[From Bill Powers (2008.12.24.1034 MST)]
At 12:06 PM 12/24/2008 -0500, chuck Tucker wrote:
Searching for your book. Chuck
Go to Amazon.com and search for Living Control Systems III. But check with New View Publications for possible lower price.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2008.12.24.2034 MST)]
(Gavin Ritz, 2008.12.25.13.06NZT)
is this book going to be more of the same or is there something more here.I already have all the other books and articles.
Oh, it's just a lot more of the same old stuff, you know -- control systems and computer demonstrations and all that. Why don't you just skip it? Both of us will benefit.
Best,
Bill P.
(Gavin Ritz 2008.12.25.16.42NZT)
[From Bill Powers (2008.12.24.2034 MST)]
(Gavin Ritz, 2008.12.25.13.06NZT)
is this book going to be more of the same or is there something more here.
I already have all the other books and articles.
Oh, it's just a lot more of the same old stuff, you know -- control
systems and computer demonstrations and all that.
Why don't you just
skip it? Both of us will benefit.
Could you explain how you will benefit from me not getting your book and
then how I will benefit?
What exactly is the problem?
A lot of the other writings are disjointed many of the old programmes don't
work.
I have spent a huge amount of time on PCT so why would I benefit from not
learning more. However for me to spend more money on rehashed information is
not useful.
You seem very frustrated every time there is some minor disagreement or
frankness or openness on things that are important to the ultimate usage of
PCT.
If people like myself cannot make good headway into this theory then it
won't grow. After all one of the key growth heuristics of human endeavour is
freedom and cooperation that becomes a gain.
On that note maybe some can show me specifically how the values of freedom
and affiliation are dealt within PCT.
GR
[From Bill Powers (2008.12.25.1541 mst)]
Gavin Ritz 2008.12.25.16.42NZT --
>(Gavin Ritz, 2008.12.25.13.06NZT)
>>is this book going to be more of the same or is there something more here.
>>
>>I already have all the other books and articles.>Oh, it's just a lot more of the same old stuff, you know -- control
>systems and computer demonstrations and all that.>Why don't you just
>skip it? Both of us will benefit.Could you explain how you will benefit from me not getting your book and
then how I will benefit?
You will benefit by not having to read still more about what you already know of control theory or go through the tedium of trying the demonstrations yet again, which is what your term "more of the same" suggests to me. I will benefit by not having to hear my last five years of effort to improve understanding of PCT and to communicate better about it being labeled "more of the same." I'd be very disappointed if the new book were judged not to have been worth the effort of writing it. Both of us would be happier if we didn't have to experience those things, wouldn't we?
What exactly is the problem?
A lot of the other writings are disjointed many of the old programmes don't
work.
I have spent a huge amount of time on PCT so why would I benefit from not
learning more. However for me to spend more money on rehashed information is
not useful.
It sounds like a real conflict to me. You would probably be happier if you could resolve it.
You seem very frustrated every time there is some minor disagreement or
frankness or openness on things that are important to the ultimate usage of
PCT.
Let's just say that I have my own ideas about things that are important to the ultimate usage of PCT. They may not coincide entirely with yours.
On that note maybe some can show me specifically how the values of freedom
and affiliation are dealt within PCT.
While I have nothing against freedom or affiliation, I have little interest in such abstractions and prefer to work on what I am good at, which is something else. Most of the people currently interested in PCT have resolved their own problems with it by themselves, and have done their own translations between PCT and their areas of interest. I never could do those things for them, and still can't.
Best,
Bill P.
(Gavin Ritz 2008.12.26.17.33NZT)
[From Bill Powers (2008.12.25.1541 mst)]
Gavin Ritz 2008.12.25.16.42NZT
(Gavin Ritz, 2008.12.25.13.06NZT)
You seem very frustrated every time there is some minor disagreement or
frankness or openness on things that are important to the ultimate usage
ofPCT.
Let's just say that I have my own ideas about things that are
important to the ultimate usage of PCT. They may not coincide
entirely with yours.
I have no ideas about PCT re its importance to its usage, because so far I
have not one piece of key proof (or test) that tells me it's the theory
above all theories. All theories have key proofs (or key tests) Relativity
has one, QM has one Evolutionary theory has one WHERE'S YOURS. I have been
asking for this to test for months now.
DOES YOUR NEW PUBLICATION ALLUDE TO THIS TEST? Or what it may be.
To be quite frank I couldn't care if PCT becomes an accepted theory or
drowns with the rest of them. The difference is you care but you respond as
if you don't.
On that note maybe some can show me specifically how the values of freedom
and affiliation are dealt within PCT.
While I have nothing against freedom or affiliation, I have little
interest in such abstractions and prefer to work on what I am good
at, which is something else.
If this theory can't tell me how a CS deals with something like beauty,
freedom, and affiliation (or fear) then how can you call it a theory of
psychology?
Most of the people currently interested
in PCT have resolved their own problems with it by themselves, and
have done their own translations between PCT and their areas of
interest. I never could do those things for them, and still can't.
If you don't create the test no-one else will. You don't have to perform it
but tell us what it is, so I can go look for it or maybe I have it already.
Penzias and Wilson didn't know about the Cosmic background test for
radiation but they found the radiation, as some else had said a test could
be done to find the Cosmic Background radiation.
[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-12-26 08:37 Pacific)]
(in reply to Bill Powers):
If you don't create the test no-one else will. You don't have to perform it
but tell us what it is, so I can go look for it or maybe I have it already.
Identifying which tests may apply is a task available to anybody. If
this theory is one for which you cannot approach testing through your
own efforts, then either it is not suitable for your scientific
attention or you are among the many who rely on others to provide
testing and analysis.
Absolutely everybody interested in or involved with science relies on
others to do the experimentation and assessment through which theories
are refined, for most scientific knowledge. If you don't want to be
dependent in this manner when it comes to PCT, wonderful. If you do,
fine. In either case, Bill does what he does and the theory we have as
a result is a public thing, open to criticism and application by any
of us. There is no further onus on him to create or specify the test
you desire.
Tracy Harms
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz> wrote
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.26.1000)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.26.17.33NZT)
I have no ideas about PCT re its importance to its usage, because so far I
have not one piece of key proof (or test) that tells me it's the theory
above all theories. All theories have key proofs (or key tests) Relativity
has one, QM has one Evolutionary theory has one WHERE'S YOURS. I have been
asking for this to test for months now.
The key proofs of PCT -- for me, anyway -- are the first two
experiments implemented at my PCT Demos website
(http://www.mindreadings.com/demos.htm). The first, "Nature of
Control", is a compensatory tracking task. The results, which are the
correlations between cursor (C), mouse (M) and disturbance (D)
variations, show that, in a closed loop system, input (C) cannot be
considered the cause of output (M). This proves that no cause-effect
(input-output) model can explain behavior to the extent that behavior
is a closed-loop control process. The second, "Cause vs Control",
makes this same point in spades, proving that there is no function of
the input to a closed-loop control system that can be considered the
cause of the output of the system.
Taken together these two experiments prove that current psychological
theories, all of which are input-output theories, cannot explain the
behavior of living things if those things are closed-loop control
systems. The fit of the control model to the data in the first demo --
the red line -- shows that control theory (PCT) can explain the
control behavior observed in these experiments. The first experiment
("Nature of control") also shows (via the D-M correlation) why
cause-effect models can appear to work even when the system under
study is closed loop. In a closed-loop system there will be an
apparent causal relationship between disturbances to a controlled
variable (D) and the actions that protect that variable from
disturbance (M).
All of these proofs are in early papers published by Powers (and
reprinted in the first two Living Control Systems collections); I
managed to find them and learn from them starting back in 1978. I
don't understand why you are having so much trouble doing the same. I
have a feeling that it's not so much that you can't find any proofs of
PCT; it's that you just are not convinced by what you find, probably
because it is not what you are looking for. Galileo's little demos
using balls rolling down inclined planes would not have been proof of
linear acceleration to those who took Aristotle as an authority on
natural science. Your question about how PCT explains freedom and
affiliation suggests that you're not going to be very interested in
any actual "proofs" of PCT.
By the way, for me, freedom's just another word for being in control
(of the variables one wants to be in control of). And affiliation's
just another work for controlling for being with other people.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
(Gavin Ritz 2008.12.27.12.27NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.26.1000)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.26.17.33NZT)
Okay Rick
I will delve into the other issues you raise later, I'm a bit busy at the
moment.
But show me specifically how Attachment Theory and Object Relations Theory
are input-output Models of psychology.
Let's not argue about if they are theories or not at this stage.
Regards
Gavin
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.26.1815)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.27.12.27NZT)
But show me specifically how Attachment Theory and Object Relations Theory
are input-output Models of psychology.
How about just Attachment Theory for now. Here are the tenets of the
theory according to Wikipedia:
1. Adaptiveness: Common human attachment behaviours and emotions
are adaptive.
Nothing input-put there; just a description of behavior.
2. Critical period: Certain changes in attachment, such as the
infant's coming to prefer a familiar caregiver and avoid strangers,
are most likely to occur within the period between the ages of about
six months and two or three years.
OK, still no input-output. No explanation (theory) yet either.
3. Robustness of development: Attachment to and preferences for
some familiar people are easily developed by most young humans, even
under far less than ideal circumstances.
Again, no input-output; no model either.
4. Experience as essential factor in attachment: Infants in their
first months have no preference for their biological parents over
strangers and are equally friendly to anyone who treats them kindly.
Human beings develop preferences for particular people, and behaviours
which solicit their attention and care, over a considerable period of
time
.
More description. This statement does make the assumption that people
enter the world sans attachments (as blank attachment slates). So
that's the start of a model, I suppose.
5. Monotropy: Early steps in attachment take place most easily if
the infant has one caregiver, or the occasional care of a small number
of other people.[21] According to Bowlby, almost from the first many
children have more than one figure towards whom they direct attachment
behaviour; these figures are not treated alike and there is a strong
bias for a child to direct attachment behaviour mainly towards one
particular person.
And still more description.
6. Social interactions as cause of attachment: Feeding and relief
of an infant's pain do not cause an infant to become attached to a
caregiver. Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and
responsive in social interactions with the infant, and who remain as
consistent caregivers for some time.
Ah, here we go. Input-output model alert. Infants become attached
(output) to adults who are responsive in social interactions and who
remain as consistent caregivers (input).
7. Internal working model: Early experiences with caregivers
gradually give rise to a system of thoughts, memories, beliefs,
expectations, emotions, and behaviours about the self and others.
More input-output. Early experiences (input) give rise to (cause),
among other things, behaviors (outputs).
8. Transactional processes: As attachment behaviours change with
age, they do so in ways shaped by relationships, not by individual
experiences.
And still more. Attachment behaviors (outputs) are shaped (caused) by
relationships (inputs).
9. Consequences of disruption: In spite of the robustness of
attachment, significant separation from a familiar caregiver, or
frequent changes of caregiver that prevent development of attachment,
may result in psychopathology at some point in later life.
And still more. Here we have separation from or changes in a caretaker
(input) preventing (causing in a negative sense) attachment.
10. Developmental changes: Specific attachment behaviours begin with
predictable, apparently innate, behaviour in infancy, but change with
age in ways that are partly determined by experiences and by
situational factors.
This one is pretty obvious. Changes in innate attachment behaviors
(outputs) are partly determined (caused) by experiences and
situational factors (inputs).
This input-output model is spiced up with some "controlish" words,
like adaptation, it's the same old input-output model of behavior. The
output (behavior) in this case is attachment and the inputs that cause
variations in this output are things like the responsiveness of
caretakers.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
(Gavin Ritz 2008.12.28.12.36NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.26.1815)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.27.12.27NZT)
Rick
Okay, so can you now give me a specific definition of a standard
psychological input/output model.
Some of what you say below leads me to think that what you mean is some
events (or behaviours) as inputs (at some time) cause some behaviour as
outputs (at some time). Right!!!!!
There are inputs and outputs in PCT but linked very differently and mean
different things (a CS unit). Right!!!!!
You obviously mean something quite specific about input/output models.
Right!!!!!
I would also like you to explain to me how "a lack" or some deficiency is
pictured in a CS unit. (Say for example food deprivation).
Regards
Gavin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, here we go. Input-output model alert. Infants become attached
(output) to adults who are responsive in social interactions and who
remain as consistent caregivers (input).
7. Internal working model: Early experiences with caregivers
gradually give rise to a system of thoughts, memories, beliefs,
expectations, emotions, and behaviours about the self and others.
More input-output. Early experiences (input) give rise to (cause),
among other things, behaviors (outputs).
8. Transactional processes: As attachment behaviours change with
age, they do so in ways shaped by relationships, not by individual
experiences.
And still more. Attachment behaviors (outputs) are shaped (caused) by
relationships (inputs).
9. Consequences of disruption: In spite of the robustness of
attachment, significant separation from a familiar caregiver, or
frequent changes of caregiver that prevent development of attachment,
may result in psychopathology at some point in later life.
And still more. Here we have separation from or changes in a caretaker
(input) preventing (causing in a negative sense) attachment.
10. Developmental changes: Specific attachment behaviours begin with
predictable, apparently innate, behaviour in infancy, but change with
age in ways that are partly determined by experiences and by
situational factors.
This one is pretty obvious. Changes in innate attachment behaviors
(outputs) are partly determined (caused) by experiences and
situational factors (inputs).
This input-output model is spiced up with some "controlish" words,
like adaptation, it's the same old input-output model of behavior. The
output (behavior) in this case is attachment and the inputs that cause
variations in this output are things like the responsiveness of
caretakers.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.27.0915)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.28.12.36NZT)
Okay, so can you now give me a specific definition of a standard
psychological input/output model.
In general the psychological input-output model is this:
Physical
World ----->Sensors --> Processing -->Muscles/Glands--> Behavior
Input | Organism
> Output
Inputs are "stimuli" in the physical world that impinge on the
organisms sensors -- eyes, ears, etc. Sometimes the term "input"
refers to the physical "stimulus" itself (such as a caretaker out
there in the world); sometimes it refers to the sensory impression of
the stimulus (such as the image of the caretaker on the retina). The
input enters the organism as afferent neural impulses that are carried
to the brain where they are "processed" (if you are a cognitive type)
or transformed directly into behavior (if you are a behaviorist). The
result is eventually turned into efferent neural impulse that cause
activity in the muscles and glands, activity that is seen as overt
behavior (what we see organisms doing, such as showing signs of
attachment).
Some of what you say below leads me to think that what you mean is some
events (or behaviours) as inputs (at some time) cause some behaviour as
outputs (at some time). Right!!!!!
Yes. The events (which can be physical events like bells ringing, as
per Pavlov, or behaviors like that of caretakers acting responsively,
as per attachment theorists) that are inputs are just things that
happen outside of the organism that are sensed by the organism.
There are inputs and outputs in PCT but linked very differently and mean
different things (a CS unit). Right!!!!!
Not terribly differently. PCT just recognizes that sensory input is
_always_ a function (to some extent) of what the organism is doing.
Organisms exist in a closed loop, which means that what they sense is
always dependent on what they do. When this feedback connection is
correctly taken into account (which is what control theory does) we
find that sensory input is not the cause or behavioral input (as in
the open-loop input output model); it is, rather, what is controlled.
Control theory also shows that the stimuli in the physical world that
are the start of the cause-effect chain in the input-output model (and
that are the IVs in experiments done on the basis of that model) are
just disturbances to the sensory (perceptual) input that is the object
of control.
You obviously mean something quite specific about input/output models.
Right!!!!!
Yes.
I would also like you to explain to me how "a lack" or some deficiency is
pictured in a CS unit. (Say for example food deprivation).
In the control model a "deficiency" exists when the value of a
controlled variable is _lower_ than the reference value. Control
systems control _variables_. So one variable a control system might
control is the amount of food consumed (input). If the reference for
the sensed amount of food consumption is, say, 500 grams, then if the
sensed amount of food consumed is less than _or_ greater than 500
grams there will be an error (a discrepancy between perceived input
and the reference specification for that input). If the error results
from sensed food input being lower than the reference (say, 400 rather
than 500), then we could call that error "deprivation"; if sensed food
input is higher than the reference (600 rather than 500) we could call
that error "overeating".
It takes a while to understand PCT and how to apply it. But you really
have to put some effort into learning it yourself; and to do that you
have to be willing to read the PCT material with an open mind. If you
assume their is already some kind of wisdom in things like "attachment
theory" you're never going to get very far with PCT.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
(Gavin Ritz 2008.12.28.10.40NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.27.0915)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.28.12.36NZT)
I would also like you to explain to me how "a lack" or some deficiency is
pictured in a CS unit. (Say for example food deprivation).
In the control model a "deficiency" exists when the value of a
controlled variable is _lower_ than the reference value. Control
systems control _variables_. So one variable a control system might
control is the amount of food consumed (input). If the reference for
the sensed amount of food consumption is, say, 500 grams, then if the
sensed amount of food consumed is less than _or_ greater than 500
grams there will be an error (a discrepancy between perceived input
and the reference specification for that input). If the error results
from sensed food input being lower than the reference (say, 400 rather
than 500), then we could call that error "deprivation"; if sensed food
input is higher than the reference (600 rather than 500) we could call
that error "overeating".
That is "the error" is the deficiency. Right!!!!
That is also the organism operates in error "lack, deficiency, emptiness,
gap etc." Right!!!!
Liebig's Law of the Minimum, and Shelford's law of Tolerance by the way.
Okay now explain to me how the reference signal (value) intrinsically knows
what its quantity IS under ANY controlled variable.
It takes a while to understand PCT and how to apply it. But you really
have to put some effort into learning it yourself; and to do that you
have to be willing to read the PCT material with an open mind. If you
assume their is already some kind of wisdom in things like "attachment
theory" you're never going to get very far with PCT.
You make a huge step in perceptions from my questions to this comment Rick.
I hold very little stock in any psychological theory. If fact the only
reason I spend so much time on PCT is because feedback of outputs MUST be
more robust than these models (what you call input/output models).
The interesting thing is Rick I'm very open minded about PCT, I feel that
you guys are maybe too fixated on believing that nobody else understands
this so can't add any value to it. There seems to me to be almost a laager
mentality around PCT. And I don't mean any offence by that.
My next question.
In any hierarchy and especially in HPCT through the reorganization process
there MUST be bottlenecking. How do you manage to deal with this?
Regards
Gavin
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.28.1545)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.28.10.40NZT)
That is "the error" is the deficiency. Right!!!!
Or the excess. Right.
That is also the organism operates in error "lack, deficiency, emptiness,
gap etc." Right!!!!
An organism that is in control operates with virtually no error. And
organism that is not in control might operates with "lack, deficiency,
emptiness" if they are not getting enough of the perception that are
controlling for. But if they are not in control they could also be
getting too much, over sufficiency, fullness -- like people who
overindulge in the perceptions they are controlling for.
Liebig's Law of the Minimum, and Shelford's law of Tolerance by the way.
Wow, sounds important.
Okay now explain to me how the reference signal (value) intrinsically knows
what its quantity IS under ANY controlled variable.
Okay, that request explains a lot about why you can't understand PCT.
It assumes a whole lot of stuff that is not true. The reference signal
doesn't know anything; it's a signal (like a current in a wire) that
is the input to a comparator. The other input to the comparator is the
controlled perception (a neural representation of the controlled
variable, which is a variable aspect of the environment). So the only
way I can explain "how the reference signal (value) intrinsically
knows what its quantity IS under ANY controlled variable" is to say
that your request is either nonsense and a purposeful attempt to
misunderstand PCT in terms of your own biases.
The interesting thing is Rick I'm very open minded about PCT
Maybe too open; it seems to be leaking.
My next question.
In any hierarchy and especially in HPCT through the reorganization process
there MUST be bottlenecking. How do you manage to deal with this?
I don't know what you mean by bottlenecking in the hierarchy. There
are certainly problems that can arise in a hierarchy of control
systems that can keep the hierarchy from working properly. Perhaps the
most insidious (and common) is conflict that arises wen two systems at
the same level are controlling to perceptual variables that are very
nearly the same (they don't have to be exactly the same). This is an
insidious problem because it happens when all control systems in the
hierarchy are working well.
You can get an idea of how a control hierarchy work (maybe) by fooling
around with my spreadsheet model of a three level hierarchy of control
systems; the hierarchy has six systems at each level and the systems
at each level of the hierarchy control a different type pf perception:
level 1 = scalar variable; level 2 = vector combination of level 1
scalars; level 3 = relationships (">","<", "=") between the vectors.
The spreadsheet is at :
http://www.mindreadings.com/demos.htm
Just click on:
Spreadsheet Simulation of Hierarchy of Control System
Maybe you could use this spreadsheet model to explain what you mean by
bottlenecking.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
(Gavin Ritz 2008.12.28.15.27NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.28.1545)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.28.10.40NZT)
That is also the organism operates in error "lack, deficiency, emptiness,
gap etc." Right!!!!
An organism that is in control operates with virtually no error.
Are you saying then the organism is mostly in control?
And
organism that is not in control might operates with "lack, deficiency,
emptiness" if they are not getting enough of the perception that are
controlling for. But if they are not in control they could also be
getting too much, over sufficiency, fullness -- like people who
overindulge in the perceptions they are controlling for.
Okay now explain to me how the reference signal (value) intrinsically
knows
what its quantity IS under ANY controlled variable.
Okay, that request explains a lot about why you can't understand PCT.
I suppose this is my point about PCTers. When someone like myself is
genuinely trying to get some traction this is thrown in " you don't
understand".
Why don't you explain it then in simple language so that I do understand.
It assumes a whole lot of stuff that is not true.
Like what is not true?
The reference signal
doesn't know anything; it's a signal (like a current in a wire) that
is the input to a comparator. The other input to the comparator is the
controlled perception (a neural representation of the controlled
variable, which is a variable aspect of the environment).
Now I'm a bit confused, isnt the organisms behaviour the input for the
controlled perception. That's part of the feedback.
So the only
way I can explain "how the reference signal (value) intrinsically
knows what its quantity IS under ANY controlled variable" is to say
that your request is either nonsense and a purposeful attempt to
misunderstand PCT in terms of your own biases.
Your above comment just confuses me totally- what on earth am I trying to
purposely attempt. What a totally strange response. This is again what you
guys do. How can anybody understand this stuff with comments like that.
Explain to me what and where this reference signal comes from and if it's
only a signal how does it compare with the controlled perception. What gives
this signal its quantity. That is a very fair question for anyone trying to
get to grips with this theory.
I mean after all the perception is compared with the reference signal and
the result is the "error".
What exactly is this reference signal then and how is it's quantity created
or made or where does it come from originally?
Regards
Gavin
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.27.2230)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.28.15.27NZT)
Rick Marken (2008.12.28.1545)]
An organism that is in control operates with virtually no error.
Are you saying then the organism is mostly in control?
Control can be measured on a continuous scale; the stability measure
in my "Nature of Control" demo, for example, is a measure of control
that ranges from 0 (no control) to infinity (perfect control). A very
high stability value (>15, say) indicates very good control; and when
there is very good control there is very little error.
Okay, that request explains a lot about why you can't understand PCT.
I suppose this is my point about PCTers. When someone like myself is
genuinely trying to get some traction this is thrown in " you don't
understand".
You're the one who keeps saying you can't understand PCT. You
confirmed your lack of understanding in the question you asked. So I
just said that the question explains a lot about why you're having
trouble understanding it; you seem to be making assumptions about
things (like reference signals having to "know" what controlled
variables they are specifying) that are keeping you from seeing what
PCT is about.
Why don't you explain it then in simple language so that I do understand.
I'm trying my best; I can't make you understand. I'm trying to help
but you get mad when I say you have something wrong. You act like you
already understand PCT and when we say you don't understand something
or have it wrong you seem to get insulted. This is not a promising
attitude to have if you really want to learn something.
Now I'm a bit confused, isnt the organisms behaviour the input for the
controlled perception. That's part of the feedback.
"Behavior" is not a technical term in PCT; we see it as referring to
various aspects of control. So we say that behavior (as conventionally
understood) is the process of controlling perceptual input. The
observable components of this process of control (behavior) are the
controlled variable, disturbances to that variable and the actions
that affect it. So, for example, the sentence I am typing here is a
controlled variable; among the disturbances to that variable are the
changing position of my hands relative to the keys I intend to press;
the actions that compensate for these disturbances and keep me putting
the right sequence of letters on the screen (usually) are my finger
movements. At least two different aspects of this process of control
could be called my "behavior"; you could say that my behavior (what I
am doing) is writing words on the computer (this refers to the
variable I am controlling) or you could say that my behavior is my
finger movements (this refers to the actions that keep the variable I
am controlling -- the words on the screen -- under control).
So the only
way I can explain "how the reference signal (value) intrinsically
knows what its quantity IS under ANY controlled variable" is to say
that your request is either nonsense and a purposeful attempt to
misunderstand PCT in terms of your own biases.Your above comment just confuses me totally- what on earth am I trying to
purposely attempt. What a totally strange response.
Sorry. Misprint (my controlled perception did not exactly match my
reference for it). I meant to say:
" your request is either nonsense or it is a purposeful attempt by you
to misunderstand PCT in terms of your own biases".
What exactly is this reference signal then and how is it's quantity created
or made or where does it come from originally?
Reference signals are outgoing (efferent) neural signals that
originate at higher levels of the nervous system. The references for
the lowest level control systems are probably spinal motor efferents.
Higher level references enter spinal level control systems from the
cerebellum; references for cerebellar control systems probably come
down from the cortex. This is all described in "Behavior: The control
of perception".
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
(Gavin Ritz 2008.12.29.11.14NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2008.12.27.2230)]
Gavin Ritz (2008.12.28.15.27NZT)
Rick Marken (2008.12.28.1545)]
Why don't you explain it then in simple language so that I do understand.
I'm trying my best; I can't make you understand. I'm trying to help
but you get mad when I say you have something wrong.
This would one of the strangest perceptions, I'm not mad in any sense of the
word. How did you get to this???
You act like you
already understand PCT and when we say you don't understand something
or have it wrong you seem to get insulted.
I cant think of one instance where I am vaguely insulted.
This is not a promising
attitude to have if you really want to learn something.
Again this is just a massive jump in some perception that you have. Ofcourse
I want to learn. However I keep getting moving target answers.
Now I'm a bit confused, isnt the organisms behaviour the input for the
controlled perception. That's part of the feedback.
"Behavior" is not a technical term in PCT; we see it as referring to
various aspects of control. So we say that behavior (as conventionally
understood) is the process of controlling perceptual input.
This I am very clear on (or maybe not). Is that not what I said above?
Unless you are saying something different.
The
observable components of this process of control (behavior) are the
controlled variable, disturbances to that variable and the actions
that affect it. So, for example, the sentence I am typing here is a
controlled variable; among the disturbances to that variable are the
changing position of my hands relative to the keys I intend to press;
the actions that compensate for these disturbances and keep me putting
the right sequence of letters on the screen (usually) are my finger
movements. At least two different aspects of this process of control
could be called my "behavior"; you could say that my behavior (what I
am doing) is writing words on the computer (this refers to the
variable I am controlling) or you could say that my behavior is my
finger movements (this refers to the actions that keep the variable I
am controlling -- the words on the screen -- under control).
I'm. pretty clear on this.
So the only
way I can explain "how the reference signal (value) intrinsically
knows what its quantity IS under ANY controlled variable" is to say
that your request is either nonsense and a purposeful attempt to
misunderstand PCT in terms of your own biases.Your above comment just confuses me totally- what on earth am I trying to
purposely attempt. What a totally strange response.
Sorry. Misprint (my controlled perception did not exactly match my
reference for it). I meant to say:
" your request is either nonsense or it is a purposeful attempt by you
to misunderstand PCT in terms of your own biases".
Still makes no sense to me at all.
What exactly is this reference signal then and how is it's quantity
created
or made or where does it come from originally?
Reference signals are outgoing (efferent) neural signals that
originate at higher levels of the nervous system.
And how do these neural signals originate there at the higher level, because
they will be reference signals at higher CS's as they have to compare
incoming neural perceptive signals and the comparator will still have some
error (or no error output signal). These reference signals can't just appear
from nowhere. How do they get there? And how do they have a quantity here.
The references for
the lowest level control systems are probably spinal motor efferents.
Higher level references enter spinal level control systems from the
cerebellum; references for cerebellar control systems probably come
down from the cortex. This is all described in "Behavior: The control
of perception".
Yes that's all functional stuff, that not my question. My question is how do
these reference signals have a quantity to compare to the incoming signals
and where exactly do they come from. They cant just appear at the higher
levels.
[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-12-28 18:47 Pacific)]
...
And how do these neural signals originate there at the higher
level, because they will be reference signals at higher CS's as
they have to compare incoming neural perceptive signals and
the comparator will still have some error (or no error output
signal). These reference signals can't just appear from
nowhere. How do they get there? And how do they have a
quantity here.
There are a host of processes that contribute to the development in
question, but three labels stand out to me as the major ideas:
ontogeny, maturation, and learning.
Each field of study that works to explain any of these things, in
large or in detail, has its own body of knowledge involved. What PCT
facilitates across all of them is an idea of what it is that is being
built or refined. Taking on PCT leads us to expect that much of the
structure that results from phenotypic expression will be control
systems. Likewise, we can anticipate that the changes that are
characteristic of maturation and learning are refinements to existing
control systems and the emergence of new control systems.
The details of these developmental processes are not central to PCT,
per se. There may be opportunities for application of such knowledge,
much as understanding chemical explanations can be important in
particular problems of biology, but good work can be done without it.
PCT delivers clear explanatory value even in the absence of any
explanations as to how control systems are constructed, reorganized,
or adjusted.
Tracy Harms
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[Fronm Bill Powers (2008.12.28.1959 MST)]
Tracy B. Harms (2008-12-28 18:47 Pacific) --
There are a host of processes that contribute to the development in
question, but three labels stand out to me as the major ideas:
ontogeny, maturation, and learning.
I do like your big-picture posts. Nicely said and good ideas.
Besty,
Bill P.
(Gavin Ritz, 2008.12.25.13.06NZT)
is this book going to be more of the same or is there something more here.
I already have all the other books and articles.
[From Bill Powers (2008.12.24.1034 MST)]
At 12:06 PM 12/24/2008 -0500, chuck Tucker wrote:
Searching for your book. Chuck
Go to Amazon.com and search for Living Control Systems III. But check
with New View Publications for possible lower price.
Best,
Bill P.