. People can see how it works using the Spreadsheet
Hierarchy model, which is available at

http://www.mindreadings.com/demolist.html.

I downloaded and unzipped the file, and OpenOffice was able to read the
spreadsheet. However, all the variables showed error 523 and I didn’t see
anything I could do about it.

Sure would be nice to see a .exe program! Have you looked at Free Basic
for the PC?

Best,

Bill P.

···

The effect of having some
perceptual signals coming from imagination (replayed references) can be
seen by entering an asterisk above the system(s) whose perceptual signals
are to be imagined. The effect is quite interesting, I think. What
happens is that control (from the point of view of all systems in the
hierarchy) remains good (compare the average error measures for each
level of the hierarchy before and after putting a system or systems into
imagination mode). The problem is that the system in imagination
mode has lost control of the environmental correlate of the controlled
perceptual variable, it just doesn’t know it. In other words, from
the perspective of the control system, everything is under control but
from the perspective of an outside observer, some variable – the one
that is perceived in imagination model – is not. This looks to me
like a good model of insanity (or of Bush’s Iraq policy, which is
basically the same thing).

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

marken@mindreadings.com

Home 310 474-0313

Cell 310 729-1400

11

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.20.1846 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.08.20.1420)–

I already have. People can
see how it works using the Spreadsheet Hierarchy model, which is
available at

http://www.mindreadings.com/demolist.html.

I downloaded and unzipped the
file, and OpenOffice was able to read the spreadsheet. However, all the
variables showed error 523 and I didn’t see anything I could do about
it.

Error 523 said that the calculations don’t converge. I found something at
Tools>Options>spreadsheet>calculate that allowed setting the number of
iterations and the minimum change, but couldn’t find any combination that
worked.

Best,

Bill P.

Sure would be nice to see a .exe program! Have you looked at Free Basic
for the PC?

Best,

Bill P.

···

The effect of having some
perceptual signals coming from imagination (replayed references) can be
seen by entering an asterisk above the system(s) whose perceptual signals
are to be imagined. The effect is quite interesting, I think. What
happens is that control (from the point of view of all systems in the
hierarchy) remains good (compare the average error measures for each
level of the hierarchy before and after putting a system or systems into
imagination mode). The problem is that the system in imagination
mode has lost control of the environmental correlate of the controlled
perceptual variable, it just doesn’t know it. In other words, from
the perspective of the control system, everything is under control but
from the perspective of an outside observer, some variable – the one
that is perceived in imagination model – is not. This looks to me
like a good model of insanity (or of Bush’s Iraq policy, which is
basically the same thing).

Best regards

Rick

Richard S. Marken

marken@mindreadings.com

Home 310 474-0313

Cell 310 729-1400

12

Dag Forssell (2005.08.21.0715 PDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.19.0822 MDT)]

Dag Forssell (2005 Aug 18, 10:00 pm)]

I have just updated the website www.livingcontrolsystems.com to reflect Tim Carey's book (still being polished before final relase later this year).

Dag, that web site is looking better and better. Your little piece, Once Around the Loop, has shaped up into a really good paper -- it pays to keep fussing with things.

Thanks, I appreciate this. At my own pace, I shall review and consider Rick's comments and the discussion that has followed.

Last May, Rick and Phil offered comments on the section on applications, http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/applic_pct.html

I have done my best to consider those comments. Further comments, such as on appropriateness of links and whatever, will be considered.

Best, Dag

13

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.21.0910)]

Bill Powers (2005.08.20.1825 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2005.08.20.1420)--

Model it, Rick (or Bruce A.) You'll see.

I already have. People can see how it works using the Spreadsheet Hierarchy model, which is available at http://www.mindreadings.com/demolist.html.

I downloaded and unzipped the file, and OpenOffice was able to read the spreadsheet. However, all the variables showed error 523 and I didn't see anything I could do about it.

I bet that's an esoteric way for the OpenOffice version of Excel to say that there are circular references (which there are; they are closed loop systems, after all;-)). What I think you have to do is find the command in OpenOffice that let's you set "Iteration" to "on". In Excel, this setting is found in the "Calculate" option of the "Preferences" menu.

Sure would be nice to see a .exe program! Have you looked at Free Basic for the PC?

I'm afraid I still do most of my work on a Mac so the .exe program wouldn't be of any use while I'm on the Mac. I still think that java applets are the way to go, because they are platform independent and easy for anyone with a browser to run; but it would be nice to find a helpful java programming environment for the Mac.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

14

[From Bill Powers (2005.08.21.1119 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.08.21.0910) --

I bet that's an esoteric way for the OpenOffice version of Excel to say that there are circular references (which there are; they are closed loop systems, after all;-)). What I think you have to do is find the command in OpenOffice that let's you set "Iteration" to "on". In Excel, this setting is found in the "Calculate" option of the "Preferences" menu.

It was already on. I actually had another very simple excel program that also bombed and setting the "minimum value" for the error stabilized it. But that didn't work for yours. I don't know what's wrong. The gains and slowing factors don't look right to me -- slowing factor of zero and gain of 1000 at the third level? Does that version really work with Excel?

I haven't tried to unravel the cell formulas. As far as I'm concerned, spreadsheet models are write-only. Too bad that Macs don't have any real programming languages any more.

Best,

Bill P.

···

Sure would be nice to see a .exe program! Have you looked at Free Basic for the PC?

I'm afraid I still do most of my work on a Mac so the .exe program wouldn't be of any use while I'm on the Mac. I still think that java applets are the way to go, because they are platform independent and easy for anyone with a browser to run; but it would be nice to find a helpful java programming environment for the Mac.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

</blockquote></x-html>

15

[From Rick Marken (2005.08.21.1200)]

Bill Powers (2005.08.21.1119 MDT)--

It was already on. I actually had another very simple excel program that also bombed and setting the "minimum value" for the error stabilized it. But that didn't work for yours. I don't know what's wrong. The gains and slowing factors don't look right to me -- slowing factor of zero and gain of 1000 at the third level? Does that version really work with Excel?

Ya know, I think there may be something wrong with the "PC version" of the spreadsheet. The "Mac version" works fine (on the Mac, anyway). The third level slowing factor is .0001 in that version. Try downloading the "Mac version"; I bet WinZip can deal with Unzipping it (it might have been compressed using StuffIt).

I haven't tried to unravel the cell formulas. As far as I'm concerned, spreadsheet models are write-only. Too bad that Macs don't have any real programming languages any more.

OK. I get your point. I think java is a real programming language, though, and I am using a version for the Mac which works fine; the problem is mainly my limited programming skill. If there were a better java programming environment for the Mac (and there may be) I might be able to do better things. But as it is, I've having enough trouble just trying to keep my head above water at my day job.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

16

[Martin Taylor 2005.08.22]

(Here for a few hours and then gone another week).

The following was posted on the System Dynamics list; maybe we should look into it (I haven't, as I'm rushing off again and trying to get packed):

···

===============================================

Posted by <rgd6@cornell.edu>
I just thought the following might be of interest to members of the System
Dynamics Society .... which as a small group striving to make a big impact,
might want to pursue the idea of open access publishing more seriously,
especially if there is a need to more widely disseminate quality papers in
the field.

A few months back I got a copy of a special issue of "The Common Property
Resource Digest" which can be found at:

http://www.iascp.org/E-CPR/cpr72.pdf

This issue discusses in detail the question of open access publishing,
several related issues, has useful suggestions, and includes a number of
useful links.

The newsletter is published by the International Association for the Study
of Common Property (IASCP)

http://www.iascp.org/index.html

Of particular interest is the idea of increased impact obtained via open
access publishing.

There is a link to the The Open Citation Project which includes a summary
entitled: "The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation
impact: a bibliography of studies"

http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).

This review summarizes some of the research into the increased impact of
made possible by open access publishing.

Richard

_____________________
      Richard G. Dudley
      Bogor, Indonesia
      please reply to
Richard.Dudley@attglobal.net
http://pws.prserv.net/RGDudley/
Posted by <rgd6@cornell.edu>

17

Dag Forssell (2005.08.23.0815 PDT)]

I have now considered comments by Rick, Bill, and Phil. A revised version
is posted at

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/other_pct.html,
the fifth item.

Changes to the discussion of reference, actuators (minor indeed) and
input function. I’ll challenge anyone to read the text and forming an
opinion without involving massive amounts of memory.

We shall see what you all think about my feeble attempt at clarification
:slight_smile:

I asked Lloyd the other day about the Festschrift because I had linked to
it and the link was broken. Lloyd is currently storing it at

http[://birdman.itsamac.com/~lloydk/fs/festschriftnow.html

](http://birdman.itsamac.com/~lloydk/fs/festschriftnow.html)He said he would like to see it hosted at the official CSGnet
website, and I certainly agree. We shall put it there. In the
meantime, I have taken the liberty of mirroring it at

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/festschrift/festschriftnow.html

so it will be available on the CD that will be distributed to many
newcomers.

Three files in Lloyd’s version seem strange: Carey, Judd and Marken. So I
have pulled the text out, cleaned it up and put it back in. Judd’s table
is not quite healthy at the top, but that should not matter much.

Best, Dag

18

Re: Website updated
[From Rick Marken (2005.08.23.1345)]

Dag Forssell (2005.08.23.0815 PDT)]

I have now considered comments by Rick, Bill, and Phil. A revised version is posted at

http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/files/other_pct.html, the fifth item.

Changes to the discussion of reference, actuators (minor indeed) and input function. I’ll challenge anyone to read the text and forming an opinion without involving massive amounts of memory.

We shall see what you all think about my feeble attempt at clarification :slight_smile:

I don’t see what was changed. Maybe my browser is caching the old version. Anyway, I still have a problem with the discussion of the input function because you still seem to be implying that perception depends on memory. Maybe all that’s needed to fix this is excision of the comments about the meaning of signals coming from prior experiences stored in memory. While this is true, it really has nothing to do with the input function, which simply produces a perceptual signal as a function of lower level sensory and perceptual inputs. Meaning is a memory phenomenon, not a perceptual phenomenon. You seem to be conflating these two phenomena in your discussion of of the input function. The meaning of a perception comes from its eliciting another (imagined) perception. So the meaning of the perception “pen” is the remembered configuration or category perception that is elicited by the word. But the perception of the word “pen” has no meaning; it just is what you perceive: the intensities, sensations, configurations and event that is the written word “pen”.

Best regards

Rick

···

–

Richard S. Marken

MindReadings.com

Home: 310 474 0313

Cell: 310 729 1400

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

19

[From Dag Forssell (2005.08.23.0815 PDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.08.23.1345)

I dont see what was changed. Maybe my browser is caching the old version. Anyway, I still have a problem with the discussion of the input function because you still seem to be implying that perception depends on memory.

Your perceptions depend hugely on your understanding of PCT, which comes from your memories, not current input.

Maybe all thats needed to fix this is excision of the comments about the meaning of signals coming from prior experiences stored in memory. While this is true, it really has nothing to do with the input function, which simply produces a perceptual signal as a function of lower level sensory and perceptual inputs.

I don’t think there is anything to fix. What I hear you say may be true at the very lowest levels. You need memory to recognize each and every letter. Otherwise, “S” is just a couple of dots on your retina.

Meaning is a memory phenomenon, not a perceptual phenomenon.

Huh? Based on which science are you speaking?

You seem to be conflating these two phenomena in your discussion of of the input function. The meaning of a perception comes from its eliciting another (imagined) perception. So the meaning of the perception penis the remembered configuration or category perception that is elicited by the word. But the perception of the word pen has no meaning; it just is what you perceive: the intensities, sensations, configurations and event that is the written word pen.

Did you make up all that just now?

Best, Dag

20

[From Dag Forssell (2005.08.23.15.35 PDT)]

Sorry, I messed up the time code in my last mail.

I'd like to mention that back in 1994 I made a half-hour presentation, suggesting that the memory switches introduced in B:CP in fig 15.3 may be as somewhat continuous connection, at a lower resolution or such.

I still think that way, and that is reflected in my interpretation of Once Around the Loop. I was not aiming for a simplistic presentation, but rather for a presentation that might ring true to someone, not too well versed in PCT, who reads it carefully.

Best, Dag