[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)]
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
Lloyd
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
 Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control) and theory (that, therefore, behavior can only be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later. Â
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I appreciate your recognition of this anniversary… I actually was up at the cemetery recently to visit Mom and Dad. We had a large rock placed nearby for sitting, and I had transplanted some of Mom’s iris next to their marker back in 2005, when we buried Mom’s ashes. Those flowers are flourishing, and many deer frequent the area, often lounging in the shade nearby, unafraid of the quiet visitors and silent residents.
It’s strange to see my parents’ names etched in the stone above the beginning and ending dates of their time here on Earth. That seems too final somehow, as if a statement was being made which couldn’t be supported by any amount of research.  Is it really the end? I don’t have a clear view of what I believe actually happens at that point. I was raised gobbling up science fiction books and stories, and watching Star Trek with the family, dinner plates on our laps. I remember how excited Mom and Dad were when we went to see the first Star Wars movie at the theater. When the first words appeared (A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…) Dad exclaimed, “Ho, ho!  A *real *science fiction movie!” and settled back in his seat, ready to be entertained.Â
My imagination leads me to wonder if they ascended to another level, or perhaps to another planet in a new form, in another universe. Wherever they may be, I hope it’s peaceful and free of unwelcome disturbances…
It isn’t the end, at least in the many ways they both live on through their children, and through all of you, their close friends and colleagues.Â
Thank you all for your continued dedication to PCT, and for your respect for Dad and his lifetime of work.
With kindest regards,
 *bara
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
 Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control) and theory (that, therefore, behavior can only be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later. Â
Best regards
Rick
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
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 – when we make the perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception…
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
RM ….and theory (that, therefore, beehavior can only be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later.
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Best,
Boris
Best regards
Rick
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Boris, I am shocked and appalled that you would use this particular thread as a platform for your ugly language and your argumentative ways. For shame.
Barb
On May 25, 2017 2:55 PM, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Â
Â
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Â
 Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
Â
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
Â
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
Â
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Â
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
Â
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 – when we make the perception of the glass change from »on thee table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter tthe world of perception…
Â
Â
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Â
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Â
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
Â
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
Â
RM ….and theory (that, therefore, behavior can only be expplained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later. Â
Â
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Â
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Â
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
Â
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
Best regards
Â
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I agree. Wrong thread. There also is no need to jump in screaming “bullshit.” What are you trying to accomplish here? For Rick to say Behavior is control is not so outrageous so as to warrent your rant. Ranting gets very old. Would you please take a breath and realize that Rick was implying control of perception.Â
On May 25, 2017 4:32 PM, “bara0361@gmail.com” bara0361@gmail.com wrote:
Boris, I am shocked and appalled that you would use this particular thread as a platform for your ugly language and your argumentative ways. For shame.
Barb
On May 25, 2017 2:55 PM, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Â
Â
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Â
 Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
Â
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
Â
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
Â
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Â
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
Â
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 – when we make thee perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception…
Â
Â
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Â
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Â
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
Â
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
Â
RM ….and theory (that, therefore, behavior can only be expplained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later. Â
Â
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Â
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Â
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
Â
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
Best regards
Â
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Barb,
I thought that you will be more acceptable for your Dads’ ideas but it seems to me, that you are more supporting Ricks’ RCT then your Dads’ PCT.
I’ll try a little more this time. On the end there is my proposal about what I think PCT is. It’s some sort of summary of your Dads’ legacy. I think it’s right that somebody make such a overview over his theory every year so to honor his memory. Â
It takes time to go through Bills’ enormous literature. I would suggest again if You could do it and provide PCT with inserts from his work if it’s true what you told me that Your Dad and Mom are the only that are important to you.Â
But after you emotional »explossion« I really donIt know on which side you are : Dad and Mom’s or Ricks ???
And for that reason it seems useless to prove to Rick that he is wrong. Rick is promoting his RCT and »Behavior is control« and he never showed one single evidence that he is telling the truth. And you beleive him not your Dads’ legacy ???Â
They have totatly diferent concept of understanding how organisms function. .
I was shocked and appeled that Rick used particular situation to promote his RCT and »Behavior as control«. After all these years of conversations he didn’t show a single evidence that he could be right about that »Behavior is Control«. But he did admitt many times that output in PCT is not controlled. Output can be equated with behavior. At least as muscle tension is concerned.
Beside these contradiction in which he once claim that »Output is not controlled« and once that it is, there are also other contradictions. Everything can be checked in CSGnet archives.
And you are shocked because I »attacked« Rick for being ignorant about PCT and because he was promoting »Behavior is control« and his RCT instead of »Control of perception« and PCT ? Unbeleivable.
I think that you should be satisfyed that somebody is revealing PCT through your Dads’ literature and not just through imagination as Rick is doing.
I’m taking you also responsable for what Rick is doing for a long time, although I provided all evidences that his RCT theory with wrong elements in control loop is total opposite to Bills’Â PCT. For now Rick didn’t deny it.
What I was aming at was to honor PCT and memory to Bill and simultaneously showing that Rick should do the same. Ricks’ RCT is just phylosophy. Will you provide necesary evidences ?
And beside that you invited me to show from time to time on CSGnet. Would you like that Rick writes whatever he wants or you want some synhronization with PCT on CSGnet. Rick is for a long time quite far from it.
I think that you should criticize Rick for what he did. I used Bill sources and honored his PCT. Is this what I should be shame of ?
What’s wrong with my argumentative way ? That I’m using your fathers’ literature to prove what PCT is ? Is this wrong argumentative way ??? Is wrong argumantative way proving that Rick is not right ? That your friend Rick is being target for his ignorancy ? Should we let him talk whatever he wants wtih no concern to PCT ? What »argumentative way« is right for you ?
O.K. let us make an agreement. As soon as anybody of you provide evidences that »Behavior is control« and that it can produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or PCV, I’ll appologise to you, Rick and to all those who were hurtby my statements and citations of Bills’ literature. But if you don’t provide evidences that »Behavior can be control« I hope that you’ll apologize to me. Is this fair ?
By ma oppinion CSGnet forum should be some scientific forum not only friendship discussion forum. So evidences has to be put »on the table«, like in every scientific discussion. You agreed once with this. Don’t make differences between members. If something is valid for one member it should be valid for all members.
As I saw from other discussions I could conclude that PCT is still not enough established on CSGnet forum, and Ricks’ RCT is blooming, I decided to honor Bills’ memory and also give a systematic answer to Kaufmans’ »10 big ideas« about PCT
I thought at first that somebody more close to Bill could do it, but till now I didn’t see any such contribution. As I said before I’ll try a little more, but more probable is that I’ll have enough of everything and I’ll let you to your Destiniy you choosed. If you want CSGnet forum to be dedicated to Rick and his RCT then what can I do more then I did ?
So I decided to make probbaly for the last time a brief abstract from Bills’ lietrature in 10 or maybe more points to compare them to Kaufmans’ points. But in the future I think it would be more suitable if you Barb or any member of your “core” group do it to honor the memory on your father and PCT.
Here is my interpretation of highlights from Bills’ literature which tends to give a short »abstract« of his enourmous work. The aim is also to show how it looks like when CSGnet forum is dedicated to his work so that we see really his words, not Ricks’ RCT. Ricks’ work (RCT) is in most cases what we see here. So I’m asking myself to whom CSGnet forum is dedicated ? To Bill or Rick ???
Anybody who wants to express oppinion about work of William T. Powers is welcome. In this way we could maybe establish what PCT is and come to some normal PCT agreements, not RCT agreement. So please no contributions in the form of NON-PCT theories like Rick is.Â
I must also emphasize that my »abstract« of »10 PCT Thesis« usees mostly Bills’ text :
To control perception means to act on it in such a way as to bring it to desired state and keep it there despite other forces tending to disturb it.
Because other forces and influences are always acting, there is no way to predict exactly what action will be needed to control perception.
In order to control is absolutely necesary to perceive. We control perception of our and other behavior not control it directly. Our senses and further neural equipment that builds abstract perceptions out of simple ones, provide us with a world to experience and it is only that experienced world that we can control.
Human beings and other animals produce behavior for one reason : to control their experiences of the world.
Behavior affects the world that really exist. Those effects, after being filtered through the properties of human perception, show up as changes in the world we know about.
"Controlling perception" means controlling the state of some specific perception, not changing one perception into a different perception. When we control a perception of the distance of the glass of water from our mouth, we are controlling the perception of distance, not changing the perception of distance into a perception of nearness.
We can go a long way toward figuring out what another person is controlling if we are willing to do some careful observing and some experimenting. If we apply disturbances to something someone is controlling, we can, if we guessed right, expect to see or feel the other person "pushing" back, keeping the disturbance from affecting the perception they control. The point of control is to be able to counÂteract *unpredictable* influences and happenings that interfere with control.
Every Living Control System must have certain major features**.** The system must be organized for negative (not positive) feedback, and it must be dynamically stable – it must not itself create errors that keep it hunting about the final steady state conditions. The Living Control System of this kind must sense the controlled quantity in each dimenssion **in which the quantity is to be controlled**; this implies the inner model of the quantity in the form of a signal or set of signals. It must contain or be given something equivalent to a reference signal (or multiple reference signals) which specifies the »desired« state of the controlled quantity **that is to be controlled**. The sensor signal and the reference signal must be compared, and the resulting error signal must actuate the system's output effectors or outputs. And finally, the system's output must be able to affect the controlled quantity in **each dimension that is to be controlled**. This makes the action the clearest. The system, above the dashed line, is organized normally so as to maintain the sesnor signal at all times nearly equal to the reference signal even a changing reference signal. This is how control is achieved and maintained. The sensor signal and input quantity become primarilly a function of the reference signal originated inside the system.
**Control loop functions and how they work :**
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system…
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
PCT interpretantion of control loop should be in form of perceptual control not control of behavior.
Bill empahsiszed importance of perception for control clearly :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 – when we make the perception of the glass change from »oon the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that allter the world of perception«…
Bill P : Briefly, then: what I call the hierarchy of perceptions is the model. When you open your eyes and look around, what you see – and feel, smell, hear, and taste – is the model. In fact we never experience anything but the model. The model is composed of perceptions of all kinds from intensities on up.
Q: Why did you move your hand?
A: To pick up this knife.
Q: Why did you pick up that knife?
A: In order to cut my steak.
Q: Why cut your steak?
A: In order to fit a piece into my mouth.
Q: Why put a piece of it into your mouth?
A: Because it’s not polite to stuff the whole thing in.
Q: Why be polite?
A: So I’ll be asked to dinner again some time.
Q: Why get asked to dinner again?
A: Because I want to save money, and food is exÂpensive.
Q: Why save money?
Etc.
So, as far as we followed, this person moved his or her hand as a means of saving money. Of course the same actions, at each level, also served many other goals we didn’t ask about, among them being the goal of not being hungry. But clearly, each goal was only a subgoal, a perception to be controlled not just for its own sake, but as part of a larger hierarchical control process. There are other paths through this complex hierarchy: why not be hungry? Because it distracts me from trying to write my novel. Why write your novel? And so on.
It must be evident immediately that the brain is not just a simple control system. It’s a huge hierarÂchy of control systems, with many levels and many systems at each level, all these systems operating at the same time. In principle, we could apply small well-calibrated disturbances to different aspects of a person’s environment and body, and set up tens of thousands of equations with tens of thousands of unÂknowns, and use a supercomputer to figure out just which variables at each level were being controlled in which states at a given moment. It’s impossible to do it today.
The system is so huge and complicated that people who own such systems often find that the machinery isn’t working right and they don’t know how to fix it. There are natural mechanisms for resolving problems like internal conÂflicts, but they work slowly and don’t always work, so people have what we call “psychologicalâ€? problems even in perfectly healthy brains and bodies.
The brain goes on working as it always works, perceptions vary, control systems control, and so on, What changes is only our conÂscious acquaintance with these activities, as if we were shining a small flashlight around in a huge room full of running machinery.
All those control systems are always working, which means they are controlling, which means that the perceptions of the things being controlled are still present even if not conscious. The neural signals are present, even if they aren’t reaching consciousness.
This adds up to the second main phenomenon: we experience consciously only a small part of the totality of brain activity going on at any moment, although (the first phenomenon ) it is a changeable part.
If you happen to be conscious of some control process in the middle of the hierarchy, neither at the lowest level nor at the highest, you will be aware of things happening at some modest level of abstracÂtion, and of your own actions, and of what you want to be happening. How you’re doing these things is not normally conscious—that is, you may be talkkÂing, but you won’t be conscious of forming each phoneme or of how your lips and tongue move. And why you’re doing those things is also not generally conscious. At the moment that you’re explaining to the police officer why your attention was distracted from the red light you just drove through, you’re only partly conscious of the background thought of being late to work that made you decide to ignore the red light.
Specifically, we are often in a state where we are aware of a main, foreground, process, but at the same time we are somewhat, marginally, fleetingly, aware of a background process that seems to be about the foreground process. When ideas are presented so abstractly we become conscious of things we had probably been perceiving all along, but hadn’t paid proper attention to. But for some reason, a moment came when the background activities leaked into the foreground and we became aware of them, and even made a comment about them.
The Method of Levels works as non-aggressive, non-coercive, non-bullying way of helping another perÂson to unravel some of the complexities of his own hierarchical structure of control processes—if he or she has asked for help. The iddea is to recognize that a background thought about the subject has just been expressed, and to indicate it, gently, in case the other person might find it significant. The agreement with the other person is that when such an indication is made, the person will at least pause for a moment and explore the background thought, idea, attitude, or whatever it is long enough to see if it’s of any imÂportance. We can refer to the “other personâ€? as the “explorer,â€? the only one who can look to see what is actually going on in that brain.
The point of therapy is not to show how clever, insightful, empathetic, or understanding the guide is. The MOL is a minimalist therapy, doing only what is needed to help a person recognize a problem and find a point of view from which something can be done about it. The MOL is for people who are lost in the complexity of their own lives, who are in conflict, who are out of touch with their own motivations.
Of the highest importance seems to be the idea that people govern their own lives rather than just responding to environmental stimuli or “control their behavior” and behavior of others. People control perception in order to achieve match of actual perception with references in the hierarchy. And people are more or less succesfull at doing it. Helping them to be more succesfull (not to try control them to be “slaves” of our goals) is probably the right way.
This concept encourages us to show respect for others, recognizing that they have their own aspirations and goals and generally find their own ways of getting what they need or want, just as we do. Another important common idea that arises from the first one is that it is not helpful to try to control other people; the result of too ham-handed an approach is more likely to be opposition and downright conflict than benefit. It’s important that people tend to give others room, to put critiques in the form of questions rather than criticisms, and to rely on the client more than the therapist to come up with specific answers to problems.
In HPCT, there are levels of organization, and levels of goals, and there is some highest level of goals that is known as system concepts. But there is no reason to propose that every person ends up organized in exactly the same way at the highest level; in fact, when we consider how and why learning hapÂpens, it’s highly unlikely that people will all have just one small set of most-important goals. If we want to take even a semi-scientific approach to exploring human nature, we must be more open-minded, and wait for the evidence about actual high-level control processes to come in before we even think of trying to pick out universal characteristics. What’s really universal about human beings is that they are unique control systems. What they happen to have learned to control for is far from universal.
Best,
Boris
From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:33 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
Boris, I am shocked and appalled that you would use this particular thread as a platform for your ugly language and your argumentative ways. For shame.
Barb
On May 25, 2017 2:55 PM, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
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 – when we make the perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we prodduce actions that alter the world of perception…
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
RM ….and theory (thaat, therefore, behavior can only be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later.
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Best,
Boris
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hi Alison.
From: Alison Powers [mailto:controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:41 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
AP : I agree. Wrong thread. There also is no need to jump in screaming “bullshit.”
HB : Who jumped and screamed ??? It seems to me that you are the only one here who is jumping and screaming. How do you know how did I write message ? Whatever. It’s your state of mind not mine.
And sorry to notice. It wasn’t my idea to describe Ricks writngs in this way. Alex described it in every detail. If you haven’t read it, I would advise you to read it.
But it’s really hard to express in some normal way when you repeat to somebody the same things all over again that he is wrong and he is not changing,. I put so many evidences on the table. Rick did exactly none. And still you beleive him. Emotional attachment to Rick shouldn’t influence your judgment what is right and waht si wrong About PCT. It’s scientific theory. Remmeber ?
I know that we can’t control Rick, but we are trying to. Maybe showing him Bills’ evidences will finally take some effect. Bt you could help persuading Rick to stop misleading CSGnet forum.
.Â
AP : What are you trying to accomplish here?
HB : Nothing more but PCT or Bills’ work to be respected. What are you trying to accomplish by leting Rick to do what he wants. ???
I just put Bills’ word and literature »on the table« as I think it should be respected also by Rick. That we hear on this forum Bills’ thoughts. Are you not trying to accomplish the same as I do ? I’m trying now for years to find the way to end Ricks’ manipulations on CSGnet forum… It seems that when people get used to some control »patterns« they don’t leave it easy.
AP : For Rick to say Behavior is control is not so outrageous so as to warrent your rant.
HB : You are right. For is a »folklore« to tlak about »Behavior is control<«. But this is just opposite what Bill wanted to tell with PCT.
Rick is wrong. Behavior is not control. He has Bills’ literature and he can prove to me anytime that I’m wrong. But he didn’t do it. So it’s outrageous that somebody is promoting »Behavior as control« on PCT forum, although it’s clear that Bills’ theory is bout »Control of perception«. It’s just opposite theory. There is no physioogical way that behavior (Muscle tension) can be controlled. But there are numerous evidences that perception can be controlled. See B:CP.
AP : Ranting gets very old. Would you please take a breath and realize that Rick was implying control of perception.
HB : Rick is not implying »Control of perception« but »Control of behavior«. He is quite clear in his RCT (Ricks’ Control Theory). You can check it through archives. And he also proved that he can speak clear PCT language if he wants. The whole loop is wrong if somebody is traying to think of »Behavior is control«.
RCT control loop :
CONTROL : Keeping of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state, protected (defended) from disturbances.
OUTPUT FUNCTION : controlled effects (control of behavior) to outer environment so to keep some »controlled variable« in reference state
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : »Control« of some »aspect of outer environment« in reference state.
INPUT FUNCTION : produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or »Controlled Perception«, the perceptual correlate of »controlled q.i.«
COMPARATOR : ????
You can check it on CSGnet for years how Rick is promoting exactly this kind of control loop which is clearly just opposite to Bills’ loop which is shown in his definitions in B:CP and other literature
And now I’ll show how Bills’ control loop with his defintion look like. It’s total difference. Ricks’ theory is closer to Carver and Scheier self-regulation than Bill.
Why do i HAVE TO DO IT SO MANY TIMES ???:
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Bill P (B:CP):
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system…
Bill P (LCS III):
:…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the meeans this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
Bill P (LCS III):
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
Bill P (B:CP) :
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
Bill P (B:CP) :
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
HB : Do you see the difference ??? Ricks RCT is »controlling outside«, so that control is coming though the environment into organism though »Controlled Perceptusl Variable«. It’s like environment is controlling organism how orgsnism will behave.
And PCT is about controlling inside organism. It’s enormous difference in concept.
So saying that »Behavior is control« and that »Perception is controlled« is too big difference in control loop. It’s a conceptual difference as I’m proving it for years. Ricks’ control loop looks like self-regulation (See Mary Powers). But you and Barb are not helpfull. You are protecting Rikc whatever he says.
Here is Mary Powers’ discusion. I’ll try to put in 10 points. So with Bills’ 10 points about PCT (see post to Barb) I’ll try to make some fundaments for sicussion about PCT. We must finally solve this.
Mary Powers and her 10 Thesis about PCT : :
PCT requires a major shift in thinking from the traditional approach : that what is controlled is not behavior, but perception.
A control system receives input—perceptions—from its environment. This inputput is a combined function of environmental effects plus the effects of its own actions. The input is compared to a reference state, and the difference drives the output, which is immediately and continuously perceived, along with its effect or lack of effect on the environment. The output varies to reduce the difference between input and reference states.
The PCT model views behavior as the means by which a perceived state of affairs is brought to and maintained at a reference state. This approach provides a physically plausible explanation for the consistency of outcomes and the variablity of means.  The PCT model has been used to stimulate phenomenona as diverse as bacterail chemotaxis, tracking a target, and behavior in crowds.
The heart of control theory is that organisms control, and that what they control is not behavior at all, but perception. This shift in viewpoint resolves the problem. Organisms achieve consistent ends in a variable world. The consistent ends that are achieved are the perceived consequences of their actions in combination with any environmental disturbances; not the actions alone, or the environmental disturbances alone.
The primary barrier to the adoption of PCT concepts is the beleif – or hope – that control theoryory can simply be absorbed into mainstream life sciences without disturbing the status quo. It's very hard to beleive that one's training and life work, and that of one's mentors, and their mentors, must be fundamentally revised.
Modeling behavior as dependent variable, as a respons to stimuli, provides no explanation for the phanomenon of achieving consistent ends through varying means, and requires an extensive use of statistics to achieve modest (to the point of meaningless correlation). Attempts to model behavior as planned and computed output can be demonstarated to require levels of precise calculation that are unobtaibale in a physical system, and impossible in a real environment that is changing from one moment to the next.
The problem of variability has been approached by severely controlling the environment in which subjects are immersed, or by trying to eliminate it through the use of increasingly sophisticated statistics, or by speaking of distal behavioral consequences rather than the immense variety of proximal acts that achieve those consequences.
Organisms do not, cannot, program a series of actions that will have a consistent result. The simplest movement is immediately affected by the infinite variety of positions from which it begins, and by the state of fatigue of the muscles depending on previous actions.
BCP, being written in the 60's and early 70's, is probably more about behaviorism than it would be if written today. Cog. psych was in development then. What has emerged is focussed on action. The trouble with planned action is not in the planning, it is in the notion that what is planned _is_ action. Because as the command to act proceeds down the hierarchy to muscular outputs, the detailed computaÂtion required to carry out the action grows more and more complex and more and more vulnerable to the slightest variation in the environment in which the action is to occur. Planned perception, a la PCT, permits any variation in action required to bring about the desired result. Cog psychologists do talk, some of them, about control, and self-regulation and so on.
Beginning with Carver & Scheier a number of psychologists have adopted the control theory model of William T. Powers as a taking-off point from which to address the topics of self-regulation and goal pursuit. These well-intentioned efforts to bring control theory into mainstream psychology have unfortunately come
at a price: the distortion of some of the key concepts of control theory, and the addition of elements which are inconsistent with the main theory.
Whatever Rick is doing is directly opposite to 1. 2…3. 4. point of Mary Powers’ thesis. I hope this will serve as a reference to all other contribution on CSGnet in »calibrating« writings to PCT.
Mary Powers (continuing) :
A variety of misapprehensions about control systems can be identified and confuted :
Self-regulation keeps an individual on track towards attaining a goal. (Self-regulation is the process of maintaining a perception, including the perception of moving toward a goal.)
The brain sends a signal to the appropriate muscles to take action. (This is a plan-execute model; in control theory the brain specifies perceptions, which makes it unnecessary to calculate “appropriateness�.)
Standards for behavior can be imposed by external sources. (An external standard is a property of the perceived social environment. One can align one’s own reference standard with a perceived one—or not—depending on whether or not such a sa standard is identical with or compatible with one’s own standards or goals.)
The comparator function is used occasionally to determine whether one’s perceptions match a reference value. When perceptions do match, the negative feedback loop is disengaged after the comparator function. (Comparison is an ongoing, continuous process, and the loop remains closed; a condition of no error, however, requires no action.)
It is behavior that is regulated rather than perception. (This is the fundamental difference between control theory and other theories. From inside the organism, where we all live, however objective we try to be, what we know of our actions, the actions of others, and the world around us, are perceptual constructs. There is no extra-sensory means of knowing. Objectivity in science means fairness, lack of bias, and the ability to reproduce, communicate and agree upon those perceptions which we construe as originating externally.)
That such evaluation is always conscious, that homeostasis has nothing to do with self-regulation, that goals and standards can be imposed from outside, that feedback is too slow, etc., etc. (These myths conform to present concepts of how behavior works. In the multi-dimensional space of concepts, control theory is off on a new axis entirely, and cannot be appreciated unless one is willing to suspend previous beliefs and start again from scratch. Most of these myths are present in Nelson’s article.)
If you’ll have time you can study all conversations between me and Rick, and Bills’ literature and Mary Powers and then I’ll be glad to accept your advices about PCT. . Your emotional »breakwown« where you almost equated »Behavior as Control« being the same as »Control of perception« is to far from »objectivity«
I exposed tons of Bills’ arguments and nothing happened. Rick is still promoting his RCT here on forum and publically. And you allowe that and more you support him in doing that.
Are you interested in saving essence of PCT or not ? Was I not right to use Bills’ statements for this occassion ? I think that somebody had to do it in Bills’ memoriam ?
Best,
Boris
On May 25, 2017 4:32 PM, “bara0361@gmail.com” bara0361@gmail.com wrote:
Boris, I am shocked and appalled that you would use this particular thread as a platform for your ugly language and your argumentative ways. For shame.
Barb
On May 25, 2017 2:55 PM, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
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 – whhen we make the perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception…
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
RM ….and theory (that, thereforre, behavior can only be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later.
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Best,
Boris
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Martin Taylor 2017.06.05.15.01]
I don't remember Rick ever suggesting that output is controlled.
“Behaviour is control” is a very different concept from “Behaviour
is control”. Maybe the entire issue between you and
Rick is a question of language? After all, Bill’s Bible is not
entitled “Perception: the Control of Behaviour” but “Behavior: the
Control of Perception”. A colon is sometimes used in English where
one might use “is”, often in a title, for emphasis. So I read that
title as saying quite directly that “Behaviour is control” (of
perception, of course).
Maybe you disagree with Bill in order to disagree with Rick, but you
say you don’t disagree with Bill, so I can only assume that you
don’t interpret the phrase in the same way I do.
Martin
Martin
On 2017/06/5 1:17 PM, Boris Hartman
wrote:
AP : For
Rick to say Behavior is control is not so outrageous so as to
warrent your rant.
HB: You are right. For is a »folklore« to tlak about »Behavior
is control<«. But this is just opposite what Bill wanted to
tell with PCT.
Rickis wrong. Behavior is not control. He has Bills’ literature
and he can prove to me anytime that I’m wrong. But he didn’t
do it. So it’s outrageous that somebody is promoting »Behavior
as control« on PCT forum, although it’s clear that Bills’
theory is bout »Control of perception«. It’s just opposite
theory. There is no physioogical way that behavior (Muscle
tension) can be controlled. But there are numerous evidences
that perception can be controlled. See B:CP.
led
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.05.1230)]
Martin Taylor (2017.06.05.15.01)–
On 2017/06/5 1:17 PM, Boris Hartmanwrote:
BH: Rickis wrong. Behavior is not control…There is no physioogical way that behavior (Muscle
tension) can be controlled…
MT: I don't remember Rick ever suggesting that output is controlled.“Behaviour is control” is a very different concept from "Behaviour
is controlled ". Maybe the entire issue between you and
Rick is a question of language? After all, Bill’s Bible is not
entitled “Perception: the Control of Behaviour” but “Behavior: the
Control of Perception”. A colon is sometimes used in English where
one might use “is”, often in a title, for emphasis. So I read that
title as saying quite directly that “Behaviour is control” (of
perception, of course).
RM: When you’re good, Martin, you are very good!Â
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Thanks, Martin.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.05.1230)]
Martin Taylor (2017.06.05.15.01)–
On 2017/06/5 1:17 PM, Boris Hartmanwrote:
BH: Rickis wrong. Behavior is not control…There is no physioogical way that behavior (Muscle
tension) can be controlled…
MT: I don't remember Rick ever suggesting that output is controlled.“Behaviour is control” is a very different concept from "Behaviour
is controlled ". Maybe the entire issue between you and
Rick is a question of language? After all, Bill’s Bible is not
entitled “Perception: the Control of Behaviour” but “Behavior: the
Control of Perception”. A colon is sometimes used in English where
one might use “is”, often in a title, for emphasis. So I read that
title as saying quite directly that “Behaviour is control” (of
perception, of course).
RM: When you’re good, Martin, you are very good!Â
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Lord forgive me, I should NOT post on this but…
[also for some reason this reply did not open with csgnet in the
‘To:’ field. I added it so I hope this does not double post to
the net]
I'm sorry Boris, but behavior IS controlled, it is exactly what
the control system alters to achieve a control of perception. A
control system, engineered or otherwise does not actually 'control
the perception.'Â With respect to the physical world and
perceptions related to that world is change it’s output in an
attempt to achieve new perceptual input that more closely match
the desired condition for those perceptions.
It is precisely because the biological control system can not
directly control the perception that a reorganizing system is
necessary. A problem that was also recognized by the engineering
community at least as early as the 1950’s… that is the problem
of the disturbance for which the system as presently configured
does not have any output that can counter the this (not planned
for in the case of engineered systems) disturbance. It was
recognized as a problem for response critical systems and for
remote systems. In the case for critical systems the rapid
failure rate precluded engineering and implementing a correction.Â
For remote system the problem became quite obvious with control
systems deployed in outer space.
To suggest that Bill Powers was not well aware of this problem is
absurd! It has been way too many years for me now so I don’t
remember my discussions with Bill about these sorts of issues
other than remembering how his thoughts on reorganization were
elegant indeed. Brilliant thinkers like Bill Powers and Richard
Feynman are sadly all too rare in human society.
B:CP is Behavior is the Control of Perception. This is the
overall goal of the system. That is most certainly a beautiful
statement and indeed a proper way to describe the whole system.Â
However the fact is that the system can only ultimately control
the ‘actuators’ or outputs. This is true for the particular
control system as well as for subunits and even individual control
loops.
Outputs or behavior is controlled with the intent to achieve
control of perceptions. One view is looking at the goal or why
the system works as it does (a very important concept in
behavioral science especially when trying to point out what is
wrong with all of the other approaches)Â of the system, the other
is a view of what the system is actually doing. My claim is that
neither view is wrong.Â
Obviously I am in no position to speak for Rick but, since Rick
is (or at least was a very serious researcher into PCT with a
strong focus on producing systems the accurately produce the same
results as human systems including quality of control) it is to me
no surprise that his focus would be on what the system is actually
doing to achieve the goal of controlling a perception. While I
don’t remember the specifics of any of the conversations that I
actually had with Rick so many years ago, I will state that in all
of the work of Rick’s that I have read I have never seen anything
that would suggest that Rick thinks that the purpose of behavior
is NOT to control perception.
Best,
Bill
On 05/25/2017 02:54 PM, Boris Hartman
wrote:
Â
Â
From:
Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live
William T. Powers
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Â
 LloydKlinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCTwebsite:
WilliamT. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who
developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT)
passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86.Â
He will be laid to rest next to his wife,
Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of
Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued
by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His
theory will someday receive the recognition it
deserves, and so will he.
Â
RM: Thanks for pointing out thattoday is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed,
it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s
insights (first and foremost being that behavior is
control)
Â
HB: I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop
bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without
any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central
point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces
some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing
to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III)
where it’s obvious that »Perception is
controlled«.
Â
Andto make a statement on his day of death that
central point of PCT is »Behavior is control«
instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m
concerned a crime.
Â
Letus remember how beauty of PCT function in real
words and diagram :
Â
Bill P :
Our only view of the real worldis 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 – when
we make the perception of the glass change from »on
the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct
knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that
is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the
final result, how the result looks, feels, smells,
sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we
produce actions that alter the world of perception…
Â
Â
HB: Did you citate any of his statements to honor
memaory of great inventor ?
Â
Doyou see any difference Rick between you rude and
rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual
control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we
remember that Bill was a founder of a new original
theory which fundaments are »Control of
Perception«.
Â
Whoare you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ?
Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you
play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and
listen to you because you are friends. And this
should be some kind of science ?
Â
Iunderstand that you have no evidences for your
statements as many others except maybe »common
sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding
that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with
»common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s
probably the same for Carver and Scheier,
Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too.
Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT
and you don’t need it to understand how and why
people behave.
Â
RM ….
and
theory (that, therefore, behavior can only be
explained as the control of perceptual input) will
someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just
wish it would be someday sooner rather than later. Â
Â
HB: Behavior is not control so it can’t control
input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll
citate again great master of »perception«.
Â
BillP (B:CP):
CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected
state in the controlling system, through actions
on the environment that also cancel the effects of
disturbances.
Â
HB: Behavior is consequence of control and it is
means by which people control perception inside
organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is
just support for inside control. It’s not main
mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about
control in the controlling system. So I hope that
people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not
PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
Â
I'msure that PCT will be once leading theory when
younger generation will accept the fact of
»Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is
control«. It’s about how organisms control inside
not outside.
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
Best regards
Â
Rick
–
Richard S.MarkenÂ
"Perfectionis achieved not when you have
nothing more to add, but when
youhave nothing left to takeaway.�
              Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Barb,
I thought that you will be more acceptable for your Dads’ ideas but it seems to me, that you are more supporting Ricks’ RCT then your Dads’ PCT.
I’ll try a little more this time. On the end there is my proposal about what I think PCT is. It’s some sort of summary of your Dads’ legacy. I think it’s right that somebody make such a overview over his theory every year so to honor his memory.
It takes time to go through Bills’ enormous literature. I would suggest again if You could do it and provide PCT with inserts from his work if it’s true what you told me that Your Dad and Mom are the only that are important to you.
But after you emotional »explossion« I really donIt know on which side you are : Dad and Mom’s or Ricks ???
And for that reason it seems useless to prove to Rick that he is wrong. Rick is promoting his RCT and »Behavior is control« and he never showed one single evidence that he is telling the truth. And you beleive him not your Dads’ legacy ???
They have totatly diferent concept of understanding how organisms function. .
I was shocked and appeled that Rick used particular situation to promote his RCT and »Behavior as control«. After all these years of conversations he didn’t show a single evidence that he could be right about that »Behavior is Control«. But he did admitt many times that output in PCT is not controlled. Output can be equated with behavior. At least as muscle tension is concerned.
Beside these contradiction in which he once claim that »Output is not controlled« and once that it is, there are also other contradictions. Everything can be checked in CSGnet archives.
And you are shocked because I »attacked« Rick for being ignorant about PCT and because he was promoting »Behavior is control« and his RCT instead of »Control of perception« and PCT ? Unbeleivable.
I think that you should be satisfyed that somebody is revealing PCT through your Dads’ literature and not just through imagination as Rick is doing.
I’m taking you also responsable for what Rick is doing for a long time, although I provided all evidences that his RCT theory with wrong elements in control loop is total opposite to Bills’ PCT. For now Rick didn’t deny it.
What I was aming at was to honor PCT and memory to Bill and simultaneously showing that Rick should do the same. Ricks’ RCT is just phylosophy. Will you provide necesary evidences ?
And beside that you invited me to show from time to time on CSGnet. Would you like that Rick writes whatever he wants or you want some synhronization with PCT on CSGnet. Rick is for a long time quite far from it.
I think that you should criticize Rick for what he did. I used Bill sources and honored his PCT. Is this what I should be shame of ?
What’s wrong with my argumentative way ? That I’m using your fathers’ literature to prove what PCT is ? Is this wrong argumentative way ??? Is wrong argumantative way proving that Rick is not right ? That your friend Rick is being target for his ignorancy ? Should we let him talk whatever he wants wtih no concern to PCT ? What »argumentative way« is right for you ?
O.K. let us make an agreement. As soon as anybody of you provide evidences that »Behavior is control« and that it can produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or PCV, I’ll appologise to you, Rick and to all those who were hurtby my statements and citations of Bills’ literature. But if you don’t provide evidences that »Behavior can be control« I hope that you’ll apologize to me. Is this fair ?
By ma oppinion CSGnet forum should be some scientific forum not only friendship discussion forum. So evidences has to be put »on the table«, like in every scientific discussion. You agreed once with this. Don’t make differences between members. If something is valid for one member it should be valid for all members.
As I saw from other discussions I could conclude that PCT is still not enough established on CSGnet forum, and Ricks’ RCT is blooming, I decided to honor Bills’ memory and also give a systematic answer to Kaufmans’ »10 big ideas« about PCT
I thought at first that somebody more close to Bill could do it, but till now I didn’t see any such contribution. As I said before I’ll try a little more, but more probable is that I’ll have enough of everything and I’ll let you to your Destiniy you choosed. If you want CSGnet forum to be dedicated to Rick and his RCT then what can I do more then I did ?
So I decided to make probbaly for the last time a brief abstract from Bills’ lietrature in 10 or maybe more points to compare them to Kaufmans’ points. But in the future I think it would be more suitable if you Barb or any member of your “core” group do it to honor the memory on your father and PCT.
Here is my interpretation of highlights from Bills’ literature which tends to give a short »abstract« of his enourmous work. The aim is also to show how it looks like when CSGnet forum is dedicated to his work so that we see really his words, not Ricks’ RCT. Ricks’ work (RCT) is in most cases what we see here. So I’m asking myself to whom CSGnet forum is dedicated ? To Bill or Rick ???
Anybody who wants to express oppinion about work of William T. Powers is welcome. In this way we could maybe establish what PCT is and come to some normal PCT agreements, not RCT agreement. So please no contributions in the form of NON-PCT theories like Rick is.
I must also emphasize that my »abstract« of »10 PCT Thesis« usees mostly Bills’ text :
To control perception means to act on it in such a way as to bring it to desired state and keep it there despite other forces tending to disturb it.
Because other forces and influences are always acting, there is no way to predict exactly what action will be needed to control perception.
In order to control is absolutely necesary to perceive. We control perception of our and other behavior not control it directly. Our senses and further neural equipment that builds abstract perceptions out of simple ones, provide us with a world to experience and it is only that experienced world that we can control.
Human beings and other animals produce behavior for one reason : to control their experiences of the world.
Behavior affects the world that really exist. Those effects, after being filtered through the properties of human perception, show up as changes in the world we know about.
"Controlling perception" means controlling the state of some specific perception, not changing one perception into a different perception. When we control a perception of the distance of the glass of water from our mouth, we are controlling the perception of distance, not changing the perception of distance into a perception of nearness.
We can go a long way toward figuring out what another person is controlling if we are willing to do some careful observing and some experimenting. If we apply disturbances to something someone is controlling, we can, if we guessed right, expect to see or feel the other person "pushing" back, keeping the disturbance from affecting the perception they control. The point of control is to be able to counÂteract *unpredictable* influences and happenings that interfere with control.
Every Living Control System must have certain major features**.** The system must be organized for negative (not positive) feedback, and it must be dynamically stable – it must not itself create errors that keep it huntinng about the final steady state conditions. The Living Control System of this kind must sense the controlled quantity in each dimenssion **in which the quantity is to be controlled**; this implies the inner model of the quantity in the form of a signal or set of signals. It must contain or be given something equivalent to a reference signal (or multiple reference signals) which specifies the »desired« state of the controlled quantity **that is to be controlled**. The sensor signal and the reference signal must be compared, and the resulting error signal must actuate the system's output effectors or outputs. And finally, the system's output must be able to affect the controlled quantity in **each dimension that is to be controlled**. This makes the action the clearest. The system, above the dashed line, is organized normally so as to maintain the sesnor signal at all times nearly equal to the reference signal even a changing reference signal. This is how control is achieved and maintained. The sensor signal and input quantity become primarilly a function of the reference signal originated inside the system.
**Control loop functions and how they work :**
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system…
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
PCT interpretantion of control loop should be in form of perceptual control not control of behavior.
Bill empahsiszed importance of perception for control clearly :
»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 – when we make the perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the worrld of perception«…
Bill P : Briefly, then: what I call the hierarchy of perceptions is the model. When you open your eyes and look around, what you see – and feel, smell, hear, and taste – is the model. In fact we never experience anything but the model. The model is composed of perceptions of all kinds from intensities on up.
Q: Why did you move your hand?
Boris, I am shocked and appalled that you would use this particular thread as a platform for your ugly language and your argumentative ways. For shame.
Barb
On May 25, 2017 2:55 PM, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
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 – when we make the perception of the glass change from »»on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that aalter the world of perception…
<image001.jpg>
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
RM ….and theory (thatt, therefore, behavior can only be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later.
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Best,
Boris
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.05.1230)]
Martin Taylor (2017.06.05.15.01)–
BH: Rick is wrong. Behavior is not control…There is no physioogical way that behavior (Muscle tension) can be controlled…
MT: I don’t remember Rick ever suggesting that output is controlled.
HB : You shpould look through CSGnet archives before you came with such a statement in discussion with me. I’m used to some other Martin which has weighty arguments not such a childish.
Rick just did it.
RM : So the behavior called “tying shoelaces” points to a control process where the controlled variable is the state of the laces,….and the outputs that produce this result are the hand movements the get the laces tied
RM : Moreover, what we see as the output component of a behavior are typically controlled variables themselves…
<
RM : ….what we see as tthe controlled variable component of behavior is typically an output itself.
HB : It’s such a terrible confussion and nonsense that I can hardly comment it in different way as Alex did :«bull….« You know what I mean.
HB : Rick is changing his mind between behaviorism, self-regulation and PCT so fast that he is probably getting to »light speed«. It’s such a confussion that I’ve never seen something like this. And you fall into trap. Because of him you are getting confused too.
MT : “Behaviour is control” is a very different concept from “Behaviour is controlled”.
HB : There is no difference if you say »Behavior is Control« or Behavior is controlled« or whatever. It’s clear that we are talking about output of Living Control System, where »muscle tension« is not controlled so nothing is controlled outside whether you say »Behavior is control« or »Behavior is controled«. Behavior and control has nothing in common except that behavior (output) is part of control loop with supporting function to control in the controlling system. Behavior in any meaning is not controlling anything.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Do you understand what definition of control is saying ?
MT : Maybe the entire issue between you and Rick is a question of language?
HB : Do you have any other explanations beside useless grammar phylosophy ???
HB : You are the third person on CSGnet who tried with such a stupid idea to prove that I’m »language idiot«. First was Bruce Nevin (you could see the outcome), second was Barb Powers (we have no contacts any more and will never have) and you are the third. You deeply insulted me Martin. You are old enough to be aware of consequebces of your »controlled behavior«. It will sure have effect on our future discussions.
You know there is a »folk saying« in our country : Smart people learn on mistakes of other people, idiots learn on their mistakes.
MT : After all, Bill’s Bible is not entitled “Perception: the Control of Behaviour” but “Behavior: the Control of Perception”.
HB : Exactly this is what you said to Rick. Maybe you have problems with your memory. You accussed Rick that he changed   “Behavior: the Control of Perception”.into “Perception: the Control of Behaviour”
Search CSGnet archives.
»Behavior : The control of perception« can only be explained in relation to the place in control loop. It’s obvioulsy from PCT diagram that behavior is the result of »Control of perception«. Perception is controlled in comparator. It’s the only »controlled variable« in entire control loop. See the time line in control loop. But »Behavior can’t control perception«. It just affects it. Comparator can do control.
MT : A colon is sometimes used in English where one might use “is”, often in a title, for emphasis. So I read that title as saying quite directly that “Behaviour is control” (of perception, of course).
HB :Go arround archives and refresh your memory. You are trying to change your »color« but it doesn’t suit you. Behavior controls exactly nothing.
Well Martin I must say that you fall in my eyes to the bottom. Once I really respected you and your knowledge and I could give you easy 10. But what you showed in this post is less the 1. Maybe 0 (pure bottom).
RM: When you’re good, Martin, you are very good!
HB : He is not as good as you think. The problem is that he is making the same mistake as Bill did by covering or »protecting« you. It’s no use Rick. You are misleading CSGnet forum with wrong RCT control loop. So do a good job and stop what you are doing. You are manipulating with good people.
Best,
Boris
HB : If you’ll do a tour arround CSGnet archives and Bills’ literature you will soon recognize that even in the case of »Behavior is control of pereception« there is no way that with behavior we can control perception. It’s clear from PCT diagram (LCS III) that behavior is resulting from comparator so Behavior is result of control and it’s affecting environment and sensors, Here is again diagram I don’t know for which time. If you have any doubts change the diagram and start resolving your problem in understanding PCT. You are once »Black« and another time »white«. I had you for a serious scientist Martin. It’s a great dissapointment.
But I’ll never forget your very deep insight. »We can’t control behavior, we can control just perception of behavior«. And there are some other of your statements that I’ll try to remember that are still making me search phsiologicaa evidesnces. But I’ll not amswer you any more on sucg a low level post as this is.
In Ricks case there isn’t any doubt that what he meant is »behavior«as control of »controlled variable« in outer environment and that »Controlled Perceptual Variable« is produced. It’s clearly wrong control loop. See CSGnet archives. It’s all over in archives. And I can’t beleive that you joined Rick to mislead members of forum.
Best,
Boris
Best
Rick
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 9:30 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
On 2017/06/5 1:17 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.07.1030)]
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:
Lord forgive me, I should NOT post on this but…
[also for some reason this reply did not open with csgnet in the‘To:’ field. I added it so I hope this does not double post to
the net]
BL: I’m sorry Boris, but behavior IS controlled,
RM: Behavior can be controlled, in the sense that outputs can be made to take on preselected values by appropriately disturbing a variable that is being kept under control by that output. But my point in this discussion is that what we call “behavior” IS control, which is really just a more technical way of saying that “behavior is purposeful”.Â
BestÂ
Rick
Â
it is exactly whatthe control system alters to achieve a control of perception. A
control system, engineered or otherwise does not actually 'control
the perception.'Â With respect to the physical world and
perceptions related to that world is change it’s output in an
attempt to achieve new perceptual input that more closely match
the desired condition for those perceptions.
It is precisely because the biological control system can notdirectly control the perception that a reorganizing system is
necessary. A problem that was also recognized by the engineering
community at least as early as the 1950’s… that is the problem
of the disturbance for which the system as presently configured
does not have any output that can counter the this (not planned
for in the case of engineered systems) disturbance. It was
recognized as a problem for response critical systems and for
remote systems. In the case for critical systems the rapid
failure rate precluded engineering and implementing a correction.Â
For remote system the problem became quite obvious with control
systems deployed in outer space.
To suggest that Bill Powers was not well aware of this problem isabsurd! It has been way too many years for me now so I don’t
remember my discussions with Bill about these sorts of issues
other than remembering how his thoughts on reorganization were
elegant indeed. Brilliant thinkers like Bill Powers and Richard
Feynman are sadly all too rare in human society.
B:CP is Behavior is the Control of Perception. This is theoverall goal of the system. That is most certainly a beautiful
statement and indeed a proper way to describe the whole system.Â
However the fact is that the system can only ultimately control
the ‘actuators’ or outputs. This is true for the particular
control system as well as for subunits and even individual control
loops.
Outputs or behavior is controlled with the intent to achievecontrol of perceptions. One view is looking at the goal or why
the system works as it does (a very important concept in
behavioral science especially when trying to point out what is
wrong with all of the other approaches)Â of the system, the other
is a view of what the system is actually doing. My claim is that
neither view is wrong.Â
Obviously I am in no position to speak for Rick but, since Rickis (or at least was a very serious researcher into PCT with a
strong focus on producing systems the accurately produce the same
results as human systems including quality of control) it is to me
no surprise that his focus would be on what the system is actually
doing to achieve the goal of controlling a perception. While I
don’t remember the specifics of any of the conversations that I
actually had with Rick so many years ago, I will state that in all
of the work of Rick’s that I have read I have never seen anything
that would suggest that Rick thinks that the purpose of behavior
is NOT to control perception.
Best,
Bill
On 05/25/2017 02:54 PM, Boris Hartmanwrote:
Â
Â
From:
Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live
William T. Powers
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Â
 LloydKlinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCTwebsite:
WilliamT. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who
developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT)
passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86.Â
He will be laid to rest next to his wife,
Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of
Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued
by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His
theory will someday receive the recognition it
deserves, and so will he.
Â
RM: Thanks for pointing out thattoday is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed,
it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s
insights (first and foremost being that behavior is
control)
Â
HB: I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop
bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without
any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central
point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces
some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing
to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III)
where it’s obvious that »Perception is
controlled«.
Â
Andto make a statement on his day of death that
central point of PCT is »Behavior is control«
instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m
concerned a crime.
Â
Letus remember how beauty of PCT function in real
words and diagram :
Â
Bill P :
Our only view of the real worldis 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 –“ when
we make the perception of the glass change from »on
the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct
knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that
is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the
final result, how the result looks, feels, smells,
sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we
produce actions that alter the world of perception…
Â
Â
HB: Did you citate any of his statements to honor
memaory of great inventor ?
Â
Doyou see any difference Rick between you rude and
rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual
control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we
remember that Bill was a founder of a new original
theory which fundaments are »Control of
Perception«.
Â
Whoare you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ?
Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you
play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and
listen to you because you are friends. And this
should be some kind of science ?
Â
Iunderstand that you have no evidences for your
statements as many others except maybe »common
sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding
that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with
»common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s
probably the same for Carver and Scheier,
Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too.
Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT
and you don’t need it to understand how and why
people behave.
Â
RM ….
and
theory (that, therefore, behavior can only be
explained as the control of perceptual input) will
someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just
wish it would be someday sooner rather than later. Â
Â
HB: Behavior is not control so it can’t control
input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll
citate again great master of »perception«.
Â
BillP (B:CP):
CONTROL: Achievement and maintenance of a preselected
state in the controlling system, through actions
on the environment that also cancel the effects of
disturbances.
Â
HB: Behavior is consequence of control and it is
means by which people control perception inside
organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is
just support for inside control. It’s not main
mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about
control in the controlling system. So I hope that
people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not
PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
Â
I'msure that PCT will be once leading theory when
younger generation will accept the fact of
»Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is
control«. It’s about how organisms control inside
not outside.
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
Best regards
Â
Rick
–
Richard S.MarkenÂ
"Perfectionis achieved not when you have
nothing more to add, but when
youhave nothing left to takeaway.�
              Â --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.07.1050)]
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:
WM: Hi Boris, what you are saying is almost the same as what Rick is saying.Â
RM: I must admit that I have read some of Boris’ posts even though they go to my spam folder now. It’s hard to avoid wanting to read them, much as it’s hard to avoid wanting to look when passing a major accident on the freeway or read the latest tweet from Trump. For some reason we can’t take our eyes off disaster. What are we controlling for? Well, maybe not all of us, but plenty; looky-loos slow down traffic here in La La Land all the time.Â
RM: I think Boris’ problem (besides hating my guts, which is probably not a problem for him) comes down to the fact that he deals with PCT completely theoretically. He has absolutely no understanding of the phenomenon that PCT explains. It seems to me that this is true of many people on CSGNet, which may be why I am pushing the empirical side of PCT so strongly: the idea that PCT explains the controlling that we see as the behavior of organisms. I think his “theory only” approach to PCT may be why it seems like Boris is saying the same thing I am (which, of course, he often is, since he is always quoting Powers) when, in fact, he is not.Â
BestÂ
Rick
Â
On 5 Jun 2017, at 18:15, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Barb,
Â
I thought that you will be more acceptable for your Dads’ ideas but it seems to me, that you are more supporting Ricks’ RCT then your Dads’ PCT.
Â
I’ll try a little more this time. On the end there is my proposal about what I think PCT is. It’s some sort of summary of your Dads’ legacy. I think it’s right that somebody make such a overview over his theory every year so to honor his memory. Â
Â
It takes time to go through Bills’ enormous literature. I would suggest again if You could do it and provide PCT with inserts from his work if it’s true what you told me that Your Dad and Mom are the only that are important to you.Â
Â
But after you emotional »explossion« I really donIt know on which side you are : Dad and Mom’s or Ricks ???
And for that reason it seems useless to prove to Rick that he is wrong. Rick is promoting his RCT and »Behavior is control« and he never showed one single evidence that he is telling the truth. And you beleive him not your Dads’ legacy ???Â
Â
They have totatly diferent concept of understanding how organisms function. .
Â
I was shocked and appeled that Rick used particular situation to promote his RCT and »Behavior as control«. After all these years of conversations he didn’t show a single evidence that he could be right about that »Behavior is Control«. But he did admitt many times that output in PCT is not controlled. Output can be equated with behavior. At least as muscle tension is concerned.
Â
Beside these contradiction in which he once claim that »Output is not controlled« and once that it is, there are also other contradictions. Everything can be checked in CSGnet archives.
Â
And you are shocked because I »attacked« Rick for being ignorant about PCT and because he was promoting »Behavior is control« and his RCT instead of »Control of perception« and PCT ? Unbeleivable.
I think that you should be satisfyed that somebody is revealing PCT through your Dads’ literature and not just through imagination as Rick is doing.
Â
I’m taking you also responsable for what Rick is doing for a long time, although I provided all evidences that his RCT theory with wrong elements in control loop is total opposite to Bills’Â PCT. For now Rick didn’t deny it.
Â
What I was aming at was to honor PCT and memory to Bill and simultaneously showing that Rick should do the same. Ricks’ RCT is just phylosophy. Will you provide necesary evidences ?
Â
And beside that you invited me to show from time to time on CSGnet. Would you like that Rick writes whatever he wants or you want some synhronization with PCT on CSGnet. Rick is for a long time quite far from it.
Â
I think that you should criticize Rick for what he did. I used Bill sources and honored his PCT. Is this what I should be shame of ?
Â
What’s wrong with my argumentative way ? That I’m using your fathers’ literature to prove what PCT is ? Is this wrong argumentative way ??? Is wrong argumantative way proving that Rick is not right ? That your friend Rick is being target for his ignorancy ? Should we let him talk whatever he wants wtih no concern to PCT ? What »argumentative way« is right for you ?
Â
O.K. let us make an agreement. As soon as anybody of you provide evidences that »Behavior is control« and that it can produce »Controlled Perceptual Variable« or PCV, I’ll appologise to you, Rick and to all those who were hurtby my statements and citations of Bills’ literature. But if you don’t provide evidences that »Behavior can be control« I hope that you’ll apologize to me. Is this fair ?
Â
By ma oppinion CSGnet forum should be some scientific forum not only friendship discussion forum. So evidences has to be put »on the table«, like in every scientific discussion. You agreed once with this. Don’t make differences between members. If something is valid for one member it should be valid for all members.
Â
As I saw from other discussions I could conclude that PCT is still not enough established on CSGnet forum, and Ricks’ RCT is blooming, I decided to honor Bills’ memory and also give a systematic answer to Kaufmans’ »10 big ideas« about PCT
Â
I thought at first that somebody more close to Bill could do it, but till now I didn’t see any such contribution. As I said before I’ll try a little more, but more probable is that I’ll have enough of everything and I’ll let you to your Destiniy you choosed. If you want CSGnet forum to be dedicated to Rick and his RCT then what can I do more then I did ?
Â
So I decided to make probbaly for the last time a brief abstract from Bills’ lietrature in 10 or maybe more points to compare them to Kaufmans’ points. But in the future I think it would be more suitable if you Barb or any member of your “core” group do it to honor the memory on your father and PCT.
Â
Here is my interpretation of highlights from Bills’ literature which tends to give a short »abstract« of his enourmous work. The aim is also to show how it looks like when CSGnet forum is dedicated to his work so that we see really his words, not Ricks’ RCT. Ricks’ work (RCT) is in most cases what we see here. So I’m asking myself to whom CSGnet forum is dedicated ? To Bill or Rick ???
Â
Anybody who wants to express oppinion about work of William T. Powers is welcome. In this way we could maybe establish what PCT is and come to some normal PCT agreements, not RCT agreement. So please no contributions in the form of NON-PCT theories like Rick is.Â
Â
I must also emphasize that my »abstract« of »10 PCT Thesis« usees mostly Bills’ text :
Â
1.      To control perception means to act on it in such a way as to bring it to desired state and keep it there despite other forces tending to disturb it.
2.      Because other forces and influences are always acting, there is no way to predict exactly what action will be needed to control perception.
3.      In order to control is absolutely necesary to perceive. We control perception of our and other behavior not control it directly. Our senses and further neural equipment that builds abstract perceptions out of simple ones, provide us with a world to experience and it is only that experienced world that we can control.
Â
4.      Human beings and other animals produce behavior for one reason : to control their experiences of the world.
5.      Behavior affects the world that really exist. Those effects, after being filtered through the properties of human perception, show up as changes in the world we know about.
Â
6.      “Controlling perception” means controlling the state of some specific perception, not changing one perception into a different perception. When we control a perception of the distance of the glass of water from our mouth, we are controlling the perception of distance, not changing the perception of distance into a perception of nearness.
Â
7.      We can go a long way toward figuring out what another person is controlling if we are willing to do some careful observing and some experimenting. If we apply disturbances to something someone is controlling, we can, if we guessed right, expect to see or feel the other person “pushing” back, keeping the disturbance from affecting the perception they control. The point of control is to be able to counÂteract unpredictable influences and happenings that interfere with control.
8.     Every Living Control System must have certain major features**.** The system must be organized for negative (not positive) feedback, and it must be dynamically stable – it must not itself create errors that kkeep it hunting about the final steady state conditions. The Living Control System of this kind must sense the controlled quantity in each dimenssion in which the quantity is to be controlled; this implies the inner model of the quantity in the form of a signal or set of signals. It must contain or be given something equivalent to a reference signal (or multiple reference signals) which specifies the »desired« state of the controlled quantity that is to be controlled. The sensor signal and the reference signal must be compared, and the resulting error signal must actuate the system’s output effectors or outputs. And finally, the system’s output must be able to affect the controlled quantity in each dimension that is to be controlled. This makes the action the clearest. The system, above the dashed line, is organized normally so as to maintain the sesnor signal at all times nearly equal to the reference signal even a changing reference signal. This is how control is achieved and maintained. The sensor signal and input quantity become primarilly a function of the reference signal originated inside the system.
9.      Control loop functions and how they work :
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system…
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
INPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that receives  signals or stimuli from outside the system, and generates a perceptual signal that is some function of the received signals or stimuli.
COMPARATOR : The portion of control system that computes the magnitude and direction of mismatch between perceptual and reference signal.
PCT interpretantion of control loop should be in form of perceptual control not control of behavior.
Bill empahsiszed importance of perception for control clearly :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 – when we make the perception of the glass change from »onn the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that altter the world of perception«…
Bill P : Briefly, then: what I call the hierarchy of perceptions is the model. When you open your eyes and look around, what you see – and feel, smell, hear, and taste – is the model. In fact we never experience anything but the model. The model is composed of perceptions of all kinds from intensities on up.
Â
10.  HPCT: hierarchical PCT are control systems which act not by producing effects on the outside world directly, but by telling other control systems to produce effects at a more detailed level. It is up to those control systems to act in such a way as to produce the detailed effects they are asked about for, thus affecting the higher system’s perceptions in the way it wants. Many levels, obviously, could be arranged in this way. Higher systems use existing control systems at the spinal level. This can be done by adjusting their reference levels which define the state they want their perceptions to be in. We experience hierachical organization quite directly. Consider the following question-and-answer session:
Q: Why did you move your hand?
A: To pick up this knife.
Q: Why did you pick up that knife?
A: In order to cut my steak.
Q: Why cut your steak?
A: In order to fit a piece into my mouth.
Q: Why put a piece of it into your mouth?
A: Because it’s not polite to stuff the whole thing in.
Q: Why be polite?
A: So I’ll be asked to dinner again some time.
Q: Why get asked to dinner again?
A: Because I want to save money, and food is exÂpensive.
Q: Why save money?
Etc.
Â
So, as far as we followed, this person moved his or her hand as a means of saving money. Of course the same actions, at each level, also served many other goals we didn’t ask about, among them being the goal of not being hungry. But clearly, each goal was only a subgoal, a perception to be controlled not just for its own sake, but as part of a larger hierarchical control process. There are other paths through this complex hierarchy: why not be hungry? Because it distracts me from trying to write my novel. Why write your novel? And so on.
Â
It must be evident immediately that the brain is not just a simple control system. It’s a huge hierarÂchy of control systems, with many levels and many systems at each level, all these systems operating at the same time. In principle, we could apply small well-calibrated disturbances to different aspects of a person’s environment and body, and set up tens of thousands of equations with tens of thousands of unÂknowns, and use a supercomputer to figure out just which variables at each level were being controlled in which states at a given moment. It’s impossible to do it today.
Â
The system is so huge and complicated that people who own such systems often find that the machinery isn’t working right and they don’t know how to fix it. There are natural mechanisms for resolving problems like internal conÂflicts, but they work slowly and don’t always work, so people have what we call “psychologicalâ€? problems even in perfectly healthy brains and bodies.
Â
The brain goes on working as it always works, perceptions vary, control systems control, and so on, What changes is only our conÂscious acquaintance with these activities, as if we were shining a small flashlight around in a huge room full of running machinery.
Â
All those control systems are always working, which means they are controlling, which means that the perceptions of the things being controlled are still present even if not conscious. The neural signals are present, even if they aren’t reaching consciousness.
Â
This adds up to the second main phenomenon: we experience consciously only a small part of the totality of brain activity going on at any moment, although (the first phenomenon ) it is a changeable part.
Â
If you happen to be conscious of some control process in the middle of the hierarchy, neither at the lowest level nor at the highest, you will be aware of things happening at some modest level of abstracÂtion, and of your own actions, and of what you want to be happening. How you’re doing these things is not normally conscious—that is, you mayy be talkÂing, but you won’t be conscious of forming each phoneme or of how your lips and tongue move. And why you’re doing those things is also not generally conscious. At the moment that you’re explaining to the police officer why your attention was distracted from the red light you just drove through, you’re only partly conscious of the background thought of being late to work that made you decide to ignore the red light.
Â
Specifically, we are often in a state where we are aware of a main, foreground, process, but at the same time we are somewhat, marginally, fleetingly, aware of a background process that seems to be about the foreground process. When ideas are presented so abstractly we become conscious of things we had probably been perceiving all along, but hadn’t paid proper attention to. But for some reason, a moment came when the background activities leaked into the foreground and we became aware of them, and even made a comment about them.
Â
The Method of Levels works as non-aggressive, non-coercive, non-bullying way of helping another perÂson to unravel some of the complexities of his own hierarchical structure of control processes—if he or she has asked for help. The idea is to recognize thhat a background thought about the subject has just been expressed, and to indicate it, gently, in case the other person might find it significant. The agreement with the other person is that when such an indication is made, the person will at least pause for a moment and explore the background thought, idea, attitude, or whatever it is long enough to see if it’s of any imÂportance. We can refer to the “other personâ€? as the “explorer,â€? the only one who can look to see what is actually going on in that brain.
Â
The point of therapy is not to show how clever, insightful, empathetic, or understanding the guide is. The MOL is a minimalist therapy, doing only what is needed to help a person recognize a problem and find a point of view from which something can be done about it. The MOL is for people who are lost in the complexity of their own lives, who are in conflict, who are out of touch with their own motivations.
Â
Of the highest importance seems to be the idea that people govern their own lives rather than just responding to environmental stimuli or “control their behavior” and behavior of others. People control perception in order to achieve match of actual perception with references in the hierarchy. And people are more or less succesfull at doing it. Helping them to be more succesfull (not to try control them to be “slaves” of our goals) is probably the right way.
Â
This concept encourages us to show respect for others, recognizing that they have their own aspirations and goals and generally find their own ways of getting what they need or want, just as we do. Another important common idea that arises from the first one is that it is not helpful to try to control other people; the result of too ham-handed an approach is more likely to be opposition and downright conflict than benefit. It’s important that people tend to give others room, to put critiques in the form of questions rather than criticisms, and to rely on the client more than the therapist to come up with specific answers to problems.
Â
In HPCT, there are levels of organization, and levels of goals, and there is some highest level of goals that is known as system concepts. But there is no reason to propose that every person ends up organized in exactly the same way at the highest level; in fact, when we consider how and why learning hapÂpens, it’s highly unlikely that people will all have just one small set of most-important goals. If we want to take even a semi-scientific approach to exploring human nature, we must be more open-minded, and wait for the evidence about actual high-level control processes to come in before we even think of trying to pick out universal characteristics. What’s really universal about human beings is that they are unique control systems. What they happen to have learned to control for is far from universal.
Â
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
From: bara0361@gmail.com [mailto:bara0361@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:33 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
Â
Boris, I am shocked and appalled that you would use this particular thread as a platform for your ugly language and your argumentative ways. For shame.
Â
Barb
Â
Â
On May 25, 2017 2:55 PM, “Boris Hartman” boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Â
Â
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Â
 Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
Â
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
Â
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
Â
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Â
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
Â
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 – when we make the perceptiion of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It meeans that we produce actions that alter the world of perception…<
Â
<image001.jpg>
Â
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Â
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Â
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
Â
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
Â
RM ….and theory (thatt, therefore, behavior can only be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later. Â
Â
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Â
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Â
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
Â
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
Best regards
Â
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Â
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Fred Nickols (2017.06.07.1355 ET)]
Okay. So if I sit on the edge of the examining table and the doctor taps my patella with his little mallet and my leg jerks outward, is that “purposeful� behavior? Or does a reflex like that qualify as behavior? I happen to agree that most behavior (i.e., the activity of the organism) is purposeful; I’m just not sure that includes reflex reactions.
Fred
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:30 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.07.1030)]
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:
Lord forgive me, I should NOT post on this but…
[also for some reason this reply did not open with csgnet in the ‘To:’ field. I added it so I hope this does not double post to the net]
BL: I’m sorry Boris, but behavior IS controlled,
RM: Behavior can be controlled, in the sense that outputs can be made to take on preselected values by appropriately disturbing a variable that is being kept under control by that output. But my point in this discussion is that what we call “behavior” IS control, which is really just a more technical way of saying that “behavior is purposeful”.
Best
Rick
it is exactly what the control system alters to achieve a control of perception. A control system, engineered or otherwise does not actually ‘control the perception.’ With respect to the physical world and perceptions related to that world is change it’s output in an attempt to achieve new perceptual input that more closely match the desired condition for those perceptions.
It is precisely because the biological control system can not directly control the perception that a reorganizing system is necessary. A problem that was also recognized by the engineering community at least as early as the 1950’s… that is the problem of the disturbance for which the system as presently configured does not have any output that can counter the this (not planned for in the case of engineered systems) disturbance. It was recognized as a problem for response critical systems and for remote systems. In the case for critical systems the rapid failure rate precluded engineering and implementing a correction. For remote system the problem became quite obvious with control systems deployed in outer space.
To suggest that Bill Powers was not well aware of this problem is absurd! It has been way too many years for me now so I don’t remember my discussions with Bill about these sorts of issues other than remembering how his thoughts on reorganization were elegant indeed. Brilliant thinkers like Bill Powers and Richard Feynman are sadly all too rare in human society.
B:CP is Behavior is the Control of Perception. This is the overall goal of the system. That is most certainly a beautiful statement and indeed a proper way to describe the whole system. However the fact is that the system can only ultimately control the ‘actuators’ or outputs. This is true for the particular control system as well as for subunits and even individual control loops.
Outputs or behavior is controlled with the intent to achieve control of perceptions. One view is looking at the goal or why the system works as it does (a very important concept in behavioral science especially when trying to point out what is wrong with all of the other approaches) of the system, the other is a view of what the system is actually doing. My claim is that neither view is wrong.
Obviously I am in no position to speak for Rick but, since Rick is (or at least was a very serious researcher into PCT with a strong focus on producing systems the accurately produce the same results as human systems including quality of control) it is to me no surprise that his focus would be on what the system is actually doing to achieve the goal of controlling a perception. While I don’t remember the specifics of any of the conversations that I actually had with Rick so many years ago, I will state that in all of the work of Rick’s that I have read I have never seen anything that would suggest that Rick thinks that the purpose of behavior is NOT to control perception.
Best,
Bill
On 05/25/2017 02:54 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
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 – when we maake the perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of percepttion…
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
RM ….and theory (that, therefore, behavior can only be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later.
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Best,
Boris
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.07.1140)]
Fred Nickols (2017.06.07.1355 ET)
Â
FN: Okay. So if I sit on the edge of the examining table and the doctor taps my patella with his little mallet and my leg jerks outward, is that âpurposefulâ? behavior?
RM: You betcha! (I lived in Minnesota for 11 years, don’cha know). The purpose of the behavior (the controlled variable) is to maintain the level of tension on the patellar ligament. The tap is a disturbance that increases that tension, creating a sudden, large error that drives the corrective action – Â contraction of the quadriceps muscle. The result is the “kick” that reduces the tension of the ligament. But since the tap-produced tension is already gone (since the tap is over) the “kick” is too late. Under normal circumstances the disturbances to the tension on the patellar ligament don’t come and go as abruptly as they do with the tap. So there is no “kick” as the tension on the tendon is disturbed by things like changes in the terrain one is walking one. So the variations in the contraction of the quadriceps perfectly compensate for these disturbances, maintaining the reference tension on the ligament and keeping you walking upright and balanced rather than constantly stumbling and falling.
Â
FN: Or does a reflex like that qualify as behavior?Â
RM: You betcha. The patellar reflex (like all reflexes) is a control system. The apparent stimulus-response nature of the reflex comes from using abrupt disturbances to the controlled variable (in this case the tension on the ligament); the disturbances appear to be a stimulus that causes the “kick” behavior. Indeed, it was the use of abrupt disturbances (stimuli) in psychological research that led to the idea that behavior is not purposeful but, rather, caused by stimuli. What was being ignored (or went unseen) was the controlled variable component of the behavior. So the goal of psychological research became finding the stimuli that cause behavior where “behavior” referred only to what we would called the output component of the control loop.Â
RM: So it’s the abruptness of the disturbances that gives control systems like the patellar reflex the appearance of being caused output. This is all discussed in a typically wonderful paper by Powers called “A bucket of beans”, reprinted in LCS II.Â
BestÂ
Rick
Â
I happen to agree that most behavior (i.e., the activity of the organism) is purposeful; Iâm just not sure that includes reflex reactions.
Â
Fred
Â
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:30 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.07.1030)]
Â
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:
Lord forgive me, I should NOT post on this but…
[also for some reason this reply did not open with csgnet in the ‘To:’ field. I added it so I hope this does not double post to the net]
BL: I’m sorry Boris, but behavior IS controlled,
RM: Behavior can be controlled, in the sense that outputs can be made to take on preselected values by appropriately disturbing a variable that is being kept under control by that output. But my point in this discussion is that what we call “behavior” IS control, which is really just a more technical way of saying that “behavior is purposeful”.Â
Â
BestÂ
Â
Rick
Â
Â
Â
Â
it is exactly what the control system alters to achieve a control of perception. A control system, engineered or otherwise does not actually 'control the perception.' With respect to the physical world and perceptions related to that world is change it’s output in an attempt to achieve new perceptual input that more closely match the desired condition for those perceptions.
It is precisely because the biological control system can not directly control the perception that a reorganizing system is necessary. A problem that was also recognized by the engineering community at least as early as the 1950’s… that is the problem of the disturbance for which the system as presently configured does not have any output that can counter the this (not planned for in the case of engineered systems) disturbance. It was recognized as a problem for response critical systems and for remote systems. In the case for critical systems the rapid failure rate precluded engineering and implementing a correction. For remote system the problem became quite obvious with control systems deployed in outer space.
To suggest that Bill Powers was not well aware of this problem is absurd! It has been way too many years for me now so I don’t remember my discussions with Bill about these sorts of issues other than remembering how his thoughts on reorganization were elegant indeed. Brilliant thinkers like Bill Powers and Richard Feynman are sadly all too rare in human society.
B:CP is Behavior is the Control of Perception. This is the overall goal of the system. That is most certainly a beautiful statement and indeed a proper way to describe the whole system. However the fact is that the system can only ultimately control the ‘actuators’ or outputs. This is true for the particular control system as well as for subunits and even individual control loops.
Outputs or behavior is controlled with the intent to achieve control of perceptions. One view is looking at the goal or why the system works as it does (a very important concept in behavioral science especially when trying to point out what is wrong with all of the other approaches) of the system, the other is a view of what the system is actually doing. My claim is that neither view is wrong.Â
Obviously I am in no position to speak for Rick but, since Rick is (or at least was a very serious researcher into PCT with a strong focus on producing systems the accurately produce the same results as human systems including quality of control) it is to me no surprise that his focus would be on what the system is actually doing to achieve the goal of controlling a perception. While I don’t remember the specifics of any of the conversations that I actually had with Rick so many years ago, I will state that in all of the work of Rick’s that I have read I have never seen anything that would suggest that Rick thinks that the purpose of behavior is NOT to control perception.
Best,
Bill
Â
On 05/25/2017 02:54 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:
Â
Â
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Â
 Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
Â
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
Â
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
Â
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Â
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
Â
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 when we make the perception of the glass change frrom »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth It means that we produce actioons that alter the world of perception
Â
Â
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Â
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Â
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
Â
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
Â
RM .and theory (that, therefore, behavior can only bee explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later. Â
Â
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Â
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
Â
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
Â
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Â
Best,
Â
Boris
Â
Best regards
Â
Rick
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Â
Â
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.â?
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[From Fred Nickols (2017.06.07.1454 ET)]
I get what you’re saying, Rick. I even think I understand it. I think we have a language problem. I would readily agree that all behavior, reflex or otherwise, has a purpose. But I don’t think all behavior is purposeful, that is, consciously intentional. Clearly, you are not.
Fred
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 2:41 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.07.1140)]
Fred Nickols (2017.06.07.1355 ET)
FN: Okay. So if I sit on the edge of the examining table and the doctor taps my patella with his little mallet and my leg jerks outward, is that “purposeful� behavior?
RM: You betcha! (I lived in Minnesota for 11 years, don’cha know). The purpose of the behavior (the controlled variable) is to maintain the level of tension on the patellar ligament. The tap is a disturbance that increases that tension, creating a sudden, large error that drives the corrective action – contraction of the quadriceps muscle. The result is the “kick” that reduces the tension of the ligament. But since the tap-produced tension is already gone (since the tap is over) the “kick” is too late. Under normal circumstances the disturbances to the tension on the patellar ligament don’t come and go as abruptly as they do with the tap. So there is no “kick” as the tension on the tendon is disturbed by things like changes in the terrain one is walking one. So the variations in the contraction of the quadriceps perfectly compensate for these disturbances, maintaining the reference tension on the ligament and keeping you walking upright and balanced rather than constantly stumbling and falling.
FN: Or does a reflex like that qualify as behavior?
RM: You betcha. The patellar reflex (like all reflexes) is a control system. The apparent stimulus-response nature of the reflex comes from using abrupt disturbances to the controlled variable (in this case the tension on the ligament); the disturbances appear to be a stimulus that causes the “kick” behavior. Indeed, it was the use of abrupt disturbances (stimuli) in psychological research that led to the idea that behavior is not purposeful but, rather, caused by stimuli. What was being ignored (or went unseen) was the controlled variable component of the behavior. So the goal of psychological research became finding the stimuli that cause behavior where “behavior” referred only to what we would called the output component of the control loop.
RM: So it’s the abruptness of the disturbances that gives control systems like the patellar reflex the appearance of being caused output. This is all discussed in a typically wonderful paper by Powers called “A bucket of beans”, reprinted in LCS II.
Best
Rick
I happen to agree that most behavior (i.e., the activity of the organism) is purposeful; I’m just not sure that includes reflex reactions.
Fred
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:30 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.07.1030)]
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net wrote:
Lord forgive me, I should NOT post on this but…
[also for some reason this reply did not open with csgnet in the ‘To:’ field. I added it so I hope this does not double post to the net]
BL: I’m sorry Boris, but behavior IS controlled,
RM: Behavior can be controlled, in the sense that outputs can be made to take on preselected values by appropriately disturbing a variable that is being kept under control by that output. But my point in this discussion is that what we call “behavior” IS control, which is really just a more technical way of saying that “behavior is purposeful”.
Best
Rick
it is exactly what the control system alters to achieve a control of perception. A control system, engineered or otherwise does not actually ‘control the perception.’ With respect to the physical world and perceptions related to that world is change it’s output in an attempt to achieve new perceptual input that more closely match the desired condition for those perceptions.
It is precisely because the biological control system can not directly control the perception that a reorganizing system is necessary. A problem that was also recognized by the engineering community at least as early as the 1950’s… that is the problem of the disturbance for which the system as presently configured does not have any output that can counter the this (not planned for in the case of engineered systems) disturbance. It was recognized as a problem for response critical systems and for remote systems. In the case for critical systems the rapid failure rate precluded engineering and implementing a correction. For remote system the problem became quite obvious with control systems deployed in outer space.
To suggest that Bill Powers was not well aware of this problem is absurd! It has been way too many years for me now so I don’t remember my discussions with Bill about these sorts of issues other than remembering how his thoughts on reorganization were elegant indeed. Brilliant thinkers like Bill Powers and Richard Feynman are sadly all too rare in human society.
B:CP is Behavior is the Control of Perception. This is the overall goal of the system. That is most certainly a beautiful statement and indeed a proper way to describe the whole system. However the fact is that the system can only ultimately control the ‘actuators’ or outputs. This is true for the particular control system as well as for subunits and even individual control loops.
Outputs or behavior is controlled with the intent to achieve control of perceptions. One view is looking at the goal or why the system works as it does (a very important concept in behavioral science especially when trying to point out what is wrong with all of the other approaches) of the system, the other is a view of what the system is actually doing. My claim is that neither view is wrong.
Obviously I am in no position to speak for Rick but, since Rick is (or at least was a very serious researcher into PCT with a strong focus on producing systems the accurately produce the same results as human systems including quality of control) it is to me no surprise that his focus would be on what the system is actually doing to achieve the goal of controlling a perception. While I don’t remember the specifics of any of the conversations that I actually had with Rick so many years ago, I will state that in all of the work of Rick’s that I have read I have never seen anything that would suggest that Rick thinks that the purpose of behavior is NOT to control perception.
Best,
Bill
On 05/25/2017 02:54 PM, Boris Hartman wrote:
From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:54 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live William T. Powers
[From Rick Marken (2017.05.24. 1250)]
Lloyd Klinedinst (2017.05.24 14:14 CDT)–
from the official PCT website:
William T. Powers, the engineer/psychologist who developed Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) passed away on May 24, 2013 at the age of 86. He will be laid to rest next to his wife, Mary, in a cemetery overlooking the city of Durango, CO. His work will continue, pursued by those who came to know Powers and PCT. His theory will someday receive the recognition it deserves, and so will he.
RM: Thanks for pointing out that today is the anniversary of Bill’s passing. Indeed, it’s the fourth anniversary. I am sure that Bill’s insights (first and foremost being that behavior is control)
HB : I’m wondering Rick, when you’ll stop bullshitting with »Behavior is control« without any evidence. Your RCT control loop with central point that »Behavior is controlled« which produces some »Controlled Perceptual Variable« has nothing to do with Bills’ theory and diagrams (LCS III) where it’s obvious that »Perception is controlled«.
And to make a statement on his day of death that central point of PCT is »Behavior is control« instead of »Perception is controlled« is as I’m concerned a crime.
Let us remember how beauty of PCT function in real words and diagram :
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 – when we maake the perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of percepttion…
HB : Did you citate any of his statements to honor memaory of great inventor ?
Do you see any difference Rick between you rude and rough »control of behavior« with »perceptual control« poetry ? I think it’s right that we remember that Bill was a founder of a new original theory which fundaments are »Control of Perception«.
Who are you Rick and why should anyone beleive you ? Except that all maybe is about friendship. And you play on friends feelings. Others tolerate and listen to you because you are friends. And this should be some kind of science ?
I understand that you have no evidences for your statements as many others except maybe »common sense« as Fred. I like Freds’ honest understanding that he doesn’t need PCT to understand with »common sence« that »behavior is control«. It’s probably the same for Carver and Scheier, Vancouver and you. So you could admitt it too. Then we would know that you don’t understand PCT and you don’t need it to understand how and why people behave.
RM ….and theory (that, therefore, behavior can onnly be explained as the control of perceptual input) will someday receive the recognition they deserve; I just wish it would be someday sooner rather than later.
HB : Behavior is not control so it can’t control input, it can’ control anything outside. I’ll citate again great master of »perception«.
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : Behavior is consequence of control and it is means by which people control perception inside organism or in the controlling system. Behavior is just support for inside control. It’s not main mechanism of control ouside the system. It’s about control in the controlling system. So I hope that people will recognize soon enough that RCT is not PCT. You’ve misleaded many great people here.
I’m sure that PCT will be once leading theory when younger generation will accept the fact of »Perceptual control« and not »Behavior is control«. It’s about how organisms control inside not outside.
Best,
Boris
Best regards
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
–
Richard S. Marken
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[Martin Taylor 2017.06.07.14.35]
Boris, we really do seem to have some language problems. If you
hadn’t posted these quotes, I would never have interpreted them as
saying that output is controlled. I would interpret them as saying
that in order to control a perception of tied laces, you have to
control other perceptions at lower levels, which are perceptions of
components of the output that have to occur for shoelaces to be
properly tied. That’s a VERY different concept from “output is
controlled”. Maybe all the instances that you interpret as “output is controlled”
are of this kind? The perception of a lower-level variable, which is
seem by an external observer as part of the “output” or “behaviour”
of lace-tying, is being read as “control of output” of the
higher-level variable (lace tying)?
Perhaps it is related to a dispute that I do have with Rick, which
is too old a dispute to be worth restating, but since you did (and
you are not alone), the old dispute is this: that Rick says the
controlled variable is in the environment, which I say cannot be
true, because in the environment there exists no independent
reference variables nor sources from which they can be determined
independently of observation of the moment-by-moment values of the
environmental variable itself.
The only reference source is inside the organism, and so, therefore,
is the controlled variable. Insofar as the perception is a good
one-to-one function of the environmental correlate (which I call the
CEV), the CEV will appear to be controlled, and in casual speech,
observable behaviour does control the value of the CEV. Indeed, the
only survival benefit of controlling any perception is that the
value of the CEV in the environment has contingencies (a concept and
word taken from a Bill Powers email [From Bill Powers (931210.1145
MST)]) that affect what happens to the organism, and those
contingencies can be influenced by the act of controlling the
corresponding perception. If it doesn’t look to an outside observer
or experimenter as though the CEV is controlled, perceptual control
wouldn’t be doing its job.
When the CEV in question is that of a controlled lower-level
perception that is in the output pathway of the higher perception
(lace state, with a reference value of “tied”), and Rick says that
CEV is a controlled variable, it certainly sounds like “control of
output”. But in context, it isn’t, because you would be talking
about two control levels as though they were the same. All I see in
your quotes from Rick is a set of assertions that perceptual control
is done by a bunch of perceptual control systems arranged
hierarchically.
The language is certainly a problem to puzzle out when “the
controlled variable” is claimed to be in the environment. Martin
On 2017/06/7 10:01 AM, Boris Hartman
wrote:
Â
From:
Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com ]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 9:30 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: William T. Powers is dead - long live
William T. Powers
Â
[From Rick Marken (2017.06.05.1230)]
Martin Taylor (2017.06.05.15.01)–
Â
On 2017/06/5 1:17 PM, BorisHartman wrote:
BH:Rick is wrong. Behavior is not control…There
is no physioogical way that behavior (Muscle
tension) can be controlled…
MT: I don't remember Rick ever suggesting thatoutput is controlled.
Â
HB: You shpould look through CSGnet archives before
you came with such a statement in discussion withÂ
me. I’m used to some other Martin which has
weighty arguments not such a childish.
Â
Rickjust did it.
Â
RM: So the behavior called “tying shoelaces” points
to a control process where the controlled variable
is the state of the laces,…. and
the outputs that produce this result are the hand
movements the get the laces tied
Â
RM: Moreover, what we see as the output component of
a behavior are typically controlled variables
themselves…
Â
RM: ….what we see as the controlled variable
component of behavior is typically an output
itself.
Â
HB: It’s such a terrible confussion and nonsense
that I can hardly comment it in different way as
Alex did :«bull….« You know what I mean.