Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007...)

[Kent]

···

Rick,

I think that the main problem we have is your »control of behavior«. Put the citations from Bill’s literature where he is talking about »behavior is control«
or that generaly we control some »aspect« of environment wth output.

Bill P. and others (50 Aniversary) :

HB : Cooperating in this article you agreed that behavior is means of control, so it’s consequence of control not bearer of control. Muscles don’t think,

Make a simple test. Start looking arround and you will see that you are not controlling any »aspect of environment » or »input quantity« with your behavior. Everything
what you are doing is : affecting input (sensors) with your output, chanding actual perception into wanted. With neck muscles (behavior, output) you are affecting input (eyes) to the desired state. You are controlling perception as perception is all there
is.

This is generaly what you are doing in all activities. Even if there is some »aspect of environment« that is affected by your output, is just changing perception
to the desired state. You are just doing what Bill says in his theory. You are not controlling »variables in outer environment« with behavior. You are »controlling your perception« all the time.

Bill P.:

Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state … we have no direct knowledgee 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 :

I think this is the point of his theory. That’s all what you or we are aware of : perception. You don’t know exactly what you are doing to the environemnt, you
know it when you perceive it. So you can’t control anything in outer environment with »controlling« behavior if you are not aware of what you are doing to the environment in the time of acting. Everything is hidden in perception. All the time you are controlling
perceptions. Some times perception can really reflect what is happening in environment and sometimes not. But that’s all you can relly on. Every interpretaion of perceptions is different. Not two persons see the world outside the same. So there is no fixed,
objective »controlled aspect o environment«, that we could all say that it is the same for eveybody by observing it. It always depends form individual perception and their control. Sometimes you perceive the world as you want to perceive it, and sometimes
more or less as it is. Depends from your perceptions and «control of perceptions«, what you want.

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via
csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 1:06 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.12.1600)]

HB : Why bother Fred if Bill has put it as it should be put :

“behavior is effect of output on input�.

RM: Really? Where does Bill say that?

HB : From the Bill’s diagram (LCS III) or any other. I just wanted to make it clear what is output and how is related to behavior.

Bill P.: This output function too, can be either simple or complex depending on the kind of behavior we’re modeling.

HB : O.K. Maybe you can explain relation about behavior, action and output ? What is behavior in PCT by your oppinion ?

RM : But most of the things we call behavior are both outputs and controlled input quantities

HB : I don’t understand this one, but here it is. One thing is sure. You are equating »output« to »behavior« and something else. Maybe because output (behavior) affects »input quantitty« and so there is behavior
also present in »input quantity«.

How do you explain the title of the book, »Behavior : the control of perception« ?

HB: That’s what “feed-back� is.

RM: Sort of. I like to think of it in terms of the entire “feedback” loop, so the feedback is output “feeding back” on itself via its effect on input and error, the latter being the cause of that same output.

Bill P (LCS III) : … thhe action of the system »feeds-back« to affect it’s 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. You can’t give a control system a feed-back. It gives itself feed-back.

HB : You can notice that Bill is talking about control system giving itself a feed-back not output itself. Your imagination and interpretations are sometimes
real inventions but it woud be maybe fine if you would stick to Bill’s definition.

It’s good that you put »feeding back« into »inverted commas«, because somebody could think that muscles are »thinking« while »feeding-back« to input. That would
really be «control of behavior« which you are advertising.

HB: That’s all what behavior is doing in the external environment. In Bill’s diagram is this the only thing I can see about behavior. This
is general explanation. There is no “controlled aspect of environment� .

RM: Here is Fig. 1 from Powers 1973 Science paper. Notice that what the output affects is a variable in the environment called the Input quantity. This Input
quantity is a function of physical variables (the v’s) and it represents the aspect of these physical variables (the environment) that corresponds to the controlled perception (called the Sensor signal in the diagram).

HB : Yes the emphasis is that »output« affets a variable called the input quantity. The emphasis is on affect not control.

Bill P. :

….first ordeer perceptual signal reflects only what happens at the sensory ending : ** the source of the stimulation is completely undefined
and unsensed.**

HB :…so it doesn’tt matter whether you put in front sensors (input function) elephant or any other »input quantity«. It’s the same effect on sensors.

Bil P :

If any infromation exists about the source of the stimulus, it exists only distributed over milions of first-order perceptual signal and is explicit in none of them.

HB : The emphasis is on »if«, there is nothing in enviroment that would clearly »correspond« to produced neural currents. But it could be »mixed« somewhere among
milions of them.

Bill P :

The significance of any first-order perceptual signal is therefore extremely limited and local; this applies even in the eye…. There is no information in any one first-order visual signal
to indivicate the origin of the light the input function aabsorbs : the source can fluorecence inside the eyeball or an exploding star a hundered milion years removed in space and time, with no change of the erceptual signal.

The perceptual signal from a touch receptor does not reflect whether the cause is an electrical current, a touch, or a chemical poisoning, or whether a touch occurs to the left or right
of the exact receptor location.

HB : So no matter which sensor or nerv end is stimulated, the effect of the source is unknown to the control system.

Bill P : All informations contained in first-order perceptual signals is therefore information about what is happening to the associated input functoon and about nothing else.

RM (earlier) : I will just add that, in the LiveBlock demo all we know is q.i; we don’t know how q.i is derived from environmental variables, v.1, v.2…v.n. So the LiveBlock demo, though a great way to demonstrate the behavior of variables a control loop,
cannot be used to demonstrate anything about the relationship between q.i and p.

HB: Maybe this is related to what Bill is explaining in relation ; environment - sensor – perceptual signal.

What I can see here is that there isn’t any »imagined input quantity« that could be present in perceptual signal. So it matters only that input function is affected
and that first order perceptual signal refelcts only what is happening at the sensory endning. So whatever is stimulating sensory organs or nerv ends, are physical variables which can not be defined (it may be any in environemnt).

If everything outside is completely undefined why put »input quantity« in environment as pure »imagined » construction right in front of input function. Is this
suggesting that only »input function« is represented in perceptual signal ??

So physical variables in outer environment probably stimulate input function to produce neural currents no matter if they are »input quantity« or any other physical
variable in environment that is not afected by ouptut and disturbances. They have all equal chances to be transformed.

So it seems that it is not important whether environment or »input quantity« or any other part of environment was affected. It matters only what directly affects
input function as that is all that control system will perceive. All other explanations in external environment are just imagination of individuals.

So if we are turning our heads we are affecting directly perceptual organs, which produce milions of neural currents with no definite origin. We don’t affect
any imagined »input quantity«. We directly affect input function. That’ what output is doing.

There is no control in environment that could be sensed by sensor organs, just some changes on »surface« of perceptual organs. Whatever brains »construct« from
perceptual signals after many interesting operations in nervous system (question how nervous system works), is something that is later »recognized« on higher levels.

Bill P:

…¦… using higher levels of organization we »know« that light can come from distant objects

HB : My oppion is that nervous system is constructing perceptual reality inside nerv-net in his own way, manipulating neural currents in some specific way (which
are described in B:CP, 2005).

RM (earlier) : Since this is a rather verbal group I think it’s better to say that that perceptions (perceptual signals) are constructed , not derived, from lower level perceptual inputs and, ultimately,
sensed effects of physical variables.

HB : Well I must say that these are extra points for you Rick in my higher oppinon about you. It’s rising. I must say Rick (although unwilingly J )
that I perfectly agree with you.

I think Rick that you could maybe compare this »findings« with your »new findings« in post where you are admtting your mistake in discussion with Rupert ? Lately
you had so many progresive findigs that’s it worth of putting them together.

RM : The controlling is done by the operation of the entire loop; there is no control of Output and there is no controlling done by the comparator. The comparator
just compares.

RM earlier : Perhaps not simply enough. Bill’s diagram shows a feedback control loop organized around the control of an Input quantity.

RM : Because most things we call “behavior” are both outputs and controlled Input quantities, we say “behavior is control”.

HB : I’m not sure that I understand what you meant. Could you arrange this statements to have some sense or just I don’t understand them. If the controlling is done by the operation of entire loop, how can we
»control input quantity«. Once there is no control of output, and once we can »control behavior«.

Bill P. :

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

HB : So comparator is not only comparing it’s also computing the difference between reference and perceptual signal (error signal). And this is control.

HB: Behavior is not control. It’s just effect of muscles on environment,

RM: This is true if by “behavior” all you are referring to is output effects on a controlled Input quantity.

HB : I still can’t grab the term »controlled input quantity«. What is making »Input quantity« controlled ? What is controlling »input quantity« ?

»Input quantity« seems to imply that this is the only thing people or living beings can perceive through »input function« because it’s in front of our »nose«.
But we know that people can perceive in the dark monsters instead of trees, that people can perceive dear persons living with them although they are long time dead, we see colors differently although »input quantity« seems to be the same, people can perceive
text differently…and so on.

So it’s not some objective »input quantitty« (which is the same for anyone) responsable for differently perceived results (like you and me reading the same Bill’s
text differently), but nervous system that is somehow constructing »meaning« from perceptual input. What is the role of »input quantity« in all these cases ? Is really only »input quantity« responsable for what we are perceiving from environment ?

The other problem with »input quantity« as Martin pointed out is, that it is presenting just »controlled perception«. So it’s containing just effects of system’s
output and disturbances. But that is not all what it is transformed from environment into perceptual signal. Any physical variable that can affect sensor will be present in milions of neural currents progressing toward comparator. The »input quantitty« shows
just one part of transformation proces in input function.

RM :

But most of the things we call behavior are both outputs and controlled input quantities. So a behavior like “lifting a book” is both an controlled Input quantity (an end result ) and an output (a means of controlling some other input quantity, like putting
the book back up on the shelf). Because most things we call “behavior” are both outputs and controlled Input quantities, we say “behavior is control”.

HB : Now first you say behavior …… is output (a MEANS of controlling some other input quanttity) and on the end »behavior is control«. How can something that
is not existing in external environment (input quantity) be behavior ??? »Input quantitty« is affected by behavior… if… it can 't be be behavior… think…

Maybe you could describe »lifting book in PCT manner.

»Lifting a book« is a perception when you are acting to make
a perception change to more desireble state (affecting input) …you have no ddirect knowledge of what you are doing to the reality (moving book) that is the origin of your neural signals; you know only the final result, how the perception of the book was changing
to the desired perception.… Any othher analysis in outer environment is imagination which can be interpreted by any individual differently.

I borrowed terminology and the whole meaning from Bill

HB : Thinking that entirely or some “aspect of environment� can be controlled with behavior is not PCT reasoning.

RM: Actually, thinking of living (or artificial) control systems as controlling some aspect of the environment is perfectly good PCT reasoning.

HB : Well I hope it’s clear that generaly we can’t speak of »controlled« aspect of environment as there are behviors that do not affect any »aspect of environment« (turning you head, scratching, sitting in the
park and observing, walking, etc.) but affect directly input (sensory organs, nerv ends).

If PCT is theory that can explain all behaviors, then we have to talk only about »output affecting input (sensory organs or nerv ends) as this is in accordance with Bills’ writings B:CP about 1.level sensor function,
and physiological facts).

In this context we can explain all behaviors also those which are affecting some «aspect of environment« in order to affect perception.

But whatever is happening outside (whether something is affected or not) is of secondary importance. First control system has to be »closed« to keep homeostasis, and in some cases »affect environment« to help
achieve and maintain preselected state in controlling system, what is of primary importance and is running cntinuously. Behavior (output) is not continuous.

If organism is not producing internal control enough to survive, no behavior or any effect in environment will not help to survive. Many times organism must help itself. Many times doctors just wait what will
happen in organism whether internal control systems will »win« or «lose« battle for life. I’m talking here about »general theory of control of perception« what I make equal to understanding how organisms function, not whether or not we control all the time
»variables« in external environment. PCT is the theory about how organisms function not how we »control aspect of environment« ??

RM : When you control the shape of the rectangle in the “Control of Perception” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html ),
for example, you are controlling the shape rather than the orientation or size aspect of the environment; when a thermostat controls air temperature it is controlling the temperature rather than the humidity or water vapor aspect of environment.

HB : Living and artificial control systems have some principles in common, but sure they are not working the same. Maybe when analyzing artificial control system
you could talk generaly about »controlled aspect of environment«, but not when humans are in question. I think you went to far.

O.K. Rick I was really surprised last time with your correction of PCT thinking, and I was pleasently surprised with your »construcitivist« thinking.

Maybe we’ll reach the point of understanding PCT. But for that I think you will have to leave »selfregulation« thinking and »control of behavior« and contribute
to more understanding of »control of perception« and how organisms really work.

Best, Boris

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com

Author of Doing
Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.15.1240)]

···

Rupert Young (2015.08.14 22.10)

RY: Thanks for the extensive response. I certainly concur with your

points about the importance of perception, and I think we’re mostly
on the same page,

RM: I agree and I believe I can get us completely on the same page eventually.

RY: though I'm not quite clear on whether you are

saying that environmental variables are being controlled.

RM: OK, I’ll try to make it clear. I am saying aspects of environmental variables (functions of these variables) are controlled. Environmental variables per se are usually not controlled; they are manipulated as the means of controlling the function of these variables that is controlled.

RM: I think the first thing to clear up is that we cannot look past our senses and see environmental variables. All we have are our perceptions (which we usually mistakenly take to be the outside environment but are not). The computer I see in front of me, for example, seem to be out in the environment but it is really inside my had; its a perception.

RM: In the PCT model environmental variables are physical variables known only to use through our models of physics and chemistry. In the PCT model only the lowest level perceptual variables – intensity perceptions – are direct functions of physical variables. From there on up, perceptions are constructed as functions of these intensity perceptions. So sensations, like colors, configurations, like rectangles, transitions, like objects moving at different speeds, and so on, are all aspects (functions) of these first level intensity perceptions.

RM: Since the first level perceptions are functions of physical variables in PCT, all perceptual variables re ultimately a function of physical variables, even higher level perceptions, like the perception of honesty.

RY: But let me

give my take on things and you can let me know where I might be
going awry.

RY: When we are controlling we are always controlling perceptions. There

may be an environmental variable that only appears to be
controlled as well.

RM: This is correct if by “environmental variable” you mean what I mean (and what it means in PCT): a physical variable that exists in the models of physics and/or chemistry. So when intensity perceptions are controlled you are controlling an environmental variable; for example, the pupillary reflex is a control system that controls the amount of electromagnetic energy in the visible part of the spectrum (a physical environmental variable) that stimulates the receptor cells in the retina. But when you control more complex perceptions, like the taste of lemonade, for example, you are controlling an aspect (function) of physical variables (chemical variables in this case, that stimulate intensity perception receptors in the tongue) – a sensation perception – that doesn’t exist as a variable in the environment. But that sensation perception depends on the existence of physical variables - appropriate concentrations of citric acid, sucrose, etc – that produce the right set of intensity signals that, when combined into a sensation perception by the “lemonade perception” perceptual function, result in the taste of lemonade.

RY: Incidentally, there may not be an objective

environmental variable that can be determined when perceptual
control is taking place, as Bill says, “The controlled quantity is
defined strictly by the behaving system’s perceptual computers; it
may or may not be identifiable as an objective (need I put that in
quotes?) property of, or entity in, the physical environment” (B:CP
p235).

RM: Yes, this is a very important quote to understand. The reason Bill says “need I put that in quotes?” about “objective” is that we have only our perceptions. So what we think of as entities in the physical environment – the trees, mountains, cars, people – are unquestionably our perceptions. So everything we think of as an “objective” view of he world is, of course, completely subjective inasmuch we can’t see what’s on the “other side” of our senses. The only successful approach to figuring out what is on the other side of our senses is through modeling and testing – ie. science. So in PCT, the “environment” side of living control systems is the models of physics and chemistry. The environment is not what you look out and see “out there” nor is it what you see outside of other control systems (people). The “objective environment” in PCT is itself a model; the model of physics and chemistry. So there is no “entity” out there in the environment that is the computer I’m typing on. But my experience (perception) of the computer – how it looks, sounds, feels – depends on the effect of the environment – the one described be by the models of chemistry and physics – on my senses.

RY: When there is an objective environmental variable, that is, it is

independent of the perceiving system then the TCV can be used.

RM: I think you are conflating perceptions that are functions of “environmental variables”–perceptions that are a function of variables in the models of physics and chemistry, intensity perceptions – with perceptions of “aspects of environmental variables”, such as the taste of lemonade. All perceptions are ultimately a function of environmental variables so to the extent that a tester can compute (or experience) the same aspect of those variables as the testee, the TCV can be used to determine what perception the system is controlling.

RY: As

perceptions (the controlled variables) are private we hypothesise
what they are in relation to correlating environmental variables
that can be measured. So in my shower example we might hypothesise
that a perception related to (is dependent upon) the temperature of
the water is being controlled. And if we disturb the temperature of
the water (by secretly injecting cold water) then the subject will
act by turning the heat dial to bring the water temperature (as we
measure it) back to the previous value. We can be confident then
that the subject is controlling some perception related to the water
temperature. But it is not actually the water temperature that is
being controlled but some perception of it. In this example the
water temperature is one of the v’s in the input quantity in the
diagram you sent (attached). The heat dial (the output quantity?) is
varied which affects, through the feedback path, the water
temperature (v) which is an input to the perception.

RM: Yes, this is an excellent example of testing to determine that a person is controlling a perception of water temperature.

RY: In the case of control of area, from your demo, there are two v's, w

and h, which are inputs to the perceptual function.

RM: Actually, w and h are not physical variables; they are themselves lower order perceptions. The actual physical variables involved are the intensities of the electromagnetic energy emitted by the pixels that make up the lines that are perceived as w and h. It would obviously get quite unwieldy to describe perceptions – even simple ones like the perception of a rectangle – in terms of the physical variables of which they are ultimately a function. So we always use shortcuts, describing higher order perceptions in terms of their lower order component perceptions. Only in the area of what is known as psychophysics do we try to determine the relationship between perceptions (like the perception of the intensity of a tone) and the physical variable(s) on which it depends.

RY: Though,

according to the diagram, the “input quantity” is not an input to
the perceptual function but the individual environmental variables
(v’s); the arrows go from the v’s not the input quantity circle.
There is not actual input quantity in the environment, but it may be
possible to determine one from an observer’s point of view (in a
computer), that correlates with the hypothesised perception.

RM: Yes, that’s absolutely right! As I said, the Input Quantity does not exist in the environment. The circle around the v’s actually represents a function of the v’s that could be computed by an outside observer and that corresponds to the function of v’s computed by the perceptual function of the control system under observation. This is just a complicated way of saying that the Input Quantity corresponds to an observer’s view of the perception the control system is controlling. When you watch a person doing a tracking task for example, your perception of variations in the distance between cursor and target (c-t) corresponds pretty much to the perception that the person doing the tracking is controlling. Your perception of (c-t) corresponds to the Input Quantity in the control diagram; the subject’s perception of (c-t) corresponds to the Sensor Signal in the diagram.

RY: In terms of controlling the sweetness of my tea I vary the amount of

sugar to control my perception of the sweetness. I guess a
corresponding environmental variable would be the proportion of
sugar solution in the liquid. If it is not sweet enough I add sugar,
if I it is too sweet I take out sugar (ok, can’t do that but can add
liquid). So the amount of sugar is not being controlled. Though in
this case the amount of sugar probably correlates with the sugar
solution proportion, so it is both the environmental correlate of
the perception and the output quantity.

RM: I don’t think sugar is an environmental correlate of the perception of tea; that perception depends on a combination of chemicals that includes sugar as one component. But when you add sugar, sugar could be considered an output that affects the controlled perception, the taste of tea.

RY: There is, it seems to me, a distinction between the use of the word

“control” in the informal and formal, technical sense. An important
distinction. Informally it might look as if someone is controlling
the heat dial when taking a shower, when it is actually being varied
to control the perception. Likewise with some of your baseball
examples. Informally it could be said that batters were controlling
the location of their bat relative to the pitched ball. But formally
they may actually have been varying the location of their
bat in order to control the perceived relationship between
the bat and the pitched ball. The use of this informal sense may,
perhaps, lead those new to PCT to not appreciate the difference
between our manipulation of the world and the control of
perceptions, and miss the essence of PCT.

RM: Yes, that’s a problem.

RY: So, we're never really controlling things in the environmental,

though there may be environmental correlates with the perception.
So, maybe a more accurate definition than,

      "Behaviour is the control of variable aspects of the

environment"

would be,



      "Behaviour is the control of perceptual

variables, of which there may be correlating
environmental
variables"

RM: This detaches things from the environment too much for my taste. How about:

“Behavior is the control of perceptual variables, which always correspond to functions of physical variables in the environment.”

RY: or for less of a mouthful Fred’s, “Behavior is control of
the perceived environment”

RM: Better would be “Behavior is control of the environment as perceived”.

RY: or your wording from your "Control of

Perception" demo, “Behaviour is the control of perceptual
aspects of the environment”

RM: Yes, that’s a good one;-)

RY: Though these last two raise a question for me of whether there are

always environment variables involved in perceptual control; is it a
general principle as is “Behaviour is the control of perception”?

RM: It’s an assumption of the model; in the control diagram all perception originates with the effect of physical (environmental) variables on our senses. I don’t actually understand how there could be perceptions that are not based ultimately on physical variables, unless you are talking about imaginations.

RY: In line with this question I can think of a number of different

cases of perceptions in relation to environmental variables:

**Independent**      - perceptions which have associated

environmental variables which are independent of the perceiver, such
as with w&h in your area demo or the water temperature in the
shower example.

**Dependent** - perceptions which require the presence of the

perceiver, such as when swimming I control something like my
perception of my direction in relation to the blue line on the
bottom of the pool. So could there be said to be an environmental
variable that corresponds to the perception?

RM: I don’t see how this is different from the perception of area or water temperature.

Mixed - perceptions that are a combination of variables
coming from the environment and imagination.

**Imagination** - perceptions that are solely based upon internal

variables; and not current environmental variables .

RM: Imagined perceptions are not perceptions, in the sense that they are not a function of physical stimulation of the senses. So I would rather just refer to them as “imaginations”. I have no idea what to do about perceptions that are a combination of perception and imagination. My experience is that it’s always one or the other. But if there are such combinations then they are what they are. But they are currently not part of the PCT model. What we experience is either a perception or an imagination, per the model anyway.

RY: If these are valid then it doesn’t seem valid to regard the
control
of variable aspects of the environment as a general principle.

RM: True. But I don’t see it as a general principle. I just see it as the way the model works. According to the model, we control perceptions that are functions of environmental variables (where environmental variables are the variables in the models of physics and chemistry).

RY: This leads on to the question of whether all perceptions are

ultimately a function of physical variables. Regarding high-level
and abstract perceptions, such as, honesty or god, I can’t see how
it can make sense that these are functions of physical variables.

RM: And it doesn’t make sense to me that they could not be. Perceptions have to be based on sensory input and sensory input is assumed to be caused by physical variables. Think about it in terms of robotics. How would you build a robot that controlled for the level of honesty in an interaction with another control system? To build such a robot it would have to perceive the honesty of what it is saying. And that perception would have to be based on a perception of what it’s saying, who the other control system is, etc. And these perception would depend on the robot hearing what it is saying and seeing who the other robot is.That is, it would have to have sensors for acoustic and optical physical variable – ears and eyes. As for god, I don’t know what perceptual variable would be controlled here. Degree of belief in god, perhaps? In order to control this perception you would have to be able to perceive how much you believe in god. This perception would probably depend on perceiving your professions of belief, your attendance at church perhaps, etc. Anyway, it would ultimately depend on your ability to sense variables in the environment – acoustical and optical.

RY: This would seem to imply that all information related to abstract

perceptions is out there in the objective environment and it is just
a matter of us finding it. If there is a sound explanation for it
I’m happy to be persuaded, but how can things that don’t exist be a
function of physical variables?

RM: Just like the taste of lemonade, which doesn’t exist as an entity in the environment but does exist as a possible function of physical variables that can be constructed as a perception. Abstract principles don’t exist in the environment as “real entities” but they do (indeed, they must) exist as possible functions of our sensory inputs (which are functions of physical variables). People do have the capacity to construct these complex perceptions from even very restricted access to sensory input – Helen Keller being a remarkable example. But I don’t believe it would be possible to perceive abstract concepts with no sensory input at all.

RY: If they're not then I'm not sure I have a satisfactory resolution

but the answer would seem to lie in imagination. What arises from
thinking is the ability to put together different concepts and
abstractions to create new, previously un-thought thoughts.

RM: Yes, this is true. We create perceptions in imagination that are not derived from sensory input (physical variables). I guess I should be clear that when I say that perceptions are always functions of environmental variables I am talking about controlled or controllable perceptions. The perceptual variables that I create for myself in imagination – like the perception of myself jumping up and flying over buildings – are usually only controllable in imagination.

RY: This

results in new concepts, abstractions and ideas of non-reality; of
gods and unicorns, and Harry Potter. All are perceptions, created
and modified by internal loops of control systems whizzing around in
the head creating new perceptions and references without recourse to
feedback going through the environment.

RM: Yes, and it’s great fun to control those perceptions in imagination.

RY: What seems key is that perceptions are of a different nature to

objective physical variables in that they are subjective, being as
they are only in existence, or have meaning, with respect to the
perceiving organism.

RM: The difference between perceptions and “objective physical variables” (the variables that are in the models of physics and chemistry) are that perceptions are functions of the physical variables. These functions can be computed by any system that can compute them, a nervous system or a computer, for example.

RY: Physical variables are, I would say, individual

and primitive, without any ability to create new combinations, so
are finite. Perceptions though (with the nervous system) with their
subjective nature can be continually created with respect to
physical variables and to each other so are, in essence, potentially
infinite, and not merely functions of environmental variables.

RM: Sure, this is a way to say it. It’s simpler to say it the way it’s said in PCT. Physical variables are out there in the environment and the perceptions controlled by a control system are functions of those variables.

Best

Rick

Regards,

Rupert

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

              RM:

Aspects of the environment don’t “contribute” to a
perception; they are the perception.
Rupert
Young (2015.08.10 20.30)

                        RY: Then I am wondering why you use the phrase

“Behaviour is the control of variable aspects of the
environment” if it is perceptions we are talking about,
which, I think, we all understand are (imagination aside)
functions of physical (environmental) variables.

          RM: Because "aspects of the environment' means (to me)

the same thing as “functions of environmental variables”
which means the same thing (to me) as “perception” (or
“perceived aspects of the environment”). Area, for
example, is one aspect of physical (environmental)
variables (width, w, and height, h) that make up a
rectangle; perimeter is a different aspect of those same
variables. That is, both are f(w,h); area = w*h and
perimeter = 2(w+h). Area and perimeter can also be said to
be two different ways of perceiving the same physical
environment. By the way, another demonstration of the fact
that you can control different perceptual aspects of the
same environmental variables is my “Control of Perception”
demo at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html.

          RM: Maybe it's because my main field of study in

psychology was perception but when I hear the word
“perception” I automatically think of that word as
referring to a mental (or neural) correlate of some aspect
of the environment. The study of perception is all about
how our nervous system turns what is “out there” in the
world – physical (environmental) variables – into our
experience of the world – perceptions.

          RY: As I

mentioned before it is a bit misleading as it suggests
that the controlled variable is something in the
environment.

          RM: I don't see this as a terrible mistake. Indeed,

there are many prominent psychologists who are students of
perception who believe that perceptions are a direct
reflection of things out there in the environment, J. J.
Gibson being one. And in many cases when we talk about the
things that people control it’s hard to avoid talking
about them in terms of variables that we perceive as being
in the person’s environment. For example, I was watching a
baseball game last night and it was hard to avoid noticing
that there was a lot of controlling of an environmental
variable – the baseball – going on. Pitchers were
controlling the location of the ball relative to the
strike zone, batters were controlling the location of
their bat relative to the pitched ball, fielders were
controlling the location the the ball relative to their
mits, etc. I know that the players were actually
controlling their own perceptions perceptions. But even
Vin Scully would have a tough time talking about baseball
this way. A technical understanding of what perceptual
variables are being controlled when we see people carrying
out particular behaviors is, of course, essential when
doing PCT science. But when we are just talking about
control informally we can talk about it in terms of what
we perceive as the aspects of the environment – balls,
bats, mits, etc – that are being controlled.

          RY: This

may be what a newcomer to PCT might think, faced with this
phrase, without even any appreciation that perceptions are
involved.

          RM: This leads me think it that it might be worth

considering why Powers called his book * Behavior: The
Control of Perception * (hence the new name for the
thread). Why did Bill use the phrase “control of
perception” rather than “control of perceptual aspects of
the environment” or just “control of the environment” in
the title of his book? The word “perception” is never used
in engineering texts on control theory. Engineers never
talk about their mechanical control systems as controlling
their perceptions, though those systems do control their
perceptions. Engineers never point out that a device like
the thermostat controls a perception, though it does. They
talk about a thermostat controlling a physical
(environmental) variable – temperature. And that seems to
work for them. So, again, why did Bill call his book about
living control systems * Behavior: The Control of
Perception* rather than, say, * Behavior: The
Control of Physical Variables*?

RM: I believe that Bill called his book * Behavior:
The Control of Perception* because he wrote it for
an audience of psychologists (like me) and he knew that
title would catch their attention (as it did mine).
Psychologists are trained to think of behavior as
controlled by perception, where behavior is
seen as “output” and perception is seen as “input”. S o
when a psychologist (like me) passes by a book with a
title that implies that behavior is the control **of
** perception they do a double take (as I did) and pick
it up to see what the heck it could possibly be about (as
I did back in 1974, the year that changed my life;-).

          RM: To a psychologist, a book that says "behavior is

the control * of* perception" gets it exactly
backwards. It seems to be saying that output causes input
when, as every psychologist knows, input causes output.
And that’s the challenge that Bill wanted to present to
the psychological establishment. His book is about the
fact that it’s the psychologists who got it it backwards,
not him. Their discipline has been based on the idea that
input causes output when, in fact, output controls input.
[Psychologists don’t make a clear distinction between
“cause” and “control”,by the way. Indeed they treat these
words as synonyms; so another thing Bill had to do in B:CP
was explain the difference between cause and control].

          RM: So I believe Bill used the word "perception" in the

title of his book because he knew that psychologists would
see it as referring to the “input” of an organism, while
the word “behavior” would be seen as referring to the
organism’s “output”. But if that’s true then why not call
the book “Behavior:The control of the environment”?
Psychologists know that perceptions are caused by
environmental variables so the environment is as much an
input as is perception. I think Bill used “perception”
rather than “environment” in the title, not only because
“environment” is not an accurate description of what is
controlled by organisms (it is aspects – functions – of
the environment that are controlled) but because he knew
that psychologists would understand that the word
“perception” refers not only to the input to an organism
but also to the fact that this input is a function of the
organism’s environment.

          RM: So for a psychologist (like me) the title of

Powers’ book is making two claims: 1) ** output controls
input** and 2) ** input is a function physical
variables in the organism’s environmen** t. A
psychologist would find the second claim non-controversial
(perceptions are understood to be functions of physical
variables; the whole field of perceptual psychology is
aimed at trying to figure out what these functions are and
how they work). It’s the first claim – that output
controls input – that is the tough one (for
psychologists), so tough that it has been nearly
impossible to get psychologists to pay attention to PCT
for more than a few seconds.

          RM :Unfortunately, when people who are not

psychologists see the title * Behavior: The Control of
Perception* what they often find most intriguing is
not the idea that output controls input but that what is
controlled is perception. To the layman “perception” is
just another word for “reality is just a subjective
opinion”. So PCT has attracted a lot of what I believe are
called “post modernists” who seem to think that there is
no way to know what’s really out there and facts are just
what people perceive them to be. In other words, we get
people who believe that “control of perception” means that
we shouldn’t disagree with each other because nobody can
know what is really true so we are all equally right.
Such a philosophy is not very conducive to doing science.
But apparently this philosophy has been around for some
time since it was satirized in the late 1800s by Gilbert
& Sullivan in the “Mikado” when the Mikado himself
sang the lyric that I quoted earlier: “And I am right and
you are right and everything is quite correct.” Of course,
once such people figure out “control of perception”
doesn’t mean that everyone’s right – that it doesn’t deny
science – they get very mad and eventually leave.

          RM: So Bill's choice of the phrase "control of

perception" to describe PCT has managed to get lots of
people upset. It gets’ psychologists upset because it
means what they think it means: that output controls
input. And it upsets post-modernists (and other “radical
subjectivists”) upset because it doesn’t mean what
they think it means: that there is no reality (or that our
perceptions are somehow independent of reality).

          RM: One last thing. The reason that perception is an

important concept in control theory when applied to living
organisms but not so much when applied to mechanical
control systems is because the perceptions controlled by
the latter typically correspond to simple physical
variables. For example, the perception controlled by a
thermostat is a function of a single physical variable,
temperature (the perception exists in many thermostats as
the diameter of a bimetallic strip). Since the term
“perception” usually refers to a more complex aspects of
the environment than just a single physical variable it
hasn’t been used to describe the variables controlled by
mechanical control systems that control simple physical
variables.

          RM: There are mechanical control systems that control

more complex aspects of the environment; a humidity
control system, for example, controls a perception of
humidity, which is a complex function of two physical
variables, temperature and water vapor. So the humidity
control system controls what would be called a “sensation”
type perception in PCT. But I don’t think engineers would
say that a humidity control system controls a perception
of humidity possibly because the word “perception” seems a
little too anthropomorphic. But that’s what the humidity
control system is controlling – a perception of an aspect
of the environment that we call “humidity”.

          RM: Powers great insight (other than realizing behavior

is control and that control is organized around perceptual
variables) was that the behavior of living things can be
explained in terms of control of perceptions that can
represent aspects of the environment of increasing
complexity – such as relationships, events, sequences,
programs, principles and system concepts. That is, some
things people do can be explained by assuming that they
are controlling a perception of a principle like "honesty.
In order to build a machine that could do what a person
does – control how honest it is in various encounters –
we would have to give it the ability to perceive the
aspect of the environment that corresponds to the
perception of honesty. Indeed, the idea that behavior is
organized around control of perceptions of increasingly
complex aspects of the environment – a hierarchy of
perceptions – is really the main substance of PCT.
Chapters 6-13 of B:CP discuss the different perceptual
aspects of the environment that Powers originally proposed
as the types of perceptions around which human behavior
seems to be organized.

          RM: So this is another reason for using the phrase

“control of perception” in the title; PCT is all about
explaining behavior in terms of the types of
perceptual variables that people control. All those
perceptual variables, from intensities to system concepts,
are functions of environmental variables, functions that
are computed by the neural networks in our afferent
nervous system. It will surely be a long time before we
figure out how to compute the perception of a principle
like “honesty” or a system concept like “Dodger fan” from
the physical variables impinging on our sensory surface.
But these perceptions, like all others, must be a
function, ultimately, of these physical variables. What
else could they be a function of?

          RM: I think the message of PCT to roboticists like you,

Rupert, is that robots will produce human like behavior
(control) only when they control the same kinds of
perceptions that humans control. That’s why I liked your
robot that clearly controlled a sequence of activities; it
was controlling a high level perception – a function of
lower level perceptions that were ultimately a function of
physical variables in the robot’s environment. It was not
just producing a sequence of outputs. It was an excellent
illustration of robotics based on PCT.

              RM:

In the above example, the environment is three
variables: t, c and s. One aspect of that environment
is k (t-c); another is arcsine [(t-c)/s]; still
another (which I didn’t consider) is t-c+s. In other
words, I view an “aspect of the environment” as a
mathematical function of physical (environmental)
variables.

                        RY: What is the difference between this and a

perception?

          RM: Absolutely nothing. You could rewrite the paragraph

above as follows and it would mean exactly the same
thing:

          RM:

In the above example, the environment is three variables:
t, c and s. One perception of that environment is k (t-c);
another is arcsine [(t-c)/s]; still another (which I
didn’t consider) is t-c+s. In other words, I view
“perceptoin” as a mathematical function of physical
(environmental) variables.

Best

Rick

      --

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com

                    Author of  [Doing Research on Purpose](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_Doing-2DResearch-2DPurpose-2DExperimental-2DPsychology_dp_0944337554_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fie-3DUTF8-26qid-3D1407342866-26sr-3D8-2D1-26keywords-3Ddoing-2Bresearch-2Bon-2Bpurpose&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=0HMm9WxWTgA3hJX9yJ37QqrE5Aq5z4FFSRpHyqJqY_0&s=tt1LMJoWLJIoSpMqZcgfm0aR1ks3ETI6-mhSZtphDtw&e=). 
                      Now available from Amazon or Barnes &

Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Kent,

nice you to »hear« from you.

···

From: “McClelland, Kent” (MCCLEL@Grinnell.EDU via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 8:38 PM
To: Boris Hartman
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)

From Kent McClelland [2015.08.15.1330]

Boris, Rupert, Rick,

As this disagreement has unfolded, I’ve been feeling a good deal of sympathy for the arguments on both sides of the question. On the one hand, I see what Rick is saying and must agree to some extent when he asserts that “aspects of the environment� are controlled by the actions of a perceptual control loop (especially when I remember that the Latin derivation of the word “aspect� has to do with ways of looking at something).

HB : Nice Kent, that you are trying to stay beside Rick, although I wouldn’t say that he would ever do the same for you. You are a real gentleman, and a great mediator and you have all my respect. But this time what you are doing have a little to do with science and I’m sure you will on the end of this conversation »follow« you scientific sense.

We are trying to establish whether Bill used anywhere in his work that »“aspects of the environmentâ€? are controlled by the actions, behavior, output…« as you also mentioned it.

I could agree with that »aspect« means »the way looking at something«, so  first I’ll present your »aspect« as the way looking at »control of stability«.

Kent ML (1994) :

…is converted into an output quantity and thus produces physical changes in the system’s environment. These physical changes may affect the environment in a variety of ways…

Kent ML (1996) :

Even when directing attention most closely to our actions and doing our best to act in a “controlled” manner … we endd up controlling perceptions of our actions, not the actions themselves, because our perceptions are our only means for controlling anything.

Kent ML (1998) :

Our bodies are part of the environment, and our own actions are always affecting it.

Kent ML (2004) :

What does it mean to control perceptions and not actions?

Experientially, then, controlling perceptions means controlling the world around us, and in practice controlling a perception can be equated with controlling some aspect of our physical or social environment.

In any event, we can only control our perceptions of our own actions, not the actions directly, because control depends upon perception.

How does feedback from actions influence a perception?

As Fig. 1 indicates, the output signal results in physical actions in the environment which become feedback, as they affect the physical variable in the environment that the person is perceiving (the environmental variable).

There is much more… It’s worth of reading…. J

Beside you citations which inevitably show that your real scientific thinking is different from your mediators, I could find only Bill’s citations that are similar to yours. I couldn’t find anywhere that Bill has mentioned that behavior (output) »control« some »aspect of environment«, but I find only that actions, behavior (output) affect real input (or imaginary »input quantity«).

Bill P (LCS I) :Â Â

….organism iss producing behavior as a means of controlling a several-times-abstracted variable….

… behavior is alwayss such as to keep sensor signal close to the setting of this reference signal

Diagram in LCS I (mentioned by Rick) :

RM: Here is Fig. 1 from Powers 1973 Science paper. Notice that what the output affects is a variable in the environment called the Input quantity.

Bill P. (LCS II) :

(2) feedback system determine their own input-signals ad not their output efforts.

….output acts via the environment to produce … effects, ….

Bill P. (LCS III) :

The computer is deducing which effects of your mouse movements were intentional…
/o:p>

So we have several ways of determining which of the effects of a person’s actions are intentional and which are only accidental side-effects.

The output function …¦ represents the means this system has for causing changes jn it’s environment.

That’s what feedback means : it’s an effect of system’s output on it’s own input.

Bill P (B:CP) :

OTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of the 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

PCT_a book_of_readings_ (editor Dag Forsell) :

… in the diagram is called feed-back function, since it feeds an effect of the output action back to the input sensor…

HB : If you look at any diagram in Dag’s book you can see the same thing. I don’t see anywhere »control of behavior« but I see many effects in environment.

Â

So I’ll just present a diagram (Dag, p.21, article posted 2011) that is explaining many things including relationship between output, action and observed behavor… I see only effectts….

I think this is enough for now, and if somebody find the same number of counter statements, I’ll look for more »our« statements…. There are soo many of them… J

MK : On the other hand, I appreciate Rupert and Boris’s insistence that the loop always and only controls perceptions, not anything about the environment.

HB : In your further text I don’t see any statement that supports Rick’s »Control of behavior«. I see that all your statements mostly support my and Ruperts view. Also your articles and books as I see it support mostly my and Ruperts view. Or I’m wrong ?

All the best to you Kent,

Boris

There’s a conundrum here. Clearly, it’s our perceptions that are controlled, but at the same time we have to believe that there is something in the external environment (to which we have no access except by means of our perceptions) that corresponds in some way to those controlled perceptions. The alternative, it seems to me, is a complete rejection of the evidence of the very senses that provide our controlled perceptions.

I expect that my solution to the conundrum will not work for everybody, and it certainly didn’t gain much traction when I tried it out a time or two before on CSGnet, but in recent years my way of cutting through this conceptual knot has been to describe what happens in the environment as “stabilizationâ€? instead of control. When we resist the effects of disturbances in order to control our perceptions, I would argue, we also stabilize certain features of the external environment (the things that would be more variable in the absence of our efforts to resist disturbances to those perceptions). These environmental features aren’t controlled in the sense that they are matched as precisely as possible with references defined strictly in terms of the physics of the situation, since it’s only perceptions that we have work with, but these environmental things vary less over time than they would without our attempts to control the situation as we see it.

One nice thing about physical objects is that they can often be stabilized for considerable periods of time without any continued effort to control the things we’ve stabilized, as we perceive them. An object that someone has fashioned out of wood, stone, metal, pottery or the right kinds plastic can be expected to hold its shape for quite a while before something happens to change it (perhaps an accident or the ravages of rust or decay). If that weren’t true, anthropologists would know little or nothing about long-dead civilizations. And when we place a physical object in a given position we can expect gravity to hold it stably in that position until someone else comes along to move it or some physical force (an earthquake?) intervenes.

Getting good control of our perceptions depends on having a reasonably stable environment in which to act (with regard to the things we want to control), and I would argue that our control of perceptions also contributes to the stabilizing of our immediate environments, in some ways and to some extent at least. Of course, the things we do to control one set of perceptions may destabilize the wider environment in other ways, as we’ve learned to our sorrow when the use of automobiles and electricity from power plants has led to climate change.

Best to all,

Kent

On Aug 15, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Boris Hartman csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Rick,

I think that the main problem we have is your »control of behavior«. Put the citations from Bill’s literature where he is talking about »behavior is control« or that generaly we control some »aspect« of environment wth output.

Bill P. and others (50 Aniversary) :

HB : Cooperating in this article you agreed that behavior is means of control, so it’s consequence of control not bearer of control. Muscles don’t think,

Make a simple test. Start looking arround and you will see that you are not controlling any »aspect of environment » or »input quantity« with your behavior. Everything what you are doing is : affecting input (sensors) with your output, chanding actual perception into wanted. With neck muscles (behavior, output) you are affecting input (eyes) to the desired state. You are controlling perception as perception is all there is.

This is generaly what you are doing in all activities. Even if there is some »aspect of environment« that is affected by your output, is just changing perception to the desired state. You are just doing what Bill says in his theory. You are not controlling »variables in outer environment« with behavior. You are »controlling your perception« all the time.

Bill P.:

Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state … 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 :

I think this is the point of his theory. That’s all what you or we are aware of : perception. You don’t know exactly what you are doing to the environemnt, you know it when you perceive it. So you can’t control anything in outer environment with »controlling« behavior if you are not aware of what you are doing to the environment in the time of acting. Everything is hidden in perception. All the time you are controlling perceptions. Some times perception can really reflect what is happening in environment and sometimes not. But that’s all you can relly on. Every interpretaion of perceptions is different. Not two persons see the world outside the same. So there is no fixed, objective »controlled aspect o environment«, that we could all say that it is the same for eveybody by observing it. It always depends form individual perception and their control. Sometimes you perceive the world as you want to perceive it, and sometimes more or less as it is. Depends from your perceptions and «control of perceptions«, what you want.

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 1:06 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.12.1600)]

HB : Why bother Fred if Bill has put it as it should be put :

“behavior is effect of output on input�.

RM: Really? Where does Bill say that?

HB : From the Bill’s diagram (LCS III) or any other. I just wanted to make it clear what is output and how is related to behavior.

Bill P.: This output function too, can be either simple or complex depending on the kind of behavior we’re modeling.

HB : O.K. Maybe you can explain relation about behavior, action and output ? What is behavior in PCT by your oppinion ?

RM : But most of the things we call behavior are both outputs and controlled input quantities

HB : I don’t understand this one, but here it is. One thing is sure. You are equating »output« to »behavior« and something else. Maybe because output (behavior) affects »input quantitty« and so there is behavior also present in »input quantity«.

How do you explain the title of the book, »Behavior : the control of perception« ?

HB: That’s what “feed-back� is.

RM: Sort of. I like to think of it in terms of the entire “feedback” loop, so the feedback is output “feeding back” on itself via its effect on input and error, the latter being the cause of that same output.

Bill P (LCS III) : … the action of the ssystem »feeds-back« to affect it’s 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. You can’t give a control system a feed-back. It gives itself feed-back.

HB : You can notice that Bill is talking about control system giving itself a feed-back not output itself. Your imagination and interpretations are sometimes real inventions but it woud be maybe fine if you would stick to Bill’s definition.

It’s good that you put »feeding back« into »inverted commas«, because somebody could think that muscles are »thinking« while »feeding-back« to input. That would really be «control of behavior« which you are advertising.

HB: That’s all what behavior is doing in the external environment. In Bill’s diagram is this the only thing I can see about behavior. This is general explanation. There is no “controlled aspect of environment� .

RM: Here is Fig. 1 from Powers 1973 Science paper. Notice that what the output affects is a variable in the environment called the Input quantity. This Input quantity is a function of physical variables (the v’s) and it represents the aspect of these physical variables (the environment) that corresponds to the controlled perception (called the Sensor signal in the diagram).

HB : Yes the emphasis is that »output« affets a variable called the input quantity. The emphasis is on affect not control.

Bill P. :

….first order perceptual signal reflects only what happens att the sensory ending : the source of the stimulation is completely undefined and unsensed.

HB :…so it doesn’t matter whether you put in front sennsors (input function) elephant or any other »input quantity«. It’s the same effect on sensors.

Bil P :

If any infromation exists about the source of the stimulus, it exists only distributed over milions of first-order perceptual signal and is explicit in none of them.

HB : The emphasis is on »if«, there is nothing in enviroment that would clearly »correspond« to produced neural currents. But it could be »mixed« somewhere among milions of them.

Bill P :

The significance of any first-order perceptual signal is therefore extremely limited and local; this applies even in the eye…. There is no information in any onne first-order visual signal to indivicate the origin of the light the input function aabsorbs : the source can fluorecence inside the eyeball or an exploding star a hundered milion years removed in space and time, with no change of the erceptual signal.

The perceptual signal from a touch receptor does not reflect whether the cause is an electrical current, a touch, or a chemical poisoning, or whether a touch occurs to the left or right of the exact receptor location.

HB : So no matter which sensor or nerv end is stimulated, the effect of the source is unknown to the control system.

Bill P : All informations contained in first-order perceptual signals is therefore information about what is happening to the associated input functoon and about nothing else.

RM (earlier) : I will just add that, in the LiveBlock demo all we know is q.i; we don’t know how q.i is derived from environmental variables, v.1, v.2…v.n. So the LiveBlock demo, though a great way to demonstrate the behavior of variables a control loop, cannot be used to demonstrate anything about the relationship between q.i and p.

HB: Maybe this is related to what Bill is explaining in relation ; environment - sensor – perceptual signal.

What I can see here is that there isn’t any »imagined input quantity« that could be present in perceptual signal. So it matters only that input function is affected and that first order perceptual signal refelcts only what is happening at the sensory endning. So whatever is stimulating sensory organs or nerv ends, are physical variables which can not be defined (it may be any in environemnt).

If everything outside is completely undefined why put »input quantity« in environment as pure »imagined » construction right in front of input function. Is this suggesting that only »input function« is represented in perceptual signal ??

So physical variables in outer environment probably stimulate input function to produce neural currents no matter if they are »input quantity« or any other physical variable in environment that is not afected by ouptut and disturbances. They have all equal chances to be transformed.

So it seems that it is not important whether environment or »input quantity« or any other part of environment was affected. It matters only what directly affects input function as that is all that control system will perceive. All other explanations in external environment are just imagination of individuals.

So if we are turning our heads we are affecting directly perceptual organs, which produce milions of neural currents with no definite origin. We don’t affect any imagined »input quantity«. We directly affect input function. That’ what output is doing.

There is no control in environment that could be sensed by sensor organs, just some changes on »surface« of perceptual organs. Whatever brains »construct« from perceptual signals after many interesting operations in nervous system (question how nervous system works), is something that is later »recognized« on higher levels.

Bill P:

…… using higher levels of organization we »know« that light can come from distant objects

HB : My oppion is that nervous system is constructing perceptual reality inside nerv-net in his own way, manipulating neural currents in some specific way (which are described in B:CP, 2005).

RM (earlier) : Since this is a rather verbal group I think it’s better to say that that perceptions (perceptual signals) are constructed, not derived, from lower level perceptual inputs and, ultimately, sensed effects of physical variables.

HB : Well I must say that these are extra points for you Rick in my higher oppinon about you. It’s rising. I must say Rick (although unwilingly J) that I perfectly agree with you.

I think Rick that you could maybe compare this »findings« with your »new findings« in post where you are admtting your mistake in discussion with Rupert ? Lately you had so many progresive findigs that’s it worth of putting them together.

RM : The controlling is done by the operation of the entire loop; there is no control of Output and there is no controlling done by the comparator. The comparator just compares.

RM earlier : Perhaps not simply enough. Bill’s diagram shows a feedback control loop organized around the control of an Input quantity.

RM : Because most things we call “behavior” are both outputs and controlled Input quantities, we say “behavior is control”.

HB : I’m not sure that I understand what you meant. Could you arrange this statements to have some sense or just I don’t understand them. If the controlling is done by the operation of entire loop, how can we »control input quantity«. Once there is no control of output, and once we can »control behavior«.

Bill P. :

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

HB : So comparator is not only comparing it’s also computing the difference between reference and perceptual signal (error signal). And this is control.

HB: Behavior is not control. It’s just effect of muscles on environment,

RM: This is true if by “behavior” all you are referring to is output effects on a controlled Input quantity.

HB : I still can’t grab the term »controlled input quantity«. What is making »Input quantity« controlled ? What is controlling »input quantity« ?

»Input quantity« seems to imply that this is the only thing people or living beings can perceive through »input function« because it’s in front of our »nose«. But we know that people can perceive in the dark monsters instead of trees, that people can perceive dear persons living with them although they are long time dead, we see colors differently although »input quantity« seems to be the same, people can perceive text differently…and so on.

So it’s not some objective »input quantitty« (which is the same for anyone) responsable for differently perceived results (like you and me reading the same Bill’s text differently), but nervous system that is somehow constructing »meaning« from perceptual input. What is the role of »input quantity« in all these cases ? Is really only »input quantity« responsable for what we are perceiving from environment ?

The other problem with »input quantity« as Martin pointed out is, that it is presenting just »controlled perception«. So it’s containing just effects of system’s output and disturbances. But that is not all what it is transformed from environment into perceptual signal. Any physical variable that can affect sensor will be present in milions of neural currents progressing toward comparator. The »input quantitty« shows just one part of transformation proces in input function.

RM :

But most of the things we call behavior are both outputs and controlled input quantities. So a behavior like “lifting a book” is both an controlled Input quantity (an end result ) and an output (a means of controlling some other input quantity, like putting the book back up on the shelf). Because most things we call “behavior” are both outputs and controlled Input quantities, we say “behavior is control”.

HB : Now first you say behavior …… is output (a MEANS of controlling some otheer input quanttity) and on the end »behavior is control«. How can something that is not existing in external environment (input quantity) be behavior ??? »Input quantitty« is affected by behavior… iif… it can 't be behavior… think…

Maybe you could describe »lifting book in PCT manner.

»Lifting a book« is a perception when you are acting to make a perception change to more desireble state (affecting input) …you have no direct knowledge of what you are doing to the reality (moving book) that is the origin of your neural signals; you know only the final result, how the perception of the book was changing to the desired perception.… Any other analysis in outer environnment is imagination which can be interpreted by any individual differently.

I borrowed terminology and the whole meaning from Bill

HB : Thinking that entirely or some “aspect of environment� can be controlled with behavior is not PCT reasoning.

RM: Actually, thinking of living (or artificial) control systems as controlling some aspect of the environment is perfectly good PCT reasoning.

HB : Well I hope it’s clear that generaly we can’t speak of »controlled« aspect of environment as there are behviors that do not affect any »aspect of environment« (turning you head, scratching, sitting in the park and observing, walking, etc.) but affect directly input (sensory organs, nerv ends).

If PCT is theory that can explain all behaviors, then we have to talk only about »output affecting input (sensory organs or nerv ends) as this is in accordance with Bills’ writings B:CP about 1.level sensor function, and physiological facts).

In this context we can explain all behaviors also those which are affecting some «aspect of environment« in order to affect perception.

But whatever is happening outside (whether something is affected or not) is of secondary importance. First control system has to be »closed« to keep homeostasis, and in some cases »affect environment« to help achieve and maintain preselected state in controlling system, what is of primary importance and is running cntinuously. Behavior (output) is not continuous.

If organism is not producing internal control enough to survive, no behavior or any effect in environment will not help to survive. Many times organism must help itself. Many times doctors just wait what will happen in organism whether internal control systems will »win« or «lose« battle for life. I’m talking here about »general theory of control of perception« what I make equal to understanding how organisms function, not whether or not we control all the time »variables« in external environment. PCT is the theory about how organisms function not how we »control aspect of environment« ??

RM : When you control the shape of the rectangle in the “Control of Perception” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html), for example, you are controlling the shape rather than the orientation or size aspect of the environment; when a thermostat controls air temperature it is controlling the temperature rather than the humidity or water vapor aspect of environment.

HB : Living and artificial control systems have some principles in common, but sure they are not working the same. Maybe when analyzing artificial control system you could talk generaly about »controlled aspect of environment«, but not when humans are in question. I think you went to far.

O.K. Rick I was really surprised last time with your correction of PCT thinking, and I was pleasently surprised with your »construcitivist« thinking.

Maybe we’ll reach the point of understanding PCT. But for that I think you will have to leave »selfregulation« thinking and »control of behavior« and contribute to more understanding of »control of perception« and how organisms really work.

Best, Boris

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.16.1115)]

···

Kent McClelland (2015.08.15.1330)–

Boris, Rupert, Rick,

KM: As this disagreement has unfolded, I’ve been feeling a good deal of sympathy for the arguments on both sides of the question. On the one hand, I see what Rick is saying and must agree to some extent when he asserts that “aspects of the environmentâ€?
are controlled by the actions of a perceptual control loop (especially when I remember that the Latin derivation of the word “aspectâ€? has to do with ways of looking at something). On the other hand, I appreciate Rupert and Boris’s insistence that the loop
always and only controls perceptions, not anything about the environment.Â

RM: Your ability to believe two completely incompatible things at the same time is quite impressive, Kent;-)

Â

KM: There’s a conundrum here. Clearly, it’s our perceptions that are controlled, but at the same time we have to believe that there is something in the external environment (to which we have no access except by means of our perceptions) that corresponds
in some way to those controlled perceptions. The alternative, it seems to me, is a complete rejection of the evidence of the very senses that provide our controlled perceptions.Â

RM: The conundrum exists only in the mind, not in actual practice. The idea that people control perceptions but not the environmental correlate of these perception would never even occur to someone who does research on living control systems. The fact that an aspect of the environment is controlled when a person controls a perception is demonstrated in my “Control of Perception” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html), “What is Size” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Size.html) and “Mind Reading” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html). It is also demonstrated in all my papers describing tests for the variable controlled in object interception behavior:Â

Marken, R. S. (2001) Controlled Variables: Psychology as the
Center Fielder Views It, American Journal of Psychology, 114, 259-281

Marken, R. S. (2005) Optical Trajectories and the
Informational Basis of Fly Ball Catching, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception & Performance, 31 (3), 630 – 634

Shaffer, D. M., Marken, R. S., Dolgov, I., and Maynor, A. B.
(2013). Chasin’choppers: Using unpredictable trajectories to test theories of
object interception. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 75(7),
1496-1506.

Shaffer, D. M., Marken, R. S., Dolgov, I., and Maynor, A. B.
(2015). Catching objects thrown to oneself: Testing control strategies for
object interception in a novel domain. Perception, 44(4), 400-409.

RM: In the demos and the research I was able to accurately model people’s behavior by having the model control aspects of the environment that correspond to the perceptions these people are controlling. This research and the demos show clearly that people who are controlling their perceptions are controlling certain aspects (functions) of physical (environmental) variables. Of course, the research was not done nor the demos developed to show that this is the case. It never occurred to me that anyone would ever think that people control “just” perceptions and not aspects of their environment. Â After all, perception is understood (in psychology in general and PCT in particular) to be a neural representation of aspects of the world (environment) on the other side of the senses. So saying that people control their perception is the same as saying that they control aspects of the outside world (environment).Â

RM: But apparently people do take the idea that we control “just” perceptions seriously. And I see that there is nothing I can do to disabuse them of this idea. The research apparently hasn’t done it; the demos haven’t done it. But it seems to me that the only problem with believing this is that it keeps those who believe ti from doing the kind of research that moves PCT forward as a science of purpose; the kind of research Powers suggested in “Cybernetic Model for Research…” chapter in LCS I (p. 167) and in part 4 of Bill’s 4 part BYTE Series (http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/enclosures/byte_sep_1979.pdf); research aimed at testing to determine the kinds of perceptions (aspects of the environment) people control. If people were really controlling “just” perceptions and not the aspects of the environment to which these perceptions correspond there would be no way to do this research, except via mental telepathy, perhaps.Â

Best regards

Rick

I expect that my solution to the conundrum will not work for everybody, and it certainly didn’t gain much traction when I tried it out a time or two before on CSGnet, but in recent years my way of cutting through this conceptual knot has been
to describe what happens in the environment as “stabilizationâ€? instead of control. When we resist the effects of disturbances in order to control our perceptions, I would argue, we also stabilize certain features of the external environment (the things that
would be more variable in the absence of our efforts to resist disturbances to those perceptions). These environmental features aren’t controlled in the sense that they are matched as precisely as possible with references defined strictly in terms of the physics
of the situation, since it’s only perceptions that we have work with, but these environmental things vary less over time than they would without our attempts to control the situation as we see it.Â

One nice thing about physical objects is that they can often be stabilized for considerable periods of time without any continued effort to control the things we’ve stabilized, as we perceive them. An object that someone has fashioned out of wood,
stone, metal, pottery or the right kinds plastic can be expected to hold its shape for quite a while before something happens to change it (perhaps an accident or the ravages of rust or decay). If that weren’t true, anthropologists would know little or nothing
about long-dead civilizations. And when we place a physical object in a given position we can expect gravity to hold it stably in that position until someone else comes along to move it or some physical force (an earthquake?) intervenes.Â

Getting good control of our perceptions depends on having a reasonably stable environment in which to act (with regard to the things we want to control), and I would argue that our control of perceptions also contributes to the stabilizing of
our immediate environments, in some ways and to some extent at least. Of course, the things we do to control one set of perceptions may destabilize the wider environment in other ways, as we’ve learned to our sorrow when the use of automobiles and electricity
from power plants has led to climate change.

Best to all,Â

Kent

On Aug 15, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Boris Hartman csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

Rick,

Â

I think that the main problem we have is your »control of behavior«. Put the citations from Bill’s literature where he is talking about »behavior is control«
or that generaly we control some »aspect« of environment wth output.

Â

Bill P. and others (50 Aniversary) :

Â

Â

HB : Cooperating in this article you agreed that behavior is means of control, so it’s consequence of control not bearer of control. Muscles don’t think,Â

Â

Make a simple test. Start looking arround and you will see that you are not controlling any »aspect of environment » or »input quantity« with your behavior. Everything
what you are doing is : affecting input (sensors) with your output, chanding actual perception into wanted. With neck muscles (behavior, output) you are affecting input (eyes) to the desired state. You are controlling perception as perception is all there
is.Â

Â

This is generaly what you are doing in all activities. Even if there is some »aspect of environment« that is affected by your output, is just changing perception
to the desired state. You are just doing what Bill says in his theory. You are not controlling »variables in outer environment« with behavior. You are »controlling your perception« all the time.

Â

Bill P.:Â

Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state … we have no direct knowledge of what we aare 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…

Â

HB :

I think this is the point of his theory. That’s all what you or we are aware of : perception. You don’t know exactly what you are doing to the environemnt, you
know it when you perceive it. So you can’t control anything in outer environment with »controlling« behavior if you are not aware of what you are doing to the environment in the time of acting. Everything is hidden in perception. All the time you are controlling
perceptions. Some times perception can really reflect what is happening in environment and sometimes not. But that’s all you can relly on. Every interpretaion of perceptions is different. Not two persons see the world outside the same. So there is no fixed,
objective »controlled aspect o environment«, that we could all say that it is the same for eveybody by observing it. It always depends form individual perception and their control. Sometimes you perceive the world as you want to perceive it, and sometimes
more or less as it is. Depends from your perceptions and «control of perceptions«, what you want.

Â

Â

**From:** Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via
csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]Â
**Sent:**Â Thursday, August 13, 2015 1:06 AM
**To:**Â csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
**Subject:**Â Re: Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)

Â

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.12.1600)]

Â

HB : Why bother Fred if Bill has put it as it should be put :

“behavior is effect of output on inputâ€?.Â

Â

RM: Really? Where does Bill say that?Â

Â

HB : From the Bill’s diagram (LCS III) or any other. I just wanted to make it clear what is output and how is related to behavior.Â

Â

Bill P.: This output function too, can be either simple or complex depending on the kind of behavior we’re modeling.Â

Â

HB : O.K. Maybe you can explain relation about behavior, action and output ? What is behavior in PCT by your oppinion ?Â

Â

RM : But most of the things we call behavior are both outputs and controlled input quantities

Â

HB : I don’t understand this one, but here it is. One thing is sure. You are equating »output« to »behavior« and something else. Maybe because output (behavior) affects »input quantitty« and so there is behavior
also present in »input quantity«.Â

Â

How do you explain the title of the book, »Behavior : the control of perception« ?

Â

Â

HB: That’s what “feed-backâ€? is. Â

Â

RM: Sort of. I like to think of it in terms of the entire “feedback” loop, so the feedback is output “feeding back” on itself via its effect on input and error, the latter being the cause of that same output. Â Â

Â

Bill P (LCS III) : … the action of the system »feeds-bback« to affect it’s 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. You can’t give a control system a feed-back. It gives itself feed-back.Â

Â

HB : You can notice that Bill is talking about control system giving itself a feed-back not output itself. Your imagination and interpretations are sometimes
real inventions but it woud be maybe fine if you would stick to Bill’s definition.

It’s good that you put »feeding back« into »inverted commas«, because somebody could think that muscles are »thinking« while »feeding-back« to input. That would
really be «control of behavior« which you are advertising.

Â

HB: That’s all what behavior is doing in the external environment. In Bill’s diagram is this the only thing I can see about behavior. This
is general explanation. There is no “controlled aspect of environmentâ€? .

 Â

RM: Here is Fig. 1 from Powers 1973 Science paper. Notice that what the output affects is a variable in the environment called the Input quantity. This Input
quantity is a function of physical variables (the v’s) and it represents the aspect of these physical variables (the environment) that corresponds to the controlled perception (called the Sensor signal in the diagram).Â

Â

HB : Yes the emphasis is that »output« affets a variable called the input quantity. The emphasis is on affect not control.Â

Â

Bill P. :

….firrst order perceptual signal reflects only what happens at the sensory ending : ** the source of the stimulation is completely undefined
and unsensed.**Â Â

Â

HB :…so it doesn’t matter whether you put in front senssors (input function) elephant or any other »input quantity«. It’s the same effect on sensors.

Â

Bil P :

If any infromation exists about the source of the stimulus, it exists only distributed over milions of first-order perceptual signal and is explicit in none of them.

Â

HB : The emphasis is on »if«, there is nothing in enviroment that would  clearly »correspond« to produced neural currents. But it could be »mixed« somewhere among
milions of them.

Â

Bill P :Â

The significance of any first-order perceptual signal is therefore extremely limited and local; this applies even in the eye…. There is no information in aany one first-order visual signal
to indivicate the origin of the light the input function aabsorbs : the source can fluorecence inside the eyeball or an exploding star a hundered milion years removed in space and time, with no change of the erceptual signal.Â

The perceptual signal from a touch receptor does not reflect whether the cause is an electrical current, a touch, or a chemical poisoning, or whether a touch occurs to the left or right
of the exact receptor location.

Â

HB : So no matter which sensor or nerv end is stimulated, the effect of the source is unknown to the control system.Â

Â

Bill P : All informations contained in first-order perceptual signals is therefore information about what is happening to the associated input functoon and about nothing else.

Â

RM (earlier) : I will just add that, in the LiveBlock demo all we know is q.i; we don’t know how q.i is derived from environmental variables, v.1, v.2…v.n. So the LiveBlock demo, though a great way to demonstrate the behavior of variables a control loop,
cannot be used to demonstrate anything about the relationship between q.i and p.

Â

HB: Maybe this is related to what Bill is explaining in relation ; environment - sensor – perceptual signal.

Â

What I can see here is that there isn’t any »imagined input quantity« that could be present in perceptual signal. So it matters only that input function is affected
and that first order perceptual signal refelcts only what is happening at the sensory endning. So whatever is stimulating sensory organs or nerv ends, are physical variables which can not be defined (it may be any in environemnt).

Â

If everything outside is completely undefined why put »input quantity« in environment as pure »imagined » construction right in front of input function. Is this
suggesting that only »input function« is represented in perceptual signal ??

Â

Â

So physical variables in outer environment probably stimulate input function to produce neural currents no matter if they are »input quantity« or any other physical
variable in environment that is not afected by ouptut and disturbances. They have all equal chances to be transformed.Â

Â

So it seems that it is not important whether environment or »input quantity« or any other part of environment was affected. It matters only what directly affects
input function as that is all that control system will perceive. All other explanations in external environment are just imagination of individuals.Â

Â

So if we are turning our heads we are affecting directly perceptual organs, which produce milions of neural currents with no definite origin. We don’t affect
any imagined »input quantity«. We directly affect input function. That’ what output is doing.Â

Â

There is no control in environment that could be sensed by sensor organs, just some changes on »surface« of perceptual organs. Whatever brains »construct« from
perceptual signals after many interesting operations in nervous system (question how nervous system works), is something that is later »recognized« on higher levels.Â

Â

Bill P:

…… uusing higher levels of organization we »know« that light can come from distant objects

Â

HB : My oppion is that nervous system is constructing perceptual reality inside nerv-net in his own way, manipulating neural currents in some specific way (which
are described in B:CP, 2005). Â

Â

RM (earlier) : Since this is a rather verbal group I think it’s better to say that that perceptions (perceptual signals) are constructed , not derived, from lower level perceptual inputs and, ultimately,
sensed effects of physical variables.

Â

HB : Well I must say that these are extra points for you Rick in my higher oppinon about you. It’s rising. I must say Rick (although unwilingly J )
that I perfectly agree with you.Â

Â

I think Rick that you could maybe compare this »findings« with your »new findings« in post where you are admtting your mistake in discussion with Rupert ? Lately
you had so many progresive findigs that’s it worth of putting them together.Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

RM :Â The controlling is done by the operation of the entire loop; there is no control of Output and there is no controlling done by the comparator. The comparator
just compares.Â

Â

RM earlier : Perhaps not simply enough. Bill’s diagram shows a feedback control loop organized around the control of an Input quantity.Â

Â

RM : Because most things we call “behavior” are both outputs and controlled Input quantities, we say “behavior is control”.Â

Â

HB : I’m not sure that I understand what you meant. Could you arrange this statements to have some sense or just I don’t understand them. If the controlling is done by the operation of entire loop, how can we
»control input quantity«. Once there is no control of output, and once we can »control behavior«.

Â

Bill P. :

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

Â

HB : So comparator is not only comparing  it’s also computing the difference between reference and perceptual signal (error signal). And this is control.Â

Â

HB: Behavior is not control. It’s just effect of muscles on environment,Â

Â

RM: This is true if by “behavior” all you are referring to is output effects on a controlled Input quantity.Â

Â

HB : I still can’t grab the term »controlled input quantity«. What is making »Input quantity« controlled ? What is controlling »input quantity« ?

Â

»Input quantity« seems to imply that this is the only thing people or living beings can perceive through »input function« because it’s in front of our »nose«.
But we know that people can perceive in the dark monsters instead of trees, that people can perceive dear persons living with them although they are long time dead, we see colors differently although »input quantity« seems to be the same, people can perceive
text differently…and so on.

So it’s not some objective »input quantitty« (which is the same for anyone) responsable for differently perceived results (like you and me reading the same Bill’s
text differently), but nervous system that is somehow constructing »meaning« from perceptual input. What is the role of »input quantity« in all these cases ? Is really only »input quantity« responsable for what we are perceiving from environment ?

Â

The other problem with »input quantity« as Martin pointed out is, that it is presenting just »controlled perception«. So it’s containing just effects of system’s
output and disturbances. But that is not all what it is transformed from environment into perceptual signal. Any physical variable that can affect sensor will be present in milions of neural currents progressing toward comparator. The »input quantitty« shows
just one part of transformation proces in input function.Â

Â

RM :

But most of the things we call behavior are both outputs and controlled input quantities. So a behavior like “lifting a book” is both an controlled Input quantity (an end result ) and an output (a means of controlling some other input quantity, like putting
the book back up on the shelf). Because most things we call “behavior” are both outputs and controlled Input quantities, we say “behavior is control”.Â

Â

HB : Now first you say behavior …… is output (a MEANS of ccontrolling some other input quanttity) and on the end »behavior is control«. How can something that
is not existing in external environment (input quantity) be behavior ??? »Input quantitty« is affected by behavior… if… it it can 't be behavior… think…Â

Â

Maybe you could describe »lifting book in PCT manner.Â

»Lifting a book« is a perception when you are acting to make
a perception change to more desireble state (affecting input) …youu have no direct knowledge of what you are doing to the reality (moving book) that is the origin of your neural signals; you know only the final result, how the perception of the book was changing
to the desired perception.… Any other analysis in outer environmennt is imagination which can be interpreted by any individual differently.Â

I borrowed terminology and the whole meaning from BillÂ

Â

HB : Thinking that entirely or some “aspect of environmentâ€? can be controlled with behavior is not PCT reasoning.

Â

RM: Actually, thinking of living (or artificial) control systems as controlling some aspect of the environment is perfectly good PCT reasoning.Â

Â

HB : Well I hope it’s clear that generaly we can’t speak of »controlled« aspect of environment as there are behviors that do not affect any »aspect of environment« (turning you head, scratching, sitting in the
park and observing, walking, etc.) but affect directly input (sensory organs, nerv ends).Â

Â

If PCT is theory that can explain all behaviors, then we have to talk only about »output affecting input (sensory organs or nerv ends) as this is in accordance with Bills’ writings B:CP about 1.level sensor function,
and physiological facts).Â

In this context we can explain all behaviors also those which are affecting some «aspect of environment« in order to affect perception. Â

Â

But whatever is happening outside (whether something is affected or not) is of secondary importance. First control system has to be »closed« to keep homeostasis, and in some cases »affect environment« to help
achieve and maintain preselected state in controlling system, what is of primary importance and is running cntinuously. Behavior (output) is not continuous.Â

Â

If organism is not producing internal control enough to survive, no behavior or any effect in environment will not help to survive. Many times organism must help itself. Many times doctors just wait what will
happen in organism whether internal control systems will »win« or «lose« battle for life. I’m talking here about »general theory of control of perception« what I make equal to understanding how organisms function, not whether or not we control all the time
»variables« in external environment. PCT is the theory about how organisms function not how we »control aspect of environment« ??

Â

Â

RM : When you control the shape of the rectangle in the “Control of Perception” demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/ControlOfPerception.html ),
for example, you are controlling the shape rather than the orientation or size aspect of the environment; when a thermostat controls air temperature it is controlling  the temperature rather than the humidity or water vapor aspect of environment.

Â

HB : Living and artificial control systems have some principles in common, but sure they are not working the same. Maybe when analyzing artificial control system
you could talk generaly about »controlled aspect of environment«, but not when humans are in question. I think you went to far.Â

Â

O.K. Rick I was really surprised last time with your correction of PCT thinking, and I was pleasently surprised with your »construcitivist« thinking.Â

Maybe we’ll reach the point of understanding PCT. But for that I think you will have to leave »selfregulation« thinking and »control of behavior« and contribute
to more understanding of »control of perception« and how organisms really work. Â

Â

Best, Boris

Â

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick     Â

–Â

Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com

Author of  Doing
Research on Purpose.Â

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[Tracy_Harms]

[from Tracy Harms (2015.08.18.0922)}

The wording you propose, Fred, is unappealing to me because with it I get a sense of discretion in which the core dynamic of control (in our sense) is lost.

It makes it sound as though I perceive my environment and, having done so, choose to manipulate aspects of it. That is, it suggests a serious degree of independence between the object of perception and the status of having perceived it. This runs sharply contrary to my sense that direct coupling of action and sensation is necessary for perception to exist.

This coupling typically involves simultaneity, which I find helpful for keeping in mind that there is no gap between perceiving (some aspect of) my environment, and doing something to make an effect in that (aspect of) environment, during which I may contemplate what effect to arrange.

I hope I have communicated why I don’t like revising the central articulation of PCT to increase emphasis on environmental consequences.

What I’ve read from Rick in this thread fits and maintains the emphasis I prefer.

···

–
Tracy Harms

On Aug 12, 2015 9:46 AM, Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.08.12.0920)}

Â

I’m happy to modify the wording, Boris. How about this: “Behavior is an effort to control some selected aspect of the perceived environment.�

Â

Clearly, none of us can control our entire environment and I don’t think any of us try to do that but I do think we all try to control certain selected aspects of the world we perceive.

Â

It’s probably worth mentioning that some of our efforts are conscious and deliberate and others are more or less automatic.

Â

Fred Nickols

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Tracy,

TH : I hope I have communicated why I don’t like revising the central articulation of PCT to increase emphasis on environmental consequences.

What I’ve read from Rick in this thread fits and maintains the emphasis I prefer.

HB : I don’t get it Tracy. You don’t agree with Fred, who is talikng aproximatelly the same as Rick, but you agree with and prefer Rick.

But they both quite deviate from Bill’s PCT. Why prefere Rick why not the author of PCT ?

Best,

Boris

···

From: Tracy Harms (kaleidic@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:26 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)

[from Tracy Harms (2015.08.18.0922)}

The wording you propose, Fred, is unappealing to me because with it I get a sense of discretion in which the core dynamic of control (in our sense) is lost.

It makes it sound as though I perceive my environment and, having done so, choose to manipulate aspects of it. That is, it suggests a serious degree of independence between the object of perception and the status of having perceived it. This runs sharply contrary to my sense that direct coupling of action and sensation is necessary for perception to exist.

This coupling typically involves simultaneity, which I find helpful for keeping in mind that there is no gap between perceiving (some aspect of) my environment, and doing something to make an effect in that (aspect of) environment, during which I may contemplate what effect to arrange.

I hope I have communicated why I don’t like revising the central articulation of PCT to increase emphasis on environmental consequences.

What I’ve read from Rick in this thread fits and maintains the emphasis I prefer.

–
Tracy Harms

On Aug 12, 2015 9:46 AM, Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.08.12.0920)}

I’m happy to modify the wording, Boris. How about this: “Behavior is an effort to control some selected aspect of the perceived environment.�

Clearly, none of us can control our entire environment and I don’t think any of us try to do that but I do think we all try to control certain selected aspects of the world we perceive.

It’s probably worth mentioning that some of our efforts are conscious and deliberate and others are more or less automatic.

Fred Nickols

[Tracy_Harms]

[from Tracy Harms (2015.08.18.15:11)]

Boris,

I wrote about my reaction to the present thread, not to the broader discussions on this list nor to the personalities of participants. Bill is not posting to this thread, naturally. For what it is worth, I don’t see in this thread the deviation you claim. I’m not interested in entering the dispute you appear to be pursuing.

···

–

Tracy Harms

[JohnK]

[John Kirkland 2015.08.19 0915 NZT]

This comment may be tangential to the current thread. Even so, I’d like to have a range of PCT perspectives presented for consideration.

Recently I’ve been pondering over students who are required to “learn-by-heart”. The content may be selected religious texts, the times’ tables, nervous system labels, pi to 10 places, the first 10 elements of the periodic table, or whatever. In most of these situations the dominating theme is “learn-this-and-repeat, ASAP”; didactic teaching at its worst. In such contexts students have no choice. Well, they could buck the system, which is unlikely because of adverse consequences. They certainly don’t have any opportunities to ask questions, or to play and mess about with trying this and that by testing and experimenting.

I would hazard a guess many readers on this forum have at one time or another been formal, institutional teachers as well as students. This topic possibly has a personal aspect: so, as a teacher how did you present curriculum content for subsequent student assessment? If there was a text book, that’s a give-away since “bundled knowledge” was therefore acknowledged. I’d especially like to hear from those teachers who managed to include PCT deliberately.

Fred may wish wade in with an apposite comment along the lines that teachers may be likened to managers,in which case the “Target model” suffices for both instances.

I understand Ed Ford’s responsible learning makes an important contribution to pedagogy. But, it may not avoid the, “there is stuff that’s called knowledge and it may be assessed and students will be graded accordingly” ideology which I summarise as, it’s this world-way or the byway. Yes, I do appreciate the investigative themes percolating through Ed’s contributions, which typifies “discovery learning” and its condiments.

By way of some background to this conundrum, I have been revisiting the Bloom/Anderson taxa which are foundation documents for most national educational curricula. From my observations, one consistent theme for pretty well all educational objective taxa is the notion that there is a recognised body of knowledge; it exists and may be pointed at and discussed and parsed into curriculum segments which are then transferred to students via teachers’ guidance to become student-cloned memories for facts, concepts and procedures. Internationally, the dominant teaching method is still didactic. And students are therefore locked into show evidence of “learn this by heart”, which is where this topic started.

Comments and suggestions welcomed. I continue to be astounded at the gaps in my understanding of pedagogy and epistemology.

Kind regards

JohnK

···

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Tracy Harms csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[from Tracy Harms (2015.08.18.15:11)]

Boris,

I wrote about my reaction to the present thread, not to the broader discussions on this list nor to the personalities of participants. Bill is not posting to this thread, naturally. For what it is worth, I don’t see in this thread the deviation you claim. I’m not interested in entering the dispute you appear to be pursuing.

–

Tracy Harms

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.18.1900)]

···

Tracy Harms (2015.08.18.0922)–

TH: This runs sharply contrary to my sense that direct coupling of action and sensation is necessary for perception to exist.

RM: At first I was going to disagree with this. But then I realized that there is evidence that action is necessary for at least some perceptions to exist. I remembered that if you stabilize the image on your retina (which is equivalent to preventing eye movement – action – from having an effect on the image) the image disappears. So there would be no visual perception – we would see nothing – if we didn’t move our eyes around a bit. These movements, called microsaccades, are apparently occurring all the time. If they weren’t we would have no visual perception due to adaptation of the retinal receptors; they get tired of looking at exactly the same thing for a long time;-) Â So it is true that in at least this one case action is necessary for perception.Â

TH: This coupling typically involves simultaneity, which I find helpful for keeping in mind that there is no gap between perceiving (some aspect of) my environment, and doing something to make an effect in that (aspect of) environment, during which I may contemplate what effect to arrange.

RM: This is a very good point. In a control loop what we perceive is always a simultaneous result of environmental simulation (disturbances, d) and action (output, q.o). This is captured by the simplest form of the equation for the perceptual variable, p, in a control loop: p = q.o + d. This means that the state of a perceptual variable is at all times a simultaneous result of what we are doing (q.o) and what is happening in the environment outside of us, d. For example, when I move my head (q.o) to follow someone as they walk by(d) I am keeping that person in my field of view by moving my head appropriately. So what I perceive, p, (the person) is always a simultaneous result of what is happening out there (d, the person walking by) and what I’m doing (q.o, moving my head).Â

RM: Notice that I was able to change what I perceive (p) by varying q.o without having a direct effect on d. That is, my head movement didn’t affect the person walking by. My output just affected the way the person, d, was sensed. This fact about the simultaneous effect of output (action) and disturbance (environment) on perception is captured by the fact that the equation for perception as a function of q.o and d is usually written as two equations (see p. 286 of B:CP 2nd ed) as follows:Â

q.i  = k.eq.o+ k.dd  (equation 4, p. 286)

p = k.i*q.i (equation 1, p. 286)

where k.e, k.d and k.i are constants and q.i is the sensed state of the environment. So q.i can be thought of as the relative position of the person (d) in the retinal image depending on which way I’m looking (o). If I look toward the person the image is centered; if I look to the side the person is in the periphery or not there at all. What is perceived,p, is a function of this retinal image (q.i) – the location of the person in my field of view.

RM: This example makes me realize that it is more correct to say that what is controlled is not just an aspect of the environment but an aspect of the environment as sensed. This makes it clear that your actions (outputs) don’t necessarily have to have a direct effect on the environment in order to control an aspect of that environment. In a tracking task your actions do have a direct effect on the aspect of the environment that is controlled; the effect of mouse movements combine, in the computer, with the effects of the disturbance to determine the position of the cursor relative to the target. So when we write p = q.o + d, q.o and d are being added together in the environment (of the computer) and the result is variation in a perceived aspect of that environment – the position of the cursor relative to the target.

RM: But in the case of watching a person as they go by, I can control for seeing the person without having any direct effect on him or her; I control that perception by simply varying which way I’m looking. So in this case when we write p = q.o + d, the output and disturbance are not being added together in the environment; the variations in where I’m looking (q.o) just affect where (and whether) d (the person) falls on my retina. Â Â

RM: This is a subtlety about the way d and q.o are combined in different situations to produce a perception. We could say that q.o either has a direct (as in tracking) or indirect (as in watching a person go by) effect on the controlled perception, p. The correct relationship between d and q.o is usually clear from the situation. For example, in my object interception research the controlled perceptions are indirectly affected by outputs; the controlled perceptions are optical variables, equivalent to q.i, that depend on both external disturbances (movement of the target object in three space) and outputs (movements of a pursuer relative to the target). These movements have no direct effect on the disturbance (target movement) itself but do affect how that movement is sensed. So what is controlled in object interception are aspects of the environment as sensed.Â

RM: In my tracking research the controlled perceptions are directly affected by outputs; the controlled perceptions are again optical variables, equivalent to q.i, but the value of these variables results from the combination of computer generated disturbances values and mouse movement generated values that occurs inside the computer (environment). So mouse movements (q.o) have a direct effect on the disturbance. But it is still the combination of q.o and d (cursor position, q.i) that is controlled. So in tracking, as in object interception, it is correct to say that what is controlled is an aspect of the environment as sensed.Â

TH: I hope I have communicated why I don’t like revising the central articulation of PCT to increase emphasis on environmental consequences.

RM: That’s fine. I am more comfortable about talking about it as control of perception myself. As I said, when people actually start doing research aimed at determining the perceptual variables what people control they will have to be looking for the functions of physical variables (aspects of the environment as sensed) that are being protected from the effects of disturbance by the actions of the controlling system. That is, they will have to be doing the test for the controlled variable.

BestÂ

Rick

What I’ve read from Rick in this thread fits and maintains the emphasis I prefer.

–
Tracy Harms

On Aug 12, 2015 9:46 AM, Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.08.12.0920)}

Â

I’m happy to modify the wording, Boris. How about this: “Behavior is an effort to control some selected aspect of the perceived environment.�

Â

Clearly, none of us can control our entire environment and I don’t think any of us try to do that but I do think we all try to control certain selected aspects of the world we perceive.

Â

It’s probably worth mentioning that some of our efforts are conscious and deliberate and others are more or less automatic.

Â

Fred Nickols

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

www.mindreadings.com
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[rupert]

[From Rupert Young (2015.08.19 20.30)]
(Rick Marken (2015.08.15.1240)]
Good, all is well with the world. A few points: Though what you actually controlling is a of the
amount of electromagnetic energy, such as the number of cells that
are stimulated, rather than an environmental variable?
What I mean is that for the TCV to be used is that an experimenter
must be able to measure certain environmental variables, which are
hypothesised to be correlates of the perception under control; that
is, they must be able to measured objectively.
I only brought that up as I though you’d said (in Rick Marken
(2015.08.06.1000)) that we control the amount of sugar, for
sweetness of lemonade.
So perhaps we shouldn’t use it in the informal sense, to avoid
confusion.
Because if you remove the perceiver the observer is no longer able
to measure the variable (or its correlate), but with area or water
temperature it doesn’t matter whether or not the perceiver is there.
I was including imaginations, so no wonder we were seeing things
slightly different. I didn’t see any reason to exclude them. I
assume that there are still control systems going on controlling
their perceptions, but with internal behaviour rather than overt
externally observed behaviour. This seems to be a significant part
of the control of perception, particularly with humans. I assume
that perceptions can be controlled merely through the process of
thinking. Perhaps by changing (varying) one’s perspective of the
meaning of thoughts, “I can’t get a job, it’s not my fault, there
are immigrants from other countries, they are working, it’s their
fault I don’t have job, send them back home”. Feedback is internal
and not through the environment, so environmental variables are not
involved. This sort of positive or negative thinking can consolidate
(control) thoughts and beliefs (perceptions) entirely with internal
processes. I can image Donald Trump looking in the mirror every
morning saying to himself “I will be in the Oval office, I will be
in the Oval office; this is a sexy hairstyle, this is a sexy
hairstyle”. People can create and control perceptions (imaginations)
without recourse to, or even in opposition to (e.g. religion),
environmental reality (evidence). But these perceptions may,
subsequently, have consequences in the real world.
Though, “Behaviour is the control of perception”, is a principle
general to all levels, including imagination, which has been part of
my point. Yep, I take your point, but not sure I am convinced yet. There
seems to be a major disjunct between perceptions based on sensory
input and high level perceptions of principles and system concepts.
Requires more thought.
But these can then, as I say above, become controllable perceptions,
in the real world, such as Donald’s bid for the presidency. Rupert

···

            Rupert Young

(2015.08.14 22.10)

            RY: Thanks for the extensive response. I certainly

concur with your points about the importance of
perception, and I think we’re mostly on the same page,

          RM: I agree and I believe I can get us completely on

the same page eventually.

            RY: But let me give

my take on things and you can let me know where I might
be going awry.

            RY: When we are controlling we are always controlling

perceptions. There may be an environmental variable
that only appears to be controlled as well.

          RM: This is correct if by "environmental variable" you

mean what I mean (and what it means in PCT): a physical
variable that exists in the models of physics and/or
chemistry. So when intensity perceptions are controlled
you are controlling an environmental variable; for
example, the pupillary reflex is a control system that
controls the amount of electromagnetic energy in the
visible part of the spectrum (a physical environmental
variable) that stimulates the receptor cells in the
retina.

perception

            RY: When there is an

objective environmental variable, that is, it is
independent of the perceiving system then the TCV can be
used.

          RM: I think you are conflating perceptions that are

functions of “environmental variables”–perceptions that
are a function of variables in the models of physics and
chemistry, intensity perceptions – with perceptions of
“aspects of environmental variables”, such as the taste of
lemonade. All perceptions are ultimately a function of
environmental variables so to the extent that a tester can
compute (or experience) the same aspect of those variables
as the testee, the TCV can be used to determine what
perception the system is controlling.

            RY: In terms of

controlling the sweetness of my tea I vary the amount of
sugar to control my perception of the sweetness. I guess
a corresponding environmental variable would be the
proportion of sugar solution in the liquid. If it is not
sweet enough I add sugar, if I it is too sweet I take
out sugar (ok, can’t do that but can add liquid). So the
amount of sugar is not being controlled. Though in this
case the amount of sugar probably correlates with the
sugar solution proportion, so it is both the
environmental correlate of the perception and the output
quantity.

          RM: I don't think sugar is an environmental correlate

of the perception of tea; that perception depends on a
combination of chemicals that includes sugar as one
component. But when you add sugar, sugar could be
considered an output that affects the controlled
perception, the taste of tea.

            RY: There is, it

seems to me, a distinction between the use of the word
“control” in the informal and formal, technical sense.
An important distinction. Informally it might look as if
someone is controlling the heat dial when taking a
shower, when it is actually being varied to control the
perception. Likewise with some of your baseball
examples. Informally it could be said that batters were
controlling the location of their bat relative to the
pitched ball. But formally they may actually have been *
varyingthe location of their bat in order to control the *
perceived relationship between the bat and the pitched ball.
The use of this informal sense may, perhaps, lead those
new to PCT to not appreciate the difference between our
manipulation of the world and the control of
perceptions, and miss the essence of PCT.

RM: Yes, that’s a problem.

            RY: In line with

this question I can think of a number of different cases
of perceptions in relation to environmental variables:

            **Independent**                  - perceptions which have associated

environmental variables which are independent of the
perceiver, such as with w&h in your area demo or the
water temperature in the shower example.

            **Dependent** - perceptions which require the

presence of the perceiver, such as when swimming I
control something like my perception of my direction in
relation to the blue line on the bottom of the pool. So
could there be said to be an environmental variable that
corresponds to the perception?

          RM: I don't see how this is different from the

perception of area or water temperature.

Imagination
- perceptions that are solely based upon internal
variables; and not current environmental variables .

          RM: Imagined perceptions are not perceptions, in the

sense that they are not a function of physical stimulation
of the senses. So I would rather just refer to them as
“imaginations”. I have no idea what to do about
perceptions that are a combination of perception and
imagination. My experience is that it’s always one or the
other. But if there are such combinations then they are
what they are. But they are currently not part of the PCT
model. What we experience is either a perception or an
imagination, per the model anyway.

            RY: If these are

valid then it doesn’t seem valid to regard the

              control

of variable aspects of the environment as a general
principle.

          RM: True. But I don't see it as a general principle. I

just see it as the way the model works. According to the
model, we control perceptions that are functions of
environmental variables (where environmental variables are
the variables in the models of physics and chemistry).

            RY: This leads on to

the question of whether all perceptions are ultimately a
function of physical variables. Regarding high-level and
abstract perceptions, such as, honesty or god, I can’t
see how it can make sense that these are functions of
physical variables.

          RM: And it doesn't make sense to me that they could not

be. Perceptions have to be based on sensory input and
sensory input is assumed to be caused by physical
variables. Think about it in terms of robotics. How would
you build a robot that controlled for the level of honesty
in an interaction with another control system? To build
such a robot it would have to perceive the honesty of what
it is saying. And that perception would have to be based
on a perception of what it’s saying, who the other control
system is, etc. And these perception would depend on the
robot hearing what it is saying and seeing who the other
robot is.That is, it would have to have sensors for
acoustic and optical physical variable – ears and eyes.
As for god, I don’t know what perceptual variable would be
controlled here. Degree of belief in god, perhaps? In
order to control this perception you would have to be able
to perceive how much you believe in god. This perception
would probably depend on perceiving your professions of
belief, your attendance at church perhaps, etc. Anyway, it
would ultimately depend on your ability to sense variables
in the environment – acoustical and optical.

            RY: If they're not

then I’m not sure I have a satisfactory resolution but
the answer would seem to lie in imagination. What arises
from thinking is the ability to put together different
concepts and abstractions to create new, previously
un-thought thoughts.

          RM: Yes, this is true. We create perceptions in

imagination that are not derived from sensory input
(physical variables). I guess I should be clear that when
I say that perceptions are always functions of
environmental variables I am talking about controlled or
controllable perceptions. The perceptual variables that
I create for myself in imagination – like the perception
of myself jumping up and flying over buildings – are
usually only controllable in imagination.

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Rick,

It’s nice to see your progress from wrong to right, but I think that it’s not right to hide the source of your »revelation«. Or maybe you forgot  to mention where did you get ideas and conclussions about your »new RCT«. You have PhD and you know how sources of your knowledge and conclussions have to be made.  So I think :

1.   That you could have a »piece of self-respect«  and  (after a long time of persuading you that you are not right) you could admitt that you were all the time wrong about »permanent controlled aspect in environment« and so about »permanent behavior is control«. Although this is not yet understanding of PCT, but it is a step toward it.
   

2.   That you should announce your mistake »officially« like you did in the case with Rupert, Â
   

3.   That we will hardly establish some relationship, where I'll openly tell you where your mistakes in PCT thinking are.
   

I also appeal on Alice, Barb, … if they do something with your autocracy on CSGnet. Â Â I think again it was really bad idea to let you do what you want without respecting the basic laws of rights. It seems that CSGnet is here only for your, so that you can use any oppinion as your own.

For example :

RM : This makes it clear that your actions (outputs) don’t necessarily have to have a direct effect on the environment in order to control an aspect of that environment.

HB : Here is only clear that I put this in my posts 20x o more times and it’s real miracle that you finally got it. The last time I mentioned this was in my last post as answer to yours nebouluses about »control of behavior and controlled aspect of environment«. So if something is clear here it is that you are »borrowing« others knowledge to look like yours.

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:09 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.18.1900)]

Tracy Harms (2015.08.18.0922)–

TH: This runs sharply contrary to my sense that direct coupling of action and sensation is necessary for perception to exist.

RM: At first I was going to disagree with this. But then I realized that there is evidence that action is necessary for at least some perceptions to exist. I remembered that if you stabilize the image on your retina (which is equivalent to preventing eye movement – action – from having an effect on the image) the image disappears. So there would be no visual perception – we would see nothing – if we didn’t move our eyes around a bit. These movements, called microsaccades, are apparently occurring all the time. If they weren’t we would have no visual perception due to adaptation of the retinal receptors; they get tired of looking at exactly the same thing for a long time;-) So it is true that in at least this one case action is necessary for perception.

HB : I have no clue waht you are talking about. Is there any physiological proof for your statements ? You realized ? What an evidence ……

TH: This coupling typically involves simultaneity, which I find helpful for keeping in mind that there is no gap between perceiving (some aspect of) my environment, and doing something to make an effect in that (aspect of) environment, during which I may contemplate what effect to arrange.

RM: This is a very good point. In a control loop what we perceive is always a simultaneous result of environmental simulation (disturbances, d) and action (output, q.o). This is captured by the simplest form of the equation for the perceptual variable, p, in a control loop: p = q.o + d.

HB : If q.o = 0 or d=0, is there still always a simultaneous result in environment ? Do you still think that all events in control loop happen at the same time ?

This means that the state of a perceptual variable is at all times a simultaneous result of what we are doing (q.o) and what is happening in the environment outside of us, d.

HB : Wrong…. ???!!!

For example, when I move my head (q.o) to follow someone as they walk by(d) I am keeping that person in my field of view by moving my head appropriately. So what I perceive, p, (the person) is always a simultaneous result of what is happening out there (d, the person walking by) and what I’m doing (q.o, moving my head).

HB : This is quite a surprise. You are not so bad student and obviously I’m not so bad teacher if you finally understand this simple fact form my simple example. Cheers…

&

RM: Notice that I was able to change what I perceive (p) by varying q.o without having a direct effect on d. That is, my head movement didn’t affect the person walking by. My output just affected the way the person, d, was sensed.

HB : Well you need not to go so in detail with variations, but O.K. we understood you got it. I didn’t through my time away.

RM : This fact about the simultaneous effect of output (action) and disturbance (environment) on perception is captured by the fact that the equation for perception as a function of q.o and d is usually written as two equations (see p. 286 of B:CP 2nd ed) as follows:

q.i = k.eq.o+ k.dd (equation 4, p. 286)

p = k.i*q.i (equation 1, p. 286)

HB : You were using the same equatations for maybe 40 years and it suddenly in year 2015 occur to you that equatation could have aslo some other meaning. And directly after our conversation. Oh Rick, who will beleive you that ? Anybody ?

RMÂ : ….where k.e, k.d and k.i are constants and q.i is the ssensed state of the environment. So q.i can be thought of as the relative position of the person (d) in the retinal image depending on which way I’m looking (o). If I look toward the person the image is centered; if I look to the side the person is in the periphery or not there at all. What is perceived,p, is a function of this retinal image (q.i) – the location of the person in my field of view.

HB : Partly true… YYou’ll have to read some things again. You are misleading CSGnet again….

RM: This example makes me realize that it is more correct to say that what is controlled is not just an aspect of the environment but an aspect of the environment as sensed.

HB : The aspect of environemnt is not sensed at the first level. It’s distributing among milions of perceptual currents. So there is no »an aspect of the environment as sensed«. But we can talk about some other mechanisms in nervous system with physiological evidences that nervous system is »constructing outside world« inside us.  And you seemed to agree.

RM (earlier) : Since this is a rather verbal group I think it’s better to say that that perceptions (perceptual signals) are constructed, not derived, from lower level perceptual inputs and, ultimately, sensed effects of physical variables.

But I’m still not convinced that you understand what Bill was writing about, probably because of lack of your knowledge in physiology.

RM : This makes it clear that your actions (outputs) don’t necessarily have to have a direct effect on the environment in order to control an aspect of that environment. In a tracking task your actions do have a direct effect on the aspect of the environment that is controlled;…

HB : This is nice to hear after so many hard years of working with you mistaken thinking. I thought you’ll never make it. But here it is : a progress. Cheers.

RM : ….the effect of mousse movements combine, in the computer, with the effects of the disturbance to determine the position of the cursor relative to the target. So when we write p = q.o + d, q.o and d are being added together in the environment (of the computer) and the result is variation in a perceived aspect of that environment – the position of the cursor relative to the target.

RM: But in the case of watching a person as they go by, I can control for seeing the person without having any direct effect on him or her; I control that perception by simply varying which way I’m looking. So in this case when we write p = q.o + d, the output and disturbance are not being added together in the environment; the variations in where I’m looking (q.o) just affect where (and whether) d (the person) falls on my retina.

RM: This is a subtlety about the way d and q.o are combined in different situations to produce a perception. We could say that q.o either has a direct (as in tracking) or indirect (as in watching a person go by) effect on the controlled perception, p. The correct relationship between d and q.o is usually clear from the situation.

HB : Well now I’m not sure any more if you really understood something. What a mess… Bill’s diagram is general. It’s not about situational »»behaviors« with situational effects. It seeems that we go again… Oh no…J

RM:Â : For example, in my object interception research the controlled perceptions are indirectly affected by outputs; the controlled perceptions are optical variables, equivalent to q.i, that depend on both external disturbances (movement of the target object in three space) and outputs (movements of a pursuer relative to the target). These movements have no direct effect on the disturbance (target movement) itself but do affect how that movement is sensed. So what is controlled in object interception are aspects of the environment as sensed.

HB : Odd language. I don’t think that I celarly understand but how do sensor »knows« which is »controlled« perception« and how they know »what is apsect of environment ??? From q.i. ? Some new RCT ?

RM: In my tracking research the controlled perceptions are directly affected by outputs; the controlled perceptions are again optical variables, equivalent to q.i,

RM : …but the value of these variables resuults from the combination of computer generated disturbances values and mouse movement generated values that occurs inside the computer (environment). So mouse movements (q.o) have a direct effect on the disturbance. But it is still the combination of q.o and d (cursor position, q.i) that is controlled.

So in tracking, as in object interception, it is correct to say that what is controlled is an aspect of the environment as sensed.

HB : This is quite a mess. But it seems that is not correct…. There cann’t be any aspect of environment as sensed ? Â You said it for yourself. It’s constructed.

TH: I hope I have communicated why I don’t like revising the central articulation of PCT to increase emphasis on environmental consequences.

RM: That’s fine. I am more comfortable about talking about it as control of perception myself. As I said, when people actually start doing research aimed at determining the perceptual variables what people control they will have to be looking for the functions of physical variables (aspects of the environment as sensed) that are being protected from the effects of disturbance by the actions of the controlling system. That is, they will have to be doing the test for the controlled variable.

HB : Again your »protection« ??? But your view has change a little. Of course with my help in all those years. It seems that all my posts were not lost in time and space. They had effect. But there is still quite a way to go.

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

What I’ve read from Rick in this thread fits and maintains the emphasis I prefer.

–
Tracy Harms

On Aug 12, 2015 9:46 AM, Fred Nickols csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2015.08.12.0920)}

I’m happy to modify the wording, Boris. How about this: “Behavior is an effort to control some selected aspect of the perceived environment.�

Clearly, none of us can control our entire environment and I don’t think any of us try to do that but I do think we all try to control certain selected aspects of the world we perceive.

It’s probably worth mentioning that some of our efforts are conscious and deliberate and others are more or less automatic.

Fred Nickols

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi John…

nice invitation for PCT promotion…

···

From: John Kirkland (johnkirkland@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 12:08 AM
To: kaleidic@gmail.com
Cc: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)

[John Kirkland 2015.08.19 0915 NZT]

This comment may be tangential to the current thread. Even so, I’d like to have a range of PCT perspectives presented for consideration.

Recently I’ve been pondering over students who are required to “learn-by-heart”. The content may be selected religious texts, the times’ tables, nervous system labels, pi to 10 places, the first 10 elements of the periodic table, or whatever. In most of these situations the dominating theme is “learn-this-and-repeat, ASAP”; didactic teaching at its worst. In such contexts students have no choice. Well, they could buck the system, which is unlikely because of adverse consequences. They certainly don’t have any opportunities to ask questions, or to play and mess about with trying this and that by testing and experimenting.

I would hazard a guess many readers on this forum have at one time or another been formal, institutional teachers as well as students. This topic possibly has a personal aspect: so, as a teacher how did you present curriculum content for subsequent student assessment? If there was a text book, that’s a give-away since “bundled knowledge” was therefore acknowledged.

JK : I’d especially like to hear from those teachers who managed to include PCT deliberately.

HB : PCT is incredibly powerfull tool for »schooling« if you do it, not if you are explaining how PCT works. So I would agree mostly with Bob Hintz and his direction of answering to your question. For Rick it would be better if he wouldn’t answer. But here it is, again damaging PCT. I thought he is here to present Bill’s work not RCT »oppinion«, and that he will stimulate discussions in the course of PCT improvement instead of trying to prevent further research and improvement in PCT direction. Well what a moderator.

RM : So if you want to improve education at the group level, stop wasting time trying to figure out better ways to teach and work on ways to provide all families with the means to control their lives – that is, return to the economic system we had in America when I was growing up – a system where we had a large, strong middle class.And, no coincidence, the finest educational system in the world. It wasn’t because we knew how to teach better back then and forgot; it’s because a larger segment of the population – the then large middle class – was in control of their lives.

HB :

As usual oppotunistic Rick is answering on John’s challenge with »stop thinking on improvement« (I suppose PCT is included) and go back to history when represive, classical schooliing was in fashion. Children were teached in the manner of »carrot and stick« or basic Thorndike »laws of effect« or as Bill described it »punishment and reward« system.

So it seems that Rick is calling : »back to behaviorism« as usual.

So I’ll try to present briefly what I think Bill wanted to tell us about schooling, although is seens to be somehow part of his whole society theory. The basic mechanism with no concern to economic system ii seems to be the same : attempt or desire of people to control other people. It’s universal and independent of any state or economic system.

Bill P :

What we’re talking about here, of course, is just the usual way in which civilized societies are organized. Even without Machiavellian calculation going on, this is natural result of trying to control other people, and trying to do it by means of rewards…

Bill P :

It’s clearly a rotten system and needs to be torn down and replaced – by something or other. The only problem is that every time a revolution occurs and the despots are thrown out, when a new system is built up and everything is running again it works just like the old one. People still beleive they need to control other poeple, they still find rewards the only practical way to control other people, …

<

So if I undertsnad right Bill clearly put it, that »attempts to control others« doesn’t depend on any sort of »economic system« but on human characteristics which are general and evolutionary founded. So punishment and reward mechanisms still dominates »popular concepts of behavior in business, education, law, and child-rearing, not to mention common sense. To disaplace it we need a large number of people who understand PCT…«

Understanding PCT for me doesn’t mean to explain how PCT works, but to live in accordance with PCT principles. So PCT school with principles »built-in« everyday school life (no connection with economic system) could provide »school-life« in accordance with PCT. And I suppose this was what John was aiming at ?

Problem is that school systems around the world don’t understand PCT and basics of damaging the children with repression or with having »TOTAL control« on them. PCT as I see it, explains also this sort of problems….

So trying to control other people or in our case children is mostly unpredictable, and speccially in America turned to be very dangerous. If American school system is so good, as Rick is mentioning, why so many deaths of innocent children in history of American school system . It’s unique in the world. And if I was informed right, there was »violence in schools« in times when Rick was in school. So it seems he was really lucky to survive.Â

And by the way. I don’t recall that Amercian education system was ever »pronounced« as the best or finest in the world. Some evidences could be welcome.

The international competitions and reaserches are showing to Scandinavian school systems. If we are in the realm of classical school systems with mentioned main principle of »reward and punishment«…

The Washingtom Post : Ravitch

The myth persists that once our nation led the world on international tests, but we have fallen from that exalted position in recent years.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Here is the background history that you need to know to interpret the PISA score release,… The U.S. has NEVER been first in the world, nor even near the top, on international tests.

Over the past half century, our students have typically scored at or near the median, or even in the bottom quartile.

International testing began in the mid-1960s with a test of mathematics. The First International Mathematics Study tested 13-year-olds and high-school seniors in 12 nations. American 13-year-olds scored significantly lower than students in nine other countries and ahead of students in only one. On a test given only to students currently enrolled in a math class, the U.S. students scored last, behind those in the 11 other nations.

Maybe Rick should take a research of his own to prove his statement of being »the best on the world«. I think that Rick statements are misleading as usual. But of course he is right because Powers ladies »cover his back«.

PCT obviously doesn’t support such a classical system that you mentioned John, but some alternative one. So it provides means for different kind of school system, by my oppinion much better than classical. Â Â

I’d like to participate in discussions about PCT »pedagogical tools« as there are many of them and I’m still using some of them. In classical schooling all can’t be used. Â

But I’m sorry John until things are not in order here on CSGnet, I’ll just criticize, until somebody do something. Rick become really disturbing. And he is protected like a »polar bear« by Powers ladies.

But if you are really interested in seeing some PCT solutions for school system you could maybe ask Martin Taylor to »unlock« ECACS forum for you. It’s his forum, and it’s in order, safe, perfect. If only CSGnet would be half of it.Â

On ECACS forum you can find quite long essays of mine on theme PCT and school systems. And if you’ll happen to read some of them, ana if you’ll have any questions, I’ll be willing to talk with you privatelly. As I said, if owners will not take care about »rights« here, CSGnet looks like a market hall or bazaar with moderator stimulating »behaviorim« in the middle of PCT.

Best,

Boris

P.S. My advice is to forget about Ed Ford. It’s botom of school systems solution. I don’t see any possible relation to PCT. It’s another way of »controlling« children with »punishment« if they disturb teachers. It’s thought control system of worst kind. Something like Pink Floyd were criticising : »We don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control, no dark sarcasm in the classrooms, teacher leave them kids alone…«.

But probably is genetical, probably carried from generation to younger generation. I mean covering and protecting people who are »ours«. So it seems that Bill protected and covered Ed Ford just for reason of »advertising« PCT. Something similar Powers daughters are doing with Rick. It simply doesn’t matter whether PCT advance or fall, it matters only that Ricks’ stand-point is supported. Whatever it is. It’s remarkable.

And on the field of school systems PCT could incredibly a lot. But who cares. But your trial was really a good one, constructive…

Fred may wish wade in with an apposite comment along the lines that teachers may be likened to managers,in which case the “Target model” suffices for both instances.

I understand Ed Ford’s responsible learning makes an important contribution to pedagogy. But, it may not avoid the, “there is stuff that’s called knowledge and it may be assessed and students will be graded accordingly” ideology which I summarise as, it’s this world-way or the byway. Yes, I do appreciate the investigative themes percolating through Ed’s contributions, which typifies “discovery learning” and its condiments.

By way of some background to this conundrum, I have been revisiting the Bloom/Anderson taxa which are foundation documents for most national educational curricula. From my observations, one consistent theme for pretty well all educational objective taxa is the notion that there is a recognised body of knowledge; it exists and may be pointed at and discussed and parsed into curriculum segments which are then transferred to students via teachers’ guidance to become student-cloned memories for facts, concepts and procedures. Internationally, the dominant teaching method is still didactic. And students are therefore locked into show evidence of “learn this by heart”, which is where this topic started.

Comments and suggestions welcomed. I continue to be astounded at the gaps in my understanding of pedagogy and epistemology.

Kind regards

JohnK

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Tracy Harms csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

[from Tracy Harms (2015.08.18.15:11)]

Boris,

I wrote about my reaction to the present thread, not to the broader discussions on this list nor to the personalities of participants. Bill is not posting to this thread, naturally. For what it is worth, I don’t see in this thread the deviation you claim. I’m not interested in entering the dispute you appear to be pursuing.

–

Tracy Harms

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.23.1740)]

···

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:11 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB : PCT is incredibly powerfull tool for »schooling« if you do it, not if you are explaining how PCT works. So I would agree mostly with Bob Hintz and his direction of answering to your question. For Rick it would be better if he wouldn’t answer. But here it is, again damaging PCT. I thought he is here to present Bill’s work not RCT »oppinion«, and that he will stimulate discussions in the course of PCT improvement instead of trying to prevent further research and improvement in PCT direction. Well what a moderator.

RM: This is not a moderated list. No one is moderating what you say. I’m certainly not and it doesn’t look like anyone else is either.

HB: And by the way. I don’t recall that Amercian education system was ever »pronounced« as the best or finest in the world. Some evidences could be welcome.

The Washingtom Post : Ravitch

The myth persists that once our nation led the world on international tests, but we have fallen from that exalted position in recent years.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here is the background history that you need to know to interpret the PISA score release,… The U.S. has NEVER been first in the world, nor even near the top, on international tests.

RM: I stand corrected. It probably seemed like US schools were best at the time I was in them (1950s- early1960s) because I was in a solidly middle class school district. But it’s good to be called on this by Diane Ravitch, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect since she had enough scientific integrity to change her mind, based on the data, and see that blaming the problems of education on teachers is the wrong approach to solving them. So the main point I was making still stands: Variations in teaching techniques/styles/abilities (ie. differences between teachers) accounts for only a small proportion of the variance in student achievement (measured by various tests scores). Most of the variance in student achievement is accounted for by variations across students in factors outside the classroom (eg. home and neighborhood environment). Here’s some data that makes my point:

RM: These data come from Haertel, E. (2003) Reliability and Validity of Inferences about Teachers based on Student Test Scores, ETS, Princeton, NJ (https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG14.pdf). What this means is that if you want to improve education you will get a lot more “bang for your buck” by investing in improving the socio-economic situation of students and their families than by investing in improved teachers or teaching methods.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

[_Boris_Hartman]

RM: This is not a moderated list. No one is moderating what you say. I’m certainly not and it doesn’t look like anyone else is either.

RM : So if you want to improve education at the group level, stop wasting time trying to figure out better ways to teach and work on ways to provide all families with the means to control their lives – that is, return to the economic system we had in America when I was growing up – a system where we had a large, strong middle class.And, no coincidence, the finest educational system in the world. It wasn’t because we knew how to teach better back then and forgot; it’s because a larger segment of the population – the then large middle class – was in control of their lives.

HB : So you didn’t write this one in conversation with Bob Hintz ? Who did ?

Boris

···

From: Richard Marken (rsmarken@gmail.com via csgnet Mailing List) [mailto:csgnet@lists.illinois.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:42 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Why Control of Perception? (Re: Powers, 2007…)

[From Rick Marken (2015.08.23.1740)]

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:11 PM, “Boris Hartman” csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:

HB : PCT is incredibly powerfull tool for »schooling« if you do it, not if you are explaining how PCT works. So I would agree mostly with Bob Hintz and his direction of answering to your question. For Rick it would be better if he wouldn’t answer. But here it is, again damaging PCT. I thought he is here to present Bill’s work not RCT »oppinion«, and that he will stimulate discussions in the course of PCT improvement instead of trying to prevent further research and improvement in PCT direction. Well what a moderator.

RM: This is not a moderated list. No one is moderating what you say. I’m certainly not and it doesn’t look like anyone else is either.

HB: And by the way. I don’t recall that Amercian education system was ever »pronounced« as the best or finest in the world. Some evidences could be welcome.

The Washingtom Post : Ravitch

The myth persists that once our nation led the world on international tests, but we have fallen from that exalted position in recent years.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here is the background history that you need to know to interpret the PISA score release,… The U.S. has NEVER been first in the world, nor even near the top, on international tests.

RM: I stand corrected. It probably seemed like US schools were best at the time I was in them (1950s- early1960s) because I was in a solidly middle class school district. But it’s good to be called on this by Diane Ravitch, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect since she had enough scientific integrity to change her mind, based on the data, and see that blaming the problems of education on teachers is the wrong approach to solving them. So the main point I was making still stands: Variations in teaching techniques/styles/abilities (ie. differences between teachers) accounts for only a small proportion of the variance in student achievement (measured by various tests scores). Most of the variance in student achievement is accounted for by variations across students in factors outside the classroom (eg. home and neighborhood environment). Here’s some data that makes my point:

RM: These data come from Haertel, E. (2003) Reliability and Validity of Inferences about Teachers based on Student Test Scores, ETS, Princeton, NJ (https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG14.pdf). What this means is that if you want to improve education you will get a lot more “bang for your buck” by investing in improving the socio-economic situation of students and their families than by investing in improved teachers or teaching methods.

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.

Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble