Boris, I’m curious–when did you first connect with Bill and with PCT? Of course that will be in your introduction of yourself, but you haven’t posted that yet.
Bruce,
my first contact with Bill Powers was in 1999. But he wasn’t the first I contacted. My first contact with PCT was Kent and his links to his incredibly good articles that were published or presented on anual meetings in 1994, 1996, 1998. But at first I thought that Kent’s articles are not enough for understanding PCT so I ordered some Bill’s literature. Then I needed some years to get through his books with “heavy” terminology. I recognized that Kent’s literature was much easier to read and understand PCT.
I don’t know exactly when I got Bruce Abbott’s synopsis. Till 2007 when I joint CSGnet forum I occasionaly contacted Bill and asked questions. He was always willing to help and explain what I needed. We had fine discussions and he even sent me his original book B:CP (2005) with his signature. Our relation went wrong when I proposed “arrow” from genetic source to intrinsic variables.
That’s in short when and what happened in my relationship with Bill Powers. I think I owe him a lot for his hours he patiently spent with me. That’s why I’m so interested in finding deserved place for him in history of Cybernetics and Psychology. We’ll need a lot of scientific support that we’ll persuade others what is that PCT could offer to understanding organisms functioning.
Thank you, Boris. That’s helpful for understanding you.
I agree that Kent’s writings are exemplary. His work on collective control has introduced important changes in how we think about and work with the PCT model. It’s a source of ongoing growth and development of our science, and an avenue for engagement with conventional research.
In the early '90s, Bill pushed back against talk of social structures, social systems, social realities, and the like, mostly when such talk could be construed as proposing control systems at a social-structure level, as e.g. Kroeber’s ‘superorganic’ and other anthropological and sociological proposals seem to do. (Such proposals are metaphorical, in my view.) He said things like “I want to see where the input and output functions are.” There was strong push-back from him and others against the notion that people could share reference values, i.e. control a variable according to the same reference level.
Bill was an example to us in many ways, among them his open-minded willingness to entertain new ideas in discussion and his willingness to change his mind. But he had to see how it would work and how it could be modeled, at least in principle.
Kent’s earliest demonstrations showed emergent effects that look like shared reference values. The combination with work on communication (Martin’s work in its early form was called LPT) showed how participants may mutually adjust reference levels (and also may change what is controlled and with what gain) to achieve aims cooperatively that they cannot or prefer not to control as individuals.
Bill was perhaps most exemplary for his patience with us, as you also recognize and have said. I doubt very much that he broke off communication and forbade you to talk to him after you proposed an ‘arrow’ from genetic sources to intrinsic variables. I don’t yet know what you mean by that, but if it was you who lost patience and broke off communication, that was an unfortunate loss for you.
Bill was modest. But he was also very smart – brilliant – and he had introduced a new way of organizing the scientific investigation of living things, a new foundation for all the sciences of life and their synthetic extension to robotics. He was modest, but he also knew both these things about himself. Bit of a conflict there.
You might have persuaded him of something, if you could show how it could be modeled and tested and if it fit the known facts without disrupting other parts of the model. On the other hand, you might have changed your mind about some things in the process. In 1999 he’d been deep into the relevant research for more than 50 years. It’s possible that he knew more than you and it’s possible that he was smarter than you.
Follow Bill’s example. Explain your ideas as clearly as you can. Show their place in the model. Indicate how they can be modeled and tested. Adduce literature that you think demonstrates and has tested your ideas. Then be patient.
Bruce,
it’s interesting how our conversation is easy and spontaneous. Your thoughts gave me some ideas. Specially part about explaning ideas as clearly as I can. But I think that explaining with sciences which I used till now is enough for beggining because thre is to much knowledge on the World to “absorb”.
As Bill is concerned he was great person and that’s why I’m trying to promote him and his work. About our departure with Bill you can see on CSGnet archives discussion about 2010. At the end of discussion I offered him cooperation in explaining model with “arrow”. This is actual model which was presented by Dug Forsell on Bill’s wish. You can see difference in diagram on p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) and diagram which was published on CSGnet forum.
Whatever, In first phase I’ll explain that “arrow” and functioning of genetic control subsystem in my next presentations. As clear as possible as you say and adduce literature that demonstrate and test my ideas. I can also say that I always admired you clear language, although because of situation I never admitted that. 
You are afterall expert in language.
I’ll look forward to your explanation and the discussion of it.
Something in the situation influenced your autonomous setting of gain and reference values for controlling certain perceptions. The diagrams and discussion in my presentation this year are a proposal for the mechanism by which that happens.
The proposal begins with the physiological data that the paleo-mammalian part of the brain receives input from the environment and sends outputs mostly to the brainstem initiating release of excitatory neurochemicals and changing conditions within the body. The environmental inputs are surmised to go to levels up to the Configuration and Transition levels, perhaps the Event level. The rest accords with Bill’s model of emotion. Sensed corporeal conditions are interpreted at higher ‘cognitive’ levels as emotions. We typically ignore the Intensity and Sensation perceptions in the body and pay attention to perceptions at the higher ‘cognitive levels’. At the Sequence level we maintain a ‘narrative’, a coherent “this caused that and this is why” control of dependencies which includes imagined perceptions to fill in gaps. This ongoing nonverbal or preverbal ‘narrative’ of controlled perceptions at the Sequence level is an important means by which we control a perception of self at the System Concept level. At the Planning level below that we write the movie, arranging sequences that serve the purpose.
People don’t always give themselves a starring role. Though his explanatory framework is imaginary (appropriate to his era and his training), there are some examples in Eric Berne’s Games People Play.
Bruce,
As I wrote before I think that your “control unit” thinking as far as basic analysis in organisms functioning is concerned by my oppinion couldn’t be better.
But I hope we can also establish that you are on the beggining of the very “hard task” to comprehend the whole control unit functioning of organism as Ashby and Bill Powers has started the “hard task”.
Your partial analysis has to be put into much wider main frame of control unit functioning of organism.
So I’m sorry that I can’t comment yet specific cases of “Control unit analyses” becasue I have to present the whole functioning of organism from genetic control system to top of the hierarchy, which will be quite different from Bills imagined diagram in B:CP, 2005, p. 191.
You can see from my diagram on the end of presentation that is much more comprehensive in respect to control areas which work synhronously in organism. It results from knowledge of mentioned Cyberneticians and scientific findings. The main principle of control organiization are :
-
Organisms function as a whole (part to part), what was quite good presented by Ashby and physiological findings fully support
-
Organisms function as a closed system what was presented by Maturana. He showed that also through evolution perspective. All in all closed loop functiong of organism removes “question mark” on the top of the hierarchy Bill had presented in his diagram p.191 (B:CP, 2005).
-
Organisms functioning on the principles of connections between genetic pattern and ultrastability was presented by Ashby and Bill tried to integrate main principles in his original diagram (B:CP, 2005, p.191) through genetic source but without control connection to intrinsic variables which are levitating in “nothing” connected through disturbances from external environment (input) and genetic source (output). In this way Bill showed in diagram that external output (behavior) and disturbances are the only source of keeping homeostatic conditions in organism and of course in hierarchy. But they both made a mistake and didn’t close system inside, so they contradicted Maturana’s biological experiments and basic physiological “facts”. Suplemented diagram from p. 191 (B:CP, 2005) with “arrows” from genetic source to intrinsic variables under my influence was published by Dug after Bills death.
-
Organisms functioning on the bases of physiological and neurophysiological principles show that organism functions as integrated whole and closed system, with thousands of control functions that help maintain constant conditions in the organism.
Your analyses includes only partial control structures in organism so it’s not included in the whole analyses of the organism what is basic condition if you want to understand clearly what is happening in organisms whole control while keeping homeostatic conditions.
Brainstem is interesting structure in the whole control hierarchy considering mostly negative and some positive control loops through higher and lower levels. Here I think it’s necesary to understand some kind of “somatotopy” where output signals will reach the areas where input signals originate thus closing complex loops. Even more complex loops are closing functioning of lower and the highest levels of nervous system.
Direct connections between specific sensory and motor neurons are usually called “reflexes”. Direct connections usually do not involve any “intermediate” neurons or any other control structures of control units as are present in more complex relations through numerous “macro- and micro-circuits” on higher levels of central nervous system.
Brainstem is quite clear anatomical structure and thus quite well researched. Bio-electrical signals produced by different control areas inside brainstem, can be quite well traced through “inputs and outputs”.
Limbic subsytem is much more complex control structure and is quite imperfectly defined as anatomical structure as it includes many anatomical structures. So usually is in physiological literature refered as functional structure (that’s also how I called it) with many control functions which are combined through different anatomical structures and were functionally changing place through history probably along with understanding of nervous system. So it was not clear which anatomical functions perform certain anatomical control structures.
So Limbic subsystem as much more complex control structure is not so well defined in research work but it can be researched also in your way using control unit organization and tested through TCV or some experiments. Even more problems are with highest control structures in Telencephalon which has also direct control loop connections with brainstem.
Perceptual signals from outside as you presented your example are including into internal functioning of organism.
I’ll try to explain that in my next presentation as much as time will be availlable, because John president of CS is very precise about the time availabel for presentation. So I’ll have to make quite precise “parcel” of informations which will present control functiong from genetic source to wherever I’ll manage to come in presentating some logical whole.
It’s not easy to deal with such a complex structure as nervous system is. But control unit idea as was presented by Bill was an alleviation for me.
And it seems also, that such a “control unit analyses” (CUA) makes you possible to see more clear control structures involved in explaining your problem. That was by my oppinion the greatest advantage of your presentation. But as I wrote before. Hard times await us, first to convince PCT community and then wider public that LCS III is the basics for multidimensional analysis of control units and Bill Powers place in history of Cybernetics has to be assured.
So one of the most important task will be persuading people that Bill Powers was right about analysing control unit organization through synchonization of their functioning. That’s also the point of placing Bill Powers into history of Cybernetics. Simply I don’t see any better method for analyzing complex Living sysems and research work that could advance for decades “paralysed” advancement in Cybernetics.
I hope at least in minimum this is how I saw your explanation. The rest of my explanation will come through time.
You can see at the end of my presentation diagram with “complex control unit organization” (CCUO) that has removed “question mark” from top of the PCT hierarchy. It was not such an easy task. It concerns the whole functioning of organism on the bases of main principles I mentioned above.
Any “Complex Control Unit Analyses” (CCUA) like yours will demand considering the whole control functioning of organism as any control structure contribute to the whole negative feedback control and any structure benefit from it. If there are any positive feedback loops they are “traped” into negative control loops as the final result has to be returning to the “same state” if organism is to survive.
So my oppinion is that your partial control structural analysis has to be part of the whole control functioning of organism to be seen whether is right or wrong and what kind of control loops are involved. There can be also “feedforward” signals which are part of complex feedback loops as I presented in diagram in the beggining of presentation.