Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1228 ET)
I’ve started working on a new Knowledge Worker column with the title in the subject line of this message (see the attachment). I’d be very interested in comments and suggestions from people on this list.
When Control Systems Collide II.docx (40.8 KB)
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1228 ET)
I've started working on a new Knowledge Worker column withthe title in the subject line of this message (see the
attachment). I’d be very interested in comments and
suggestions from people on this list.
Fred, I like it very much. I might suggest two minor edits, in the
first lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both come from the
same background thought, that there are at leat 16 different ways in
which two control loops can interact (collide).
Para 2, I would say "there is usually" rather than simple "there
is", because occasional collisions can be mutually beneficial.
(Those are the ones on which society and organizations are built).
Para3. I would substitute for "because" the following or some
variant thereof: “in a variety of ways, but most often”.
A nit-pick. In the first para, do you think that "the non-human
kind" examples are living control systems, or any kind of control
systems? I don’t. I think they set up what Powers called
contingencies, in that they affect the probable results of different
kinds of action by the living control systems, because of the
disturbances those actions might cause to perceptions controlled by
others. Bill’s example of the different kinds of contingencies of
driving too fast through Durango include smashing the car (laws of
nature) and getting a speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My
preference would be to eliminate everything from the dash to the end
of the sentence, unless there is some other point you want to make
about rules, such as that they are (usually collectively) controlled
variables that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is trying to change,
in which case maybe as a second sentence if para 3 would be the
place to mention them. But this is just a nit of a kind that is
rather easy to pick.
Martin
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602 ET)
Many thanks, Martin. Your changes make sense and I will incorporate them.
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
âAssistance at A Distanceâ?
www.nickols.us
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300 ET)
Has anyone besides Martin read the paper I posted?
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
âAssistance at A Distanceâ?
www.nickols.us
Fred,
we probably all read your paper. I didn’t want to answer as I expressed so many times attitude to diagrams which were not in accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in LCS III ?
Best,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300 ET)
Has anyone besides Martin read the paper I posted?
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PM Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602 ET)
Many thanks, Martin. Your changes make sense and I will incorporate them.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1228 ET)
I’ve started working on a new Knowledge Worker column with the title in the subject line of this message (see the attachment). I’d be very interested in comments and suggestions from people on this list.
Fred, I like it very much. I might suggest two minor edits, in the first lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both come from the same background thought, that there are at leat 16 different ways in which two control loops can interact (collide).
Para 2, I would say “there is usually” rather than simple “there is”, because occasional collisions can be mutually beneficial. (Those are the ones on which society and organizations are built).
Para3. I would substitute for “because” the following or some variant thereof: “in a variety of ways, but most often”.
A nit-pick. In the first para, do you think that “the non-human kind” examples are living control systems, or any kind of control systems? I don’t. I think they set up what Powers called contingencies, in that they affect the probable results of different kinds of action by the living control systems, because of the disturbances those actions might cause to perceptions controlled by others. Bill’s example of the different kinds of contingencies of driving too fast through Durango include smashing the car (laws of nature) and getting a speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My preference would be to eliminate everything from the dash to the end of the sentence, unless there is some other point you want to make about rules, such as that they are (usually collectively) controlled variables that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is trying to change, in which case maybe as a second sentence if para 3 would be the place to mention them. But this is just a nit of a kind that is rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.27.14.47]
What do you find wrong with Fred's diagram, knowing who he is
writing for? In what way do you see it as not being in accordance
with Bill’s?
Martin
On 2018/09/27 1:35 PM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
Â
weprobably all read your paper. I didn’t want to answer as I
expressed so many times attitude to diagrams which were not
in accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of
diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in LCS
III ?
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
From: Fred Nickols
( via csgnet Mailing List)
Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM
Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300 ET)
Â
Has anyone besides Martin read the paperI posted?
Â
Â
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PM FredNickols <fwnickols@gmail.com >
wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602 ET)
Â
Many thanks, Martin. Your changesmake sense and I will incorporate them.
Â
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08 PMMartin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols(2018.09.22.1228 ET)
Â
I've started working ona new Knowledge Worker column with the
title in the subject line of this message
(see the attachment). I’d be very
interested in comments and suggestions
from people on this list.
Â
Â
Fred, I like it very much. Imight suggest two minor edits, in the first
lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both
come from the same background thought, that
there are at leat 16 different ways in which two
control loops can interact (collide).Para 2, I would say "there is usually" ratherthan simple “there is”, because occasional
collisions can be mutually beneficial. (Those
are the ones on which society and organizations
are built).Para3. I would substitute for "because" thefollowing or some variant thereof: “in a variety
of ways, but most often”.A nit-pick. In the first para, do you think that“the non-human kind” examples are living control
systems, or any kind of control systems? I
don’t. I think they set up what Powers called
contingencies, in that they affect the probable
results of different kinds of action by the
living control systems, because of the
disturbances those actions might cause to
perceptions controlled by others. Bill’s example
of the different kinds of contingencies of
driving too fast through Durango include
smashing the car (laws of nature) and getting a
speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My
preference would be to eliminate everything from
the dash to the end of the sentence, unless
there is some other point you want to make about
rules, such as that they are (usually
collectively) controlled variables that the
other individual (e;g; Joe) is trying to change,
in which case maybe as a second sentence if para
3 would be the place to mention them. But this
is just a nit of a kind that is rather easy to
pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
fwnickols@gmail.comcsgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
**To:**mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
**Cc:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1451 ET)
Boris: I write for an audience that knows very little about control theory and practically nothing about PCT. I try to keep it simple.
That said, which diagram did you have in mind?
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
[Rick Marken 2018-09-27_12:33:53]
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300 ET)
FN: Has anyone besides Martin read the paper I posted?
RM:Â I read it. I thought you gave a nice description of a conflict between manager and employee. The only criticism I have is that you don’t point out some things that are needed in order to allow your suggested solutions to the conflict have any chance of being successful. For example, in order for “going up a level” to have any chance of working:
Both manager and employee must be aware that they are in a conflict.
Both must understand what the conflict is over (in this case, it’s over where the employee should spend his evening)
Both must be able to “go up a level” and understand why the conflict exists (because each has goals that require the employee to be in two different places at the same time.Â
Both must be willing to continue to “go up a level” and understand why they have these existing goals so that they can see whether there is a way to achieve these goals in a way that doesn’t require that the employee be in two different places at the same time.Â
RM: Given those four pre-requisites (which basically involve a willingness on the part of both parties to try to resolve the conflict) the employer and employee might be able to find a way to resolve the conflict using the methods you suggest. But I think in interpersonal conflicts like this the more powerful party is rarely interested in seeking a solution that would result the conflict. The powerful person in the employer/ manager conflict is, of course, the manager; and if the manager wants the employee to work late while the employee doesn’t want to work the manager doesn’t have to do all that fancy “up a level” stuff to solve the conflict from his or her perspective; the manager just tells the employee to work late or get fired.Â
RM: I think the only way to solve asymmetrical conflicts like this is to have policies that even out the power relationship between the parties to the conflict. So I think another thing that is missing from your paper is a pitch for strong unions;-)
RM: But other than that, the paper is pretty darn good (high praise from a former Minnesotan;-)
BestÂ
Rick
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PM Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602 ET)
Many thanks, Martin. Your changes make sense and I will incorporate them.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1228 ET)
I've started working on a new Knowledge Worker column withthe title in the subject line of this message (see the
attachment). I’d be very interested in comments and
suggestions from people on this list.
Fred, I like it very much. I might suggest two minor edits, in thefirst lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both come from the
same background thought, that there are at leat 16 different ways in
which two control loops can interact (collide).Para 2, I would say "there is usually" rather than simple "thereis", because occasional collisions can be mutually beneficial.
(Those are the ones on which society and organizations are built).Para3. I would substitute for "because" the following or somevariant thereof: “in a variety of ways, but most often”.
A nit-pick. In the first para, do you think that "the non-humankind" examples are living control systems, or any kind of control
systems? I don’t. I think they set up what Powers called
contingencies, in that they affect the probable results of different
kinds of action by the living control systems, because of the
disturbances those actions might cause to perceptions controlled by
others. Bill’s example of the different kinds of contingencies of
driving too fast through Durango include smashing the car (laws of
nature) and getting a speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My
preference would be to eliminate everything from the dash to the end
of the sentence, unless there is some other point you want to make
about rules, such as that they are (usually collectively) controlled
variables that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is trying to change,
in which case maybe as a second sentence if para 3 would be the
place to mention them. But this is just a nit of a kind that is
rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Martin,
you must be kidding. I’ve exposed problem for I don’t know how many times on CSGnet. So will you please search archives to see my answer. I discussed it with you clearly when you tryed to change your mind about PCT. Remember ? It was arround october 2017 when you seriously thought about changing your mind to RCT.
But I was asking myself if you ever elaborated your old diagram ?
Boris
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.27.14.47]
On 2018/09/27 1:35 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
we probably all read your paper. I didn’t want to answer as I expressed so many times attitude to diagrams which were not in accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in LCS III ?
What do you find wrong with Fred’s diagram, knowing who he is writing for? In what way do you see it as not being in accordance with Bill’s?
Martin
Best,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300 ET)
Has anyone besides Martin read the paper I posted?
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PM Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602 ET)
Many thanks, Martin. Your changes make sense and I will incorporate them.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1228 ET)
I’ve started working on a new Knowledge Worker column with the title in the subject line of this message (see the attachment). I’d be very interested in comments and suggestions from people on this list.
Fred, I like it very much. I might suggest two minor edits, in the first lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both come from the same background thought, that there are at leat 16 different ways in which two control loops can interact (collide).
Para 2, I would say “there is usually” rather than simple “there is”, because occasional collisions can be mutually beneficial. (Those are the ones on which society and organizations are built).
Para3. I would substitute for “because” the following or some variant thereof: “in a variety of ways, but most often”.
A nit-pick. In the first para, do you think that “the non-human kind” examples are living control systems, or any kind of control systems? I don’t. I think they set up what Powers called contingencies, in that they affect the probable results of different kinds of action by the living control systems, because of the disturbances those actions might cause to perceptions controlled by others. Bill’s example of the different kinds of contingencies of driving too fast through Durango include smashing the car (laws of nature) and getting a speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My preference would be to eliminate everything from the dash to the end of the sentence, unless there is some other point you want to make about rules, such as that they are (usually collectively) controlled variables that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is trying to change, in which case maybe as a second sentence if para 3 would be the place to mention them. But this is just a nit of a kind that is rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
Martin,
Â
you must
be kidding. I’ve exposed problem for I don’t know how many
times on CSGnet. So will you please search archives to see
my answer. I discussed it with you clearly when you tryed to
change your mind about PCT. Remember ? It was arround
october 2017 when you seriously thought about changing your
mind to RCT.
Â
But I
was asking myself if you ever elaborated your old diagram ?
From: Martin Taylor
(mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List)
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.27.14.47]
Â
On 2018/09/27 1:35 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
Â
weprobably all read your paper. I didn’t want to answer as I
expressed so many times attitude to diagrams which were
not in accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of
diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in
LCS III ?
What do you find wrong with Fred's diagram, knowing who he is
writing for? In what way do you see it as not being in
accordance with Bill’s?
Martin
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com
via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu**Sent:** Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM **To:** mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net **Cc:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu **Subject:** Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300ET)
Â
Has anyone besides Martin read thepaper I posted?
Â
Â
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PMFred Nickols <fwnickols@gmail.com >
wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602ET)
Â
Many thanks, Martin. Your changesmake sense and I will incorporate them.
Â
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08PM Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols(2018.09.22.1228 ET)
Â
I've started workingon a new Knowledge Worker column with
the title in the subject line of this
message (see the attachment). I’d be
very interested in comments and
suggestions from people on this list.
Â
Â
Fred, I like it very much.I might suggest two minor edits, in the first
lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both
come from the same background thought, that
there are at leat 16 different ways in which
two control loops can interact (collide).Para 2, I would say "there is usually" ratherthan simple “there is”, because occasional
collisions can be mutually beneficial. (Those
are the ones on which society and
organizations are built).Para3. I would substitute for "because" thefollowing or some variant thereof: “in a
variety of ways, but most often”.A nit-pick. In the first para, do you thinkthat “the non-human kind” examples are living
control systems, or any kind of control
systems? I don’t. I think they set up what
Powers called contingencies, in that they
affect the probable results of different kinds
of action by the living control systems,
because of the disturbances those actions
might cause to perceptions controlled by
others. Bill’s example of the different kinds
of contingencies of driving too fast through
Durango include smashing the car (laws of
nature) and getting a speeding ticket (rules
and regulations). My preference would be to
eliminate everything from the dash to the end
of the sentence, unless there is some other
point you want to make about rules, such as
that they are (usually collectively)
controlled variables that the other individual
(e;g; Joe) is trying to change, in which case
maybe as a second sentence if para 3 would be
the place to mention them. But this is just a
nit of a kind that is rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
Â
Martin,
If you don’t want to recall what I wrote to Fred, to you and others about diagram with “controlled variable” outside, you will not. I could think that you play “ignorancy”. Anyway and human LCS can play whatever he wants. I can’t control you although Rick thought I can.
But I hoped that in this 5 years since Rick started to turn PCT into RCT, you and some others remembered and learned something about PCT. It seems that you didn’t.
O.K. explain with Fred’s diagram generally how organisms function ? Using Fred’s diagram explain how E.colli function, explain sleeping, explain observing behavior. Explain what is happening when you are sunshinning, when you are sitting and thinking, etc. Explain to us how with Fred diagram “canonical principle” in control loop function ? That’s what you were talking about when you changed your mind about PCT (october 2017).
Boris
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 3:40 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
[Martin Taylor 2018
to [Boris, undated and without identifier]
I guess if you don’t want to answer what is wrong with Fred’s diagram, you won’t.
Martin,
you must be kidding. I’ve exposed problem for I don’t know how many times on CSGnet. So will you please search archives to see my answer. I discussed it with you clearly when you tryed to change your mind about PCT. Remember ? It was arround october 2017 when you seriously thought about changing your mind to RCT.
But I was asking myself if you ever elaborated your old diagram ?
I don’t use it in that form as a rule, but I guess it still serves if anyone else wanted to use it.
Martin
Boris
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.27.14.47]
On 2018/09/27 1:35 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
we probably all read your paper. I didn’t want to answer as I expressed so many times attitude to diagrams which were not in accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in LCS III ?
What do you find wrong with Fred’s diagram, knowing who he is writing for? In what way do you see it as not being in accordance with Bill’s?
Martin
Best,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300 ET)
Has anyone besides Martin read the paper I posted?
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PM Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602 ET)
Many thanks, Martin. Your changes make sense and I will incorporate them.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1228 ET)
I’ve started working on a new Knowledge Worker column with the title in the subject line of this message (see the attachment). I’d be very interested in comments and suggestions from people on this list.
Fred, I like it very much. I might suggest two minor edits, in the first lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both come from the same background thought, that there are at leat 16 different ways in which two control loops can interact (collide).
Para 2, I would say “there is usually” rather than simple “there is”, because occasional collisions can be mutually beneficial. (Those are the ones on which society and organizations are built).
Para3. I would substitute for “because” the following or some variant thereof: “in a variety of ways, but most often”.
A nit-pick. In the first para, do you think that “the non-human kind” examples are living control systems, or any kind of control systems? I don’t. I think they set up what Powers called contingencies, in that they affect the probable results of different kinds of action by the living control systems, because of the disturbances those actions might cause to perceptions controlled by others. Bill’s example of the different kinds of contingencies of driving too fast through Durango include smashing the car (laws of nature) and getting a speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My preference would be to eliminate everything from the dash to the end of the sentence, unless there is some other point you want to make about rules, such as that they are (usually collectively) controlled variables that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is trying to change, in which case maybe as a second sentence if para 3 would be the place to mention them. But this is just a nit of a kind that is rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
Martin,
about your old diagram I think it’s quite good start for analyzing how whole organism function. I think you should use it and make more detailed version. Beside Bills’ diagram and explanation (it will follow) this was the only diagram that was showing something more about control loops. At least I saw it that way. I saw it as suplement to Bills diagram p. 191 (B:CP, 2005). I would suggest that you continue good work.
Bill P :
Something is coming together that is making sense of some ideas I have resisted for a long time. It has to do with the brain’s models of the external world…
…has not seen models; he has seen a hierrarchy of perceptions that somehow represents an external world, and a large collection of Complex Environmental Variables (as Martin Taylor calls them) that is mirrored inside the brain in the form of perceptions.
Briefly, then: what I call the hierarchy of perceptions is the model. When you open your eyes and look around, what you see – and feel, smell, hear, and taste – is the model. In fact we never experience anything but the model. The model is composed of perceptions of all kinds from intensities on up.
That is all we need to do to build up a model of the external world. It’s not even that; it’s just a model of the world. The idea that there’s also an external world that we don’t experience takes a while to develop. At first it’s just the only world there is.
Boris
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 3:40 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
[Martin Taylor 2018
to [Boris, undated and without identifier]
I guess if you don’t want to answer what is wrong with Fred’s diagram, you won’t.
Martin,
you must be kidding. I’ve exposed problem for I don’t know how many times on CSGnet. So will you please search archives to see my answer. I discussed it with you clearly when you tryed to change your mind about PCT. Remember ? It was arround october 2017 when you seriously thought about changing your mind to RCT.
But I was asking myself if you ever elaborated your old diagram ?
I don’t use it in that form as a rule, but I guess it still serves if anyone else wanted to use it.
Martin
Boris
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.27.14.47]
On 2018/09/27 1:35 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
we probably all read your paper. I didn’t want to answer as I expressed so many times attitude to diagrams which were not in accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in LCS III ?
What do you find wrong with Fred’s diagram, knowing who he is writing for? In what way do you see it as not being in accordance with Bill’s?
Martin
Best,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300 ET)
Has anyone besides Martin read the paper I posted?
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PM Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602 ET)
Many thanks, Martin. Your changes make sense and I will incorporate them.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1228 ET)
I’ve started working on a new Knowledge Worker column with the title in the subject line of this message (see the attachment). I’d be very interested in comments and suggestions from people on this list.
Fred, I like it very much. I might suggest two minor edits, in the first lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both come from the same background thought, that there are at leat 16 different ways in which two control loops can interact (collide).
Para 2, I would say “there is usually” rather than simple “there is”, because occasional collisions can be mutually beneficial. (Those are the ones on which society and organizations are built).
Para3. I would substitute for “because” the following or some variant thereof: “in a variety of ways, but most often”.
A nit-pick. In the first para, do you think that “the non-human kind” examples are living control systems, or any kind of control systems? I don’t. I think they set up what Powers called contingencies, in that they affect the probable results of different kinds of action by the living control systems, because of the disturbances those actions might cause to perceptions controlled by others. Bill’s example of the different kinds of contingencies of driving too fast through Durango include smashing the car (laws of nature) and getting a speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My preference would be to eliminate everything from the dash to the end of the sentence, unless there is some other point you want to make about rules, such as that they are (usually collectively) controlled variables that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is trying to change, in which case maybe as a second sentence if para 3 would be the place to mention them. But this is just a nit of a kind that is rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.28.16.12]
Boris, I did suggest to you that you think of Fred's audience,
did I not?
That should have been all I needed to say, but apparently it was
not. So forget Bill’s diagrams for a moment, and think about what
actually happens in a simple control loop. You don’t like to see
“controlled variable” in the environment, and technically you are
correct. But when the perception of that environmental variable is
controlled, what happens to the environmental variable? From an
external observer’s or experimenter’s viewpoint, what might make
them think anything was being controlled? They can’t see a
perceptual value inside the head, and neither can Fred’s
readership. They can see whether the boss is asking them to work
late when they had booked dinner for a date night with the wife.
Indeed, what we know of neurophysiology tells us that there is no
single place within the brain where that value exists for some
future technology to measure. The “perception” in Bill’s model is
a rather vague average rate of firings of nerves in a “bundle”
with a fuzzy boundary. I don’t know whether you remember my
postings on stochastic collective control a year or so ago, but
there I pointed out that functionally, perceptual control is
necessarily stochastic collective control, using all the firings
on all the nerves that are fully or partially “in the bundle”.
Think also: which is more important to the survival of the
organism, getting the perceptual signal to some specified value or
having the environmental variable be in a useful or a
non-dangerous state? How does collective control in a conflict
situation work if the environmental variable is not controlled?
Enough, I think.
As for your other questions in this and your parallel email about
the use of the World Model, I do not think they are relevant to
the operations of a single simple control loop, which is what Fred
tries to get across to his readers.
On 2018/09/28 12:48 PM, “Boris Hartman”
( via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Martin,
Â
If youdon’t want to recall what I wrote to Fred, to you and others
about diagram with “controlled variable” outside, you will
not. I could think that you play “ignorancy”. Anyway and
human LCS can play whatever he wants. I can’t control you
although Rick thought I can.
Â
But Ihoped that in this 5 years since Rick started to turn PCT
into RCT, you and some others remembered and learned
something about PCT. It seems that you didn’t.
Â
O.K.explain with Fred’s diagram generally how organisms function
? Using Fred’s diagram explain how E.colli function,
explain sleeping, explain observing behavior. Explain what
is happening when you are sunshinning, when you are sitting
and thinking, etc. Explain to us how with Fred diagram
“canonical principle” in control loop function ? That’s what
you were talking about when you changed your mind about PCT
(october 2017).
Â
Boris
Â
From: Martin Taylor
( via csgnet Mailing List)
Friday, September 28, 2018 3:40 PM
Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
[Martin Taylor 2018
to [Boris, undated and without identifier]
I guess if you don't want to answer what is wrong with Fred'sdiagram, you won’t.
Martin,
Â
youmust be kidding. I’ve exposed problem for I don’t know how
many times on CSGnet. So will you please search archives
to see my answer. I discussed it with you clearly when you
tryed to change your mind about PCT. Remember ? It was
arround october 2017 when you seriously thought about
changing your mind to RCT.
Â
But Iwas asking myself if you ever elaborated your old diagram
?
I don't use it in that form as a rule, butI guess it still serves if anyone else wanted to use it.
Martin
Boris
Â
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via
csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu**Sent:** Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:50 PM **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu **Subject:** Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.27.14.47]
Â
On 2018/09/27 1:35 PM, "Boris Hartman"(boris.hartman@masicom.net via
csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
Â
we probably all readyour paper. I didn’t want to answer as I expressed so
many times attitude to diagrams which were not in
accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of
diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in
LCS III ?
What do you find wrong with Fred's diagram, knowing who heis writing for? In what way do you see it as not being in
accordance with Bill’s?Martin
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com
via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu**Sent:** Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM **To:** mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net **Cc:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu **Subject:** Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300ET)
Â
Has anyone besides Martin read thepaper I posted?
Â
Â
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PMFred Nickols <fwnickols@gmail.com >
wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602ET)
Â
Many thanks, Martin. Yourchanges make sense and I will incorporate them.
Â
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at1:08 PM Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu >
wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols(2018.09.22.1228 ET)
Â
I've startedworking on a new Knowledge Worker
column with the title in the subject
line of this message (see the
attachment). I’d be very interested
in comments and suggestions from
people on this list.
Â
Â
Fred, I like it verymuch. I might suggest two minor edits, in
the first lines of the second and third
paragraphs. Both come from the same
background thought, that there are at leat
16 different ways in which two control loops
can interact (collide).Para 2, I would say "there is usually"rather than simple “there is”, because
occasional collisions can be mutually
beneficial. (Those are the ones on which
society and organizations are built).Para3. I would substitute for "because" thefollowing or some variant thereof: “in a
variety of ways, but most often”.A nit-pick. In the first para, do you thinkthat “the non-human kind” examples are
living control systems, or any kind of
control systems? I don’t. I think they set
up what Powers called contingencies, in that
they affect the probable results of
different kinds of action by the living
control systems, because of the disturbances
those actions might cause to perceptions
controlled by others. Bill’s example of the
different kinds of contingencies of driving
too fast through Durango include smashing
the car (laws of nature) and getting a
speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My
preference would be to eliminate everything
from the dash to the end of the sentence,
unless there is some other point you want to
make about rules, such as that they are
(usually collectively) controlled variables
that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is
trying to change, in which case maybe as a
second sentence if para 3 would be the place
to mention them. But this is just a nit of a
kind that is rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
Â
Â
mmt-csg@mmtaylor.netcsgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent:
**To:**csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject:
Fred,
Just a point about the first paragraph. Rules, regulations, standards, policies, etc. are not non-living control systems as you seem to indicate; they are external references of organizational managers who are providing them to influence the behavior of others in the organization. So that paragraph seems to need a little revision.
With Regards,
Rich
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.28.16.12]
Boris, I did suggest to you that you think of Fred's audience,did I not?
That should have been all I needed to say, but apparently it wasnot. So forget Bill’s diagrams for a moment, and think about what
actually happens in a simple control loop. You don’t like to see
“controlled variable” in the environment, and technically you are
correct. But when the perception of that environmental variable is
controlled, what happens to the environmental variable? From an
external observer’s or experimenter’s viewpoint, what might make
them think anything was being controlled? They can’t see a
perceptual value inside the head, and neither can Fred’s
readership. They can see whether the boss is asking them to work
late when they had booked dinner for a date night with the wife.
Indeed, what we know of neurophysiology tells us that there is nosingle place within the brain where that value exists for some
future technology to measure. The “perception” in Bill’s model is
a rather vague average rate of firings of nerves in a “bundle”
with a fuzzy boundary. I don’t know whether you remember my
postings on stochastic collective control a year or so ago, but
there I pointed out that functionally, perceptual control is
necessarily stochastic collective control, using all the firings
on all the nerves that are fully or partially “in the bundle”.
Think also: which is more important to the survival of theorganism, getting the perceptual signal to some specified value or
having the environmental variable be in a useful or a
non-dangerous state? How does collective control in a conflict
situation work if the environmental variable is not controlled?
Enough, I think.
As for your other questions in this and your parallel email aboutthe use of the World Model, I do not think they are relevant to
the operations of a single simple control loop, which is what Fred
tries to get across to his readers.
By the way, I think I am in agreement with Bill in saying thatPCT as written by him in publications and on CSGnet is not a
cast-in-stone theory, and neither is it a gospel to be believed in
its entirety or risk being labelled a heretic. I, and I believe
he, considered it a good working skeleton on which to build by
finding out how living organisms function. No more, no less. To
deviate from the written word (or diagram) is not necessarily to
believe some other gospel, if the deviation is to show other
possibilities for extending the reach of the theory or to explain
phenomena poorly handled by the skeletal original. It’s just the
progress of science. If there are other ways of doing something,
and no data that favours one over another, they should all be kept
open as possibilities.
Martin
On 2018/09/28 12:48 PM, "Boris Hartman" > (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Martin,
Â
If youdon’t want to recall what I wrote to Fred, to you and others
about diagram with “controlled variable” outside, you will
not. I could think that you play “ignorancy”. Anyway and
human LCS can play whatever he wants. I can’t control you
although Rick thought I can.
Â
But Ihoped that in this 5 years since Rick started to turn PCT
into RCT, you and some others remembered and learned
something about PCT. It seems that you didn’t.
Â
O.K.explain with Fred’s diagram generally how organisms function
? Using Fred’s diagram explain how E.colli function,
explain sleeping, explain observing behavior. Explain what
is happening when you are sunshinning, when you are sitting
and thinking, etc. Explain to us how with Fred diagram
“canonical principle” in control loop function ? That’s what
you were talking about when you changed your mind about PCT
(october 2017).
Â
Boris
Â
From: Martin Taylor
(mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List)
csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 3:40 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
[Martin Taylor 2018
to [Boris, undated and without identifier]
I guess if you don't want to answer what is wrong with Fred'sdiagram, you won’t.
Martin,
Â
youmust be kidding. I’ve exposed problem for I don’t know how
many times on CSGnet. So will you please search archives
to see my answer. I discussed it with you clearly when you
tryed to change your mind about PCT. Remember ? It was
arround october 2017 when you seriously thought about
changing your mind to RCT.
Â
But Iwas asking myself if you ever elaborated your old diagram
?
I don't use it in that form as a rule, butI guess it still serves if anyone else wanted to use it.
Martin
Boris
Â
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via
csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu**Sent:** Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:50 PM **To:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu **Subject:** Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.27.14.47]
Â
On 2018/09/27 1:35 PM, "Boris Hartman" > > > (boris.hartman@masicom.net via > > > csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
Â
we probably all readyour paper. I didn’t want to answer as I expressed so
many times attitude to diagrams which were not in
accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of
diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in
LCS III ?
What do you find wrong with Fred's diagram, knowing who heis writing for? In what way do you see it as not being in
accordance with Bill’s?Martin
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com
via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu**Sent:** Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM **To:** mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net **Cc:** csgnet@lists.illinois.edu **Subject:** Re: When Control Systems Collide
Â
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300ET)
Â
Has anyone besides Martin read thepaper I posted?
Â
Â
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PM > > > > Fred Nickols <fwnickols@gmail.com > > > > > wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602ET)
Â
Many thanks, Martin. Yourchanges make sense and I will incorporate them.
Â
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at > > > > > 1:08 PM Martin Taylor <csgnet@lists.illinois.edu > > > > > > wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols(2018.09.22.1228 ET)
Â
I've startedworking on a new Knowledge Worker
column with the title in the subject
line of this message (see the
attachment). I’d be very interested
in comments and suggestions from
people on this list.
Â
Â
Fred, I like it verymuch. I might suggest two minor edits, in
the first lines of the second and third
paragraphs. Both come from the same
background thought, that there are at leat
16 different ways in which two control loops
can interact (collide).Para 2, I would say "there is usually"rather than simple “there is”, because
occasional collisions can be mutually
beneficial. (Those are the ones on which
society and organizations are built).Para3. I would substitute for "because" thefollowing or some variant thereof: “in a
variety of ways, but most often”.A nit-pick. In the first para, do you thinkthat “the non-human kind” examples are
living control systems, or any kind of
control systems? I don’t. I think they set
up what Powers called contingencies, in that
they affect the probable results of
different kinds of action by the living
control systems, because of the disturbances
those actions might cause to perceptions
controlled by others. Bill’s example of the
different kinds of contingencies of driving
too fast through Durango include smashing
the car (laws of nature) and getting a
speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My
preference would be to eliminate everything
from the dash to the end of the sentence,
unless there is some other point you want to
make about rules, such as that they are
(usually collectively) controlled variables
that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is
trying to change, in which case maybe as a
second sentence if para 3 would be the place
to mention them. But this is just a nit of a
kind that is rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
Â
Â
From Fred Nickols (2018.10.01.1214 ET)
Agreed, Richard. Thanks.Â
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance�
www.nickols.us
Martin,
it seems that you are jamed between PCT and RCT again. I don’t understand why you change your mind so often. Almost every year we have such conversation. Last was in october 2017.
This time you don’t argue your decission. There are mostly questions. I suppose you want me to answer on them. I will if you’ll specifically aks me to do it. But I think that you know the asnwers. So I 'll focus just on those theoretical problems you have about credibility of PCT.
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:37 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.28.16.12]
Boris, I did suggest to you that you think of Fred’s audience, did I not?
Martin, you did. And still I think that no matter to which audience we are presenting PCT it should be presented as “general theory about organism functioning”… That’s the essence of PCT. You signed for it. So I think that PCT should be presented in it’s original form.
Bill P. at all (50th Anniversary, 2011) :
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) provides a general theory of functioning for organisms
HB : So I think it’s fair that at least Bills original diagram should be presented so that anybody can distinguish PCT from other theories. Some of theories are presenting quite the same diagram Fred used. If personal diagrams are used, it means at least for me, that whoever is using different personal diagram is presenting some other theory, his personal theory. I think I made my point clear that PCT should be presented in it’s original form, otherwise transformations can turn PCT into bunch of “pesronal viewpoints” which will not show anymore PCT but something else like in Ricks’ case (RCT).
MT : That should have been all I needed to say, but apparently it was not. So forget Bill’s diagrams for a moment, and think about what actually happens in a simple control loop.
HB : We can’t forget Bills’ diagram as it is essential part of his theory. By presenting other diagram other theory is presented. What actually happens in control loop of any Living being is clear and quite well presented in Bills’ diagram.
MT : You don’t like to see “controlled variable” in the environment, and technically you are correct.
HB : I’m not just technically correct but also practically. We can use Bills’ diagram in any life situation, it’s general. And that is not the case with other theories and diagrams. They fail in certain life situations like Ricks’ and Freds’ diagram. You can test them any time. They fail. The reality is final arbiter whether something works or not. We can change the reality to match the theory or we can change the theory to match reality. What is going to be in the case of Freds’ (Ricks’) diagram ?
Any Bills’ diagram don’t show “controlled variable” in the environment, with some reason. Bills’ PCT diagram shows general theory about how LCS function. And that means that we can explain any behavior of any LCS. With other diagrams and theories we can’t. I see that you noticed that with Fred diagram we can’t explain many behaviors. So it’s wrong in general sense.
MT : But when the perception of that environmental variable is controlled, what happens to the environmental variable?
HB : You mean what happens to the “environmental variable” in some cases of behavior ? I don’t know which case you have in mind. Maybe you meant some cases where “environmental variable” is affectd by output of the system ? Tell me which life case you have in mind ?
What happens generally with “environmental variable” is described with Bills’ diagram and definitions (see bellow). What do you think it happens ? If you have some other theory please expose it ?
PCT is clearly explaining what happens to “environmental variable” when perception is controlled. I exposed that for so many times maybe 50x.
PCT Definitions of control loop :
Bill P (B:CP):
Bill P (B:CP):
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):
Bill P (B:CP) :
Bill P (B:CP) :
Bill P (B:CP)
Bill P (B:CP) :
MT : By the way, I think I am in agreement with Bill in saying that PCT as written by him in publications and on CSGnet is not a cast-in-stone theory, and neither is it a gospel to be believed in its entirety or risk being labelled a heretic. I, and I believe he, considered it a good working skeleton on which to build by finding out how living organisms function. No more, no less.
HB : You are twisting his thoughts turning it into what you think they should sound. That’s probably what every LCS would do. There is more. He also said that nature is the final arbiter. So I think that with skeleton he meant work that was done and it is plausable with “final arbiter”. So every addition that could built findings about how organisms function should be also in accordance to that. So Ricks and Freds’ diagram simply do not meet that criterium. They don’t work in reality just in their imagination.
MT : To deviate from the written word (or diagram) is not necessarily to believe some other gospel, if the deviation is to show other possibilities for extending the reach of the theory or to explain phenomena poorly handled by the skeletal original.
HB : As I said above Martin. It can deviate from PCT diagram but not in the sense that whatever you, Fred or Rick say is true and it should be suplement to the original theory. First you have to prove that it works in “final arbiter”. And beside that I think when “deviation” is pure opposition to original theory it should be considered as other theory like RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory) is.
MT : It’s just the progress of science. If there are other ways of doing something, and no data that favours one over another, they should all be kept open as possibilities.
HB : As I wrote before. I have no objection about scientific progress in PCT. But it should be scientific not phylosophic. Whatever we are doing now is phylosophy. We need some arguments and plausability with “final arbiter”.
Martin. Bill made a great basis (skeleton) for developing theory which is unique in the world of science so I think it’s never enough of efforts to develope it. I proposed many times that upgrade to PCT is needed. And it seems that Rupert and you agree… and probably some other members. I agree with your last statements about PCT being a "good working skeleton on which to build by finding out how living organisms function. " But every good working skeleton has to be “tested” in real life situations. That was also Bills’ mantra. Reality is the final arbiter. So before you wave with the "flag"of saying that PCT as written by him in publications and on CSGnet is not a cast-in-stone theory, it’s good if we check PCT and your theory or findings about how organisms function in the “final arbiter”. Freds’ and Ricks’ model of human behavior generally does not function in real life. You said for yourself I’m theoretically right about “controlled variable” not being in external environment. And I’m saying that I’m not just theoretically right, but also practically. Beside what Bill proved about PCT and what I experienced and I’m still experiencing he was generally right. I just control perception. Anybody can “test” that.
If you can find better theory make yourself comfortable and show us how does it look like and show how it works in “final arbiter”. Freds’ diagram does not work with many behaviors, so show us how your theory works with all behaviors. Does it work or not.
Remember Rayleigh and Jeans catastrophe in Physics. Mostly it worked right. That’s not enough for “final arbiter”. Physics standards are too high. If I remember right it was Planck who solved the problem and adjusted right theory to reality not vica verse. How could we adjust reality to Rayleigh and Jeans theory ?
I’m quite sure you will agree with Planck. But in physics theory has to be adjusted to “final arbiter” and in PCT anybody can change a theory. He just has to have 5 minutes time. I think that for all theories no matter whether it is in physicis or in psychology it has to be the same criterium.
MT : As for your other questions in this and your parallel email about the use of the World Model, I do not think they are relevant to the operations of a single simple control loop, which is what Fred tries to get across to his readers.
HB : Diagram in parallel post is showing a good Bills’ trial to analyse the whole organisms functioning which important part is also “single control loop” Fred wanted to present. If you want to understand how “single control loop” function (look carefully where it is situated in the whole diagram) you have to understand how organisms in the whole function. And you’ll understand why there is no “controlled variable” in environment. PCT is general theory about organisms functioning not just part of it. And I’m proposing for years that we should make a huge project which will finnish what Bill started. To get some general order in bilions of signals present in nervous system. It seems that Powers ladies don’t want that.
Boris
On 2018/09/28 12:48 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Martin,
If you don’t want to recall what I wrote to Fred, to you and others about diagram with “controlled variable” outside, you will not. I could think that you play “ignorancy”. Anyway and human LCS can play whatever he wants. I can’t control you although Rick thought I can.
But I hoped that in this 5 years since Rick started to turn PCT into RCT, you and some others remembered and learned something about PCT. It seems that you didn’t.
O.K. explain with Fred’s diagram generally how organisms function ? Using Fred’s diagram explain how E.colli function, explain sleeping, explain observing behavior. Explain what is happening when you are sunshinning, when you are sitting and thinking, etc. Explain to us how with Fred diagram “canonical principle” in control loop function ? That’s what you were talking about when you changed your mind about PCT (october 2017).
Boris
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 3:40 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
[Martin Taylor 2018
to [Boris, undated and without identifier]
I guess if you don’t want to answer what is wrong with Fred’s diagram, you won’t.
Martin,
you must be kidding. I’ve exposed problem for I don’t know how many times on CSGnet. So will you please search archives to see my answer. I discussed it with you clearly when you tryed to change your mind about PCT. Remember ? It was arround october 2017 when you seriously thought about changing your mind to RCT.
But I was asking myself if you ever elaborated your old diagram ?
I don’t use it in that form as a rule, but I guess it still serves if anyone else wanted to use it.
Martin
Boris
From: Martin Taylor (mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:50 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.27.14.47]
On 2018/09/27 1:35 PM, “Boris Hartman” (boris.hartman@masicom.net via csgnet Mailing List) wrote:
Fred,
we probably all read your paper. I didn’t want to answer as I expressed so many times attitude to diagrams which were not in accordance with Bills’. Why didn’t you use one of diagrams from Bills’ literature ? For example diagram in LCS III ?
What do you find wrong with Fred’s diagram, knowing who he is writing for? In what way do you see it as not being in accordance with Bill’s?
Martin
Best,
Boris
From: Fred Nickols (fwnickols@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:02 PM
To: mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: When Control Systems Collide
From Fred Nickols (2018.09.27.1300 ET)
Has anyone besides Martin read the paper I posted?
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:03 PM Fred Nickols fwnickols@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1602 ET)
Many thanks, Martin. Your changes make sense and I will incorporate them.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08 PM Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.09.22.12.50]
Fred Nickols (2018.09.22.1228 ET)
I’ve started working on a new Knowledge Worker column with the title in the subject line of this message (see the attachment). I’d be very interested in comments and suggestions from people on this list.
Fred, I like it very much. I might suggest two minor edits, in the first lines of the second and third paragraphs. Both come from the same background thought, that there are at leat 16 different ways in which two control loops can interact (collide).
Para 2, I would say “there is usually” rather than simple “there is”, because occasional collisions can be mutually beneficial. (Those are the ones on which society and organizations are built).
Para3. I would substitute for “because” the following or some variant thereof: “in a variety of ways, but most often”.
A nit-pick. In the first para, do you think that “the non-human kind” examples are living control systems, or any kind of control systems? I don’t. I think they set up what Powers called contingencies, in that they affect the probable results of different kinds of action by the living control systems, because of the disturbances those actions might cause to perceptions controlled by others. Bill’s example of the different kinds of contingencies of driving too fast through Durango include smashing the car (laws of nature) and getting a speeding ticket (rules and regulations). My preference would be to eliminate everything from the dash to the end of the sentence, unless there is some other point you want to make about rules, such as that they are (usually collectively) controlled variables that the other individual (e;g; Joe) is trying to change, in which case maybe as a second sentence if para 3 would be the place to mention them. But this is just a nit of a kind that is rather easy to pick.
Martin
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
www.nickols.us
–
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting LLC
“Assistance at A Distance”
www.nickols.us