What did I control?

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

Let’s say I take
a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the
glass. Now let’s say I pour water into
the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted the level of water to be even with
the mark and that is what I see. I see
what I wanted to see. My perception
matches my reference. What did I control? Did I control my perception of the level of
water in the glass? Did I control the
level of water in the glass? Did I
control both?

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours”

www.nickols.us

[Marin Taylor 2019.09.05.11,22]

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

          Let’s say I take

a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line
about halfway up the
glass. Now let’s say I pour water into
the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted
the level of water to be even with
the mark and that is what I see. I see
what I wanted to see. My perception
matches my reference. What did I control? Did I control
my perception of the level of
water in the glass? Did I control the
level of water in the glass? Did I
control both?

Short answer: "Yes".

Long answer: You are controlling at least two different perceptions,

(1) the relationship between the mark on the glass and the level of
the water, which you control only by (2) controlling the level of
the water. Each of those perceptions corresponds to some property of
the real world that is filtered by your sense organs, a lot of
complicated neural processing, and the two perceptual functions. You
influence the two controlled perceptions by acting on the real world
in a way that influences what you perceive. Changes in your two
perceptions correspond to changes in those two properties of
the real world, and are the changes you perceive in
your perceived world. By controlling your perception, you control a
filtered property of the real world, so “yes,” you control both.

Martin
···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

** Distance
Consulting LLC**

  •                                      "My Objective is to Help
    

You Achieve Yours"*

www.nickols.us

[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.09.04 1140 EDT)]

Marin Taylor 2019.09.05.11,22

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

FN: Let’s say I take a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the glass. Now let’s say I pour water into the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted the level of water to be even with the mark and that is what I see. I see what I wanted to see. My perception matches my reference. What did I control? Did I control my perception of the level of water in the glass? Did I control the level of water in the glass? Did I control both?

MT: Short answer: “Yes”.

MT: Long answer: You are controlling at least two different perceptions, (1) the relationship between the mark on the glass and the level of the water, which you control only by (2) controlling the level of the water.

EJ: Fred, first of all I would make the list longer of what you controlled. 1) You controlled your choice of cup, with likely references of “clear, plastic.” (If someone used the TCV to hand you a glass cup, presumably you would have resisted that disturbance and not drawn an ink mark on it.) 2) You controlled your choice of marker. 3) You controlled where on the cup you made the mark, with a reference of “halfway up the glass” and a tolerance window of “about.” 4) You seemed to control your choice of fluid, i.e., “water,” although if that were disturbed and only “coffee” were available, presumably your experiment could have still proceeded without needing specific correction. 5) You controlled the behavioral event of “pouring,” with corresponding transitions of joint configurations and gripping sensations, seemingly timed in sequence so the water would get where you wanted it to be. 6) You controlled the duration of the pouring. 7) You controlled the relationship between the water level and the mark, with an explicit reference for “the level of the water to be even with the mark.” Presumably that was while holding the cup about level with your eye, rather than looking down at the water and mark. 8) You controlled for an example that would illustrate concepts of control. This list is far from exhaustive, because (for instance) you likely controlled for keeping your eyelids open while pouring and measuring the water level, etc. etc. But if this list is somewhat correct, I would slightly amend your pronouncement: “My perception(s) matche(d) my reference(s).”

EJ: With regard to your question of perceptual versus environmental control, I like how Martin expressed it (slightly amended):

MT: Each of those perceptions corresponds to some property of the real world that is filtered by your sense organs, a lot of complicated neural processing, and the [numerous] perceptual functions. You influence the [numerous] controlled perceptions by acting on the real world in a way that influences what you perceive. Changes in your [numerous] perceptions correspond to changes in those [numerous] properties of the real world, and are the changes you perceive in your perceived world. By controlling your perception, you control a filtered property of the real world, so “yes,” you control both.

EJ: In the past I have been on the side that only (internal) perceptions are actually controlled. Yet, the Test for the Controlled Variable is based on being able to observe/infer/detect the reference value(s) being used to keep various aspects of the environment in some stabilized state. So, yes, I agree with Martin that “a filtered property of the real world” ends up being controlled.

All the best,

Erling

Confidentiality: * This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*

Please also note: Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.

As for your three last questions, I would say that first and in a strong sense you control your perception - that is what PCT says. Second you affect the level of the water to height where you get the perception which you want to control. The latter is
often called control by laymen and some PCTers too. If I have to say that you control the latter I would say that you control it by controlling your perception.

Eetu

Nine](http://www.9folders.com/)

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours”

www.nickols.us

From Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1258 ET

Thanks, Eetu. That is quite a list.Â

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

From Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1301 ET

I agree, Eetu.

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

[Richard Pfau (2019.09.04 15:30 EDT)]

An interesting and enlightening discussion Fred, Martin, Erling, and Eetu! The concepts of “perceptual control” and “environmental control” seem to stem from two different levels of analysis and explanation (as indicated in Appendix 1 of Your Behavior by Pfau):  Â

···

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

From Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1301 ET

I agree, Eetu.

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:53 PM Eetu Pikkarainen csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

As for your three last questions, I would say that first and in a strong sense you control your perception - that is what PCT says. Second you affect the level of the water to height where you get the perception which you want to control. The latter is
often called control by laymen and some PCTers too. If I have to say that you control the latter I would say that you control it by controlling your perception.

Eetu

Sent from
Nine


From: Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: keskiviikko 4. syyskuuta 2019 17.15
To: csgnet
Subject: What did I control?

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

Let’s say I take a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the glass. Now let’s say I pour water into the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted the level of water
to be even with the mark and that is what I see. I see what I wanted to see. My perception matches my reference. What did I control? Did I control my perception of the level of water in the glass? Did I control the level of water in the glass? Did I
control both?

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours”

www.nickols.us


Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

[Richard Pfau (2019.09.04 16:50 EDT)] - Note: I may have sent an incomplete version of this message an hour ago.

Fred, Martin, Erling, and Eetu,

An interesting and enlightening discussion! The concepts of “perceptual control” and “environmental control” seem to be based on two different but related levels of analysis and explanation (as indicated in Appendix 1 of the Your Behavior book by Pfau) – these being The Sub-Personal Level that refers to internal systems such as the nervous system (this being the level of PCT and “perceptual control” as described by Bill Powers) and the Person/Individual Level which is the level of the whole person and descriptive terms such as emotions, beliefs, thoughts, and activities as well as of most psychological theories where properties of interest are of a person, not subsystems within a person (this being the level of “environmental control” when this idea is used by most people).

The present discussion seems an attempt to link these two levels of explanation and thought. Trying to link such different levels often leads to endless discussions, but in this case I do like the way the discussion has introduced the idea that “a filtered property of the real world” is being controlled when perception of the level of water in a glass is controlled – although when thinking of “environmental control” I might change this phrase slightly to “a filtered property of the apparently real world” since not everyone agrees that a “real world” exists (nor did such a real world exist in Fred’s case where he was imagining pouring water into a marked glass).

In short, I do like the distinction between “perceptual control” as used by PCT and “environmental control” especially when definition of the latter includes controlling perceptions of “a filtered property of the apparently real world”.

Rich

···

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

From Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1301 ET

I agree, Eetu.

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:53 PM Eetu Pikkarainen csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

As for your three last questions, I would say that first and in a strong sense you control your perception - that is what PCT says. Second you affect the level of the water to height where you get the perception which you want to control. The latter is
often called control by laymen and some PCTers too. If I have to say that you control the latter I would say that you control it by controlling your perception.

Eetu

Sent from
Nine


From: Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: keskiviikko 4. syyskuuta 2019 17.15
To: csgnet
Subject: What did I control?

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

Let’s say I take a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the glass. Now let’s say I pour water into the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted the level of water
to be even with the mark and that is what I see. I see what I wanted to see. My perception matches my reference. What did I control? Did I control my perception of the level of water in the glass? Did I control the level of water in the glass? Did I
control both?

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours”

www.nickols.us


Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

[Rick Marken 2019-09-04_13:59:57]

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

FN: Let’s say I take
a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the
glass. Now let’s say I pour water into
the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted the level of water to be even with
the mark and that is what I see. I see
what I wanted to see. My perception
matches my reference. What did I control? Did I control my perception of the level of
water in the glass? Did I control the
level of water in the glass? Did I
control both?

RM: The level of the water is a perception. So you can’t control a perception of the level of the water because you would be controlling a perception of a perception. So asking whether you control a perception of the level of the water or the level of the water makes no sense. According to PCT, when you are controlling the level of the water, you are controlling a perceptual variable, p, that is the “level of the water”. This variable is a function of environmental variables, v.i: p = f(v1, v2,…vn).

RM: So when you control the perception “level of water” you are controlling a function of environmental variables, which requires affecting those variables in such a way that the perceptual variable is bright to and maintained in the state you want it. Because I have perceptual functions in me that can produce the perception “level of water”, I am able to see that you are controlling the level of water in the glass. Of course, the level of water looks as “real” and “out there i the environment” as it does to you. But in fact, “level of water” is a perceptual variable for both of us.Â

RM: Once you understand this you don’t have to get involved in this question about what is controlled, the perception or the environment. It’s the same thing; controlling a perception is the same as controlling an aspect of the environment defined by a perception function. So Bill could have called his book “Behavior: The control of aspects of the environment defined by perceptual processes”. It wouldn’t have been as catchy but at least it would have kept the post-modernists away;-)

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1715 ET

Lo siento, amigo, pero usted es muy equivocado. Mas mañana

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.09.04 1700 EDT)]

Richard Pfau (2019.09.04 16:50 EDT)

RF: … in this case I do like the way the discussion has introduced the idea that “a filtered property of the real world” is being controlled when perception of the level of water in a glass is controlled – although when thinking of “environmental control” I might change this phrase slightly to “a filtered property of the apparently real world” …

EJ: Hi Rich. I agree with your insertion of “apparently” when talking about what we think is “the real world.” Having said that, I believe that the nature of control as spelled out by PCT allows some measure of strong inference about that world that we think is out there. When a negative feedback loop is closed through the environment, and not just through the surrogate of the imagination, the perceptions will not come out right unless the right properties of the environment are used. In other words, the environment gets a vote in how we control. There is a built-in feasibility test with any working control loop. I think that increases the confidence level we can have as to what may be out there in that environment.

EJ: I’m not sure if this fully works at the higher levels of the PCT hierarchy. That may be because of the nature of the perceptions that are controlled at the Principle and Systems Concept levels. I have long wondered if principles are controlled “statistically,” so to speak. There is something fuzzy about principles, akin to generalizations, that only need to be true ‘on average’. With system concepts, I think there is even more room for imagined components to be included, and that weakens the vote from the environment, and dilutes the rigor of the corresponding perceptions. They can still be controlled for with very high gain. But if they are not well-lodged with environmental properties, the resulting system concepts will do a lot of bumping up against other perceptions at that level. Or so it seems to me.

EJ: Just some thoughts. All the best.

Erling

Confidentiality: * This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*

Please also note: Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.

[Rick Marken 2019-09-04_15:24:06]

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1715 ET

Lo siento, amigo, pero usted es muy equivocado. Mas mañana

RM: Equivocado? Por que?Â

RM: Maybe this will help. Just as there is no crying in baseball, there is no “level of water” in physical reality. Physical reality is the current models of physics; “level of water” is a perception that is a function of that reality. Actually, of the sensations produced by that presumed reality.Â

Best

Rick

···

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:05 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-09-04_13:59:57]

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

FN: Let’s say I take
a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the
glass. Now let’s say I pour water into
the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted the level of water to be even with
the mark and that is what I see. I see
what I wanted to see. My perception
matches my reference. What did I control? Did I control my perception of the level of
water in the glass? Did I control the
level of water in the glass? Did I
control both?

RM: The level of the water is a perception. So you can’t control a perception of the level of the water because you would be controlling a perception of a perception. So asking whether you control a perception of the level of the water or the level of the water makes no sense. According to PCT, when you are controlling the level of the water, you are controlling a perceptual variable, p, that is the “level of the water”. This variable is a function of environmental variables, v.i: p = f(v1, v2,…vn).

RM: So when you control the perception “level of water” you are controlling a function of environmental variables, which requires affecting those variables in such a way that the perceptual variable is bright to and maintained in the state you want it. Because I have perceptual functions in me that can produce the perception “level of water”, I am able to see that you are controlling the level of water in the glass. Of course, the level of water looks as “real” and “out there i the environment” as it does to you. But in fact, “level of water” is a perceptual variable for both of us.Â

RM: Once you understand this you don’t have to get involved in this question about what is controlled, the perception or the environment. It’s the same thing; controlling a perception is the same as controlling an aspect of the environment defined by a perception function. So Bill could have called his book “Behavior: The control of aspects of the environment defined by perceptual processes”. It wouldn’t have been as catchy but at least it would have kept the post-modernists away;-)

Best

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

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


Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us


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 2019.09.04.20.57]

This is a quite new version of PCT that I have never encountered,

one without a perceptual hierarchy. Could you explain it a little
further? Martin

···

[Rick Marken 2019-09-04_13:59:57]

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

                FN: Let’s

say I take
a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a
short line about halfway up the
glass. Now let’s say I pour water into
the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I
wanted the level of water to be even with
the mark and that is what I see. I see
what I wanted to see. My perception
matches my reference. What did I control? Did I
control my perception of the level of
water in the glass? Did I control the
level of water in the glass? Did I
control both?

        RM: The level of the water is a perception. So you can't

control a perception of the level of the water because you
would be controlling a perception of a perception.

FN: Let’s say I take a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short
line about halfway up the glass. Now let’s say I pour water into the glass
until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted the level of water to be even
with the mark and that is what I see. I see what I wanted to see. My
perception matches my reference. What did I control?

AM:
We can make an analogy to a pursuit tracking task. The mark on the cup is the
target level. The water level is like the 'cursor'. The controlled variable is
their difference, and you say the reference was zero.

Or we can say the target level was the top of the cup, and the reference was
'halfway up'. The behavior is again the water level, and the controlled
variable the difference between target level and current water level, with the
reference at 'halfway up'.

Martin Taylor 2019.09.04/20.59]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.09.04 1700 EDT)]

Richard Pfau (2019.09.04 16:50 EDT)

      >RF:  ... in this case I do like the way the discussion

has introduced the idea that “a filtered property of the real
world” is being controlled when perception of the level of
water in a glass is controlled – although when thinking of
“environmental control” I might change this phrase slightly to
“a filtered property of the apparently
real world” …

      EJ:  Hi Rich.  I agree with your insertion of "apparently"

when talking about what we think is “the real world.”

I think you are mixing up two different things. One: the world you

influence by your actions. That is the real world, about which we
can never know very much. That same real world is what influences
you senses. There’s no “apparent” about that. The other is the world
we perceive, which is the “apparent” external world. Things get
confusing when one mixes the two. Feedback paths go ONLY through the
real world. Your perceptions create a world in which a simulacrum of
the feedback path passes through projections of one’s perceptions.

Now Erling is correct when he inserts "apparently" *      when talking

about what we think is “the real world* .”. But that was not the
context in which Rich inserted the word. He inserted it in the
context of “Each of those perceptions corresponds to some property
of the real world that is filtered by your sense organs, a lot of
complicated neural processing, and the two perceptual functions.”
which leads directly to “By controlling your perception, you control
a filtered property of the real world.” because that is what a
perception IS.

Now what you perceive as the external world is something constructed

from the perceptual values produced by the perceptual functions that
have been built by reorganization to allow you to control your
perceptions. Reorganization in a particular habitat brings what
properties of the real world you influence into near congruence with
what the real world leads the perceptual functions to produce – a
variable we call a perceptual signal, which varies consistently when
out actions are thus and so. Reorganization also builds and tunes
toward that congruence those functions that are not genetically
determined.

Because of reorganization that tends to allow us to control our

perceptions pretty well, we can be assured that the world we
perceive corresponds in one respect to a reasonable degree with the
real world, and in that one respect only : the apparent world
of perception contains perceived entities of various levels of
complexity * that change with changes in our actions much the same
way as do corresponding complexes* – whatever they may be –
in the real world. Nothing else in our perceived world has any
guarantee of being in any way like the functionally corresponding
parts of the real world.

So Yes, Erling, I also would have agreed in inserting "apparently"

with Rich, had he been commenting on my "* talking about what we
think is “the real world*.” But he wasn’t.

Martin

[Rick Marken 2019-09-04_22:32:43]

[Martin Taylor 2019.09.04.20.57

                FN: Let’s

say I take
a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a
short line about halfway up the
glass. Now let’s say I pour water into
the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I
wanted the level of water to be even with
the mark and that is what I see. I see
what I wanted to see. My perception
matches my reference. What did I control? Did I
control my perception of the level of
water in the glass? Did I control the
level of water in the glass? Did I
control both?Â

        RM: The level of the water is a perception. So you can't

control a perception of the level of the water because you
would be controlling a perception of a perception.

MT: This is a quite new version of PCT that I have never encountered,

one without a perceptual hierarchy. Could you explain it a little
further?

RM: This is not new. It’s been explained to you many times by Bill and myself.Â

BestÂ

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.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-09-05_07:09:22 UTC]

···

[Rick Marken 2019-09-04_15:24:06]

RM: Maybe this will help.
Just as there is no crying in baseball, there is no “level of water” in physical reality. Physical reality is the current models of physics; “level of water” is a perception that is a function of that reality. Actually, of the sensations produced by
that presumed reality.

Yes in a way this is true. So the Fred’s second last question should be reformulated like this: � Did I control that something in the environment which causes my perception
of the level of water in the glass?� I think this is what he intended?

Eetu

Best

Rick

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:05 PM Richard Marken csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[Rick Marken 2019-09-04_13:59:57]

Fred Nickols 2019.09.04.1014 ET

FN: Let’s say I take a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the glass. Now let’s say I pour water into the glass until it is even with the mark I drew. I wanted the level
of water to be even with the mark and that is what I see. I see what I wanted to see. My perception matches my reference. What did I control? Did I control my perception of the level of water in the glass? Did I control the level of water in the glass?
Did I control both?

RM: The level of the water is a perception. So you can’t control a perception of the level of the water because you would be controlling a perception of a perception. So asking whether you control a perception
of the level of the water or the level of the water makes no sense. According to PCT, when you are controlling the level of the water, you are controlling a perceptual variable, p, that is the “level of the water”. This variable is a function of environmental
variables, v.i: p = f(v1, v2,…vn).

RM: So when you control the perception “level of water” you are controlling a function of environmental variables, which requires affecting those variables in such a way that the perceptual variable is bright
to and maintained in the state you want it. Because I have perceptual functions in me that can produce the perception “level of water”, I am able to see that you are controlling the level of water in the glass. Of course, the level of water looks as “real”
and “out there i the environment” as it does to you. But in fact, “level of water” is a perceptual variable for both of us.

RM: Once you understand this you don’t have to get involved in this question about what is controlled, the perception or the environment. It’s the same thing; controlling a perception is the same as controlling
an aspect of the environment defined by a perception function. So Bill could have called his book “Behavior: The control of aspects of the environment defined by perceptual processes”. It wouldn’t have been as catchy but at least it would have kept the post-modernists
away;-)

Best

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

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us

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 Fred Nickols 2019.09.05.0629 ET

Interesting discussion. I’ll take another crack at it.

I fill the water glass up to the mark. That’s simply a description of overt behavior.

Now, if you asked me if I controlled the amount or level of water in the glass, I would say, "Yes."Â But that “Yes” is in layman’s terms in the sense of control meaning to make someone or something do what you want. I made the water in the glass do what I wanted.

If you were to ask me what I was controlling in PCT terms, I would say, "My perception of the level of water in the glass in relation to the mark on the glass." My reference for that was a water level even with the mark on the glass. I affected the amount/level of water in the glass until my perception matched my reference.

 Â

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours”

www.nickols.us

[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.09.05 0920 EDT)]

Rick Marken 2019-09-04_15:24:06

RM: Maybe this will help. Just as there is no crying in baseball, there is no “level of water” in physical reality. Physical reality is the current models of physics; “level of water” is a perception that is a function of that reality.

EJ: The piece that gives me pause with this understanding is a statement I recall from Bill, I think it was in Behavior: The Control of Perception (I don’t have my copy here at present, so I can’t check for it.) The statement was something like the following, although I’m going to alter the example he used at the end of the paragraph, because I don’t remember those exact details:

‘To ask if the relationship is “really” there is a trivial question. All relationships are really there, even [the distance of my pencil from the cup in the other room].’ Maybe someone can find the exact quote and clean up the details.

EJ: This statement was a kind of revelation for me, in understanding the PCT epistemology that “It’s all perception,” while still realizing there is a real world substrate out there, with properties that we can exploit to try to get our perceptions to turn out they way we want them to. So the current models of physics may say something about how water settles into an approximate level, and how that may be related to what we understand of gravity, and how any given “level” is more like a zillion micro-levels of the water surface at smaller scales, and yes, that the approximate top of an amount of water is a given distance from the ceiling of the room or any other point of reference we might specify. So for me, the “level of water” has a substrate in that real world, but whenever I come close to it, whether to measure it or just to bring it into my attention, “it’s all perception.” I find this a useful, and humbling, way to understand the world.

All the best,

Erling

Confidentiality: * This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*

Please also note: Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.

FN: If you were to ask me what I was controlling in PCT terms, I would say,
"My perception of the level of water in the glass in relation to the mark on
the glass." My reference for that was a water level even with the mark on the
glass. I affected the amount/level of water in the glass until my perception
matched my reference.

AM:
It works out. One way to go about it is like you say:

qo - water level
qd - mark on glass, plus any random sploshing, leaking etc.
r = 0 # meaning water level even with mark

···

----
qi = qo - qd
p = qi # assuming simple input function
e = r - p
qo = qo + K*e

In this case, the water level is not the controlled variable, and it is not
the perception, it is the output, the behavior. The CV is the *water level in
relation to some mark*, relation meaning 'distance'. In target tracking,
cursor position is not the controlled variable, it is cursor position relative
to the target, or the distance between them.

The confusing thing is that all positions are really distances from some mark,
from some origin etc. When we say we are controlling cursor position, and
there is no explicit target, there is still an implied reference frame, like
computer screen pixels. Inside that reference frame, we can set a reference
level, or some disturbance can affect the cursor position.

When we say we are controlling the water level in a cup, there is a 'natural'
reference frame, from no water, to full of water.

So, we can either say that the "water level" is not a controlled variable
because we have to define the reference frame.

Or we can say it is a controlled variable because we have an implied reference
frame, since we are measuring/perceiving the level of water in relation to
"empty", and we can have an arbitrary reference level.

qi - water level (measured from empty cup)
r - level of the mark
qo - amount of added water
qd - random? none?
----
qi = qo + qd
p = qi
e = r - p
qo = qo + e * K

--
The equations are basically the same, I think Bill used both forms, sometimes
defining cursor position as perception, in compensatory tracking, there was a
'handle' defined as the output of the system. Sometimes it was defined as
behavior output of the system, as in pursuit tracking, and then the C-T
distance was the controlled variable. In both cases the error goes to zero.