What did I control?

richardhpfau · September 5, 2019, 2:20pm

[Richard Pfau (2019.09.05 10:20 EDT)]

Ref: Martin Taylor 2019.09.04/20:59

Sorry Martin, but I disagree. You continually refer to the “real world” in two apparent senses: one as a real world that really exists and secondly as a real world that is a filtered property of the real real world that really exists. To me, both of your references to the “real world” still refer to an apparently real world since there the existence of a really real world doesn’t seem to have been proven yet (although practically, it’s a useful concept). And so, during scholarly discussions of PCT, I am still comfortable referring only to an “apparently real world” rather than to a “real world” that to you and most other people in the world (including me) seems to exist.

···

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:00 AM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

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

_Boris_Hartman · September 5, 2019, 2:47pm

Fred,

Don’t beleive anyone. I gave you a starting point to think how “behavior is affecting” environment and from that point I thought you’ll manage to make logical conclussions how PCT control loop could look like. Obviously you didn’t.Â

I saw so many nonsense from persons I’d never beleive that they are capable of making arguments without any proof. Just because they think it is so, it is so. I understand Rick, he is the starter of wrong PCT theory and beside this nonsense he produced so many other nonsense like : everything in the loop happens at the same time, there is “extrasensory perception”, telepathy, telekinesis, people running after helicopters in two dimenssions etc. PCT exist and is maybe not quite clearly explained in Bills’ literature but my estimation is that 90% of it show right remarcable PCT theory which all of you are demolishing and definitelly made such a distrotions to his theory that we can speak of other theories.

HB : But I must say that Earling surprised me at most with beleiving Rick and Martin. I thought because he has PhD, he knows how to make conclussions from exepriments (many not one or two). How could you Earlimg make such a methodological mistake ? You made “one case- one theory”. Is that how you make academical work in Sweden ? General conclussion from one or two experiments ?

And others ?Â I also can’t understand how other members with PhD like Martin, Rick, Bruce N. could conclude from one expepriment how human organisms function. Incredible. Did you ever think how good it would be if you understand what Bill was writing about. Don’t you want really to understand how PCT works ?

Obviously you are making new model of some theory which I’ll call : RCT, MCT, FNCT, BNCT, ECT, etc. Because I haven’t much time now as I’m occupied with changing school system in our country I’d like you all to make a model of whatever you are talking about and prove that “cannonical principle” is what is happening in human functioning.

MT : 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.

HB : It’s obviuos “cannonical principle” which doesn’t exist in PCT, as we know what is defintion of control in PCT.

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

HB : Obviously you are changing this definition intoÂ a mess :

MCT :

CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that are the changes you perceive in your perceived world and by controlling perception, we control also filtered property of the real world, controlling both and (also cancel the effects of disturbances) – optional.

Bravo !!! Does anybody understand what this NEW definiton of control is about. Which properties of organisms funtioning does it show ? Maybe “controling of behavior”, as if you really control perception and “in the same time” you control real world to the extend you control perceptioon it is obviously contradicting with general theory about human behavior PCT.

HB : Let me remind you how PCT analyses should look like :

W.T. Powers (1998) :

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 â€“ when we make the perception of the glass change from Â»on the tableÂ« to Â»near the mouthÂ« - 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…
/o:p>

HB: And think what Rupert Young wrote :

RY earlier : Sure, a perceptual signal (q.i*g) may correspond to, or be a function of, variable aspects of the environment (q.i) but it is the perceptual signal that is controlled not the variable aspects of the environment

HB : Then I want you to explain behaviors with your model which you created from your “one experiment â€“ one theory” :

forehand or backhand shot in tennis or table tennis,
throw of the basket-ball,
sunbathing,
sleepig, sitting and thinking,
walking, oberving, talking, running and
all other everyday behavors that you can think of.

So I want a model of “cannonical variables” inside and outside that are controlled “in the same time” (Ricks version) or control on the both side of the dashed line ? How it works in detail ?

When these analyses will be finnished and model of how these behaviors function I want you to tell me exactly where you think Bill was wrong in his defintions of controlÂ (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III).

PCT Definitions of control loop as the core part of Glossary in B:CP :

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 functionn 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.

Bill P (B:CP)

ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control systemâ€™s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and itâ€™s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (B:CP) :

ERROR SIGNAL : A signal indicating the magnitude and direction of error.

Boris

PS : Powers ladies I think you should take responsability for what is happening on CSGnet forum and dissapearance of PCT.

And when I’ll have more time I’ll try to answer as much nonsense posts I can. Bruce N. and Rick (the big phylosophical confussion makers) we’ll be included first.

···

From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 12:34 PM
To: Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: What did I control?

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.” 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.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours”

www.nickols.us

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:15 AM Eetu Pikkarainen csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[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 Fredâ€™s second last question should be reformulated like this: â€?Did I control that something in the environment which causes my perception of the level of water in the glass?â€? 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: Letâ€™s say I take a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the glass. Now letâ€™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.â€?
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

–

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
â€œAssistance at A Distanceâ€?
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.â€?
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

_Boris_Hartman · September 5, 2019, 3:07pm

Adam,

mathematical (algebraic) descritption will not help you if you don't
understand what PCT is about. You need also other kind of arguments (like
biological, physiological etc.). I'd advice you first to re-think everything
take a deep breath and try again.

Best,

Boris

···

-----Original Message-----
From: adam.matic@gmail.com (via csgnet Mailing List)
<csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 4:13 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Re: What did I control?

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.

amatic · September 5, 2019, 3:27pm

Oh, you're back again. I do hope the new forums will be more strict with
removing trolling.

MartinT · September 5, 2019, 3:37pm

[Martin Taylor 2019.09.05.10.57]

I guess my writing isn't as clear as I would hope. I do NOT refer to

the second of these as the real world. It is what the nervous makes
of whatever the real world has done to the senses. That processing
is real, but it means that the filtered property no longer reliably
correlates with the part of the real world that is outside the body.
I guess to be more precise, I should say “real external environment”
rather than “real world”. Anyway, the further you go from the
senses, the less the signals individually represent anything that
changes in the real world the way those signals do. For example, consider brightness, which in the apparent real world
theorized by our physics, corresponds to a photon rate arriving at
the retinal rod or cone. Suppose that photon rate suddenly
increases, apparently because someone switched on a light. According
to our perceived measurements of what we perceive as firing rate,
the firing rate of the nerves from the affected sensors abruptly
rises and then falls back toward the previous rate. Even so close to
the sensors, the signal value --the firing rate that contributes to
Powers’s “neural current”-- does not correlate with the photon rate
or apparent real world brightness. It gets worse as we go further
and further from the sensor edge of our interior. What we see
consciously does not look like that at all. We see an abrupt change
from one brightness to another, followed by a slow adaptation to the
new brightness as “normal”.
Nevertheless, we do seem able to control these signals by our
actions. The effects of our actions are initially on, and pass
through the real real world, and the real real world affect our
sensors (always assuming we deny solipsism. It doesn’t matter
whether by bureaucratic hive of industrious gnomes is what is really
in the real world, or whether the real world contains the kinds of
thing our physics and chemistry currently tell us it does, the
effect is the same, what we do affects something about the real
world, and quite possibly the effects rebound among the
message-passing gnomes until their actions change the photon rate to
a sensor, which we consciously perceive as a change in brightness.
Is there an action we can consistently do and that consistently
changes the brightness we perceive. Yes there is. We can turn on the
light switch, and almost always the photon rate increases and we
perceive an abrupt change in brightness. On the occasions it doesn’t
we may act to apparently check the apparent light-bulb, which is
something else in which an action has a pretty consistent effect on
what the filtered real world provides us with.
I intended the “filtered real world” to be equivalent to Powers’s
neural current values. The filtering processes produced by
reorganization could be anything, but if they don’t produce loops
through the real real world that result in control of that filtered
values called perceptions, reorganization is likely to change them
somewhere inside the body, altering the mapping between action
pattern and sensory pattern.
The way I see it is as Rick has often described it (and with which I
used to disagree). The world you perceive as your environment is
created by your perceptions. Its existence is “apparent”, but if its
components don’t interact in much the same way as the bureaucratic
gnomes in the real world interact, control will not be very good and
neither will be your long term survival chances. Reorganization
tends to converge the mapping of the interactions among your
perceptions onto the interactions that really occur in the real
world. It does not map what those interactions seem to be among onto
similar entities in the real world. Speeding that convergence is
what Science is all about – in other words, Science is about
finding out how the real world works, not what it contains.
Does the above clarify my viewpoint at all, or is it too detailed?
Simply put, you act in the real world, you perceive an apparent
world. You perceive that you control in the apparent world, but you
can control only in the real world (unless you are controlling in
imagination, of course).
Martin

···

On 2019/09/5 10:20 AM, Richard Pfau
wrote:

          [Richard
Pfau (2019.09.05 10:20 EDT)]

          Ref:
Martin Taylor 2019.09.04/20:59

          Sorry
Martin, but I disagree. You continually refer to the
“real world” in two apparent senses: one as a real world
that really exists and secondly as a real world that is a
filtered property of the real real world that really
exists.

          To me,
both of your references to the “real world” still refer to
an apparently real world since there the existence of a
really real world doesn’t seem to have been proven yet
(although practically, it’s a useful concept). And so,
during scholarly discussions of PCT, I am still
comfortable referring only to an “apparently real world”
rather than to a “real world” that to you and most other
people in the world (including me) seems to exist.

      On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:00
AM Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:

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

FredNickols · September 5, 2019, 3:40pm

From Fred Nickols (2019.09.05.1136 ET)

Boris:

In terms of Bill’s diagram, the Output Quantity is my behavior of pouring water into the glass.

The Input Quantity is the water in the glass

The Perceptual Signal is my perception of the water in the glass in relation to the mark on the glass.

The Reference Signal is my intent of having the level of water in the glass align with the mark on the glass.

The Error Signal is any difference between the Perceptual and Reference signals.Â When that reaches zero I stop pouring water into the glass.

What do I have wrong about that?

···

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

Distance Consulting LLC

“My Objective is to Help You Achieve Yours”

www.nickols.us

MartinT · September 5, 2019, 3:55pm

[Martin Taylor 2019.09.05.11.39]

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,

No, not in this particular control loop. Within one control loop there is just one controlled perception. If you believe Powers's hierarchy, that's a tautology.

and it is not
the perception, it is the output, the behavior.

The output to the environment in the form of the desired water level is not the output of this control loop. The output of this level results in behaviour that influences the perceive relationship between mark and water level, and only that. It is a magnitude that affects, and maybe determines the reference values of the control systems at the next level down, two of which control perceptions of where the mark is and what the water level is. (According to the Powers hierarchy, of course).

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.

Yes.

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.

Yes. I spent one summer student season (I think 1959) trying to determine whether we might have some internal frame of reference for position and separation in the absence of a perceived external frame. If we do, it is very uncertain, since the perceived position of a single bright dot in a totally black (to the best of my ability) environment wandered pretty wildly. I gather that aviators have similar issues with isolated flashing warning lights.

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.

I think you are talking here about control of the perceived location of the mark relative to the cup, not about the water level, which you are controlling relative to the mark.

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.

I think the "handle" was the position demanded by the input device, the joystick or mouse, or the device itself.

Martin

···

On 2019/09/5 10:12 AM, adam.matic@gmail.com (via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

MartinT · September 5, 2019, 4:34pm

[Martin Taylor 2019.09.05.09.54]

Oh, really!!! Which Bill was that, Watkins or Bloggs?

According to your new --Yes, NEW – logic, Fred could not have been
controlling the relation between the mark and the level of the
water, because the reason he seemed to be controlling the
relationship between them (? I’m not sure what your preferred
wording would be here) must be that he was controlling something else, such as the amount of water to be added
to a recipe. The separation between the level of the water and the
mark on the glass is just a perception, so in controlling the amount
of water to put in the recipe he would have been controlling a
perception of a perception, which is, according to you, impossible.
But wait, he couldn’t have been controlling the amount of water to
add to the recipe either, because the reason he wanted to make the
recipe was that he was controlling something else, such as to
perceive his wife’s pleasure… and so on until we find that all
along he was controlling his self-image and only his self image. The
perceptual control hierarchy has dissolved into a mist.
Going down the levels rather than up, and assuming the Powers
hierarchy is somewhere near valid, Fred is controlling a
relationship with a reference value of equality. Relationships have
(up until now) been said to be controlled by controlling the lower
level perceptual values whose relationship is being controlled.
Apparently all that was historical nonsense, as is the idea that we
might possibly control the position of the car in its lane by
controlling the angle of the steering wheel, which is not possible
because it would be controlling a perception of a perception. Poof! The perceptual control hierarchy has been shown to be
impossible, as apparently has been shown to me many times by Bill
and Rick, only I was too naive to understand that was what they
meant all along. I always imagined that there was a perceptual
control hierarchy something like the one modelled in the three level
spreadsheet modelled in Excel by someone called – who was it now? I
think the name was something like Morton wasn’t it?.. No, I have it
now – the name was Marken.
Sorry to have been so stupid as to think that the Powers perceptual
control hierarchy was still acceptable on CSGnet.
Martin

···

On 2019/09/5 1:33 AM, Richard Marken
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

rsmarken@gmail.com

[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?

                  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.

actually

rsmarken · September 5, 2019, 5:45pm

[Rick Marken 2019-09-05_10:36:57]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2019.09.05 0920 EDT)]Â

Â 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.Â Â

EJ:Â 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.)Â 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:Â

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

RM: Yes, that’s a nice quote and I think your memory of it is close enough to get Bill’s intended meaning. What Bill is saying, using relationship-type perceptions as an example, is that perceptions are “really there” in the sense that the basis of those perceptions are really out there.Â

RM: Remember that perceptual variables are assumed to be functions of the sensory effects of physical variables: p = f(v1, v2…vn). So if f is a function that produces a perception of the relationship “X above Y” fromÂ v1, v2…vn, then that relationship can be considered “really there”. If another perceptual function, call it f.2, computed a perception of “Z” from those same physical inputs,Â
v1, v2…vn, then that “Z” was really there as well. Here’s a demonstration of this fact. In the picture below you can see both a young woman and an old hag.

RM: Both perceptions are “really” there in the sense that the basis of these perceptions are really there. But, of course, there are not two different women out there. There is just one physical reality out there; the picture itself, which is the v’s in the equation for the perceptual variable. But that same physical reality can be perceived in at least two different ways. It could be perceived in many other ways by systems that had perceptual functions that generated other perceptions from that reality. I bet my 6 year old granddaughter could see some fun things in it that we old codgers don’t see. But that’s what Bill meant when he said that "
All perceptions are really there" (substituting “perceptions” in general for just relationship perceptions). If you can perceive it, it’s “really there”.Â Â Â

RM: This way of looking at perception is consistent with the main goal of PCT research which is to determine what perceptions living systems are controlling when they are seen to be performing various behaviors. We know that behavior is the control of perception. The constructivist model of perception in PCT that is described above should make us aware of the fact that understanding behavior is a matter of understanding what perceptions organisms control and, of course, how they control them.Â

BestÂ

Rick

···

EJ:Â 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.Â 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 surfaceÂ 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.Â 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."Â I find this a useful, and humbling, way to understand the world.Â

All the best,Â

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.*

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

_Boris_Hartman · September 5, 2019, 6:58pm

Adam sorry,

It was not meant as trolling. It's about whether you are right or wrong
about PCT. I thought you read also message I sent to Fred. There are some
examples that could lead to methodology of making right model of behvaior of
Living beings.

Let us assume that you have no model about behavior of living beings. You
can make model on the basis of analyzing myriad behaviors and make
conclussion on internal structure of organisms. That was I assume Watson's
idea and behaviorism. Between "input" and "output" there s "black box, which
will become white if you make enough correlations beteween "input" and
"output". But the problem is that human brain can produce encredible number
of behaviors that are not always consistent. In the same situation they can
produce different behaviors and in different situation they can produce the
same behaviors. That was probably the cause of so many different
psycholgical theories and their incompatibilty.

That's my understanding of what psychology is doing. And there are myriad
theories some contradicting to each other and still I don't know whether
psychology made any right model of behavior of Living beings that could
explain any behavior. That's what finaly every theoretical model will have
to do. Check whether Theory works in practice.

On other hand you can make a model of internal fucntioning of organism
(Ashby, PCT, physiology, neurophysiology, etc.) and match behaviors or input
and output to what is happening in organism while behavior goes on. In this
way you probably get more precise picture of how behavior and organism
works. It was probably Ashby's and Bills' assumption.

In any case whatever model you make you will have to test it with all
behaviors you perceive even with Larva's. Any. And if model works with all
behaviors it's right. One behavior will not give an answer how organisms
function.

So my point in answer to Fred was that you and others should stop making
conclussions on one behavior, because obviously you are all deviating from
PCT model which I gave you to confirm or reject. So I'm waiting for an
answer.

I think it's better that you use existing PCT model and analyse behaviors
(also Larva's) and sooner or latter I'm sure you'll find out that PCT model
is really most precise model of how Living beings function. Whatever you
were doing now, concluding on one example leads nowhere because it's too
much deviating from PCT model. That goes for others too. It was madness on
CSGnet leading away from PCT.

I doubt that Alex will let you conclude on one example how behavior of Larva
works. I'm sure he'll demand myriad of behaviors and I hope also
physiological explanation so that comparison between observed behavior and
physilogical (biological) mechanisms inside organisms will produce
consistent results.

Sorry again for misunderstanding,

Best,

Boris

···

-----Original Message-----
From: adam.matic@gmail.com (via csgnet Mailing List)
<csgnet@lists.illinois.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 5:27 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: What did I control?

Oh, you're back again. I do hope the new forums will be more strict with
removing trolling.

EetuP · September 6, 2019, 5:57am

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-09-06_05:10:45 UTC]

Two comments:

First, it seems to me that two separate questions are intertwingled in this discussion: 1) the relationship between perception and environment and 2) the relationship
between different perceptions (and/or different parts of environment). I understood that Fredâ€™s original question was the first one: Did I control the level of water in the environment; or the perception of the level of water, or both? However, many of the
replies have given good information about the latter question: how the controlled variable is in relation to the amount of water and the mark in the cup etc.

Second, I think Rick tried to say that â€œthe level of the waterâ€? is already a perception and not something which is in the environment. So the Fredâ€™s formulation of the
question could not be consistently interpreted in the first way as a question about the relationship between (control of) environment and (control of) perception. But is was really a mistake to say that one cannot control a perception of perception, at least
if we accept the Martinâ€™s way of talking which seems very fruitful and interesting to me: A higher level perception is always a perception of some lower level perceptions. Then only the lowest level perceptions are perceptions of something in the environment
– in a strong sense or immediately. Higher level perceptions are, in the first hand, perceptions of the lower level perceptions and only in the second hand and indirectly a perception of something in the environment. So we could say that when we perceive a
quality we donâ€™t perceive it in the environment but in the bunch of intensity perceptions and similarly an object is not perceived in the environment but only in a set of quality perceptions etc. In this way the higher level perceptions are constructed in
the hierarchy from the lower level perceptions.

(This is, however, not a good reason to assume that there exist only intensities or rather physical properties as objects or causes of the intensity perceptions in the
environment and nothing else, like Rick has often claimed, because we control also the higher level perceptions via affecting the environment. This control is reliably possible only if there are corresponding structures in the environment – even though these
wwere structures of just those physical properties.)

···

Eetu

[Martin Taylor 2019.09.05.09.54]

On 2019/09/5 1:33 AM, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

[Martin Taylor 2019.09.04.20.57

FN: Letâ€™s say I take a clear, plastic cup and, using a marker, put a short line about halfway up the glass. Now letâ€™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.

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.

Oh, really!!! Which Bill was that, Watkins or Bloggs?
According to your new --Yes, NEW – logic, Fred could not have been controlling the relation between the mark and the level of the water, because the reason he seemed to be controlling the relationship between them (? I’m not sure what your preferred wording
would be here) must be that he was actually controlling something else, such as the amount of water to be added to a recipe. The separation between the level of the water and the mark on the glass is just a perception, so in controlling the amount
of water to put in the recipe he would have been controlling a perception of a perception, which is, according to you, impossible.

But wait, he couldn’t have been controlling the amount of water to add to the recipe either, because the reason he wanted to make the recipe was that he was controlling something else, such as to perceive his wife’s pleasure… and so on until we find that
all along he was controlling his self-image and only his self image. The perceptual control hierarchy has dissolved into a mist.

Going down the levels rather than up, and assuming the Powers hierarchy is somewhere near valid, Fred is controlling a relationship with a reference value of equality. Relationships have (up until now) been said to be controlled by controlling the lower level
perceptual values whose relationship is being controlled. Apparently all that was historical nonsense, as is the idea that we might possibly control the position of the car in its lane by controlling the angle of the steering wheel, which is not possible because
it would be controlling a perception of a perception.

Poof! The perceptual control hierarchy has been shown to be impossible, as apparently has been shown to me many times by Bill and Rick, only I was too naive to understand that was what they meant all along. I always imagined that there was a perceptual control
hierarchy something like the one modelled in the three level spreadsheet modelled in Excel by someone called – who was it now? I think the name was something like Morton wasn’t it?.. No, I have it now – the name was Marken.

Sorry to have been so stupid as to think that the Powers perceptual control hierarchy was still acceptable on CSGnet.

Martin

rsmarken · September 6, 2019, 4:46pm

[Rick Marken 2019-09-06_09:36:03]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2019-09-06_05:10:45 UTC]

Â

EP: Second, I think Rick tried to say that âthe level of the waterâ? is already a perception and not something which is in the environment.

Â RM: Right, “the level of water” is a perception inasmuch as it is a function of teh sensory effects of variables in the environment.Â

EP: So the Fredâs formulation of the
question could not be consistently interpreted in the first way as a question about the relationship between (control of) environment and (control of) perception.

Â RM: Fred’s formulation of the question didn;t seem to be consistent with the PCT model of perception. In PCT perceptual variables are ultimately a function of physical variables: p = f(v1, v2…vn). Higher level perceptionsÂ are functions of lower level perceptions. For example, a level 2 perception, p2, is presumed to be a function of some set of lower level on perceptions, p11, p12…p1n, so p2 = f(p11, p12…p1n). But all perceptoins are ultimately a function of the sensory effects of physical variables.

EP: But is was really a mistake to say that one cannot control a perception of perception

RM: Not really. As you can see, in PCT, higher level perceptions are assumed to be a function of lower level perceptions. If this is what when you talk about controlling a “perception of a perception” then there is no mistake. But note that a higher level perception (p2, for example) is not really a perception of a perception in the sense that the higher perception is a perception of the lower level perception: p2 = f(p1). Higher level perceptions are functions of several lower level perceptions, resulting in a new type of perception.Â

RM: So from a PCT perspective, saying that a perception controls a perception of water level, which is itself a perception, implies that the person controls a perception that is not the same as water level. It’s saying that the person controls a perception of which the water level perception is a component. Perhaps it means that what is controlled is a perception of the relationship ofÂ water level to the height of the vessel into which the water is being poured. If this is what Fred meant when he said that a perception of water level is being controlled, then there was no problem. But it would have been much clearer to me, anyway, if Fred had just said that what was controlled was the relationship between water level and height of the vessel.Â

EP: , at least
if we accept the Martinâs way of talking which seems very fruitful and interesting to me: A higher level perception is always a perception of some lower level perceptions.

RM: The idea that higher level perceptions are always a function of lower level perceptions is just basic PCT.Â I think this is not really relevant to the discussion here which is about whether, when you control a perception such as “water level”, you are also controlling something “out there” that corresponds to that perception. I think we all agree that you are controlling something out there when we control a perception. What I think we disagree about is what it is “out there” that corresponds to the perception. Most everyone, except me, seems to agree that what is out there that is being perceived is the entity we are perceiving. So with “water level”, I think the prevailing opinion is that the perception of water level, p, is a function of the water level, wl, that is “out there”: p = f(wl). So the perception of water level is a “filtered version” of the real water level that is out there.Â

RM: I’m just trying to explain that that is not the PCT model of perception. In PCT, the perception “water level”, p. is presumed to be a function of the sensory effects of physical variables in the environment, v1, v2, …vn. So p = f(
v1, v2, …vn) rather than p = f(wl). In PCT the perceptual function, f(), is seen as constructing the percpetual variable “water level” from the sensory effects of physical variables or from lower level perception that are themselves a function of the sensory effects of these variables. PCT assumes that there is no “water level” out there; what is out there are the “raw materials” for constructing the perceptions that we control.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

···

Then only the lowest level perceptions are perceptions of something in the environment
in a strong sense or immediately. Higher level perceptions are, in the first hand, perceptions of the lower level perceptions and only in the second hand and indirectly a perception of something in the environment. So we could say that when we perceive a
quality we donât perceive it in the environment but in the bunch of intensity perceptions and similarly an object is not perceived in the environment but only in a set of quality perceptions etc. In this way the higher level perceptions are constructed in
the hierarchy from the lower level perceptions.

Â

(This is, however, not a good reason to assume that there exist only intensities or rather physical properties as objects or causes of the intensity perceptions in the
environment and nothing else, like Rick has often claimed, because we control also the higher level perceptions via affecting the environment. This control is reliably possible only if there are corresponding structures in the environment even though these
were structures of just those physical properties.)

Â

Eetu

Â

[Martin Taylor 2019.09.05.09.54]

On 2019/09/5 1:33 AM, Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:

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

Â

[Martin Taylor 2019.09.04.20.57

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

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?

Â

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

Â

Oh, really!!! Which Bill was that, Watkins or Bloggs?
According to your new --Yes, NEW – logic, Fred could not have been controlling the relation between the mark and the level of the water, because the reason he seemed to be controlling the relationship between them (? I’m not sure what your preferred wording
would be here) must be that he was actually controlling somethingÂ else, such as the amount of water to be added to a recipe. The separation between the level of the water and the mark on the glass is just a perception, so in controlling the amount
of water to put in the recipe he would have been controlling a perception of a perception, which is, according to you, impossible.

But wait, he couldn’t have been controlling the amount of water to add to the recipe either, because the reason he wanted to make the recipe was that he was controlling something else, such as to perceive his wife’s pleasure… and so on until we find that
all along he was controlling his self-image and only his self image. The perceptual control hierarchy has dissolved into a mist.

Going down the levels rather than up, and assuming the Powers hierarchy is somewhere near valid, Fred is controlling a relationship with a reference value of equality. Relationships have (up until now) been said to be controlled by controlling the lower level
perceptual values whose relationship is being controlled. Apparently all that was historical nonsense, as is the idea that we might possibly control the position of the car in its lane by controlling the angle of the steering wheel, which is not possible because
it would be controlling a perception of a perception.

Poof! The perceptual control hierarchy has been shown to be impossible, as apparently has been shown to me many times by Bill and Rick, only I was too naive to understand that was what they meant all along. I always imagined that there was a perceptual control
hierarchy something like the one modelled in the three level spreadsheet modelled in Excel by someone called – who was it now? I think the name was something like Morton wasn’t it?.. No, I have it now – the name was Marken.

Sorry to have been so stupid as to think that the Powers perceptual control hierarchy was still acceptable on CSGnet.

Martin

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

FredNickols · September 6, 2019, 4:52pm

Fred Nickols 2019.09.06.1251 ET

What was being controlled was the perception of the water level in relation to the mark on the glass.Â

···

Fred Nickols
Solution Engineer & Chief Toolmaker
Distance Consulting LLC
âAssistance at A Distanceâ?
www.nickols.us