Zen and the Art of PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
21

[From Bill Powers (2005.06.28.1043 MDT)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.06.27,20:40 EST) –

I can’t see the difference
between smoking and Neckers cube.

In the case of smoking one set of control systems inside you is setting a
reference signal for smoking, to satisfy a number of higher-order goals.
At the same time, another set of control systems inside you is setting a
reference level for not smoking, to satisfy a different set of
higher-order goals. The two reference signals meet at a level of control
that carries out the actions involved in smoking. The net reference
signal does not represent either smoking or not smoking, but is somewhere
between those values. That creates the usual difficulties with
conflicts.
In the case of the Necker Cube, are you suggesting that there are two
sets of higher-order systems, one wanting to see one orientation and the
other wanting to see the other orientation? I don’t see any reason to
suppose that, although you could propose it. That wouldn’t fit my
experience of the Necker cube, which feels more like wanting something to
happen and not knowing how to make it happen (that would not be a
conflict). I don’t see any reason why it has to be a conflict,
though I can see that in some people it may be. I go with Rick on this
one.

Best,

Bill P.

22

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.28.1040)]

Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.1214)--

Rick Marken (2005.06.28.0900)

I've attached a little spreadsheet that demonstrates a conflict.

A conflict between whom and what?

Between two controls systems.

Who defines what a controlled variable is?

In a model, the modeler defines it. In a living system, the nervous systems
presumably defines it.

Can one exist independently of others?

If what you are asking is whether one controlled variable can exist
independently of other controlled variables then yes, of course. That is
demonstrated in my demo. Q1+Q2 are Q1-Q2 are two different controlled
variables that exist independently (in both the mathematical and existential
sense).

Is one control loop = to one controlled variable?

Each control loop controls one controlled variable. A control loop is not
equal to a controlled variable. A control loop is an organization (of
variables and functions) that controls a variable.

Your supposition is that your spreadsheet represents a living individual.

Yes, I suppose that is my supposition. The next step is to test this
supposition by comparing the behavior of the model to that of a living
system. I have done a number of such test, many of which are described in my
books, which can be purchased at MORE. I
think the articles in these books would answer many of your questions.

To me it simply represents two control systems, living or robotic.

That's all it definitely does represent. It is a "supposition" that this
model also represents the organization of the nervous systems of living
systems.

How can you show me that your spreadsheet does not represent a robot?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

23

From [Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.2022)]

In a message dated 6/28/2005 1:40:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.28.1040)]

Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.1214)–

Rick Marken (2005.06.28.0900)

I’ve attached a little spreadsheet that demonstrates a conflict.

A conflict between whom and what?

Between two controls systems.
Yes, but you seem to have missed my point entirely. What is to distinguish your spreadsheet model from being a model of any control system. Human or otherwise. Why do you think your spreadsheet represents a control system in an individual? Because you say it does? I say your spreadsheet model provides no evidence of being part of a human control system.

Please tell me how I may distinguish any control system model you have made from a mechanical or man-made one?

Right now your models are models of faith not science. I don’t object to this. I think it is extremely important work and needs to be done in order to advance our thinking on the subject. But that hasn’t happened.

Your models have been used to try and justify a specific way of thinking about theses problems. So instead of trying to understand what these models represent and try to explore the various possibilities, we are left with stories trying to explain how these models justify a set of ideas that they simply don’t do. Your models could justify any number of alternative explanations, and in fact, have probably done so unintentionally over the years.

People have left CSGnet for any number of reasons but I would venture to guess that the biggest one is that there just is not enough evidence to support your claims about the specific set of ideas you are trying to promote, and frankly, my rants about opening up the forum to new ideas has been met with absolute disdain.

But what you, Bill and others just don’t seem to be able to grasp, is that your ideas have no more justification for existence than any others, and if you can’t see that, then others are telling you that by staying away.

PCT is not rocket science. What it is, is dogma of the first order. A mantra to be repeated and memorized, not thought about intelligently or creatively and your models reflect that.

Who defines what a controlled variable is?

In a model, the modeler defines it. In a living system, the nervous systems
presumably defines it.
Take your pick of any controlled variable. Stop time for an instance. What would you say the ‘state’ of the system would be? What variables would you be looking at? How would you look at them?

Do you honestly believe PCT currently provides you with a way of understanding how our ‘mind’ works?

Can one exist independently of others?

If what you are asking is whether one controlled variable can exist
independently of other controlled variables then yes, of course. That is
demonstrated in my demo. Q1+Q2 are Q1-Q2 are two different controlled
variables that exist independently (in both the mathematical and existential
sense).
We get back to the man vs. robot problem here. Your demo doesn’t demonstrate any attributes a mechanical device would not, or could not have, and this points precisely back to what I was trying to say before.

Great, you have shown at least theoretically that this situation is possible, and even what might actually occur if it were to actually exist.

Where is the empirical evidence of this existence? In your heart and imagination? That ain’t good enough. That and two bucks get you on the NYC subway

Is one control loop = to one controlled variable?

Each control loop controls one controlled variable.
How do you know this to be so? Because Bill postulated it, and it has not been refuted yet?

This is cause enough to cut off all discussion about possible alternatives? This is how ‘science’ is done? Maybe in your world.

How do you know that one ’ controlled variable’ does not have any number of ‘loops’?

That is how do you know what the organization is like? You don’t. You are guessing just like everyone else. You have no more of a clue than anyone else.

A control loop is not
equal to a controlled variable. A control loop is an organization (of
variables and functions) that controls a variable.
How do you know or find out which ‘variables’ are associated with which loops

Your supposition is that your spreadsheet represents a living individual.

Yes, I suppose that is my supposition. The next step is to test this
supposition by comparing the behavior of the model to that of a living
system. I have done a number of such test, many of which are described in my
books, which can be purchased at MORE. I
think the articles in these books would answer many of your questions.
They answer none of my questions, and I wouldn’t buy any more of your books on a bet.

I’m glad you believe your work has been empirically validated. If you believe this then nothing more is too be said about it. Believe what you will.

To me it simply represents two control systems, living or robotic.

That’s all it definitely does represent. It is a “supposition” that this
model also represents the organization of the nervous systems of living
systems.
Yes, our imaginations play a huge part in our beliefs. Maybe one day PCT or something similar will be able to help us better understand how and why this all happens.

How can you show me that your spreadsheet does not represent a robot?

I haven’t the slightest idea.
Yes my friend and that cluelessness is your biggest obstacle and biggest problem.

regards,

Marc

24

[From Bill Powers (2005.06.28.2017 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.06.28.1040) --

>Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.1214)--
> Your supposition is that your spreadsheet represents a living individual.

Yes, I suppose that is my supposition. The next step is to test this
supposition by comparing the behavior of the model to that of a living
system. I have done a number of such test, many of which are described in my
books, which can be purchased at MORE. I
think the articles in these books would answer many of your questions.

That is a vain wish, Rick. Marc doesn't understand what a variable is, what a signal is, what a circuit is, what a model is, what a control system is, or what a theory is. And he doesn't want to know. Why not just wait for him to reveal his theory and show how he has tested it? He's been waving those blank cards in the air for three or four years now, saying "I have here a revolutionary new theory to replace everything else, and I'm about to show it to you any second now, and when I do you'll see that there are no control systems, no controlled variables, no hierarchy, and no proof of anything Bill has ever said. But understand, I'm really on Bill's side and wish him only the best, including an early senility."

At the very first CSG meeting that Marc attended, in Durango, he took me aside and tried to persuade me that you were a traitor to PCT and should be dumped.I hope you notice that I didn't follow his advice (as if I could have "dumped" anyone to begin with). Everything he has done and said since then has been in the same vein. You have absolutely nothing to gain by interacting with this person. I don't suppose he can help being as he is, but that doesn't fix the problem, or remove the threat to your reputation.

Best,

Bill P.

25

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.28.2045)]

Bill Powers (2005.06.28.2017 MDT)

Rick Marken (2005.06.28.1040) --

Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.1214)--

Your supposition is that your spreadsheet represents a living individual.

Yes, I suppose that is my supposition. The next step is to test this
supposition by comparing the behavior of the model to that of a living
system. I have done a number of such test, many of which are described in my
books, which can be purchased at MORE. I
think the articles in these books would answer many of your questions.

That is a vain wish, Rick. Marc doesn't understand what a variable is, what a signal is, what a circuit is, what a model is, what a control system is, or what a theory is. And he doesn't want to know.

I know. I just did it as a little escape from work today. Guilty pleasure. But his schtick gets boring pretty quickly, I'm afraid.

Best

Rick

···

----
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

26

From [Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.0004)]

In a message dated 6/28/2005 10:58:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

[From Bill Powers (2005.06.28.2017 MDT)]

That is a vain wish, Rick. Marc doesn’t understand what a variable
is, what a signal is, what a circuit is, what a model is, what a
control system is, or what a theory is. And he doesn’t want to know.
These words become more shallow and hollow with each passing attempt to demonize me and make me look the fool. But Bill, I got a surprise for you, you are the one looking the fool.

You wonder why folks don’t stick around here, or why they show little interest in your ideas. I would venture to guess that you get just about the same amount of respect as you give.

I feel sorry for you. You are a bitter, defeated individual.

Why not just wait for him to reveal his theory and show how he has
tested it?
You have some major issues. None of which I am capable of helping you with. Why you feel I am in some kind of ‘competition’ with you is beyond me.

Just because I happen to disagree with you doesn’t make me some type of ogre, or does it? I guess it does.

He’s been waving those blank cards in the air for three or
four years now, saying "I have here a revolutionary new theory to
replace everything else,
No I haven’t. I just said your theory doesn’t make much sense to me. I’ve been trying to reformulate it to where it does make some sense to me.

It seems that what you put in quotes is what your imagination has been telling you, and in fact maybe one day that will be the case. But I never uttered those words, and to put them into quotes and attribute them to me is a lie. But you seem to have a need to believe them.

I’m just interested in exploring all possible avenues in trying to understand how our perceptions control our behavior.

I just don’t happen to think you have found the final solution, andyou do. Ain’t much else to say is there?

That sort of cuts off any further discussions on the matter at the ankles.

and I’m about to show it to you any second
now, and when I do you’ll see that there are no control systems, no
controlled variables, no hierarchy, and no proof of anything Bill has
ever said. But understand, I’m really on Bill’s side and wish him
only the best, including an early senility."
It seems you have already reached that point. :wink: You really have gone off the deep end haven’t you?

At the very first CSG meeting that Marc attended, in Durango, he took
me aside and tried to persuade me that you were a traitor to PCT and
should be dumped.I hope you notice that I didn’t follow his advice
(as if I could have “dumped” anyone to begin with). Everything he has
done and said since then has been in the same vein. You have
absolutely nothing to gain by interacting with this person. I don’t
suppose he can help being as he is, but that doesn’t fix the problem,
or remove the threat to your reputation.
AH Ha, HERE is the reason for the rant. Bill thinks I am trying to ‘steal’ Rick Marken away from him. What an absolutely insane idea. You really have lost it dear William.

Let me ask you a question Bill; if I am, as you said at the beginning of this post, an idiot, why fear me or what I can possibly say to Rick? Do you believe Rick is so gullible that he would be taken in by my charms alone.

If I told Rick the world was flat would he not think me the fool?

What are your so frightened of?

Yes Rick, interacting with me can be very bad. You might actually begin to question some things and that could be extremely dangerous to BILLS HEALTH.

I am on your side Bill, and I would like nothing better than to see PCT succeed. Unfortunately I don’t believe this will happen under your specific set of ideas. Get over it, the world is not in full agreement with you.

regards,

Marc

27

From [Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.0038)]

In a message dated 6/28/2005 11:47:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.28.2045)]

I know. I just did it as a little escape from work today. Guilty
pleasure. But his schtick gets boring pretty quickly, I’m afraid.
Yeah, especially when you continue to have no clue or answers to my inquiries.

I must say though, you two deserve each other, and what you have, you have richly earned. Keep up the good work.

Powers moves the strings and Marken jumps. I have been misrepresenting you over the years Rick, You are not his lap dog. You are his puppet. You have no mind of your own, and every time you try to use it, Powers makes sure you never venture very far.

I actually feel sorry for the both of you.

regards,

Marc

28

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.06.29,10:00 EST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.06.28.0900)
Yes. In the smoking example I gave there is conflict: two control systems
want the same perceptual variable (cigarettes smoked/hr, say) in two
different states. One system wants this variable at a reference level of
zero (the no smoking system) and the other wants it at some non-zero value
(say 5 cigarettes/hour). Of course, this variable can't be in both states

at

the same time. What happens depends on the relative gains of the two
systems.

You have proposed the "same perceptual variable" to be a value indicating a
number of cigarettes smoked/hr. and two references at 0 and 5 cigarettes
smoked/hr. This is a frequency. And the frequency is in the brain. It is
used in the reference signal, the error or the perceptual signal.

It is all right that you can't be in the two states at the same time.

It is all right that the gain is cardinal. I thought the gain was a
conversion factor that recalculated the disturbance (and the environment
variable) to a frequency in the input function. This conversion factor has
the unit of units per disturbance unit. If this is correct, the perceptual
_variable_ cannot be e.g. 3 cigarettes/hr. The disturbance must therefore be
a number of cigarettes. This is not a central point at the moment because I
am a little insecure myself.

Don't you have a problem if the one system has a reference like zero. What
happens in the comparator where it meets a negative perceptual signal (or
when you subtract the perceptual signals). Will the error be negative? Do I
say anything wrong here?

If the systems are of approximately equal gain the perceptual
variable will end up being kept in a "virtual" reference state somewhere
between the two references -- ie., between 0 and 5 -- so the person in this
conflict will appear to have "cut down".

I think you introduce a virtual reference to make your understanding more
educational, but the virtual reference doesn't exist. I think the two
references 0 and 5 exist in two different systems and the comparators in
these systems receive the same disturbance and they get different feedback
signals.

Let me use two references like 5 and 8 (and not 0). Let both systems have
the same gain = ke*do =10.
Then p=(ke*ko*r + kd*d)/(1+ke*ko)

The one system get a p = 10*5/11 + kd*d/11 = 50/11 + kd*d/11 = 4,54 +
kd*d/11
The other system get p = 10*8/11+ kd*d/11 = 80/11+ kd*d/11 = 7,27 + kd*d/11

The way I see it, we have two systems with different reference and a
perceptual signal that becomes more and more like kd*d/11. I can't see that
the conflict will have a "cut down". The conflict depends on the two
reference signals.

Thank you for the conflict.xls . I have not seen it before and I think it
demonstrates conflict in an educational way. But I have one question.

The disturbances in the two systems are different. Why do you do that? It
doesn't have any effect, because you don't use the one value in E17.
And I have a problem when you make a conflict using the conflict factor
(-1) on the one controlled variable. You cancel this effect by using the
conflict factor (-1) on the one perceptual signal.
I thought the conflict was attributed to the different references. If you
say this is just a technique, it is some confusing to me.
You must help me here. If you are correct I have a long way to go as regards
conflict.

In the smoking example (as in my demo) two systems are _simultaneously_
trying to bring the _same_ perceptual variable to two different states.

OK

In the Necker cube, one (but possibly two) systems _alternate_ controlling

for

different perceptions (call it cube with face A front and cube with face A
rear).

I cannot understand how one control system can alternate controlling for
different perceptions. I shall not go in detail when I try to describe how
neurons work in the brain, but I have a problem when I try to understand how
one system can alternate. And the only way I can understand that two control
systems alternate is that we are conscious the one and not the other and
later conscious the other and not the one.

Let me take as my starting point three statements from Bill.

1.

[From Bill Powers (2005.06.17.0651 MDT)] (June Gloom)

In the PCT model, one control system perceives and controls one kind of
variable and only one kind. Each different kind of variable is perceived
and controlled by a physically different control system. A reference signal
that enters the comparator of one control system does not enter the
comparator of any other control system (though a higher-order system can
send reference signals simultaneously, by different paths, to more than one
lower-order system).

(Wonderful words ( my words))

When Rick says "I" am controlling for sunshine, he is not referring to the
"I" that likes chocolate ice cream or the "I" that writes programs or even
the "I" that dislikes fog. He is talking about one single control system
inside his brain, and he is speaking as if from the point of view of that
one control system. The others are all still there and are still acting as
appropriate to control their perceptions relative to whatever reference
signals they are each currently receiving.

Since a reference signal enters only one comparator, changing the reference
signal can change only the amount of the corresponding perception that is
required if the error signal is to be zero. To change from wanting no fog
to wanting sunshine, you would have to turn off the reference signal going
to the system that controls the perception of fog (or disable the whole
control system) and turn on the reference signal going to the system that
controls the perception of sun (or enable that control system if it is
disabled). In the case where the reference signal is excitatory and the
perceptual signal is inhibitory, a comparator can produce an error signal
only if the reference signal is larger than the perceptual signal. This
means that setting the reference signal to zero in such a system is the
same as disabling it: there will never be any error signal if the only
signal entering the comparator is an inhibitory perceptual signal. If you
set a low value of reference signal, that will produce an error signal that
creates output that increases the perceptual signal, but only enough output
to bring the perceptual signal to nearly the same small magnitude as the
reference signal. An excess of the perceptual signal will not create any
error signal. In order for an excess as well as a deficiency of a
perceptual signal to create an error signal, a second comparator must exist
with the inhibitory and excitatory effects interchanged.

These are the properties of the PCT model as it stands now.

(Really Wonderful words (my words))

2.

Subject: Re: reinforcement - Is the Phenomenon Real?
[From Bill Powers (2005.06.07.0758(]
We may not see anything happening when no disturbances are varying,
but the control systems are still turned on and still generating whatever
action is required to maintain all controlled variables at their reference

levels.

I have had objections to this statement sometimes, but every time I return
to it.

3.

From Bill Powers (2005.06.27.1450 MDT)]
Do you think we learn to know what the real world really is?
I think we simply develop mental models that we are satisfied
to use because they work well enough for our purposes. I don't
know of any way to know what the real world really is. If you
know of a way, please tell me what it is!

These were my 3 basic statements: 1. One control system controls only one
variable. 2. All our control systems function all the time, but the error is
very often zero. 3 Everything we say about the Real World is a statement in
our individual Model of the Real World.

Now back to Necker's cube.

.................

When I control my perceptions when I am looking at the Necker's cube, I have
no knowledge about the real world on the paper, but I know there is a
picture of the cube on the retina. I perceive 1 of the 3 or more figures I
can perceive seeing on the Neckers cube and I know what I perceive. The
perception signal and copies of it goes to the comparators and the different
output signals contribute to a shift in in which figure I am conscious among
other circumstances.

I have changed your conflict.xls and I think there still is a conflict with
one disturbance.

bjorn

Conflictedited.xls (16 KB)

29

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.29.0800)]

Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.0004)--

I'm just interested in exploring _all_ possible avenues in trying to
understand how our perceptions control our behavior.

I feel compelled to point out (probably the result of Bill's remote tugs on
my strings) that part of your problem may be that you are engaged in an
enterprise that differs considerably from mine (and my puppeteer's). While
you are busy trying to understand how perceptions control our behavior I am
trying to understand how behavior controls our perceptions -- and which
perceptions we control. You say that you are "on the side" of PCT and that
you "believe in" the concept. Your posts make it clear that you really
don't understand whose side you are on or what it is you believe in.
Whatever it is, it certainly isn't PCT.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

30

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.29.0850)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.06.29,10:00 EST)

Don't you have a problem if the one system has a reference like zero.

Mine are all two way control systems (for simplicity -- this cannot be the
way it works in the NS) so a zero reference is no problem. If the perception
goes below zero the system just acts to bring it back "up" to zero.

I think you introduce a virtual reference to make your understanding more
educational, but the virtual reference doesn't exist.

Of course not. That's why it's call "virtual"; there seems to be a reference
for the variable being at 2.5 (say) but there really is no such reference in
either system.

I think the two
references 0 and 5 exist in two different systems and the comparators in
these systems receive the same disturbance and they get different feedback
signals.

] Comparators don't get disturbances. The input to a comparator is a
perceptual (p) and a reference � signal. The output is the difference
between r and p.

The conflict depends on the two reference signals.

Yes. In my demo the conflict results from the fact that the two systems gave
different reference for the same perceptual variable (Q1+Q2). So the
conflict does depend on having two references. But it also depends on the
two systems controlling the same or a very similar perceptual variable (for
example, there would be conflict of one system were controlling Q1+Q2 and
the other were controlling Q1+ 10*Q2). They are both still controlling what
is essentially the sum of Q1 and Q2.

Thank you for the conflict.xls . I have not seen it before and I think it
demonstrates conflict in an educational way. But I have one question.

The disturbances in the two systems are different. Why do you do that?

Because there are two different environmental variables. But it doesn't
really matter. There could be no disturbance at all and there would still be
a conflict. Try it. Multiply the values in D17 and E17 by 0 and see what
happens.

And I have a problem when you make a conflict using the conflict factor
(-1) on the one controlled variable.

I'm sorry you have a problem with the coflict setting variable. All I'm
doing is using this variable to change the controlled variable for system 2
from Q1-Q2 to Q1 + Q2. I do it by changing a coefficient, c, of Q2 (Q1 + c *
Q2) from -1 to 1. Pretty sweet, eh?

I thought the conflict was attributed to the different references.

It's also (and more importantly, really) a result of having the two systems
controls the _same_ perceptual variable. Having two different references is
no problem when the systems control two different variables, as is
demonstrated by the fact that both systems get the different perceptions
they want when one system controls Q1+Q2 and the other controls Q1-Q2. The
conflict occurs when both systems start controlling Q1+Q2.

I have changed your conflict.xls and I think there still is a conflict with
one disturbance.

There is not only no conflict in your new spreadsheet. There is no control.
That's because the system outputs have no effect on the inputs. What you are
seeing is the perceptions of the two systems varying as a result of the
varying disturbances. There is nothing the systems can do about this; you
have designed two systems that are in passive observation mode. Add the
output of system 1 (D13) to CV1 (the value in D15) and add the output of
system 2 (E13) to CV3 (E15). So the formula in D13 will be =D17+D13 and the
one in E13 will be =E17+E13. Then you will have two control systems
controlling two different controlled variables and you will see them
instantly bring their perceptions to their references. The conflict setting
has no effect on the perceptions so there can be no conflict.

Regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

31

From [Marc Abrams (2005.06.29.1239)]

In a message dated 6/29/2005 11:08:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.29.0800)]

I feel compelled to point out (probably the result of Bill’s remote tugs on
my strings) that part of your problem may be that you are engaged in an
enterprise that differs considerably from mine (and my puppeteer’s). While
you are busy trying to understand how perceptions control our behavior I am
trying to understand how behavior controls our perceptions – and which
perceptions we control. You say that you are “on the side” of PCT and that
you “believe in” the concept. Your posts make it clear that you really
don’t understand whose side you are on or what it is you believe in.
Whatever it is, it certainly isn’t PCT.
Very clever but wasted. Since we are dealing with a control loop, there is no ‘beginning’ nor an ‘end’. To say either one is appropriate.

Our behavior is controlled by our perceptions and our perceptions are controlled by our behavior. They influence each other.

Our imagination and emotions influence both of them but I don’t see that anywhere in your sacred model.

So you are right in one respect. You and I are on different paths. I’m interested in understanding the human mind regardless of whether perceptions control behavior or behavior controls perceptions.

Save your equivocating for someone who actually cares

What I don’t subscribe to is your infantile view that it can only be understood from one perspective.

Everything you believe is a construct of your mind. There is no ‘feedback’ out there. It is simply a way of describing a process you perceive. Your ‘input’ is not physically attached to anything out there.

So ‘PCT’ is just one man’s view of a process, and an unsubstantiated one at that.

But you are so delusional you actually believe this ‘structure’ is a real live entity.

You are a joke, and your attempts to discredit me would be really funny if they were not clouded in the paranoia and cluelessness you and Bill possess, which puts it all into the very sad rather than funny category.

regards,

Marc

32

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.27.1100)]

Marc Abrams (2005.06.29.1239) --

Rick Marken (2005.06.29.0800)

While
you are busy trying to understand how perceptions control our behavior I am
trying to understand how behavior controls our perceptions -- and which
perceptions we control...

Our behavior is controlled by our perceptions and our perceptions are
controlled by our behavior. They influence each other.

This is not true. Behavior (action) is _influenced_ (not controlled) by our
perceptions while, at the same time our perceptions are _influenced_ (not
controlled) by our behavior. The result (when the feedback in this loop is
negative) is that actions keep perceptions at a reference level, protected
from disturbance. This is what _control_ is: bringing a variable to a
predetermined (reference) state and maintaining it there, protected from
disturbance.

In the closed loop relationship between behavior (action) and perception in
living systems, the variable controlled is the perceptual (input) variable.
It is not correct to say that perception controls behavior (or action)
because it unquestionably does not. That's a mathematical fact (see my
"Blind men and the elephant" paper in _More Mind Readings_). Behavior
(action) controls perception. That is the profound and revolutionary fact
about control systems in general and living control systems in particular
that is revealed by PCT.

Our imagination and emotions influence both of them but I don't see that
anywhere in your sacred model.

Then perhaps your perception is obscured by your imagination. The proposed
role of imagination in behavior was described in B:CP I. The proposed role
of emotion in behavior is now included in B:CP II.

Everything you believe is a construct of your mind. There is no 'feedback' out
there. It is simply a way of describing a process you perceive. Your 'input'
is not physically attached to anything out there.

This is, indeed, an epistemology to which I definitely _do not_ subscribe. I
think the evidence is overwhelming that our "inputs" (sensory receptors) are
excited by variations in external physical variables. In this sense our
input is physically attached to "something out there".

So 'PCT' is just one man's view of a process, and an unsubstantiated one at
that.

It is, indeed, one man's view (model) but it has received considerable
substantiation from experiments. It will get more such substantiation as
more people start doing research based on PCT. It's an on-going thing.

But you are so delusional you actually believe this 'structure' is a real live
entity.

I do?

You are a joke, and your attempts to discredit me would be really funny if
they were not clouded in the paranoia and cluelessness you and Bill possess,
which puts it all into the _very_ sad rather than funny category.

I have no interest in discrediting you (or doing anything to you, for that
matter). I am just pointing out what I think are some serious incorrect
statements you've made. I don't do it to discredit you or to hurt you. I do
it mainly just to get things straight on CSGNet. I don't think an algebra
teacher (like my son) discredits a student by pointing out that they are
wrong when they say that x(a+b) = ax + b. It's even better, I think, if the
teacher explains (as my son does) why such a statement is incorrect.

I think you have a very strong desire (common even at the highest levels of
government these days) to be right. This is certainly an understandable
human desire but it gets in the way of learning and it can have catastrophic
consequences, too (as in the decisions of the current "never wrong"
President of the US). It's your choice, of course. But I think you would
find that gaining knowledge through hard work (and occasional failure) can
be even more satisfying, in the long run, than being right all the time.

Regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

33

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.06.29.1315 CDT)]

Marc, I have only been sampling your responses, and maybe I have missed some
contextualization or mitigation of your comments, but this sounds sadly like an
ad hominem comment, which you vowed that you would not direct ever again,
whereas other people's responses to your comments have been to your statements
rather than to you. It sounds as if you are going against your word. I would ask
you to mind your manners, and be a mensch in this forum.

--Bryan

[Marc Abrams (2005.06.29.1239)]

···

You are a joke, and your attempts to discredit me would be really funny if
they were not clouded in the paranoia and cluelessness you and Bill possess,
which puts it all into the _very_ sad rather than funny category.

regards,

Marc

34

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.06.29,20:40 EST)]

From Rick Marken (2005.06.29.0850)
Comparators don't get disturbances. The input to a comparator is a
perceptual (p) and a reference � signal. The output is the difference
between r and p.

Of course, I shall not explain...... (I thought there were zero error and
the disturbance was the only variable converted in Input function. OK
nonsense from me.)

Mine are all two way control systems (for simplicity -- this cannot be the
way it works in the NS) so a zero reference is no problem. If the

perception

goes below zero the system just acts to bring it back "up" to zero.

I don't know anything about Network Simulators. And I have to study your
conflict xls before I understand your last sentence.

Because there are two different environmental variables. But it doesn't
really matter. There could be no disturbance at all and there would still

be

a conflict. Try it. Multiply the values in D17 and E17 by 0 and see what
happens.

OK. I'll play with your conflict.xls

···

I'm sorry you have a problem with the conflict setting variable. All I'm
doing is using this variable to change the controlled variable for system 2
from Q1-Q2 to Q1 + Q2. I do it by changing a coefficient, c, of Q2 (Q1 + c

*

Q2) from -1 to 1. Pretty sweet, eh?

No I don't have problem with it. I am so jammed in my way of thinking. I
think living organisms cannot change from conflict state to no conflict
state by just doing something. I think you have to move up a level and stop
controlling for the conflicted perceptions.
I'll study your conflict.xls and ask for help if I don't get it.

There is not only no conflict in your new spreadsheet. There is no control.

I thought it after I sent it. I should have waited to send it till after
dinner.

bjorn

35

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.06.29.1340 CDT)]

Marc, I reviewed some of the notes, and indeed, you are directing ad hominems to
members of the group. I am afraid I have to ask you to stop this or unsubscribe.
And please be aware, you cannot insult me, I have a thicker skin than you think.
Be a mensch or please unsubscribe from this forum.

--Bryan

···

>From [Marc Abrams (2005.06.28.0038)]
....
Powers moves the strings and Marken jumps. I have been misrepresenting you
over the years Rick, You are not his lap dog. You are his puppet. You have no
mind of your own, and every time you try to use it, Powers makes sure you
never venture very far.
....

36

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2005.06.29,20:55 EST)]

From Bill Powers (2005.06.27.1450 MDT)]
Binocular depth information is contained in the convergence angle between

the eyes.
Of course. I haven't studied focusing and have always explained for myself
that it was the angel Left eye/Object/Right eye that explained focusing. How
could we perceive that angle? Also I saw the small differences, but ....
Well now I know what happens in the brain when we focusing, I think.

Is focusing a muscular Configuration/Relationship control?

"Fond" is the word. "Found" is the past tense of "find" meaning
to recover something that was lost, or to encounter something
accidentally. "To be fond of" means the same as "to like", or "haben gern".

I am fond of the way you comments my proficiency in writing English. I
really appreciate them, and smile to myself.

Do you think we learn to know what the real world really is? I
think we simply develop mental models that we are satisfied to
use because they work well enough for our purposes. I don't
know of any way to know what the real world really is. If you
know of a way, please tell me what it is!

No. I have my models as you have yours.

If my consciousness could let me perceive the two figures,
everything would be just disorder.

What do you mean, "disorder"? Random? Scattered all over
the place? Jumping around senselessly? I don't think the word
"disorder" explains what is wrong with perceiving both figures
are once.

I meant over-complex, maybe I mean unintelligible.

bjorn

37

In a message dated 6/29/2005 2:39:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.06.29.1340 CDT)]

Marc, I reviewed some of the notes,
Good, what did you think about the ad hominem attacks from Rick and Bill on me?

Oops, sorry, I know how difficult it can be for you to think at times

and indeed, you are directing ad hominems to
members of the group. I am afraid I have to ask you to stop this or unsubscribe.
And please be aware, you cannot insult me, I have a thicker skin than you think.
Be a mensch or please unsubscribe from this forum.
Yes sir, whatever you command. Not only do you have thick skin but you have a thick skull and a very tiny brain you seem to have a hard time using properly.

regards,

Marc

38

[From Rick Marken (2005.06.29.1450)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2005.06.29,20:40 EST) --

From Rick Marken (2005.06.29.0850)

I'm sorry you have a problem with the conflict setting variable. All I'm
doing is using this variable to change the controlled variable for system 2
from Q1-Q2 to Q1 + Q2. I do it by changing a coefficient, c, of Q2 (Q1 + c
* Q2) from -1 to 1. Pretty sweet, eh?

No I don't have problem with it. I am so jammed in my way of thinking. I
think living organisms cannot change from conflict state to no conflict
state by just doing something. I think you have to move up a level and stop
controlling for the conflicted perceptions.

I do too. The conflict setting variable in the demo is for demonstration
purposes only! I certainly am not proposing as the means by which people get
into and out of conflicts!

The conflict setting variable in the demo just lets you see what happens
when two control systems switch from controlling a different perception to
the same perception. I presume that in real control organizations (like us)
the systems that are in conflict (controlling for the same perception
relative to different references) get that way naturally -- and gradually
-- through reorganization. The cause of the conflict is, of course, the
higher level systems that are simultaneously setting different references
for what is basically the same perception. The way we get out of these
conflicts in real life is, I think, by 1) seeing the consequences of the
conflict -- that is, seeing the conflict in acti 2) going up a level and
seeing the incompatible goals that are the cause of the conflict and 3)
changing those goals -- usually by accepting the fact that the goals will
have to be achieved successively rather than simultaneously.

So, for example, when I find myself unable to move while carrying a dish and
a napkin to different locations (kitchen and hutch, respectively), I solve
this conflict when I realize 1) I am not getting where I want to go 2) I
can't get to my destinations (kitchen and hutch) because, in order to get
there, I must go in two different directions simultaneously and 3) I accept
the fact that I will have to achieve one goal (say, getting to the kitchen)
and then another (getting to the hutch), in sequence. These kinds of
conflicts pop up all the time. I think we solve them so quickly that we
don't even notice that they are happening.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

39

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.06.29.1700 CDT)]

This type of behavior resembles an ad hominem. Yes. This was a good example. But
I am mainly concerned with a promise you made not long ago that you would not be
issuing ad hominems any longer. And that is why I ask you to stop these futile
attacks. I read over the comments from the other members, and they sincerely are
directed at your actions, not at you. Your actions are destructive to CSGnet
communication.

Therefore, Marc, be so kind as to unsubscribe and direct this childish vitriol
to some other target. You don't hurt me, yet by directing these kinds of attacks
through CSGnet, you diminish any positive regard readers might have for you.
Please give up. You don't impress.

--Bryan

[Mark Abrams (2005.06.29.1557 EDT?)]

···

Oops, sorry, I know how difficult it can be for you to think at times
....
Not only do you have thick skin but you have a thick skull and a
_very_ tiny brain you seem to have a hard time using properly.

regards,

Marc