12th level of PCT? [Was: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT]

[From Nick MK (06.04.2016.1536 ET)]

···

From: lloydk@klinedinst.com [mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of HPCT

[From Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]

Just some thinking on quickly glancing - more later, if anything else emerges

I would think Healthy diet more a sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC level along with Science, Literature, …

Lloyd

On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32, Fred Nickols fred@nickols.us wrote:

One of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT and I am including a version of the 11 levels diagram shared earlier with the list.

I’d like to ask those who are willing to do so to take a look at the diagram and let me know if anything is so off that I need to fix it or if it’s a viable example.

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT

Writer & Consultant

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

“Assistance at a Distanceâ€?SM

www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html

Nick:Â

In your example, you mentioned the athlete '..that has dedicated

his(her) life to athletic performance…’ that is forced to no
longer be able to perform in that capacity (and implied that they
made a decision to develop some other talent).

To me I don't see where a person 'being an athlete' is even a Level

11 item. I see ‘being an athlete’ and the related term ‘dedicated’
to mean that these are control loops that have a reference that is
set by a higher level system. I am trying, without much success, to
remember what Bill wrote about ‘intrinsics’ in the discussion of
hierarchy in B:CP.

I have gotten the idea that reorganization can occur in any level of

the hierarchy. I think that recent evidence suggests that such is
almost certainly true where a major portion of the physical loop
exists within the brain itself. I suspect that reorganization or
‘adjustment to control for reducing sustained error’ will ultimately
prove to be a distributed system and also prove to be quite complex.

So for me, I don't see where that example helps me.  If someone can

enlighten me, it would be appreciated.

Best,
Bill

P.S.  I went ahead and read the referenced thread... it is really

not a long thread (for any that have not looked at it).

First, in my view the 6 categories seem somewhat arbitrary

(especially in absence of very precise definitions). I recognize
that your thesis may very well (and probably does) contain such
precise and unambiguous definitions and that what you presented
there was a VERY brief summary. So please bear with me on this as I
don’t believe that I have an understanding of your theory
(hypothesis?) or how it would be used. What follows could allow you
to figure out what I don’t understand.

The first category you called "**Endurance or self-preservation**    "

which I take to mean that category could be called ‘Endurance’ as
long as that means self-preservation. I may well not be remembering
this correctly but I’m pretty sure that Bill Powers referred to
‘self-preservation’ as possibly being one of the hypothetical
intrinsics. While there are undoubtedly ‘wired-in’ control systems
for achieving some of the things that fit into the category of
self-preservation such as maintaining blood flow we also know that a
great many others have to learned. Thus some sort of reorganization
has to take place to attempt to establish those.

The second one '**Efficiency (does was it is purported to do)**    '

really bothers me and could very well mean that I don’t understand
what you are saying at all.

First I can't think of a way to put something into that category

unless I put almost everything into it. The only thing (control
system wise) that I can think of that would not go in that category
is described by my favorite humorous definition of insanity:Â “Doing
the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
The actual ‘failure’ in that case is not with the control systems
that are ‘producing’ the behavior that is observed (they are likely
controlling quite well) but rather with the selection of the
perceptions to be controlled. The ‘expected result’ is, naturally,
a perception to be controlled and for some reason the being has
tried to control that perception by selecting other perceptions
whose successful control does not affect or at least does not
achieve control of the ‘expected one.’

How well a perceptual control system 'does what it is purported to

do’ can be called it’s efficacy. Indeed, the use of the term
efficiency for this bothers me a great deal. The perception of
efficacy can be represented with nothing more than 1-error
where a value of 1 means perfect control with no error at all. The
reference for efficacy is essentially that amount of error that is
not acceptable comes from yet another control loop. The comparator
for this efficacy monitoring loop could well be a loop whose
output only has 2 states. I am pretty sure that it is accepted
generally that some (many?) control systems within a living being
can run indefinitely with a persistent error. When that persistent
error remains below (that is closer to 1) what I am calling the
efficacy limit then there is no conflict.

In absence of the required definitions and using only what I think

you mean, I am unable to even begin to place all of those into one
level of the hierarchy of control. I also envision that many
conflicts could exist as a result references produced as outputs
from control loops within each of those categories when more than
one is involved in the control of a single perception. That would be
particularly true where ‘economy’ might apply to a particular
perception along with one of the others.Â

The third one '**Ecology (gets along with surrounding, compatible)**    '

seems to me to be a category that does not fit into PCT at all.Â

Most people have references for things related to their environment

(I’m guessing these are probably at the ‘Principles’ level [though I
don’t think that is important for this discussion]). However, I also
don’t think that is necessarily what you are talking about here. If
this actually is what you are talking about then as I see it, there
isn’t any difference between this and any other control system
conflict. Any time 2 or more control systems try to set a different
reference for the same controlled perception or side effects of 1 or
more control systems cause another control system to have
unacceptable error then reorganization will occur and it will happen
irrespective of whether any or all of the controlled perceptions
involve anything outside of the body itself.

Instead I think this is more relevant to what I think you are

saying: Basically, as I understand PCT, any time that the control of
one perception results in the loss of control of another controlled
perception (that is an unacceptable sustained error in the second
control system), then some manner of reorganization will occur.Â
While the reorganization probably occurs at least one level up from
either of the control systems I don’t see where it has to originate
from something above the 11th level. Indeed, I would not be
surprised if we don’t eventually find that the reorganizing feature
might well be a hierarchical system of its own. But if this is the
sort of thing that you do mean then there is the problem that from
an analysis standpoint it would be virtually impossible to know in
advance what does not belong in the category other than possibly
some ‘wired in intrinsics’ that while involved in conflict could
probably never be in that category. If you do put something into to
that category then you are doing so because you have already
determined that a conflict with another control system exists,
reorganization is going to take place… so what have we gained by
even having the category?

I'm not going to try to express any opinion on the other 3 right

now. If I can understand the first 3 then maybe I can get somewhere
with this.

I noticed that you also said 'So, multiplanar optimization is

observable in natural living systems.’ and
‘It is also a by-product of capitalism and free-trade economy.’

I suspect that possibly I do agree with what I think that you mean

by ‘multplanar optimization’ in that I believe that we do reorganize
to eliminate conflict, meaning to me at least, that we don’t always
achieve minimum error in all control loops. OTOH, again at least as
I see it, this reorganization would occur even if both control
systems resided in the same category(ies). But as to the idea that
‘multiplanar optimization is observable in natural living systems’
I’m not at all convinced. I don’t know of any generative models
that can demonstrate such optimization. I know that Bill produced a
model that did optimize a single control loop. If I’m correct in
asserting that no such models exist then it seems to me that
inferring that such optimization does occur is logically reasonable
but I would not call such an inference a hypothesis much less a
theory. Unless you can build a generative model directly from the
inference and test it then you don’t have a theory. And of course
that test would require that the generative model results could be
compared to data from a living system (naturally with the living
system controlling and optimizing control of the same perceptions as
the model). Right off-hand, that looks to me like a pretty tough
thing to do.

Your statement that 'It is also a by-product of capitalism and

free-trade economy.’ looses me completely. I absolutely do not see
any relationship whatsoever.

And yet again, I admit that I might be completely missing the whole

point of your multiplanar optimization.

I am guessing that you have some discussion of how multi-planar

optimizations might take place.

···

On 06/04/2016 01:51 PM, Nick wrote:

              [From

Nick MK (06.04.2016.1536 ET)]

    This is slightly off topic but I

thought it would be a good place to plug some of my thoughts on
that topic…

    I think I may have identified a 12th

level on that diagram, the system transition level or something
like that…

    I noticed that the first 11th levels

seem to follow the pattern of scalar, loop and conditional; the
first level being a scalar, the second a loop, the third a
conditional, the fourth a scalar and so on to system concept
being a kind of loop.

    That would make the 12th level a

conditional, the “system transition” type that defines how the
system is to change if a parameter of the system concept where
to change. In a way it would create like a partially controlled
reorganization taking into account the compromises and drawbacks
of increasing or decreasing some values in the system.

    An example of that kind of system

would be my “multiplanar optimization” model that I defined
briefly here ->Â https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/beginning-of-infinity/bwFKzh75LpU/tdNDBIgksYoJ

    The system transition level would

define how a system would “recycle” itself if it were to not be
able to perform the acquisition of its currently preferred
values.

    For instance an athlete that has

dedicated his life to his athletic performance that suddenly
would severely break a leg or something and would then find a
passion for painting great art after not being able to perform
athletically, so his value for super physical health or
performance would be replaced by a value for esthetic
performance or elegance or the like…

            [From

Fred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]

Â

            Good

point, Lloyd. I’ll make that change. Nutrition is a
much better choice.

Â

            Fred

Nickols

Â

From:
lloydk@klinedinst.com
[mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of
HPCT

Â

              [From

Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]

Â

              Just some thinking on quickly

glancing - more later, if anything else emerges…<

Â

                I would think Healthy diet more a

sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC
level along with Science, Literature, …

Â

Lloyd

                      On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32,

Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us >
wrote:

Â

                          One

of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT
and I am including a version of the 11
levels diagram shared earlier with the
list.

Â

                          I’d

like to ask those who are willing to do so
to take a look at the diagram and let me
know if anything is so off that I need to
fix it or if it’s a viable example.

Â

Regards,

Â

                          Fred

Nickols, CPT

                          Writer

& Consultant

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

  •                            “Assistance
    

at a Distance�*SM

Â

Â

www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html

From Nick MK (06.06.2016.1758 ET)]

Envoyé de mon iPad

Le 5 juin 2016 à 21:57, Bill Leach wrleach@cableone.net a écrit :

Nick:

In your example, you mentioned the athlete '..that has dedicated

his(her) life to athletic performance…’ that is forced to no
longer be able to perform in that capacity (and implied that they
made a decision to develop some other talent).

To me I don't see where a person 'being an athlete' is even a Level

11 item. I see ‘being an athlete’ and the related term ‘dedicated’
to mean that these are control loops that have a reference that is
set by a higher level system. I am trying, without much success, to
remember what Bill wrote about ‘intrinsics’ in the discussion of
hierarchy in B:CP.

I believe it would be an 11th level system concept as it would be (part of) the identity of the person, the highest level self-perception. It would include all the interrelated concepts and ideas about who the person “is”, the system concept of the self.

I have gotten the idea that reorganization can occur in any level of

the hierarchy. I think that recent evidence suggests that such is
almost certainly true where a major portion of the physical loop
exists within the brain itself. I suspect that reorganization or
‘adjustment to control for reducing sustained error’ will ultimately
prove to be a distributed system and also prove to be quite complex.

So for me, I don't see where that example helps me.  If someone can

enlighten me, it would be appreciated.

Yes, and I would add that, according to the method of levels model, consciousness must focus the attention on one level higher than where the conflict is at in order to resolve it. So if the conflict is at the 11th level, reorganization must happen one level higher (the 12th level “meta-system transition”?).

Best,

Bill



P.S.  I went ahead and read the referenced thread... it is really

not a long thread (for any that have not looked at it).

First, in my view the 6 categories seem somewhat arbitrary

(especially in absence of very precise definitions). I recognize
that your thesis may very well (and probably does) contain such
precise and unambiguous definitions and that what you presented
there was a VERY brief summary. So please bear with me on this as I
don’t believe that I have an understanding of your theory
(hypothesis?) or how it would be used. What follows could allow you
to figure out what I don’t understand.

Yes, those categories are meant to apply almost universally to any human endeavor, whether they are trying do develop an algorithm, paint a painting, solve an international conflict, etc. they represent the high level value or goal that is sought after in the enhancing of their experience.

It also explains why conflicts are inevitable as some people seek to optimize one category and other people tries to optimize other. That inevitably leads to compromises and trade offs that create conflicts.

The first category you called "**Endurance or self-preservation**    "

which I take to mean that category could be called ‘Endurance’ as
long as that means self-preservation. I may well not be remembering
this correctly but I’m pretty sure that Bill Powers referred to
‘self-preservation’ as possibly being one of the hypothetical
intrinsics. While there are undoubtedly ‘wired-in’ control systems
for achieving some of the things that fit into the category of
self-preservation such as maintaining blood flow we also know that a
great many others have to learned. Thus some sort of reorganization
has to take place to attempt to establish those.

The term “endurance” is meant for when it apply to say a product or service, like designing a car or a repair service. In these cases, the term self-preservation is a bit less adequate.

Self-preservation might be supplanted by goals of other categories as in the soldier who value defending his country more than his life and sacrifice himself or his bodily integrity to win a battle. Or it can be seen in a drug addict whose health is seriously deteriorating and put his life at risk, he values getting high (a kind of elegance or emotional impact category goal) more than his future life.

The second one '**Efficiency (does was it is purported to do)**    '

really bothers me and could very well mean that I don’t understand
what you are saying at all.

First I can't think of a way to put something into that category

unless I put almost everything into it. The only thing (control
system wise) that I can think of that would not go in that category
is described by my favorite humorous definition of insanity: “Doing
the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
The actual ‘failure’ in that case is not with the control systems
that are ‘producing’ the behavior that is observed (they are likely
controlling quite well) but rather with the selection of the
perceptions to be controlled. The ‘expected result’ is, naturally,
a perception to be controlled and for some reason the being has
tried to control that perception by selecting other perceptions
whose successful control does not affect or at least does not
achieve control of the ‘expected one.’

How well a perceptual control system 'does what it is purported to

do’ can be called it’s efficacy. Indeed, the use of the term
efficiency for this bothers me a great deal. The perception of
efficacy can be represented with nothing more than 1-error
where a value of 1 means perfect control with no error at all. The
reference for efficacy is essentially that amount of error that is
not acceptable comes from yet another control loop. The comparator
for this efficacy monitoring loop could well be a loop whose
output only has 2 states. I am pretty sure that it is accepted
generally that some (many?) control systems within a living being
can run indefinitely with a persistent error. When that persistent
error remains below (that is closer to 1) what I am calling the
efficacy limit then there is no conflict.

In absence of the required definitions and using only what I think

you mean, I am unable to even begin to place all of those into one
level of the hierarchy of control. I also envision that many
conflicts could exist as a result references produced as outputs
from control loops within each of those categories when more than
one is involved in the control of a single perception. That would be
particularly true where ‘economy’ might apply to a particular
perception along with one of the others.

Here efficiency refer to the degree which something work as wanted. As there is also a level of tolerance or precision and accuracy related to a control variable. Optimizing for efficiency would mean increasing the accuracy or precision of a task or endeavor. This one is at work in tasks such a rational thinking (increasing the accuracy and precision of predictions), designing a machine to perform some task, doing calculations, etc…

The third one '**Ecology (gets along with surrounding, compatible)**    '

seems to me to be a category that does not fit into PCT at all.

Most people have references for things related to their environment

(I’m guessing these are probably at the ‘Principles’ level [though I
don’t think that is important for this discussion]). However, I also
don’t think that is necessarily what you are talking about here. If
this actually is what you are talking about then as I see it, there
isn’t any difference between this and any other control system
conflict. Any time 2 or more control systems try to set a different
reference for the same controlled perception or side effects of 1 or
more control systems cause another control system to have
unacceptable error then reorganization will occur and it will happen
irrespective of whether any or all of the controlled perceptions
involve anything outside of the body itself.

Instead I think this is more relevant to what I think you are

saying: Basically, as I understand PCT, any time that the control of
one perception results in the loss of control of another controlled
perception (that is an unacceptable sustained error in the second
control system), then some manner of reorganization will occur.
While the reorganization probably occurs at least one level up from
either of the control systems I don’t see where it has to originate
from something above the 11th level. Indeed, I would not be
surprised if we don’t eventually find that the reorganizing feature
might well be a hierarchical system of its own. But if this is the
sort of thing that you do mean then there is the problem that from
an analysis standpoint it would be virtually impossible to know in
advance what does not belong in the category other than possibly
some ‘wired in intrinsics’ that while involved in conflict could
probably never be in that category. If you do put something into to
that category then you are doing so because you have already
determined that a conflict with another control system exists,
reorganization is going to take place… so what have we gained by
even having the category?

I'm not going to try to express any opinion on the other 3 right

now. If I can understand the first 3 then maybe I can get somewhere
with this.

I noticed that you also said 'So, multiplanar optimization is

observable in natural living systems.’ and

'It is also a by-product of capitalism and free-trade economy.'



I suspect that possibly I do agree with what I think that you mean

by ‘multplanar optimization’ in that I believe that we do reorganize
to eliminate conflict, meaning to me at least, that we don’t always
achieve minimum error in all control loops. OTOH, again at least as
I see it, this reorganization would occur even if both control
systems resided in the same category(ies). But as to the idea that
‘multiplanar optimization is observable in natural living systems’
I’m not at all convinced. I don’t know of any generative models
that can demonstrate such optimization. I know that Bill produced a
model that did optimize a single control loop. If I’m correct in
asserting that no such models exist then it seems to me that
inferring that such optimization does occur is logically reasonable
but I would not call such an inference a hypothesis much less a
theory. Unless you can build a generative model directly from the
inference and test it then you don’t have a theory. And of course
that test would require that the generative model results could be
compared to data from a living system (naturally with the living
system controlling and optimizing control of the same perceptions as
the model). Right off-hand, that looks to me like a pretty tough
thing to do.

Ecology inside a control system would be the equivalent of its level of integration, coherence or unity of purpose. The control system here might be a person, a group, a nation or an ecosystem.

There is that cool new field called “integrated information theory” ( http://bmcneurosci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2202-5-42 ) that relate the level of integration of information inside a system to its level of consciousness. There is a parallel here with developmental psychology that aims at the integration of consciousness. This type of integration might be a goal in a system that have trade offs with goals of the other categories.

Your statement that 'It is also a by-product of capitalism and

free-trade economy.’ looses me completely. I absolutely do not see
any relationship whatsoever.

Yes, that might be hard to see as it was not explained very much. Here, free trade can be seen as the creation of products and services that caters to these 6 categories of values or goals.

If you see the world as an interconsciousness interface where we cater to our and others people’s goals in a cooperative manner.

We act and create products or services in order to enhance our personal subjective experience in one way or another.

We are not a simple first order control system that only seek more of the same by just maintaining our condition. We seek to improve our condition too, and as we seek to improve our condition, we seek to improve in at least one of these 6 categories. And as a whole, with everyone of us seeking to improve at least one of these at every moment, we slowly improve our general condition and our ability to improve all these 6 categories of values. As a whole, the trade-offs between these 6 categories more or less cancel each other and leave a net increase in all 6 categories. Thus the optimization on many levels or planes that occurs as a net result.

This kind of meliorism thing (improvement of conditions) appears to be the end goal of all our endeavors and what we inevitably do all the time. :slight_smile:

Hope that helps, :slight_smile:

Nick M K

···

On 06/04/2016 01:51 PM, Nick wrote:

              [From

Nick MK (06.04.2016.1536 ET)]

    This is slightly off topic but I

thought it would be a good place to plug some of my thoughts on
that topic…

    I think I may have identified a 12th

level on that diagram, the system transition level or something
like that…

    I noticed that the first 11th levels

seem to follow the pattern of scalar, loop and conditional; the
first level being a scalar, the second a loop, the third a
conditional, the fourth a scalar and so on to system concept
being a kind of loop.

    That would make the 12th level a

conditional, the “system transition” type that defines how the
system is to change if a parameter of the system concept where
to change. In a way it would create like a partially controlled
reorganization taking into account the compromises and drawbacks
of increasing or decreasing some values in the system.

    An example of that kind of system

would be my “multiplanar optimization” model that I defined
briefly here → https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/beginning-of-infinity/bwFKzh75LpU/tdNDBIgksYoJ

    The system transition level would

define how a system would “recycle” itself if it were to not be
able to perform the acquisition of its currently preferred
values.

    For instance an athlete that has

dedicated his life to his athletic performance that suddenly
would severely break a leg or something and would then find a
passion for painting great art after not being able to perform
athletically, so his value for super physical health or
performance would be replaced by a value for esthetic
performance or elegance or the like…

            [From

Fred Nickols (06.02.2016.1300 ET)]

            Good

point, Lloyd. I’ll make that change. Nutrition is a
much better choice.

            Fred

Nickols

From:
lloydk@klinedinst.com
[mailto:lloydk@klinedinst.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:07 PM
To: CSG LISTSERV
Subject: Re: A Favor re the 11 Levels of
HPCT

              [From

Lloyd Klinedinst (2016.06.02.1107)]

              Just some thinking on quickly

glancing - more later, if anything else emerges…<

                I would think Healthy diet more a

sequence or program level and Nutrition as a SC
level along with Science, Literature, …

Lloyd

                      On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:32,

Fred Nickols <fred@nickols.us >
wrote:

                          One

of my upcoming columns will speak to PCT
and I am including a version of the 11
levels diagram shared earlier with the
list.

                          I’d

like to ask those who are willing to do so
to take a look at the diagram and let me
know if anything is so off that I need to
fix it or if it’s a viable example.

Regards,

                          Fred

Nickols, CPT

                          Writer

& Consultant

DISTANCE CONSULTING LLC

  •                            “Assistance
    

at a Distance�*SM

www.nickols.us/SeaStories.html