When Behavior is Controlled

[_Boris_Hartman]

Bruce, Martin, Rick

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2018 1:49 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Rick Marken (20127.01.05.1650)]

Martin Taylor (2018.01.05.10.35)–

BN: I guess what remains is that if we make the top level exceptional should have a story about why evolution would make it exceptional (whatever the biological details) and another about how and why it becomes unexceptional when a new top level develops above it.

MT: I would instead say that we need a general answer as to how new control units come to be and are stabilized.

RM: Yes, what we need is a general theory of how the theory works. Phenomena, shmenomena.

HB : Yap. I agree. We need a general theory of how development of control units arised and how they are maintained or how they survive. I like Martins’ term stabilized.

I think PCT has an answer. For the start I think we have to finnish diagram on p. 191 (B:CP) or Bill-Dug version and I think we could remove »question mark« on the top of the hierarchy. I think that »question mark« denote where the reference is coming from, not whether there is or there isn’t any reference signal. LCS will not work without reference signals.

I started this job with Bill. But disagreements are part of human social life as agreements are. And we had disagreement in this case. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t respect Bill. I think that he founded an increadible bases for research work as far as evolution is considered and functioning of LCS.

If we beleive that everybody construct her or his perceptual reality (model) it’s very unlikely that two constructions will be the same, speccialy if we consider that LCS are all genetical variations. That can be quite clearly observed in conversations on CSGnet. Everybody has own oppinion. But I think that efficiency of human society is in agreements and synchronized collective perceptual control where all can achieve goals.

As I can see here we all came to some agreement. But what does it mean ?

Boris

Best

Rick

That’s been Rupert’s question. That question requires answering how a new perceptual input function is created, how it links to other functions above and below, and how its own local connections form into the configuration P-C-O. None of that is self-evident in the neural current simplification, but is easier to imagine with a “split out” set of neural fibres (“wires” carrying fractions of the entire neural current) that is still a major simplification over the synaptic level. I imagine loose wires making and breaking connections all over the network, with little-used ones disconnecting and much used connections “welding” themselves into place. Its a visual metaphor that probably has very little to do with what actually happens, but it does allow for serendipitous creation of wholes from previously constructed components, which is what adding a level does.

I don’t think a top-level system is exceptional in any way other than that it is currently top, just as perceptual functions that receive input from sensors or that provide output to muscles are exceptional only in that they are currently at the bottom. There’s no reason why new, less complex perceptual control units might not be built between them and the sensors. At a rather higher perceptual level, think of how we initially learn whole words or phrases (perhaps imperfectly), but then learn, say at school, to break them down into phonemes by way of learning letters or syllables by way of learning kana or morphemes. I have been told by my parents that when learning to talk I habitually used a word “Einebeindutter” that later resolved into “A bread and butter.” So long as it worked in providing the bread and butter, what mattered it how the word was said, or whether it was one word or several?

Martin

–

Richard S. Marken

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Eetu

···

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 11:59 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-01-04]

Boris,

EP : You wrote that the perceived input quantity is controlled in comparator.

HB : Where did I wrote that ? It’s important how you “translate” my messages. If I wrote my opinion about Bills’ definitions and diagram so I think it’s fair to put them so.

EP: In your message to Fred you wrote:

HB : You are not perceiving “controlled quantity” you are perceiving “input quantity” (see diagram LCS III) that is to be controlled in comparator. Then it will be “controlled quantity”.

EP: I added the yellow emphasis to part of the text from which I interpreted that you think that control happens in comparator.

HB (new) : I put it in the green. I was just making interpretation of Bills’ diagram and “input quantity” is to be controlled in comparator. See bellow.

EP : Do you mean that controlling takes place (just) in the comparator (and not in the whole loop)? Does that mean that “controlling” is equivalent to “comparing”?

HB : »Controlling« can be interpretated as done through the whole control loop. The question is how ? And definitions and diagram (LCS III) by my oppinion give the answer. So I’m wondering Eetu if you agree with my proposal of diagam (LCS III) and definitions (B:CP).

EP: I have not found anything against them.

HB (new) : Good Eetu. So you have no problem understanding why »perceived input quantity is controlled in comparator”.

From the line of Bills definitions and diagram try to conclude what is happening with “input quantity”.

Bill P (diagram (LCS III) :

Input quantity : Physical variable that affects sensory inputs of controller…

Bill P (diagram LCS III) :

Input function : Coverts state of the input quantity into magnitude of the perceptual signal.

Bill P (B:CP)

ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.

Bill P (LCS I):

The Living Control System of this kind must sense the controlled quantity in each dimenssion in which the quantity is to be controlled; this implies the inner model of the quantity in the form of a signal or set of signals

HB : If “controlled quantity” is to be controlled when it is perceived and turned into perceptual signal by input function, and if it appears as “controlled quantity” in comparator, I could conclude only that “controlled quantity” (input quantity) is to be controlled in comparator (nervous system).

Would you make some other conclusion ?

If “controlled quantity” could be traced through the whole control loop than I think Bill would clearly note that through definitions and diagram, but he didn’t.

And beside that “Input quantity” is transformed into perceptual signal not to “controlled perception” or to “»controlled physical variable« as Bill never used these terms, but to a simple “perceptual signal”.

It’s also not »Controlled Perceptual Variable” or CPV as Rick is trying to present. There is generally no »controlled quantity« in environment of the system and there is no controlled quantity in perceptual signal, otherwise it would be represented as actual »controlled quantity« but it wasn’t. It was presented as »quantity« that is to be controlled.

Because Bill was very precise at using terms (as Barb wrote once) by my opinion his literature has to be studied very carefully. Also because sometimes Bill had changed his mind.

Diagram (LCS III) was formed in his latest work (2008). So I thought that PCT was stabilized. And I took it as the reference for understanding PCT.

If you have any better idea please come forward so that maybe will come to better understanding what Bill meant with his diagram and definitions.

Bill produced theory more than half a century. By my oppinion the theory is very thoughtful, well considered with many scientific evidences from different sciences. It’s not just like that.

Best,

Boris

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 10:45 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-01-03]

Boris,

You wrote that the perceived input quantity is controlled in comparator. Do you mean that controlling takes place (just) in the comparator (and not in the whole loop)? Does that mean that “controlling” is equivalent to “comparing”?

I think that this is one meaning of the word control: to check whether the value of something is as it should be. But I would also think that “control” in PCT contains also that if the value is not what it should be then it is caused to change, affected. And this affecting the value does not take place in comparator but in the other parts of the loop? That is why I think that control takes place in the whole loop, not in any special part of it. But I agree that if one part should be named the most important then that “heart of control” would be the comparator which is the place where the preselected reference value steps in the scene.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 10:54 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

Fred

I’d like you first to really decide whether you agree with my proposal of Bills’ definitions (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III) or not because in the course of your answers it’s obviously that you don’t agree.

Beside that you arranged our conversation in a way that suit your FCT (Fred Control Theory) and RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory)

As your description of »controlled quantity« diverge so much from Bills’ I think it’s good to see where you are contradicting Bill’s definitons.

[FWN] The controlled quantity is the variable we are perceiving and the value of which we wish to bring to some predefined and desired value, which we gauge by way of our perceptions of the value of that variable.

HB : You are not perceiving “controlled quantity” you are perceiving “input quantity” (see diagram LCS III) that is to be controlled in comparator. Then it will be “controlled quantity”.

Bill P (B:CP) : Consider once again the meaning of the term controlled quantity. A controlled quantity is controlled only because it is detected by a control system, compared with a reference, and affected by outputs based on the error thus detected. The controlled quantity is defined strictly by the behaving system’s perceptual computers

HB : The “controlled quantity” is perceptual signal that is defined by structure of control system. It does not exist outside of control system. “Controlled quantity” is causing “ouptut of the system”. Do you understand ?

Bill P :

ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior

[FWN] Behavior, to me, is synonymous with outputs. This is far as I am going in this message.

HB : The biggest problem I see why you didn’t understand “controlled quantity” is because you didn’t understand what “Error” is in PCT. You stoppped conversation where it suits you. This is high class manipulation which can be compared only with Rick. But he is bigger manipulator.

HB : It’s important that you understand that we have “controlled quantity” which is causing behavior. It’s not that behavior is causing changes in “controlled quantity” and after that is perceived, but “controlled quantity” with references cause behavior. It even does not affect it. You mixed something Fred and you are contradicting to yourself in statements. But one thing is sure. If I conclude from your answers to me, you don’t agree with Bills’ definitions.

My proposal is that we use definitions that show in the same direction in PCT toward GENERAL THEORY OF LCS BEHAVIOR. Do we understand what I proposed ?

There is no “controlled quantity” through control loop except in comparator

1. There is no “controlled quantity” affected by output of the system

2. There is no “controlled quantity” through the “feedback function”

3. There is no “controlled quantity”entering “input function”

4. There is no “controlled quantity” in “perceptual signal”

5. There is “controlled quantity” in comparator and “error” signal”

HB : Are we done with “controlled quantity” ???

If you do agree with Bills’ definition than we don’t need to discuss it any more. It’s clear everything what is concerned about PCT and »controlled quanttiy«.

So if you agree with PCT definitions and diagram then I expect that in future you’ll use them in your conversations about PCT.

Then we can continue with experiments and life cases that will confirm or change definitions and diagram. But we need firm geberal theory that will be bases for experiments.

I answered for now just on your most problematic answer.

Regards,

Boris

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 4:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.26.1040 ET)]

FN : Comments are embedded below.

HB : Let us understand Fred for the future. You answer on all of my statements or you better don’t answer at all. You are hiding all the way of your answers the main problem of our discussion. That “behavior is controlled” because its’ controlling some “controlled variable” in environment of the controlling system.

You have to understand that only organisms control 24/7 so that they keep all the “always) intrinsic variables in reference states (some acceptable physiological limits), This control is continuous. Whatever is happning outside is occasionally in accordance with control in organism.

So because of your misunderstanding of how orgsnisms function you made confussion again. And specially because you read mostly as you wanted to read not as it written. You also eanswered to what you wanted to answer and avoid what you didn’t want to answer.

So beside “controlled quantity” which was describe above most intricated problems were :

Second problem

O.K: another problem :

FN : But let me ask you this: How is it that a control system’s outputs affect its inputs?

HB : You said that you agree with Bills’ definitions. Why you are asking me this ? You could just read what Bill thought about “output function” and “feedback function” where it is clear “how output affects input”.

[FWN] My question was mainly rhetorical, Boris, but let me be more specific. Our perceptions are perceptions of something. If our outputs are to lead to changes in our perceptions, then it seems to me that that has to happen as a result or consequence of our outputs affecting whatever it is that we are perceiving.

HB : Yes but the problem is that behind this statement stands also statement that “output of the system controls controlled quantity”, because you build all your conversation on wrong Bills’ statement.

HB : I don’t say it’s your fault. But you could ask me privately what is “definition” of “controlled quantiy” about. Instead of that you rushed on CSGnet forum. Now we have to clear things up hear.

Some parts of your conversation are not problematic Fred. The most problematic are your statements about how “output of the system affects and controls controlled quantity”. And this atement is contradicting to almost all other statements.

Do we understand where is the problem ?

Another problem

Boris

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 3:35 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

Fred…

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 5:04 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.1054 ET)]

FN : I agree with all of it, Boris.

HB : Nice Fred. I hope you mean it because if I see right you agreed only with one definition and you made your own “one case” theory as Rick is doing for a long time. So it’s by my opinion wrong if we look at it from the aspect of other definitions and diagram (LCS III). It’s real contradiction and mess.

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

[FWN] That was my point; that the output function is our means of effecting changes in our environment – which then lead to changes in our perceptions.

HB : No : Your point was that »ouput of the system affects and controlls controlled quantity«. So explain to me how »output of the system controls controlled quantity« ???

And the second problem in your discussion is

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.

[FWN] Yes, but the effect of output on input is not direct; outputs cause changes in the environment; those changes lead to changes in our perceptions.

HB : You should read some physiology Fred. It’s true that mostly output affect environment., but it’s also true that in evolution muscle outputs and inputs are so tight together that you can talk about direct effect of output on input. for ex. turning your head. Wiht outpuit you are directly affecting input.

HB : You said Fred you agreed with Bills’ definitions. Bill explained in his whole literature why »control system’s outputs affect its inputs”. Just read it.

FN : On my part, and consistent with the definitions below, the system’s outputs affect the controlled

quantity.

HB : Where do you see this ? Show me. Is it general ? It is partly consistent with one definition and it’s no consistent with diagram (LCS III). Can you apply “the system’s outputs affect the controlled quantity” it to all behaviors ? I think that you are far from being consistent with other definitions of control loop which by my opinion show general theory…

Why didn’t you already citate the place in definitions where system output affects “controlled quantity” ???

We have no choice but to go definition after definition.

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 : Wher do you see »controlled quantity« ?

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

HB : Wher do you see »controlled quantity« ?

[FWN] See above. It’s that portion of the environment we wish to affect and the value of which we wish to effect.

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.

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ? Unless you agree that there is some »special controlled quanttiy« only in environment of the controlling system.

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

[FWN] Those signals or stimuli pertain to the controlled quantity; the variable we wish to control.

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ?

Do I understand right that by your theory (I’ll cal it FCT) system should perceive changes in controlled quantitty and should turn them into »Controlled Perceptual Variable« ??? Is this what you are proposing ??? That’s not what Bill is proposing.

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

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ?

[FWN] There is no controlled quantity inside the control system. There is a perception of it; a reference for it; and the result of comparing the two, which might or might not indicate an error.

Fred Nickols

WE should form some theoretical platform on which we could bild explabation of life examples (mather nature) and try to verify theory,

By my opinion there is only one definition that is seriously diverging from others. So my proposal account for definitions and diagram which by my opinion constitute general theory of human (LCS) behavior. Do you understand what I want to say.

I think that we have also to get clear what “controlled quantity” means in PCT ?

Bill P (B:CP) : Consider once again the meaning of the term controlled quantity. A controlled quantity is controlled only because it is detected by a control system, compared with a reference, and affected by outputs based on the error thus detected. The controlled quantity is defined strictly by the behaving system’s perceptual computers

HB : “Controlled quantity” is imagined construct of controlling system. It’s not existing in environment of control system, so it can’t be affected or even controlled by systems output. Definition of “error” is clearly showing that “controlled quantity” is matter of comparator. It’s inside control system and it’s causing behavior.

From diagram (LCS III) you can see that it’s “input quantity” that is affected by output of the system not “controlled quantity”. “Input quantity is entering “input function” not controlled quantity. It’s input quantity that is affected by output. That is only “controlled variable” that is to be controlled in comparator.

According to definitions (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III) system output is adding effects to input. It’s not affecting “controlled quantity” although imaginary we could say so.

The problem I see is that you will start with wrong conclusions like Rick is doing. You’ll try to prove that “Behavior is control” and that there is some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” which unexisting term n PCT.

Please study all definitions once again It seems that you already started to concluding that PCT has “Behavior is control” and there is some “controlled aspect of environment. So I suppose it will not take long that you’ll comre to the conclusion that there is some “controlled perception”. It’s wrong at least in PCT .

If you’ll insist on these conclussions I advise you to make your own theory with Rick and Martin.

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

1.   CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
   

2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

3.  FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
   

4.  INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
   

5.  COMPARATOR : ????
   

6.  ERROR SIGNAL : ???
   

FN : In other words, the system’s outputs change, modify or alter the controlled quantity to keep the system’s perception of that controlled quantity aligned with the system’s reference signal for that quantity.

HB : As I said above. in other words this is your control theory as it doesn’t represent PCT or at least most of it definitions and diagram. But it probably represent FCT (Fred’s Control Theory). You based your theory on one definition and one case. And it seems that you want to conclude that this could be GENERAL THEORY OF HUMAN (LCS) BEHAVIOR that organisms control inside and outside. This is your theory Fred although you were misleaded by Bills’ mistake.

If you think that your theory is general than you’ll have no problems explaining with your theory how organisms “control” outer environment in sleeping, observing, walking, sunshining, sitting and thinking. Please explain it from tha point of your new theory.

We need general theory that can explain any behavior not just one behavior and half of control loop. Do we understand Fred.

FN : Again, in other words, we act on our environment so as to make our perception of some aspect of it agree with the way we want it to be. And again, I ask you, how is that not controlling?

HB : This is yours “other words”. I don’t know what is going on in your imagination but I don’t see any of your statements in Bills’ definitions.

We do not act on our environment so to make our perception agreed with the way we want, but we produce just blind effects to immediate environment. See definition of “output function” and “feedback function”. If you’ll read B:CP you’ll see Bills’ explanation why we can’t control our behavior. There are also physiological evidences.

Among many effects to the immediate environment there are also effects to input through “feedback function” to . “Input function” which senses those effects.

Where do you see that you act on “controlled quantity” to make some perception of some controlled aspect of environment the way you want it to be. Show me where can we find this in PCT ? It’s your interpretation and your model of reality. That is not PCT ?

Bill P : Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals the represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make perception of the glass change from “on the table” to " near the mouth" – we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth.

HB : From this Bills citation we can blindness of output. There is no trace that you could control something in environment or even to control »controlled quantity« if you don’t know what you are doing to reality. It’s blind effect on environment until it is perceved. It’s no »Control of behavior« or »controlled effects« on input. It’s just blind effects of output on input. Output makes effects and input perceive that effect. If. It’s that simple.

I hope you’ll understand that first we have to solve what is written in definitions and what diagram (LCS III) is showing and what is “controlled quantity” in PCT. It’s all part of Bills’ general theory.

My proposal of definitions and diagram is by my opinion showing GENERAL THEORY OF HUMAN (LCS) BEHAVIOR. What is the cost for your friend to try to analyze every behavior from the view I proposed. Afterall if definitions and diagram turned out to be wrong through many life examples that will be analyzed we can still change it. Why don’t give Bill a chance ? Alison, Barb, Rick, Martin, Bruce, … ???

Best regards,

Boris

HB : Which example of “controlling outer environment” to the extend you want it to be in your way you have in mind Fred ? Whatever you are telling us is not general principle. But it may work in some behavior examples. Show me how it works with sleeping, observing and so on. PCT is general theory about how organisms function. So show me how your principle is general.

Otherwise is a good observation Fred. The problems you have to solve here is how you are controlling in the whole control loop. First problem you have to solve is whether “Behavior is controlled or not”,

Bill P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment

HB : The second problem you have is to show that all behaviors have “controlled aspect of outer environment” . Controlled quantity is not “controlled aspect” of outer environment. It’s “input quantity” that will be controlled in comparator.

And the things outside are not always as we want them to be, We rarely control outer environment to the extend that is controlled inside. But anyway where do you see from definitions and diagram that “controlled quantity” is controlled outside. And you said that you agree with definitions and diagram.

And where do you see this ?

HB : And the biggest problem that you’ll have to love is whether there is really some” Controlled Perceptual variable”or CPV as the result of controlling in environment as Rick is claiming. So the main question is whether you control outside to the extent that you control inside. If you’ll use “canonical” principle you will go into a trap.

Dear Fred. I was facing all your thought problems when I was talking to Bill. At least I thought as you thought at least 15 years ago. So please reconsider once again all Bills definitions and diagram.

Do you understand what I’m asking you ? Bills’ definitions shows how external environment is stabilized, not controlled. Show me in any definition where ddi he mentioned control. Remember you said that you agree with them. So respect them in your analyses.

If you were controlling something in environment than control has to enter somehow into organism through perception. And it seems that all on CSGnet agree that control “environment doesn’t control organisms”. At least Rick has the biggest problem with this, He is claiming that control is entering organism through “Controlled perceptual Variable”.

Bills’ definitions and diagram shows how control is achieved in internal environment generally.

That was the main problem bill was directing me. You can’t analyze behaviors onece by one principles and another time with others. RCT (Ricks control Theory) is wrongly presenting control loop and how control function.

FN : For me to control something is to make it be the way I want it to be.

I want a cup full of fresh coffee. I make a pot and fill my cup.

HB : Your perception of filling cup of coffee was controlled inside organism. Perception of cup of coffee outside was not controlled to the extend that it was controlled inside organism. But it helped control inside organism. It is state in inner environment that it want it to be. It’s references that are set inside organism not outside. The perception of cup of coffee is in the state you want it to be inside. You are controlling inner state of organism not outer. The state of cup of coffee means nothing if you are

PCT offers a marvelous explanation of how that is accomplished. I understand full well that all I know of the state of my coffee cup I know by way of my perceptions. I also know full well that I know my cup is full because I perceive it to be so. But if you insist on telling me that I do not control the level of the coffee in my cup then my response to you is to say that you and I have very different understandings of “control”

HB : Right Fred.

You didn’t feeled your cup of coffee to the reference state, because you don’t know whether you’ll drink it all or not whether it will match your references or not. Maybe you drink it all but you’ll some bad feeling. So it was not controlled in organism well. Maybe taste, maybe to much sugar. You were filling cup of coffee to some extend that could suit you but you don’t know before you really match it to references. You don’t whether full cup of coffee is refer3ence state in organism so that when perception will be matched to references the fulled cup of coffee was really fulled to reference state, You will know when you’ll start drinking it.

Maybe you’ll do just You can just drink a Control of perception will tell you how much of coffee is enough not the state of cup of coffee in external environment. But you filled

You just filled your cup of coffee to some extend you think it could match your references. But whether that was wanted state you’ll know only when it is matched to real reference inside organism.

So you don’t know whether cup of coffee was “controlled” to the extend that it is controlled in organism before you try it. You don’t know whether cup of coffee is in reference state or not. You don’t whether food is prepared to reference state before you try it.

Whatever you were doing in environment you were just acting on it so that you changed perception to the state that matches the reference and you know whether is in reference state or not. Not before. You can guess You never know whether outside state is in reference state until you match it to reference. You can predict

If you filled it to some state that you think it could be enough for your control in the organism. So you didn’t control it to the extend of your control in organism but it’s just a trial. Maybe you’ll drink it or not. Not mentioning whether the taste will do or not. When you’ll control it in organism you’ll know it. But whatever you did in the environment is not controlled to the state you wanted it, it’s a trial to control perception to the state you want it.

You’ll know after you try it and then you’ll know in accordance to error. Maybe you’ll make another attempt by adding sugar or a little more coffee. And you’ll try it again until you’ll come to the perception that matches your references if it will. But it will be perception that will be controlled not a cup of coffee although it can be represented in perception.

But you can say that environmental variable is stabilized to some state that cause the perceptual signal to match the reference state in organism. But there is no reference state in environment. You can imagine it of course. which causing perception to match to It is controlled to the organisms reference state but i

Perception is controlled when reference state is achieved in controlling system. So that intrinsic variables are in their physiological limits. So you are not controlling in environment, you are controlling inside, but you stabilize environment to the extend that perceptions in external environment are controlled to the reference state in organism.

Finally you can say that you manage to stabilize (find) some state that is matching reference state in organisms, But you didn’t find reference state in environment (because there is no reference state in environment) and you didn’t but it was not achieved with control of behavior and it didn’t cause any “Controlled Perceptual variable”. Control was not done in environment but in organism. If you could control reference states in environment with control of behavior there wouldn’t be any corrections.

FN : ….and I don’t wish to get caught up in endlessly chasing my tail.

HB : I don’t know about tail, burt you are sure endlessly chasing control in organism.

Fred Nickols

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 10:37 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

Ups sorry Fred I forgot to aks you. Do you agree with definitions (B:CP) and with diagrma LCS III

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1.  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):

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

3.   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) :

4.  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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

6.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
   

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

All the best,

Boris

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 4:02 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2018.01.06.13.12]

I think you must be one of the very few who has ever been on CSGnet

who does want to learn about how PCT works. I
suppose that must be because you know everything about PCT already.
What a pity you didn’t teach Bill while he was still in a position
to learn from you and was using his own resources to enquire into
the mass of questions that arise from every important theory. It
would have saved him so much time and effort.
Martin

···

On 2018/01/5 7:49 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (20127.01.05.1650)]

Martin Taylor (2018.01.05.10.35)–

                    BN: I guess what remains is that if we make

the top level exceptional should have a story
about why evolution would make it exceptional
(whatever the biological details) and another
about how and why it becomes unexceptional when
a new top level develops above it.

            MT: I would instead say that we need a general

answer as to how new control units come to be and are
stabilized.

          RM: Yes, what we need is a general theory of how the

theory works. Phenomena, shmenomena.

not

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

[_Boris_Hartman]

Dear Fred

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 4:02 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

FN : The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

HB : So we agree that internal environment is controlled. So which environment is affected ?

FN : The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

HB : As we already established that internal environment is controlled so we have to establish that outer environment is affected.

Bill P :

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

HB : So the glossary makes it clear that “output function” affects immediate environment of the system, not in the system. You can see it also in diagram. Definitions can’t be in contradiction. If there are contradictions then theory is worthless. Outer environment is not controlled. It’s affected.

FN : Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

HB : No. You can’t control twice in the loop. We control inner variables and affect outer variables. See definition of “output function”. You can not make conclussions on just one definition not seeing the whole loop . Or conclude on just one experiment as Rick is doing. You can loose yourself in your own contradictions.

FN : So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

HB : We control perception of our behavior. That’s all we got. Effects of ouptu on input.

Bill P :

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.

HB : There is no environmental variable to be controlled. Where did you see this. Did you find it in glossary. There is only feedback function in environment. You must read all definitions of control loop and they can’t be in contradiction. Otherwise you got nothing.

Fred Nickols

[_Boris_Hartman]

Ups sorry Fred I forgot to aks you. Do you agree with definitions (B:CP) and with diagrma LCS III

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1.  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):

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

3.   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) :

4.  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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

6.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
   

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

All the best,

Boris

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 4:02 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.1054 ET)]

I agree with all of it, Boris. But let me ask you this: How is it that a control system’s outputs affect its inputs? On my part, and consistent with the definitions below, the system’s outputs affect the controlled quantity. In other words, the system’s outputs change, modify or alter the controlled quantity to keep the system’s perception of that controlled quantity aligned with the system’s reference signal for that quantity. Again, in other words, we act on our environment so as to make our perception of some aspect of it agree with the way we want it to be. And again, I ask you, how is that not controlling?

For me to control something is to make it be the way I want it to be. I want a cup full of fresh coffee. I make a pot and fill my cup. PCT offers a marvelous explanation of how that is accomplished. I understand full well that all I know of the state of my coffee cup I know by way of my perceptions. I also know full well that I know my cup is full because I perceive it to be so. But if you insist on telling me that I do not control the level of the coffee in my cup then my response to you is to say that you and I have very different understandings of “control” and I don’t wish to get caught up in endlessly chasing my tail.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 10:37 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

Ups sorry Fred I forgot to aks you. Do you agree with definitions (B:CP) and with diagrma LCS III

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1.  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):

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

3.   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) :

4.  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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

6.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
   

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

All the best,

Boris

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 4:02 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.12.22.11.04]

When I say that, the language suggests that I have a line connecting

me with truth, but I have not. Sometimes, but seldom, people put
“IMHO” (In My Humble Opinion) in such messages, whether they
perceive themselves as humble or not. Whether they do or not, all
anyone can do to communicate is use the language that, with luck,
will convey to the reader/listener what their “humble opinion” is.
IMHO, we each have a complex set of perception of what constitutes
PCT. Some of those perceptions seem to be generally agreed among the
interpretations I make of what others write, though in some cases
they do seem to change quite drastically from one message to the
next. I have my own understanding of PCT, which changes gain and
again, as I learn more about it i the course of writing my book.
What I now perceive to constitute PCT is not what I perceived when
Warren asked me to write a chapter for LCS IV. I have no problem in
disagreeing with what I write on Tuesday if on Thursday I think it
is wrong. I find that happens quite a lot more than I would wish,
but so be it. It’s something I have to live with.
I have an understanding of PCT that changes over time. So, to judge
from his writings both published and on CSGnet, did Bill Powers. I
suspect most of us do. Bill occasionally said that PCT continued to
spring surprises from time to time. Some of us (myself included)
write as though we had access to the truth of PCT, but as it is when
people write about God, that truth differs from person to person. I
would be surprised if any two of Fred, Rick, Boris, Warren, either
Bruce, … and me have the same complex of perceptions as to what
PCT actually is. I think it is a science that depends on nobody’s
opinion. Others may differ, and I sometimes get the impression that some
really do, when they cite Powers rather than referring back to
Mother Nature and the larger body of what Mother Nature has told us
(a.k.a. the body of science). Powers was right (IMHO) so much of the
time that if Mother Nature doesn’t answer clearly, it is very
worthwhile to temporarily accept his opinion as the best approach to
truth that we have available to us. But his opinion isn’t truth.
It’s a guide, a signpost to where truth may well be found.
I did think until a couple of days ago that we all believed that
control entailed bringing a perception closer to a reference value
and maintaining it there in spite of disturbances to the
corresponding environmental variable was a defining aspect of
control, but Boris and Rick both explicitly and forcefully told me
that they did not. So be it. We all perceive different things, and
probably interpret each others’ writings differently, too. There are
places in PCT where I think there may be improvements on the pure
Powers control hierarchy. Whether they are or are not closer to the
facts of Nature is something that can be determined only by
considering their implications and determining whether Nature looks
more like the implications of one than the other. But they are all
PCT.
What Fred said here agrees with my current (and long standing)
perception of PCT. That aspect hasn’t changed i at least the last
quarter-century, so I don’t expect it to change soon. The basic
principle is that if there is something you can perceive and can
influence, that perception is potentially a controlled perception.
In that sense, one can control one’s behaviour. The question is when
or whether it is good to do so. Bill Powers suggested that it
usually is not, using the “keeping the car in its lane” example. If
you independently control the angle at which you set the steering
wheel and the position of the car in lane, there will be a conflict.
Keeping the car in lane requires a particular angle of the wheel. If
you think a different wheel angle is aesthetically better, and
control for that, the two higher-level systems come into conflict.
That serves neither purpose.
Is there any situation in which it might be good to control
behaviour? I suggest that possibly there is, as an aspect of
learning and teaching. Imagine the driving example with a very naive
driver who does not know that the steering wheel angle influences
the direction of turn. He doesn’t know what to do when the car veers
off to the side of the road. The tutor sitting in the passenger seat
says “Put your hands on this ring here, and turn it
counter-clockwise a bit”. The student does so, but then the car goes
too far in the other direction. Thinking that turning this magic
ring counter-clockwise sets the car in the right direction, he turns
it more counter-clockwise, but the tutor says “No, turn it clockwise
when the car is going too far that way”. The student is controlling
the behaviour of turning the steering wheel, but using the tutor’s
reference values. When the connection between lane position and
steering wheel angle has been reorganized into a state where the
student can apply his own references, the steering-wheel-angle
behaviour no longer can be controlled independently.
What I said there applies if you believe the Powers hierarchy. Is it
true of Nature? Try it. Get a person in a car on an empty parking
lot and ask her to drive straight toward some point while keeping
the steering wheel at an angle you prescribe. Will she be able to do
both? I think not. HPCT gets it right. Can you set up situations in
which HPCT gets it wrong? I don’t know, but seeking an example might
be more profitable than arguing about whether behavior is or can be
controlled.
I apologize for the length of this rant. All I started out to do was
agree with Fred, but it just grew without my controlling its
behaviour
Now I should go and snow-shovel. Will I be controlling that
behaviour?
Martin

···

This is nice, Fred.

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd
Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the
achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state
in the controlling system.

      The glossary also makes clear that the

controlled quantity is an environmental variable that
corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It
also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and
controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output
function.

      Thus we control both the environmental

variable and our control of it.

      So, when the environmental variable we wish

to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to
others), do we not then control our behavior and our
perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.1204 ET)]

Thanks, Martin. But it’s just a restatement of what Bill wrote. More important, there a type in the third statement. It should read “Thus we control both the environmental variable and our perception of it.”

Fred

···

From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 11:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[Martin Taylor 2017.12.22.11.04]

This is nice, Fred.

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

When I say that, the language suggests that I have a line connecting me with truth, but I have not. Sometimes, but seldom, people put “IMHO” (In My Humble Opinion) in such messages, whether they perceive themselves as humble or not. Whether they do or not, all anyone can do to communicate is use the language that, with luck, will convey to the reader/listener what their “humble opinion” is.

IMHO, we each have a complex set of perception of what constitutes PCT. Some of those perceptions seem to be generally agreed among the interpretations I make of what others write, though in some cases they do seem to change quite drastically from one message to the next. I have my own understanding of PCT, which changes gain and again, as I learn more about it i the course of writing my book. What I now perceive to constitute PCT is not what I perceived when Warren asked me to write a chapter for LCS IV. I have no problem in disagreeing with what I write on Tuesday if on Thursday I think it is wrong. I find that happens quite a lot more than I would wish, but so be it. It’s something I have to live with.

I have an understanding of PCT that changes over time. So, to judge from his writings both published and on CSGnet, did Bill Powers. I suspect most of us do. Bill occasionally said that PCT continued to spring surprises from time to time. Some of us (myself included) write as though we had access to the truth of PCT, but as it is when people write about God, that truth differs from person to person. I would be surprised if any two of Fred, Rick, Boris, Warren, either Bruce, … and me have the same complex of perceptions as to what PCT actually is. I think it is a science that depends on nobody’s opinion.

Others may differ, and I sometimes get the impression that some really do, when they cite Powers rather than referring back to Mother Nature and the larger body of what Mother Nature has told us (a.k.a. the body of science). Powers was right (IMHO) so much of the time that if Mother Nature doesn’t answer clearly, it is very worthwhile to temporarily accept his opinion as the best approach to truth that we have available to us. But his opinion isn’t truth. It’s a guide, a signpost to where truth may well be found.

I did think until a couple of days ago that we all believed that control entailed bringing a perception closer to a reference value and maintaining it there in spite of disturbances to the corresponding environmental variable was a defining aspect of control, but Boris and Rick both explicitly and forcefully told me that they did not. So be it. We all perceive different things, and probably interpret each others’ writings differently, too. There are places in PCT where I think there may be improvements on the pure Powers control hierarchy. Whether they are or are not closer to the facts of Nature is something that can be determined only by considering their implications and determining whether Nature looks more like the implications of one than the other. But they are all PCT.

What Fred said here agrees with my current (and long standing) perception of PCT. That aspect hasn’t changed i at least the last quarter-century, so I don’t expect it to change soon. The basic principle is that if there is something you can perceive and can influence, that perception is potentially a controlled perception. In that sense, one can control one’s behaviour. The question is when or whether it is good to do so. Bill Powers suggested that it usually is not, using the “keeping the car in its lane” example. If you independently control the angle at which you set the steering wheel and the position of the car in lane, there will be a conflict. Keeping the car in lane requires a particular angle of the wheel. If you think a different wheel angle is aesthetically better, and control for that, the two higher-level systems come into conflict. That serves neither purpose.

Is there any situation in which it might be good to control behaviour? I suggest that possibly there is, as an aspect of learning and teaching. Imagine the driving example with a very naive driver who does not know that the steering wheel angle influences the direction of turn. He doesn’t know what to do when the car veers off to the side of the road. The tutor sitting in the passenger seat says “Put your hands on this ring here, and turn it counter-clockwise a bit”. The student does so, but then the car goes too far in the other direction. Thinking that turning this magic ring counter-clockwise sets the car in the right direction, he turns it more counter-clockwise, but the tutor says “No, turn it clockwise when the car is going too far that way”. The student is controlling the behaviour of turning the steering wheel, but using the tutor’s reference values. When the connection between lane position and steering wheel angle has been reorganized into a state where the student can apply his own references, the steering-wheel-angle behaviour no longer can be controlled independently.

What I said there applies if you believe the Powers hierarchy. Is it true of Nature? Try it. Get a person in a car on an empty parking lot and ask her to drive straight toward some point while keeping the steering wheel at an angle you prescribe. Will she be able to do both? I think not. HPCT gets it right. Can you set up situations in which HPCT gets it wrong? I don’t know, but seeking an example might be more profitable than arguing about whether behavior is or can be controlled.

I apologize for the length of this rant. All I started out to do was agree with Fred, but it just grew without my controlling its behaviour

Now I should go and snow-shovel. Will I be controlling that behaviour?

Martin

[MartinT]

[From Fred
Nickols (2017.12.22.1204 ET)]

        Thanks,

Martin. But it’s just a restatement of what Bill wrote.
More important, there a type in the third statement. It
should read “Thus we control both the environmental variable
and our perception of it.”

Fred

···

From: Martin Taylor
[mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 11:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[Martin Taylor 2017.12.22.11.04]

        This

is nice, Fred.

        [From Fred

Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

        The glossary in

B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is
concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a
pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

        The glossary

also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an
environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual
signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the
controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the
outputs from a control system’s output function.

        Thus we control

both the environmental variable and our control of it.

        So, when the

environmental variable we wish to control is our own
behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not
then control our behavior and our perception of our
behavior?

Fred Nickols

      When I say that, the language suggests that I have a line

connecting me with truth, but I have not. Sometimes, but
seldom, people put “IMHO” (In My Humble Opinion) in such
messages, whether they perceive themselves as humble or not.
Whether they do or not, all anyone can do to communicate is
use the language that, with luck, will convey to the
reader/listener what their “humble opinion” is.

      IMHO, we each have a complex set of perception of what

constitutes PCT. Some of those perceptions seem to be
generally agreed among the interpretations I make of what
others write, though in some cases they do seem to change
quite drastically from one message to the next. I have my own
understanding of PCT, which changes gain and again, as I learn
more about it i the course of writing my book. What I now
perceive to constitute PCT is not what I perceived when Warren
asked me to write a chapter for LCS IV. I have no problem in
disagreeing with what I write on Tuesday if on Thursday I
think it is wrong. I find that happens quite a lot more than I
would wish, but so be it. It’s something I have to live with.

      I have an understanding of PCT that changes over time. So, to

judge from his writings both published and on CSGnet, did Bill
Powers. I suspect most of us do. Bill occasionally said that
PCT continued to spring surprises from time to time. Some of
us (myself included) write as though we had access to the
truth of PCT, but as it is when people write about God, that
truth differs from person to person. I would be surprised if
any two of Fred, Rick, Boris, Warren, either Bruce, … and me
have the same complex of perceptions as to what PCT actually
is. I think it is a science that depends on nobody’s opinion.

      Others may differ, and I sometimes get the impression that

some really do, when they cite Powers rather than referring
back to Mother Nature and the larger body of what Mother
Nature has told us (a.k.a. the body of science). Powers was
right (IMHO) so much of the time that if Mother Nature doesn’t
answer clearly, it is very worthwhile to temporarily accept
his opinion as the best approach to truth that we have
available to us. But his opinion isn’t truth. It’s a guide, a
signpost to where truth may well be found.

      I did think until a couple of days ago that we all believed

that control entailed bringing a perception closer to a
reference value and maintaining it there in spite of
disturbances to the corresponding environmental variable was a
defining aspect of control, but Boris and Rick both explicitly
and forcefully told me that they did not. So be it. We all
perceive different things, and probably interpret each others’
writings differently, too. There are places in PCT where I
think there may be improvements on the pure Powers control
hierarchy. Whether they are or are not closer to the facts of
Nature is something that can be determined only by considering
their implications and determining whether Nature looks more
like the implications of one than the other. But they are all
PCT.

      What Fred said here agrees with my current (and long standing)

perception of PCT. That aspect hasn’t changed i at least the
last quarter-century, so I don’t expect it to change soon. The
basic principle is that if there is something you can perceive
and can influence, that perception is potentially a controlled
perception. In that sense, one can control one’s behaviour.
The question is when or whether it is good to do so. Bill
Powers suggested that it usually is not, using the “keeping
the car in its lane” example. If you independently control the
angle at which you set the steering wheel and the position of
the car in lane, there will be a conflict. Keeping the car in
lane requires a particular angle of the wheel. If you think a
different wheel angle is aesthetically better, and control for
that, the two higher-level systems come into conflict. That
serves neither purpose.

      Is there any situation in which it might be good to control

behaviour? I suggest that possibly there is, as an aspect of
learning and teaching. Imagine the driving example with a very
naive driver who does not know that the steering wheel angle
influences the direction of turn. He doesn’t know what to do
when the car veers off to the side of the road. The tutor
sitting in the passenger seat says “Put your hands on this
ring here, and turn it counter-clockwise a bit”. The student
does so, but then the car goes too far in the other direction.
Thinking that turning this magic ring counter-clockwise sets
the car in the right direction, he turns it more
counter-clockwise, but the tutor says “No, turn it clockwise
when the car is going too far that way”. The student is
controlling the behaviour of turning the steering wheel, but
using the tutor’s reference values. When the connection
between lane position and steering wheel angle has been
reorganized into a state where the student can apply his own
references, the steering-wheel-angle behaviour no longer can
be controlled independently.

      What I said there applies if you believe the Powers hierarchy.

Is it true of Nature? Try it. Get a person in a car on an
empty parking lot and ask her to drive straight toward some
point while keeping the steering wheel at an angle you
prescribe. Will she be able to do both? I think not. HPCT gets
it right. Can you set up situations in which HPCT gets it
wrong? I don’t know, but seeking an example might be more
profitable than arguing about whether behavior is or can be
controlled.

      I apologize for the length of this rant. All I started out to

do was agree with Fred, but it just grew without my
controlling its behaviour

      Now I should go and snow-shovel. Will I be controlling that

behaviour?

      Martin

[FredNickols]

Joke’s on me.

Fred

···

From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 12:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[Martin Taylor 2017.12.12.37]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.1204 ET)]

Thanks, Martin. But it’s just a restatement of what Bill wrote. More important, there a type in the third statement. It should read “Thus we control both the environmental variable and our perception of it.”

Fred

Maybe so, but there have been a lot of restatements of what Bill wrote that disagree with each other (and with my perception of what Bill wrote).

May I point out that there are also two topos in “there a type in the third statement”

Martin

From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 11:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[Martin Taylor 2017.12.22.11.04]

This is nice, Fred.

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

When I say that, the language suggests that I have a line connecting me with truth, but I have not. Sometimes, but seldom, people put “IMHO” (In My Humble Opinion) in such messages, whether they perceive themselves as humble or not. Whether they do or not, all anyone can do to communicate is use the language that, with luck, will convey to the reader/listener what their “humble opinion” is.

IMHO, we each have a complex set of perception of what constitutes PCT. Some of those perceptions seem to be generally agreed among the interpretations I make of what others write, though in some cases they do seem to change quite drastically from one message to the next. I have my own understanding of PCT, which changes gain and again, as I learn more about it i the course of writing my book. What I now perceive to constitute PCT is not what I perceived when Warren asked me to write a chapter for LCS IV. I have no problem in disagreeing with what I write on Tuesday if on Thursday I think it is wrong. I find that happens quite a lot more than I would wish, but so be it. It’s something I have to live with.

I have an understanding of PCT that changes over time. So, to judge from his writings both published and on CSGnet, did Bill Powers. I suspect most of us do. Bill occasionally said that PCT continued to spring surprises from time to time. Some of us (myself included) write as though we had access to the truth of PCT, but as it is when people write about God, that truth differs from person to person. I would be surprised if any two of Fred, Rick, Boris, Warren, either Bruce, … and me have the same complex of perceptions as to what PCT actually is. I think it is a science that depends on nobody’s opinion.

Others may differ, and I sometimes get the impression that some really do, when they cite Powers rather than referring back to Mother Nature and the larger body of what Mother Nature has told us (a.k.a. the body of science). Powers was right (IMHO) so much of the time that if Mother Nature doesn’t answer clearly, it is very worthwhile to temporarily accept his opinion as the best approach to truth that we have available to us. But his opinion isn’t truth. It’s a guide, a signpost to where truth may well be found.

I did think until a couple of days ago that we all believed that control entailed bringing a perception closer to a reference value and maintaining it there in spite of disturbances to the corresponding environmental variable was a defining aspect of control, but Boris and Rick both explicitly and forcefully told me that they did not. So be it. We all perceive different things, and probably interpret each others’ writings differently, too. There are places in PCT where I think there may be improvements on the pure Powers control hierarchy. Whether they are or are not closer to the facts of Nature is something that can be determined only by considering their implications and determining whether Nature looks more like the implications of one than the other. But they are all PCT.

What Fred said here agrees with my current (and long standing) perception of PCT. That aspect hasn’t changed i at least the last quarter-century, so I don’t expect it to change soon. The basic principle is that if there is something you can perceive and can influence, that perception is potentially a controlled perception. In that sense, one can control one’s behaviour. The question is when or whether it is good to do so. Bill Powers suggested that it usually is not, using the “keeping the car in its lane” example. If you independently control the angle at which you set the steering wheel and the position of the car in lane, there will be a conflict. Keeping the car in lane requires a particular angle of the wheel. If you think a different wheel angle is aesthetically better, and control for that, the two higher-level systems come into conflict. That serves neither purpose.

Is there any situation in which it might be good to control behaviour? I suggest that possibly there is, as an aspect of learning and teaching. Imagine the driving example with a very naive driver who does not know that the steering wheel angle influences the direction of turn. He doesn’t know what to do when the car veers off to the side of the road. The tutor sitting in the passenger seat says “Put your hands on this ring here, and turn it counter-clockwise a bit”. The student does so, but then the car goes too far in the other direction. Thinking that turning this magic ring counter-clockwise sets the car in the right direction, he turns it more counter-clockwise, but the tutor says “No, turn it clockwise when the car is going too far that way”. The student is controlling the behaviour of turning the steering wheel, but using the tutor’s reference values. When the connection between lane position and steering wheel angle has been reorganized into a state where the student can apply his own references, the steering-wheel-angle behaviour no longer can be controlled independently.

What I said there applies if you believe the Powers hierarchy. Is it true of Nature? Try it. Get a person in a car on an empty parking lot and ask her to drive straight toward some point while keeping the steering wheel at an angle you prescribe. Will she be able to do both? I think not. HPCT gets it right. Can you set up situations in which HPCT gets it wrong? I don’t know, but seeking an example might be more profitable than arguing about whether behavior is or can be controlled.

I apologize for the length of this rant. All I started out to do was agree with Fred, but it just grew without my controlling its behaviour

Now I should go and snow-shovel. Will I be controlling that behaviour?

Martin

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.22.1035)]

···

Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)

FN: The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

RM: This is what the theory says is the way control is achieved; control itself is an objective phenomenon that we can see organisms doing. As Bill says “… organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally”.  Â

FN: The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

FN: Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

RM: We control functions of environmental variables, also known as “external variables”. We don’t control our control of these variables; we just contro the variables.

 FN: So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

RM: “Speaking respectfully to others” is a function of environmental variables, just like any other external variable we control. The environmental variables of which “speaking respectfully” is a function are the pressure variations that come out of our mouths when we talk. Our perceptual functions measure an aspect of these environmental variables – the degree of respectfulness in these pressure variations.Â

RM: We, as observers, can determine that “speaking respectfully” is being controlled by introducing disturbances that should have an effect on this variable (such “didn’t you mean to say that he’s an ass***”?) and see if these disturbances are resisted. If all your disturbances to the respectfulness of a person’s speah that should be resisted, are resisted, and all the disturbances that shouldn’t be resisted are not, then you have objective evidence that the person is controlling for speaking respectfully. And now you can make a model of “control of speaking respectfully”; all you have to do is develop a perceptual function that will compute respectfulness based on the pressure variations produced by a speaker – not an easy task. But if you could do that you could say that you have developed a system that can control a variable aspect of its own behavior – the respectfulness of its speech.Â

Best

Rick

Â

Â

Fred Nickols

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Fred…

···

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 5:04 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.1054 ET)]

FN : I agree with all of it, Boris.

HB : Nice Fred. I hope you mean it because if I see right you agreed only with one definition and you made your own “one case” theory as Rick is doing for a long time. So it’s by my opinion wrong if we look at it from the aspect of other definitions and diagram (LCS III). It’s real contradiction and mess.

FN : But let me ask you this: How is it that a control system’s outputs affect its inputs?

HB : You said that you agree with Bills’ definitions. Why you are asking me this ? You could just read what Bill thought about “output function” and “feedback function” where it is clear “how output affects input”.

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

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.

HB : You said Fred you agreed with Bills’ definitions. Bill explained in his whole literature why »control system’s outputs affect its inputs”. Just read it.

FN : On my part, and consistent with the definitions below, the system’s outputs affect the controlled

quantity.

HB : Where do you see this ? Show me. Is it general ? It is partly consistent with one definition and it’s no consistent with diagram (LCS III). Can you apply “the system’s outputs affect the controlled quantity” it to all behaviors ? I think that you are far from being consistent with other definitions of control loop which by my opinion show general theory…

Why didn’t you already citate the place in definitions where system output affects “controlled quantity” ???

We have no choice but to go definition after definition.

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 : Wher do you see »controlled quantity« ?

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

HB : Wher do you see »controlled quantity« ?

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.

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ? Unless you agree that there is some »special controlled quanttiy« only in environment of the controlling system.

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

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ?

Do I understand right that by your theory (I’ll cal it FCT) system should perceive changes in controlled quantitty and should turn them into »Controlled Perceptual Variable« ??? Is this what you are proposing ??? That’s not what Bill is proposing.

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

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ?

ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior

HB : Well here we have “controlled quantity” which is causing behavior. It’s not that behavior is causing changes in “controlled quantity” but controlled quantity with references cause behavior. It even does not affect it. You mixed something Fred or there is some contradiction that Bill produced.

If you think that there is contradiction, my proposal is that we use most definitions that show in the same direction in PCT toward GENERAL THEORY OF LCS BEHAVIOR. Do we understand what I want to say.

WE should form some theoretical platform on which we could bild explabation of life examples (mather nature) and try to verify theory,

By my opinion there is only one definition that is seriously diverging from others. So my proposal account for definitions and diagram which by my opinion constitute general theory of human (LCS) behavior. Do you understand what I want to say.

I think that we have also to get clear what “controlled quantity” means in PCT ?

Bill P (B:CP) : Consider once again the meaning of the term controlled quantity. A controlled quantity is controlled only because it is detected by a control system, compared with a reference, and affected by outputs based on the error thus detected. The controlled quantity is defined strictly by the behaving system’s perceptual computers

HB : “Controlled quantity” is imagined construct of controlling system. It’s not existing in environment of control system, so it can’t be affected or even controlled by systems output. Definition of “error” is clearly showing that “controlled quantity” is matter of comparator. It’s inside control system and it’s causing behavior.

From diagram (LCS III) you can see that it’s “input quantity” that is affected by output of the system not “controlled quantity”. “Input quantity is entering “input function” not controlled quantity. It’s input quantity that is affected by output. That is only “controlled variable” that is to be controlled in comparator.

According to definitions (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III) system output is adding effects to input. It’s not affecting “controlled quantity” although imaginary we could say so.

The problem I see is that you will start with wrong conclusions like Rick is doing. You’ll try to prove that “Behavior is control” and that there is some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” which unexisting term n PCT.

Please study all definitions once again It seems that you already started to concluding that PCT has “Behavior is control” and there is some “controlled aspect of environment. So I suppose it will not take long that you’ll comre to the conclusion that there is some “controlled perception”. It’s wrong at least in PCT .

If you’ll insist on these conclussions I advise you to make your own theory with Rick and Martin.

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

1.   CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
   

2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

3.  FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
   

4.  INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
   

5.  COMPARATOR : ????
   

6.  ERROR SIGNAL : ???
   

FN : In other words, the system’s outputs change, modify or alter the controlled quantity to keep the system’s perception of that controlled quantity aligned with the system’s reference signal for that quantity.

HB : As I said above. in other words this is your control theory as it doesn’t represent PCT or at least most of it definitions and diagram. But it probably represent FCT (Fred’s Control Theory). You based your theory on one definition and one case. And it seems that you want to conclude that this could be GENERAL THEORY OF HUMAN (LCS) BEHAVIOR that organisms control inside and outside. This is your theory Fred although you were misleaded by Bills’ mistake.

If you think that your theory is general than you’ll have no problems explaining with your theory how organisms “control” outer environment in sleeping, observing, walking, sunshining, sitting and thinking. Please explain it from tha point of your new theory.

We need general theory that can explain any behavior not just one behavior and half of control loop. Do we understand Fred.

FN : Again, in other words, we act on our environment so as to make our perception of some aspect of it agree with the way we want it to be. And again, I ask you, how is that not controlling?

HB : This is yours “other words”. I don’t know what is going on in your imagination but I don’t see any of your statements in Bills’ definitions.

We do not act on our environment so to make our perception agreed with the way we want, but we produce just blind effects to immediate environment. See definition of “output function” and “feedback function”. If you’ll read B:CP you’ll see Bills’ explanation why we can’t control our behavior. There are also physiological evidences.

Among many effects to the immediate environment there are also effects to input through “feedback function” to . “Input function” which senses those effects.

Where do you see that you act on “controlled quantity” to make some perception of some controlled aspect of environment the way you want it to be. Show me where can we find this in PCT ? It’s your interpretation and your model of reality. That is not PCT ?

Bill P : Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals the represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make perception of the glass change from “on the table” to " near the mouth" – we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth.

HB : From this Bills citation we can blindness of output. There is no trace that you could control something in environment or even to control »controlled quantity« if you don’t know what you are doing to reality. It’s blind effect on environment until it is perceved. It’s no »Control of behavior« or »controlled effects« on input. It’s just blind effects of output on input. Output makes effects and input perceive that effect. If. It’s that simple.

I hope you’ll understand that first we have to solve what is written in definitions and what diagram (LCS III) is showing and what is “controlled quantity” in PCT. It’s all part of Bills’ general theory.

My proposal of definitions and diagram is by my opinion showing GENERAL THEORY OF HUMAN (LCS) BEHAVIOR. What is the cost for your friend to try to analyze every behavior from the view I proposed. Afterall if definitions and diagram turned out to be wrong through many life examples that will be analyzed we can still change it. Why don’t give Bill a chance ? Alison, Barb, Rick, Martin, Bruce, … ???

Best regards,

Boris

HB : Which example of “controlling outer environment” to the extend you want it to be in your way you have in mind Fred ? Whatever you are telling us is not general principle. But it may work in some behavior examples. Show me how it works with sleeping, observing and so on. PCT is general theory about how organisms function. So show me how your principle is general.

Otherwise is a good observation Fred. The problems you have to solve here is how you are controlling in the whole control loop. First problem you have to solve is whether “Behavior is controlled or not”,

Bill P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment

HB : The second problem you have is to show that all behaviors have “controlled aspect of outer environment” . Controlled quantity is not “controlled aspect” of outer environment. It’s “input quantity” that will be controlled in comparator.

And the things outside are not always as we want them to be, We rarely control outer environment to the extend that is controlled inside. But anyway where do you see from definitions and diagram that “controlled quantity” is controlled outside. And you said that you agree with definitions and diagram.

And where do you see this ?

HB : And the biggest problem that you’ll have to love is whether there is really some” Controlled Perceptual variable”or CPV as the result of controlling in environment as Rick is claiming. So the main question is whether you control outside to the extent that you control inside. If you’ll use “canonical” principle you will go into a trap.

Dear Fred. I was facing all your thought problems when I was talking to Bill. At least I thought as you thought at least 15 years ago. So please reconsider once again all Bills definitions and diagram.

Do you understand what I’m asking you ? Bills’ definitions shows how external environment is stabilized, not controlled. Show me in any definition where ddi he mentioned control. Remember you said that you agree with them. So respect them in your analyses.

If you were controlling something in environment than control has to enter somehow into organism through perception. And it seems that all on CSGnet agree that control “environment doesn’t control organisms”. At least Rick has the biggest problem with this, He is claiming that control is entering organism through “Controlled perceptual Variable”.

Bills’ definitions and diagram shows how control is achieved in internal environment generally.

That was the main problem bill was directing me. You can’t analyze behaviors onece by one principles and another time with others. RCT (Ricks control Theory) is wrongly presenting control loop and how control function.

FN : For me to control something is to make it be the way I want it to be.

I want a cup full of fresh coffee. I make a pot and fill my cup.

HB : Your perception of filling cup of coffee was controlled inside organism. Perception of cup of coffee outside was not controlled to the extend that it was controlled inside organism. But it helped control inside organism. It is state in inner environment that it want it to be. It’s references that are set inside organism not outside. The perception of cup of coffee is in the state you want it to be inside. You are controlling inner state of organism not outer. The state of cup of coffee means nothing if you are

PCT offers a marvelous explanation of how that is accomplished. I understand full well that all I know of the state of my coffee cup I know by way of my perceptions. I also know full well that I know my cup is full because I perceive it to be so. But if you insist on telling me that I do not control the level of the coffee in my cup then my response to you is to say that you and I have very different understandings of “control”

HB : Right Fred.

You didn’t feeled your cup of coffee to the reference state, because you don’t know whether you’ll drink it all or not whether it will match your references or not. Maybe you drink it all but you’ll some bad feeling. So it was not controlled in organism well. Maybe taste, maybe to much sugar. You were filling cup of coffee to some extend that could suit you but you don’t know before you really match it to references. You don’t whether full cup of coffee is refer3ence state in organism so that when perception will be matched to references the fulled cup of coffee was really fulled to reference state, You will know when you’ll start drinking it.

Maybe you’ll do just You can just drink a Control of perception will tell you how much of coffee is enough not the state of cup of coffee in external environment. But you filled

You just filled your cup of coffee to some extend you think it could match your references. But whether that was wanted state you’ll know only when it is matched to real reference inside organism.

So you don’t know whether cup of coffee was “controlled” to the extend that it is controlled in organism before you try it. You don’t know whether cup of coffee is in reference state or not. You don’t whether food is prepared to reference state before you try it.

Whatever you were doing in environment you were just acting on it so that you changed perception to the state that matches the reference and you know whether is in reference state or not. Not before. You can guess You never know whether outside state is in reference state until you match it to reference. You can predict

If you filled it to some state that you think it could be enough for your control in the organism. So you didn’t control it to the extend of your control in organism but it’s just a trial. Maybe you’ll drink it or not. Not mentioning whether the taste will do or not. When you’ll control it in organism you’ll know it. But whatever you did in the environment is not controlled to the state you wanted it, it’s a trial to control perception to the state you want it.

You’ll know after you try it and then you’ll know in accordance to error. Maybe you’ll make another attempt by adding sugar or a little more coffee. And you’ll try it again until you’ll come to the perception that matches your references if it will. But it will be perception that will be controlled not a cup of coffee although it can be represented in perception.

But you can say that environmental variable is stabilized to some state that cause the perceptual signal to match the reference state in organism. But there is no reference state in environment. You can imagine it of course. which causing perception to match to It is controlled to the organisms reference state but i

Perception is controlled when reference state is achieved in controlling system. So that intrinsic variables are in their physiological limits. So you are not controlling in environment, you are controlling inside, but you stabilize environment to the extend that perceptions in external environment are controlled to the reference state in organism.

Finally you can say that you manage to stabilize (find) some state that is matching reference state in organisms, But you didn’t find reference state in environment (because there is no reference state in environment) and you didn’t but it was not achieved with control of behavior and it didn’t cause any “Controlled Perceptual variable”. Control was not done in environment but in organism. If you could control reference states in environment with control of behavior there wouldn’t be any corrections.

FN : ….and I don’t wish to get caught up in endlessly chasing my tail.

HB : I don’t know about tail, burt you are sure endlessly chasing control in organism.

Fred Nickols

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 10:37 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

Ups sorry Fred I forgot to aks you. Do you agree with definitions (B:CP) and with diagrma LCS III

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1.  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):

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

3.   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) :

4.  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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

6.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
   

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

All the best,

Boris

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 4:02 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

[_Boris_Hartman]

Fred and Martin

···

From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 5:53 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[Martin Taylor 2017.12.22.11.04]

This is nice, Fred.

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

FN : The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

HB : You are generalizing too much. Read again the glosary. The whole glossary is not what you try to represent here. It’s a low kick to Bill.

FN : The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system.

HB : It’s contradicting to all other definitions. And the main problem is that in PCT »behavior or output of the system« can’t be controlled. But perception of it can. Maybe you could read B:CP again Fred.

FN : It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

HB : The glossary does not say this. You are generalizing too much. It’s one statement which is contradicting with all others. But it seems to me that you are trying to make new theory out of one obviously wrong statement. Bill did change his mind some times. I think that about 10% of his literature shows anomaly you can see in definition of »Controlled quantity«. But by my oppinion at least 90 % of his literature is clearly showing PCT.

FN : Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

HB : I don’t understand what you wanted to say here. But I suppose that you wanted to say that you control environemntal variable and perception of it.

Generally speaking no. But if you say so its’ your own theory. Shall we call it FCT (Freds’ Control Theory) ?

FN : So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

HB : Are you suiggesting Fred that »Behavior is control« ??? How can behavior be controlled ?

Boris

Fred Nickols

Martin

Its incredibly long and I don’t know whether you’ll understand it. But maybe is worth of trying J

MT : When I say that, the language suggests that I have a line connecting me with truth, but I have not. Sometimes, but seldom, people put “IMHO” (In My Humble Opinion) in such messages, whether they perceive themselves as humble or not. Whether they do or not, all anyone can do to communicate is use the language that, with luck, will convey to the reader/listener what their “humble opinion” is.

HB : Interesting thought.

MT : IMHO, we each have a complex set of perception of what constitutes PCT. Some of those perceptions seem to be generally agreed among the interpretations I make of what others write, though in some cases they do seem to change quite drastically from one message to the next.

HB : Well I think I’m quite stable with my oppnion. And the stability derives from my physiological knowledge. I can imagine what is in the limits of organisms functioning and what is not. But others could have problems limiting their imagination. Rick is with no doubt one of them. He is sometime quite drastically jumping from RCT to PCT and back.

MT : I have my own understanding of PCT, which changes gain and again, as I learn more about it i the course of writing my book. What I now perceive to constitute PCT is not what I perceived when Warren asked me to write a chapter for LCS IV. I have no problem in disagreeing with what I write on Tuesday if on Thursday I think it is wrong. I find that happens quite a lot more than I would wish, but so be it. It’s something I have to live with.

HB : I think it’s in human to make mistakes and correct it. We all do. Your knowledge is by my oppinion wide. And by my oppinion your PCT logic can be superb. But it’s true that you are unstable. As we know each other for a quite long time it seems to me that you were much more stable when you spoke to Bill and me. If you have time to look through archives your oppinion about PCT was sometimes on the level of very high understanding how organisms function.

MT : I have an understanding of PCT that changes over time. So, to judge from his writings both published and on CSGnet, did Bill Powers. I suspect most of us do. Bill occasionally said that PCT continued to spring surprises from time to time. Some of us (myself included) write as though we had access to the truth of PCT, but as it is when people write about God, that truth differs from person to person. I would be surprised if any two of Fred, Rick, Boris, Warren, either Bruce, … and me have the same complex of perceptions as to what PCT actually is. I think it is a science that depends on nobody’s opinion.

HB : Well I think that PCT is Powers theory as you said. He did it. It’s his theory and his oppinion about scientific approcah to research how organisms function. Others have different theories about it. We all on CSGnet have different oppinions. This life example shows that p is not equal to i.q. We have same literature and same posts on CSGnet but we perceive it and understand it differently. It’s always somebody’s oppinion. Also science. I hope I didn’t understand something wrong in my (IMHO) J.

MT : Others may differ, and I sometimes get the impression that some really do, when they cite Powers rather than referring back to Mother Nature and the larger body of what Mother Nature has told us (a.k.a. the body of science).

HB : Even when you refer to »mother nature« it will be oppinion about »mother nature«. Anybody will create own perceptual oppinion of »mother nature«. It seems that this a way how »mother nature« formed us.

Citating Powers has it benefits, because it hard to integrate so many oppinions on CSGnet into some united theory which can be tested in »mather nature« and will be proved right. Bill integrated so many expert oppinions about »mother nature«. Experts (researchers) of human organism have closer insight to »mother nature«. I call them experts because they have access to some specific perceptions so frequemtly that they don’t doubt about what they perceive. And that’s revealing many things about »mother nature« through experiments of experts who’s oppinion is experineced with real »facts« and they are getting more and more closer to how mother nature function. I think this oppinions should be listened what finally Rick confirmed.

MT : Powers was right (IMHO) so much of the time that if Mother Nature doesn’t answer clearly, it is very worthwhile to temporarily accept his opinion as the best approach to truth that we have available to us. But his opinion isn’t truth. It’s a guide, a signpost to where truth may well be found.

HB : I agree that Bills’ approach is not the final truth. But as I said before it’s his oppinion with integration of many expert oppinions. Because of this syntesized oppinions we can say it’s good oppinion as we can explain many things that helps better control.At least I can see it at my work with children. PCT definitelly better approach from all others to understanding how children function and how to treat them. When I was educated pedagog in the beggining of my carrier I made so many mistakes concerning treatment of children including severe punnishing them because they were not what I wanted them to be. PCT definitelly helped to become expert who has success in dealling with problematic children and also others.

There are many oppinons how children should be educated and they cause different consequences to their normal psycho-physical development. Mostly they use repressive or »agressive« approcah. Mostly there are still oppinions that children should be educated with »force«, psychical repression so that they will control as adults want them to. It’s the problem if adults want to interfere into children control with »agressive« means not just in physical sense. Psychical »agression« can make much more damage than physical.

But I understood this simple truth through Bills theory. I’m sure that I’m not making »damage« to children development any more, beacuse I understand why. From experineces in scchool I’m sure that most of theachers and educators of teachers don’t understand this so they are WEll Finnish school system is by my IMHO oppinion quite different and from PCT perspective much more acceptable. It’s different understanding of how to approcah children development. Eetu could tell us much more about problems of optimal children development.

So I think it’s very important what kind of oppinion one has. PCT oppinion is by my IMHO the best today. It simply works in real life speccially in areas where children are treated. It’s very hard to move people from one oppinon to other even when they see the damage they make…

MT : I did think until a couple of days ago that we all believed that control entailed bringing a perception closer to a reference value and maintaining it there in spite of disturbances to the corresponding environmental variable was a defining aspect of control, but Boris and Rick both explicitly and forcefully told me that they did not. So be it. We all perceive different things, and probably interpret each others’ writings differently, too. There are places in PCT where I think there may be improvements on the pure Powers control hierarchy.

HB : I agree. PCT can be improved. Not only hierarchy. The whole PCT organism (p. 191). Speccially I think that with arguments the quotation mark on the top of hierarchy should be eliminated as sson as possbile.

MT : Whether they are or are not closer to the facts of Nature is something that can be determined only by considering their implications and determining whether Nature looks more like the implications of one than the other. But they are all PCT.

What Fred said here agrees with my current (and long standing) perception of PCT. That aspect hasn’t changed i at least the last quarter-century, so I don’t expect it to change soon.

HB : I don’t expect that you change oppinion. But I expect that you could express your oppinion with your theory. If you have doifferent oppinion about PCT I hope that you’ll not try to change PCT. Make your own theory. And that goes for Fred too.

MT : The basic principle is that if there is something you can perceive and can influence, that perception is potentially a controlled perception.

HB : The problem is that you have to describe this »controlled perception«. Bill did it with physiological meaas (B:CP). That goes for behavior too. But you can do it with other means. I only hope that you understand that than you are not talking about PCT any more. You are talking about some other theory, RCT for example. Bill never mentioned any »controlled perception« so I think is better to make your own theory.

MT : In that sense, one can control one’s behaviour.

HB : It’s your sense and Rick and maybe Fred and maybe some others. Make your own theories about how behavior is controlled, producing some »controlled perception« which is probably not controlled again or it is controlled again in comparator in the same loop. Ricks half loop theory does not explain that.

I think that Bills’ oppinion should stay as it was. It should be preserved in original form. And that’s all that I’m doing. Although Powers ladies should do it. It’s now their theory. They could at least help me.

MT : The question is when or whether it is good to do so. Bill Powers suggested that it usually is not, using the “keeping the car in its lane” example. If you independently control the angle at which you set the steering wheel and the position of the car in lane, there will be a conflict. Keeping the car in lane requires a particular angle of the wheel. If you think a different wheel angle is aesthetically better, and control for that, the two higher-level systems come into conflict. That serves neither purpose.

HB : I don’t know for this case, but it’s helping me to think in perception style. When I do is always everything about perception that I’m aware of. It seems to be »mother nature« approach. So when I sit in the car what I perceive and what perceptions do I control. That seems to be the only truth for me, and I think that’s what is happening to all others. We control all kinds of perception and »switch« among them. It seems the only reality to me. Maybe others are experiencing differently. For me »control of perception« is the best explanation of what is happening. So I’m trying to preserve this oppinion. If somebody don’t like this point of view it’s better to make their own theory.

MT : Is there any situation in which it might be good to control behaviour?

HB : Martin I don’t understand what you mean by situation in which it would be good to »control behavior« and situations where it’s not good to »control behavior«. Behavior is not controlled in PCT. And it’s not general concept about how organisms control.

I think that whenever somebody makes one theory it should be general. Not changing it from situation to situation as Rick is doing and now Fred.

MT : I suggest that possibly there is, as an aspect of learning and teaching.

HB : Well Martin. I can just tell from my experiences that it’s not good to try to control »behavior« of other people if you are causing to many errors in their hierarchy. That goes for children too. They can also shoot if they are armed to restore their optimal control. There are not such cases only in USA.

MT : Imagine the driving example with a very naive driver who does not know that the steering wheel angle influences the direction of turn.He doesn’t know what to do when the car veers off to the side of the road.

HB : Well I think that usually people listen to »mother nature« and »react« in natural way. So I think that natural way is that driver will control perception of the »car in the lane«. I would underdstand that a child could have a problem with connecting »steering wheel position« with »car in the lane«, but adults ? I see with my grand baby 2 years old that I can’t present him that »steering wheel position« and »perception of the direction« of the toy car are connected. But as I pull him arround he is slowly getting by his own experiences that this two things are connected.

MT : The tutor sitting in the passenger seat says “Put your hands on this ring here, and turn it counter-clockwise a bit”. The student does so, but then the car goes too far in the other direction.

HB : This is at least for me one of the main problem in schooling systems. What is better ? That we listen to others how to control or we rely on our natural »feeling« what is better for our control. Anyway in the end is our experience. Nobody can get experience though other control looop.

Who can garantie that advise will in different individual be usefull for better control which only subject can experience ?

It’s a good example Martin showing to which extend to listen to others so to make our control better. Usually student can experience and exhibit right control as their reorganizing system »spontaneously suggest« solution. It’s their control loop. If they don’t control satisfying it’s good to listen to others. But if advice is not good for their control it’s good not to listen to it. But people very differently accept advices from others.

MT . Thinking that turning this magic ring counter-clockwise sets the car in the right direction, he turns it more counter-clockwise, but the tutor says “No, turn it clockwise when the car is going too far that way”. The student is controlling the behaviour of turning the steering wheel, but using the tutor’s reference values.

HB : I doubt that student can use tutors reference value. It can be similar. But every LCS is producing his own references so that can »adapt« to disturbances. I’d say that student is controlling perceptions of all kind and among them also perception of turning steering wheel with setting the appropriate references. I think that is in his blood sorry »mother nature«. I doubt that student is aware of controlling his behavior. Are you ? It hink that he is aware of controlling his perceptions. What is the feeling when you »control behavior« ?

Bills explanation of what is happening to me is so real that I beleive that it’s the best explanation what is happening to me anywhere in my life. All I’m aware are perception that I control and how to change them to control better.

I think that all we are aware of are perceptions. And so I beleive that also driving we probably control all kinds of perceptions. Even the perception of behavior. That’s what is really happening.

But I doubt that we can use other reference value for own perceptions. But we can probably change references in accordance to disturbances from other people specialy if we achieve better control (less errors and probably less huge errors).

MT : When the connection between lane position and steering wheel angle has been reorganized into a state where the student can apply his own references, the steering-wheel-angle behaviour no longer can be controlled independently.

HB : Student is all the time applying his own references. He can’t function differently.

But it seems that I didn’t underdstand what you are saying.

I’ll use the criterium for what is happening with the principle that everything is control of perception (not control of behavior). So I doubt that student can perceive at the same time »lane position« and »steering wheel position« succesfully. He’ll be probably switching between two perceptions. And it’s not save »feeling«. Try it. I think it can end bad if student will try to do it for enough long time. But if he makes some training he can probably perceive steering wheel position with the »conner« of his perception field with main perception in the filed focused on »car in the lane«. Controlling the perception of »car in lane« is necessary to stay on the road. While the perception of steering wheel position is not.

MT : What I said there applies if you believe the Powers hierarchy.

HB : I didn’t get the feeling that you talked about Powers hierarchy of perceptions. Sorry. It seemed to me like you were talking about »controling behavior«. What is it that I missed ?

MT : Is it true of Nature? Try it. Get a person in a car on an empty parking lot and ask her to drive straight toward some point while keeping the steering wheel at an angle you prescribe. Will she be able to do both? I think not. HPCT gets it right.

HB : Right. It’s very hard to perceive both at the same time, but as I siad before it’s risky focusing on wrong perceptions. You have to decide which is »main« perception what means more important for your survival. If you 'll focus perception on steering wheel position you’ll make chances to make accident very high if you are not trained.

MT : Can you set up situations in which HPCT gets it wrong? I don’t know, but seeking an example might be more profitable than arguing about whether behavior is or can be controlled.

HB :Well I think HPCT gets it all right if you we talk abot control perception perception what is by my oppinion really happening. And I think that events in HPCT shows how right is to analyze perception s instead of control of behavior. From control of behavior we could never conclude on switching between perception of »steering wheel« and »car in the lane« or »sight vision« which is standard procedure in every sport training. There are so many things happening in HPCT with perceptions that is impossible to grasp them with »narrow view« of »control of behavior«.

I gave many examples for control of perception, but mostly on CSGnet are presented »kinder joystick examples« with control of behavior. We know who is the source. I think it’s generally wrong approcah to understanding how people function in various situation.

There is no »control of behavior« and no actual control of environmetal variables when you are sleeping. Ande ven Rick konws that but despite this he is still promoting RCT »behavior control theory«.

We need general theory about human functioning not partial theories. And that is by my oppinion PCT and representative definitions (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III).

MT : I apologize for the length of this rant. All I started out to do was agree with Fred, but it just grew without my controlling its behaviour

HB : I think it was a very good post Martin. I respect your new oppinion as long as you and Fred make your own special theories of human behavior and not try to change PCT. But I’d just like to remind that maybe you could rethink the stuff and try to decide whether it is not better to support my proposal for PCT GENERAL THEORY OF HUMAN (LCS) BEHAVIOR. .

MT : Now I should go and snow-shovel. Will I be controlling that behaviour?

HB : I think not. I think you’ll be controlling perception SPECCIALLY OF TEMPERATURE. And that will you will do mostly with controlling inside organism and through actons on environment which will be changing you perceptions to be controled. How will you be aware that you control behavior ?

What I’m worried about now is whether you understood my English or not. Did I write it enough clear so that you could understand ? You can ask if anything is not understandable.

But I again appeal on you that you consider what is better for the future of PCT. Special and partial theories or general theory of human (LCS) behavior.

Boris

Martin

[_Boris_Hartman]

Down…

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 7:38 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Rick Marken (2017.12.22.1035)]

Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)

FN: The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

RM: This is what the theory says is the way control is achieved; control itself is an objective phenomenon that we can see organisms doing.

HB : Not in general. Organisms are achieving and maintaining preselected state and consequences of control in organism can be seen in outer environment if person is acquanted with control. Sometimes is difficult to see what people really control. So usually we solve this problem with question : What are you doing ?

I think we can start with life examples so I’ll start with Riks’ example of sleeping. It’s ideal case that is showing that Bills’ definition of control is right and that even Rick agrees with it.

RM (earlier) : Sleeping is a tough one but I think it is controlling done by the autonomic nervous system that has the aim of keeping some intrinsic physiological variables in genetically determined reference states.

So beside that control is done in organism we can also see that control in organism is general and that wen can’t see from sleeping behavior any sign of control if we are not acquanted with it as Rick is.

If 7.000.000.000 people would see Rick sleeping. What they would say ?Oh we have here objective phenomenon that we can see that organism is controlling outside and is objective phenomenon what we can see clearly from his position of his body. Is that what you meant as objective phenomenon ?

It’s problem to see from every behavior control. So it’s good to have general theory that can explain how control function and how ca it be seen (if) from the point of oberver.

Second example :

 When somebody is sitting and thinking with closed eyes 7.000.000.000 people who would observe him would probably conclude that control he is controlling nothing because he simply can not see thinker objectivelly phenomenologically doing control from his behavior.

So how can we conclude that achieving and maintaining control trhough behavior in environment of the control system is objective phenomenon because we can see (!!???) organism doing it.

And beside that RCT (Ricks Control Theory) is suggesting that we »see« that organism objectivelly or phenomenologically »controlling« generally environemnt arround people so that there is always some controlled variable in the environemnt of the system.

So in the case of thinker there has to be always some »controlled variable« or »controlled quantity« in environment of the thinker. As we know that in PCT behavior is not »controlled« we have to conclude that in RCT there has to be some »controlled variable« or »controlled quantity« in environment which we can »see«. As Rick is suggesting that this is general model we have to put some »controled variable« into enviroment of the thinker so that it will match RCT theory.Â

So the best way to »test« RCT theory in the case of thinker is to put flying glasses into environment because RCT theory said so. There must be always some »controlled variable« in the environemnt of the thinker who is not moving at all. We have to conclude that he is using his thoughts to control environment so that we can objectivelly phenomenologically see organism doing.

Is there any other explanation of thinkers control who has to follow RCT theoretical approach. So I must conclude that thinker is doing Telekinesis. So we proved that RCT theory is right we we can see organism controllin through behavior as there is always some »controlled variable« or »controlled quantity« in environment of the Living Control System.Â

So i this way RCT becomes a general theory about human behavior.

RM : As Bill says “… organisms actually do stabilize external variables of all degrees of complexity against disturbances, maintaining them recognizably near reference conditions that we can identify experimentally”.

HB : Right. Stabilize environmental variables what can be identify also with indivual experiencing.You said it for yourself that you can’t identify all variables experimentally with TCV so your theory with general TCV approach is not general.

RM (2013) : But the intentional behavior that occurs in real life often involves the control of variables that are impossible to represent as simple function of physical variables, e.g., the honesty of a communication or the intimacy of a realtionship. A quantitative approcah to the TCV will not work when trying to study such abstract variables….

FN: The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system.

HB : This is insinuation Fred. You are generalizing your conclussions on the whole glossary what is not true. It’s not the glossary. It’s one definition in glossary which do not correspond to other defitnion. It’s making contradiction in glossary.

FN : It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

HB : This is the most problematic statement in definition of Controlled quantity. Behavior is not controlled in PCT. So it can’t control “controlled quantity�. Behavior affects environment and affect also “input quantity� which is supposed to be real. “Controlled quantity� is imagined. See other definitions of contrl loop in glossary.

FN: Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

HB : This is your conclusion and it seems that you are forming your own theory FCT (Fred Control Theory). With what you are controlling environmental variable if “Behavior is not control� ???

RM: We control functions of environmental variables, also known as “external variables”. We don’t control our control of these variables; we just contro the variables.

HB : What is this ? Mismash in mind of Rick. What a confussion.

FN: So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

HB : Behavior is not contolled in PCT. This is sure because Bill proved it with physiological means. Here is not doubt and Rick knows it.

RM: “Speaking respectfully to others” is a function of environmental variables, just like any other external variable we control.

HB : So Rick are you again promoting RCT theory where people control people all the time. ???

RM : The environmental variables of which “speaking respectfully” is a function are the pressure variations that come out of our mouths when we talk. Our perceptual functions measure an aspect of these environmental variables – the degree of respectfulness in these pressure variations.

HB : »Input function« is not measuring anything. It’s transduction.

RM: We, as observers, can determine that “speaking respectfully” is being controlled by introducing disturbances that should have an effect on this variable (such “didn’t you mean to say that he’s an ass***”?) and see if these disturbances are resisted.

HB : It’s not that easy to detrmine what people are controlling so I’d rather say it’s A TRIAL TO DETERMINE.

How will you exactly conclude that other people are controlling for »speaking respectfully« ? By introducing »rude« disturbances. So you expect to make effect which will be as you said resisted or not. Let us say that person you are introducing »rude« disturbances »read« your intention of »controlleg« her with distrubances. So that you are delibratelly testing her for »speaking repscfully« and so will behave just in opposite way so that you’ll come to wrong conclussion. There is always a problem with identifying »controled variable« because people are so good at hiding what they really control.

RM : If all your disturbances to the respectfulness of a person’s speah that should be resisted, are resisted, and all the disturbances that shouldn’t be resisted are not, then you have objective evidence that the person is controlling for speaking respectfully. And now you can make a model of “control of speaking respectfully”; all you have to do is develop a perceptual function that will compute respectfulness based on the pressure variations produced by a speaker – not an easy task. But if you could do that you could say that you have developed a system that can control a variable aspect of its own behavior – the respectfulness of its speech.

HB : If you could do that you could.… all you have to do is develope…What ki kind of sicence is this ? There are so many »if« and it’s not so easy task that on the end I don’t understand what you wanted to conclude. That TCV is reliable method for identifying what people really control ???

The main problem for reading people »real thought« I think is if experimental person is faking resistance to disturbances as he is trying to trick you or he is making fun of you. How will you know whether it’s real or fake ? Some people are so good acters ? People are too many times faking what they really control. I’m speaking for real life situation.

But you gave good real life example and we can test diagram and PCT definitions I proposed how much PCT theory really good explain people control and behavior.

Boris

Best

Rick

Fred Nickols

–

Richard S. Marken

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

[_Boris_Hartman]

Fred

···

From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 6:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[Martin Taylor 2017.12.12.37]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.1204 ET)]

FN : Thanks, Martin. But it’s just a restatement of what Bill wrote.

HB : That’s not the whole true Fred because Bill wrote much more then yuu »reastated«. For restament what Bill wrote you’ll have to read all his literature.

You didn’t analyze all definitions. Consider all defiinitions and diagram as whole and you will see that didn’t reastated what »controlled quantity« is and why is not matching definitions and diagram.

FN : More important, there a type in the third statement. It should read “Thus we control both the environmental variable and our perception of it.”

HB : Thanks Fred. It seems that afterall you don’t agree with Bills definitions and diagram. What your statement describe is not general theory. There are many behaviors that will not follow you model.

Boris

Fred

MT : Maybe so, but there have been a lot of restatements of what Bill wrote that disagree with each other (and with my perception of what Bill wrote).

HB : Right Martin, Bill did changed his mind quite some times. At least in conversations with me he did it on CSGnet at least two times. In our private talking he did much more times.

I’m trying to eliminate confussions as much as possbile and I know that you could help me if you want to.

One way to elimeinate confussion is put some reference text from Bills’ literature »on the table« and discuss it, find agreements and disagreements and try to make it as much as possible aligned to some common agreement. If we consider how many possible »perceptual hierarchical models« of reality can be or how many »colored pictures« of the world we can have it’s quite amazing that we come to the point that we are even that close as we are. I know it’s a long way to mutual understanding of PCT, but it would help if you make decission about diagram (LCS III) and definitions (B:CP). Whatever it is now on CSGnet is a disaster.

MT : May I point out that there are also two topos in “there a type in the third statement”

HB : As I said. It’s problematic statement….

Boris

Martin

From: Martin Taylor [mailto:mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 11:53 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Behavior is Controlled

[Martin Taylor 2017.12.22.11.04]

This is nice, Fred.

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

When I say that, the language suggests that I have a line connecting me with truth, but I have not. Sometimes, but seldom, people put “IMHO” (In My Humble Opinion) in such messages, whether they perceive themselves as humble or not. Whether they do or not, all anyone can do to communicate is use the language that, with luck, will convey to the reader/listener what their “humble opinion” is.

IMHO, we each have a complex set of perception of what constitutes PCT. Some of those perceptions seem to be generally agreed among the interpretations I make of what others write, though in some cases they do seem to change quite drastically from one message to the next. I have my own understanding of PCT, which changes gain and again, as I learn more about it i the course of writing my book. What I now perceive to constitute PCT is not what I perceived when Warren asked me to write a chapter for LCS IV. I have no problem in disagreeing with what I write on Tuesday if on Thursday I think it is wrong. I find that happens quite a lot more than I would wish, but so be it. It’s something I have to live with.

I have an understanding of PCT that changes over time. So, to judge from his writings both published and on CSGnet, did Bill Powers. I suspect most of us do. Bill occasionally said that PCT continued to spring surprises from time to time. Some of us (myself included) write as though we had access to the truth of PCT, but as it is when people write about God, that truth differs from person to person. I would be surprised if any two of Fred, Rick, Boris, Warren, either Bruce, … and me have the same complex of perceptions as to what PCT actually is. I think it is a science that depends on nobody’s opinion.

Others may differ, and I sometimes get the impression that some really do, when they cite Powers rather than referring back to Mother Nature and the larger body of what Mother Nature has told us (a.k.a. the body of science). Powers was right (IMHO) so much of the time that if Mother Nature doesn’t answer clearly, it is very worthwhile to temporarily accept his opinion as the best approach to truth that we have available to us. But his opinion isn’t truth. It’s a guide, a signpost to where truth may well be found.

I did think until a couple of days ago that we all believed that control entailed bringing a perception closer to a reference value and maintaining it there in spite of disturbances to the corresponding environmental variable was a defining aspect of control, but Boris and Rick both explicitly and forcefully told me that they did not. So be it. We all perceive different things, and probably interpret each others’ writings differently, too. There are places in PCT where I think there may be improvements on the pure Powers control hierarchy. Whether they are or are not closer to the facts of Nature is something that can be determined only by considering their implications and determining whether Nature looks more like the implications of one than the other. But they are all PCT.

What Fred said here agrees with my current (and long standing) perception of PCT. That aspect hasn’t changed i at least the last quarter-century, so I don’t expect it to change soon. The basic principle is that if there is something you can perceive and can influence, that perception is potentially a controlled perception. In that sense, one can control one’s behaviour. The question is when or whether it is good to do so. Bill Powers suggested that it usually is not, using the “keeping the car in its lane” example. If you independently control the angle at which you set the steering wheel and the position of the car in lane, there will be a conflict. Keeping the car in lane requires a particular angle of the wheel. If you think a different wheel angle is aesthetically better, and control for that, the two higher-level systems come into conflict. That serves neither purpose.

Is there any situation in which it might be good to control behaviour? I suggest that possibly there is, as an aspect of learning and teaching. Imagine the driving example with a very naive driver who does not know that the steering wheel angle influences the direction of turn. He doesn’t know what to do when the car veers off to the side of the road. The tutor sitting in the passenger seat says “Put your hands on this ring here, and turn it counter-clockwise a bit”. The student does so, but then the car goes too far in the other direction. Thinking that turning this magic ring counter-clockwise sets the car in the right direction, he turns it more counter-clockwise, but the tutor says “No, turn it clockwise when the car is going too far that way”. The student is controlling the behaviour of turning the steering wheel, but using the tutor’s reference values. When the connection between lane position and steering wheel angle has been reorganized into a state where the student can apply his own references, the steering-wheel-angle behaviour no longer can be controlled independently.

What I said there applies if you believe the Powers hierarchy. Is it true of Nature? Try it. Get a person in a car on an empty parking lot and ask her to drive straight toward some point while keeping the steering wheel at an angle you prescribe. Will she be able to do both? I think not. HPCT gets it right. Can you set up situations in which HPCT gets it wrong? I don’t know, but seeking an example might be more profitable than arguing about whether behavior is or can be controlled.

I apologize for the length of this rant. All I started out to do was agree with Fred, but it just grew without my controlling its behaviour

Now I should go and snow-shovel. Will I be controlling that behaviour?

Martin

[FredNickols]

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.26.1040 ET)]

Comments are embedded below.

···

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 3:35 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

Fred…

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 5:04 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.1054 ET)]

FN : I agree with all of it, Boris.

HB : Nice Fred. I hope you mean it because if I see right you agreed only with one definition and you made your own “one case” theory as Rick is doing for a long time. So it’s by my opinion wrong if we look at it from the aspect of other definitions and diagram (LCS III). It’s real contradiction and mess.

FN : But let me ask you this: How is it that a control system’s outputs affect its inputs?

HB : You said that you agree with Bills’ definitions. Why you are asking me this ? You could just read what Bill thought about “output function” and “feedback function” where it is clear “how output affects input”.

[FWN] My question was mainly rhetorical, Boris, but let me be more specific. Our perceptions are perceptions of something. If our outputs are to lead to changes in our perceptions, then it seems to me that that has to happen as a result or consequence of our outputs affecting whatever it is that we are perceiving.

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

[FWN] That was my point; that the output function is our means of effecting changes in our environment – which then lead to changes in our perceptions.

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.

[FWN] Yes, but the effect of output on input is not direct; outputs cause changes in the environment; those changes lead to changes in our perceptions.

HB : You said Fred you agreed with Bills’ definitions. Bill explained in his whole literature why »control system’s outputs affect its inputs”. Just read it.

FN : On my part, and consistent with the definitions below, the system’s outputs affect the controlled

quantity.

[FWN] The controlled quantity is the variable we are perceiving and the value of which we wish to bring to some predefined and desired value, which we gauge by way of our perceptions of the value of that variable.

HB : Where do you see this ? Show me. Is it general ? It is partly consistent with one definition and it’s no consistent with diagram (LCS III). Can you apply “the system’s outputs affect the controlled quantity” it to all behaviors ? I think that you are far from being consistent with other definitions of control loop which by my opinion show general theory…

Why didn’t you already citate the place in definitions where system output affects “controlled quantity” ???

We have no choice but to go definition after definition.

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 : Wher do you see »controlled quantity« ?

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

HB : Wher do you see »controlled quantity« ?

[FWN] See above. It’s that portion of the environment we wish to affect and the value of which we wish to effect.

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.

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ? Unless you agree that there is some »special controlled quanttiy« only in environment of the controlling system.

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

[FWN] Those signals or stimuli pertain to the controlled quantity; the variable we wish to control.

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ?

Do I understand right that by your theory (I’ll cal it FCT) system should perceive changes in controlled quantitty and should turn them into »Controlled Perceptual Variable« ??? Is this what you are proposing ??? That’s not what Bill is proposing.

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

HB : Where do you see »controlled quantity« ?

[FWN] There is no controlled quantity inside the control system. There is a perception of it; a reference for it; and the result of comparing the two, which might or might not indicate an error.

ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior

HB : Well here we have “controlled quantity” which is causing behavior. It’s not that behavior is causing changes in “controlled quantity” but controlled quantity with references cause behavior. It even does not affect it. You mixed something Fred or there is some contradiction that Bill produced.

If you think that there is contradiction, my proposal is that we use most definitions that show in the same direction in PCT toward GENERAL THEORY OF LCS BEHAVIOR. Do we understand what I want to say.

[FWN] Behavior, to me, is synonymous with outputs. This is far as I am going in this message.

Fred Nickols

WE should form some theoretical platform on which we could bild explabation of life examples (mather nature) and try to verify theory,

By my opinion there is only one definition that is seriously diverging from others. So my proposal account for definitions and diagram which by my opinion constitute general theory of human (LCS) behavior. Do you understand what I want to say.

I think that we have also to get clear what “controlled quantity” means in PCT ?

Bill P (B:CP) : Consider once again the meaning of the term controlled quantity. A controlled quantity is controlled only because it is detected by a control system, compared with a reference, and affected by outputs based on the error thus detected. The controlled quantity is defined strictly by the behaving system’s perceptual computers

HB : “Controlled quantity” is imagined construct of controlling system. It’s not existing in environment of control system, so it can’t be affected or even controlled by systems output. Definition of “error” is clearly showing that “controlled quantity” is matter of comparator. It’s inside control system and it’s causing behavior.

From diagram (LCS III) you can see that it’s “input quantity” that is affected by output of the system not “controlled quantity”. “Input quantity is entering “input function” not controlled quantity. It’s input quantity that is affected by output. That is only “controlled variable” that is to be controlled in comparator.

According to definitions (B:CP) and diagram (LCS III) system output is adding effects to input. It’s not affecting “controlled quantity” although imaginary we could say so.

The problem I see is that you will start with wrong conclusions like Rick is doing. You’ll try to prove that “Behavior is control” and that there is some “Controlled Perceptual Variable” which unexisting term n PCT.

Please study all definitions once again It seems that you already started to concluding that PCT has “Behavior is control” and there is some “controlled aspect of environment. So I suppose it will not take long that you’ll comre to the conclusion that there is some “controlled perception”. It’s wrong at least in PCT .

If you’ll insist on these conclussions I advise you to make your own theory with Rick and Martin.

RCT (Ricks Control Theory) definition of control loop

1.   CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
   

2. OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state

3.  FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
   

4.  INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
   

5.  COMPARATOR : ????
   

6.  ERROR SIGNAL : ???
   

FN : In other words, the system’s outputs change, modify or alter the controlled quantity to keep the system’s perception of that controlled quantity aligned with the system’s reference signal for that quantity.

HB : As I said above. in other words this is your control theory as it doesn’t represent PCT or at least most of it definitions and diagram. But it probably represent FCT (Fred’s Control Theory). You based your theory on one definition and one case. And it seems that you want to conclude that this could be GENERAL THEORY OF HUMAN (LCS) BEHAVIOR that organisms control inside and outside. This is your theory Fred although you were misleaded by Bills’ mistake.

If you think that your theory is general than you’ll have no problems explaining with your theory how organisms “control” outer environment in sleeping, observing, walking, sunshining, sitting and thinking. Please explain it from tha point of your new theory.

We need general theory that can explain any behavior not just one behavior and half of control loop. Do we understand Fred.

FN : Again, in other words, we act on our environment so as to make our perception of some aspect of it agree with the way we want it to be. And again, I ask you, how is that not controlling?

HB : This is yours “other words”. I don’t know what is going on in your imagination but I don’t see any of your statements in Bills’ definitions.

We do not act on our environment so to make our perception agreed with the way we want, but we produce just blind effects to immediate environment. See definition of “output function” and “feedback function”. If you’ll read B:CP you’ll see Bills’ explanation why we can’t control our behavior. There are also physiological evidences.

Among many effects to the immediate environment there are also effects to input through “feedback function” to . “Input function” which senses those effects.

Where do you see that you act on “controlled quantity” to make some perception of some controlled aspect of environment the way you want it to be. Show me where can we find this in PCT ? It’s your interpretation and your model of reality. That is not PCT ?

Bill P : Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals the represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make perception of the glass change from “on the table” to " near the mouth" – we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth.

HB : From this Bills citation we can blindness of output. There is no trace that you could control something in environment or even to control »controlled quantity« if you don’t know what you are doing to reality. It’s blind effect on environment until it is perceved. It’s no »Control of behavior« or »controlled effects« on input. It’s just blind effects of output on input. Output makes effects and input perceive that effect. If. It’s that simple.

I hope you’ll understand that first we have to solve what is written in definitions and what diagram (LCS III) is showing and what is “controlled quantity” in PCT. It’s all part of Bills’ general theory.

My proposal of definitions and diagram is by my opinion showing GENERAL THEORY OF HUMAN (LCS) BEHAVIOR. What is the cost for your friend to try to analyze every behavior from the view I proposed. Afterall if definitions and diagram turned out to be wrong through many life examples that will be analyzed we can still change it. Why don’t give Bill a chance ? Alison, Barb, Rick, Martin, Bruce, … ???

Best regards,

Boris

HB : Which example of “controlling outer environment” to the extend you want it to be in your way you have in mind Fred ? Whatever you are telling us is not general principle. But it may work in some behavior examples. Show me how it works with sleeping, observing and so on. PCT is general theory about how organisms function. So show me how your principle is general.

Otherwise is a good observation Fred. The problems you have to solve here is how you are controlling in the whole control loop. First problem you have to solve is whether “Behavior is controlled or not”,

Bill P (B:CP)

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment

HB : The second problem you have is to show that all behaviors have “controlled aspect of outer environment” . Controlled quantity is not “controlled aspect” of outer environment. It’s “input quantity” that will be controlled in comparator.

And the things outside are not always as we want them to be, We rarely control outer environment to the extend that is controlled inside. But anyway where do you see from definitions and diagram that “controlled quantity” is controlled outside. And you said that you agree with definitions and diagram.

And where do you see this ?

HB : And the biggest problem that you’ll have to love is whether there is really some” Controlled Perceptual variable”or CPV as the result of controlling in environment as Rick is claiming. So the main question is whether you control outside to the extent that you control inside. If you’ll use “canonical” principle you will go into a trap.

Dear Fred. I was facing all your thought problems when I was talking to Bill. At least I thought as you thought at least 15 years ago. So please reconsider once again all Bills definitions and diagram.

Do you understand what I’m asking you ? Bills’ definitions shows how external environment is stabilized, not controlled. Show me in any definition where ddi he mentioned control. Remember you said that you agree with them. So respect them in your analyses.

If you were controlling something in environment than control has to enter somehow into organism through perception. And it seems that all on CSGnet agree that control “environment doesn’t control organisms”. At least Rick has the biggest problem with this, He is claiming that control is entering organism through “Controlled perceptual Variable”.

Bills’ definitions and diagram shows how control is achieved in internal environment generally.

That was the main problem bill was directing me. You can’t analyze behaviors onece by one principles and another time with others. RCT (Ricks control Theory) is wrongly presenting control loop and how control function.

FN : For me to control something is to make it be the way I want it to be.

I want a cup full of fresh coffee. I make a pot and fill my cup.

HB : Your perception of filling cup of coffee was controlled inside organism. Perception of cup of coffee outside was not controlled to the extend that it was controlled inside organism. But it helped control inside organism. It is state in inner environment that it want it to be. It’s references that are set inside organism not outside. The perception of cup of coffee is in the state you want it to be inside. You are controlling inner state of organism not outer. The state of cup of coffee means nothing if you are

PCT offers a marvelous explanation of how that is accomplished. I understand full well that all I know of the state of my coffee cup I know by way of my perceptions. I also know full well that I know my cup is full because I perceive it to be so. But if you insist on telling me that I do not control the level of the coffee in my cup then my response to you is to say that you and I have very different understandings of “control”

HB : Right Fred.

You didn’t feeled your cup of coffee to the reference state, because you don’t know whether you’ll drink it all or not whether it will match your references or not. Maybe you drink it all but you’ll some bad feeling. So it was not controlled in organism well. Maybe taste, maybe to much sugar. You were filling cup of coffee to some extend that could suit you but you don’t know before you really match it to references. You don’t whether full cup of coffee is refer3ence state in organism so that when perception will be matched to references the fulled cup of coffee was really fulled to reference state, You will know when you’ll start drinking it.

Maybe you’ll do just You can just drink a Control of perception will tell you how much of coffee is enough not the state of cup of coffee in external environment. But you filled

You just filled your cup of coffee to some extend you think it could match your references. But whether that was wanted state you’ll know only when it is matched to real reference inside organism.

So you don’t know whether cup of coffee was “controlled” to the extend that it is controlled in organism before you try it. You don’t know whether cup of coffee is in reference state or not. You don’t whether food is prepared to reference state before you try it.

Whatever you were doing in environment you were just acting on it so that you changed perception to the state that matches the reference and you know whether is in reference state or not. Not before. You can guess You never know whether outside state is in reference state until you match it to reference. You can predict

If you filled it to some state that you think it could be enough for your control in the organism. So you didn’t control it to the extend of your control in organism but it’s just a trial. Maybe you’ll drink it or not. Not mentioning whether the taste will do or not. When you’ll control it in organism you’ll know it. But whatever you did in the environment is not controlled to the state you wanted it, it’s a trial to control perception to the state you want it.

You’ll know after you try it and then you’ll know in accordance to error. Maybe you’ll make another attempt by adding sugar or a little more coffee. And you’ll try it again until you’ll come to the perception that matches your references if it will. But it will be perception that will be controlled not a cup of coffee although it can be represented in perception.

But you can say that environmental variable is stabilized to some state that cause the perceptual signal to match the reference state in organism. But there is no reference state in environment. You can imagine it of course. which causing perception to match to It is controlled to the organisms reference state but i

Perception is controlled when reference state is achieved in controlling system. So that intrinsic variables are in their physiological limits. So you are not controlling in environment, you are controlling inside, but you stabilize environment to the extend that perceptions in external environment are controlled to the reference state in organism.

Finally you can say that you manage to stabilize (find) some state that is matching reference state in organisms, But you didn’t find reference state in environment (because there is no reference state in environment) and you didn’t but it was not achieved with control of behavior and it didn’t cause any “Controlled Perceptual variable”. Control was not done in environment but in organism. If you could control reference states in environment with control of behavior there wouldn’t be any corrections.

FN : ….and I don’t wish to get caught up in endlessly chasing my tail.

HB : I don’t know about tail, burt you are sure endlessly chasing control in organism.

Fred Nickols

From: Boris Hartman [mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 10:37 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: When Behavior is Controlled

Ups sorry Fred I forgot to aks you. Do you agree with definitions (B:CP) and with diagrma LCS III

Definitions of PCT control loop :

Bill P (B:CP):

1.  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):

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

Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.

Bill P (LCS III):

3.   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) :

4.  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) :

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

Bill P (B:CP)

6.   : ERROR : The discrepancy between a perceptual signal and a reference signal, which drives a control system’s output function. The discrepancy between a controlled quantity and it’s present reference level, which causes observable behavior.
   

Bill P (B:CP) :

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

All the best,

Boris

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 4:02 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: When Behavior is Controlled

[From Fred Nickols (2017.12.22.0956 ET)]

The glossary in B:CP (2^nd Edition) makes it clear that control is concerned with the achievement and maintenance of a pre-selected perceptual state in the controlling system.

The glossary also makes clear that the controlled quantity is an environmental variable that corresponds to the perceptual signal in a control system. It also makes clear that the controlled quantity is affected and controlled by the outputs from a control system’s output function.

Thus we control both the environmental variable and our control of it.

So, when the environmental variable we wish to control is our own behavior (e.g., speaking respectfully to others), do we not then control our behavior and our perception of our behavior?

Fred Nickols

[Joh_Orengo]

Boris,

You wrote to Fred that "
Perception is controlled when reference state is achieved in controlling system. So that intrinsic variables are
in their physiological limits. So you are not controlling in environment, you are controlling inside, but you stabilize environment to the extend that perceptions in external environment are controlled to
the reference state in organism."

Do you think that “the world we see around us in
visual consciousness is the real world itself [Direct Perception
], or whether it is merely
a perceptual replica of that world in an internal representation [Indirect Perception]”?

(I quoted this from Steven Lehar “The Epistemology of Conscious Experience” at

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/epist/epist.html)

Because for me your statement to Fred above encapsulates your entire argument, and it sounds like it matches indirect perception/indirect realism. If I look from an indirect realist perspective, what you’re saying makes sense.

Joh