# A PCT Model of a PCT Net Discussion

**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-pct-model-of-a-pct-net-discussion/564
**Category:** CSG1993
**Created:** [March 24, 1993, 5:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-pct-model-of-a-pct-net-discussion/564 "1993-03-24T17:03:16Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Marken\_Richard\_S1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Marken\_Richard\_S1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marken_Richard_S1)
#### Post date: [March 24, 1993, 5:03pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/a-pct-model-of-a-pct-net-discussion/564/1 "1993-03-24T17:03:16Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (930324.0800)]

Bruce Nevin (Wed 930324 08:44:38) --

> The application of PCT to our own ongoing discourse is a Good  
> Thing, and I hope it continues until I am able to participate  
> more.

I'm glad you think so because I went to the trouble of developing  
a diagram of my PCT model of our PCT discourse. I hope it will  
show you what I mean when I talk about controlled and uncontrolled  
perceptions.

Here is the diagram:

System Boundary  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
"boss || "me"  
reality"|| reference for  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> uncontrolled perception  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> r  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> \>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> v  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> \>C\> ----\>pure disturbance --\> awareness of  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> ^ error error  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> \>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> o------\> copy of perception ----\> awareness of  
Other || | of disturbance disturbance  
People's|| |  
Posts || |  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> \_\_\_\_ | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
d(t) --\>|f(d(t)| ------o------\>| |  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\_\_\_\_\_\_| meaning[d(t)] | | \_\_\_  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\> \> h[m(d(t) | p(t) | | r reference for  
My || | + |-----\>| C |\<--- controlled  
Posts || | m(o(t)] | |\_\_\_| variable  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\>\_\_\_\_\_ | | | p(t)  
o(t) --\>|f(o(t)| -------------\>|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_| |  
^ |\_\_\_\_\_\_| meaning[o(t)] |  
\> \>\> \>  
\> \>\> \>  
\> \>\>\_\_\_\_\_ e(t)= r-p(t) |  
&nbsp;&nbsp;------|g(e(t)|\<----------------------------------  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\_\_\_\_\_\_|  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>\>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The column of double vertical lines is the boundary between the control  
system (me) and the environment (boss reality). Other people's posts,  
d(t), and my posts, o(t), are variables in boss reality. They are  
converted into perceptual signals by the perceptual functions, f(),  
in the boxes at the interface to boss reality (actually, these boxes  
probably represent the SAME function operating at different times; I  
use the same perceptual function to extract the same perceptual  
variable from my posts and those of others; but I think it is OK  
to represent this temporal difference as a spacial difference in the  
model). These perceptual functions are pretty fancy boxes because  
they turn the posts into a signal (meaning(o(t) or meaning (d(t))  
whose magnitude is the "meaning" of the posts; let's imagine that  
these boxes transform the words in the post into a signal whose  
magnitude indicates the degree of "cause-effect PCT imagery" in  
the post. [Of course, I imagine that there are many parallel  
perceptual functions that produce signals whose magnitude is  
proportional to other "meanings" in the post; I'm just focusing  
on one "meaning" aspect of the post in this first level]

The "meaning" signals are the inputs to a "second level" perceptual  
function box that uses the h() function to convert the two  
inputs into a higher level perceptual signal. This higher level  
perception, p(t) is the perception I am controlling in the network  
dialog about PCT. A name for this perception might be "average amount  
of cause-effect PCT imagery occuring on the net". (Again, this is  
just ONE perceptual variable that I might be controlling; many higher  
order perceptions of the discourse are surely being computed in  
parallel).

To simplify the model I have drawn the perceptions of BOTH o(t) and  
d(t) [that is, meaning (o(t)) and meaning (d(t))] as UNCONTROLLED;  
in fact, only my perception of d(t) is uncontrolled. All this means  
is that there is no feedback link from me to d(t) that can  
influence my perception of the "meaning" of d(t) [ of course,  
there is a feedback link to other aspects of the perception of  
d(t) -- such as whether it exists or not; I can affect the latter  
pereption by either reading or not reading my e-mail]. There  
IS a feedback link from my outputs to the aspects of o(t) on  
which my meaning perception of o(t) depend -- but, for the sake of  
(relative) simplicity, I have not drawn them in.

One more aspect of the diagram and then I'll throw it out to the  
net for discussion. Note at the top of the graph that I have  
shown the perception of d(t) brancing off of its path to the  
second level perceptual input. The perception of d(t) is uncontrolled;  
it simply exists as my perception of the degree of "cause-effect PCT  
imagery" in the other person's post. I can become "aware" of that  
perception (this is one aspect of consciousness in the PCT model;  
perception of a perception); this is indicated to the signal  
branch ending at "awareness of disturbance". If I have a reference  
level for this perception then the perception will be compared  
to this reference and an error signal will result; this error  
signal might also become the object of awareness -- so you perceive  
the disturbance "as an error" -- ie. "that was a silly post -- it  
has too much "cause effect PCT imagery" in it. But all I can do  
is experience this error -- since the perception of d(t) (at this  
level) cannot be affected by my outputs; it is just  
an uncontrolled perception -- and the error just happens.

Hopefully, this diagram shows the two main points I was trying  
to make in earlier posts. First, the system that is controlling  
p(t) -- by varying o(t) -- has no information about what was in  
the perceptions of the component posts from which this perception  
is derived; all this systems knows about and controls is p(t) -- the  
"average amount of cause-effect PCT imagery occuring on the net" --  
regardless of the lower level perceptions that contribute to this  
average. At the same time, however, my consciousness might be  
aware of the perception of d(t) and o(t) that happen to  
contribute to p(t). I may have a vague idea that the perceptions  
of o(t) and d(t) do contribute to the higher level perception  
I am controlling -- but, with my awareness sitting at the first  
level of the model, I am most likely to see my own outputs,  
o(t) as responses to the disturbances, d(t) that I perceive.

This little exercise just made me realize that the first illusion  
described in the "Blind men and the elephant" paper applies not  
only to observers of other people's behavior -- it applies to  
ourselves when we look at our OWN behavior too. Since perceptions  
of d(t) and o(t) are sure to be at a lower level than the  
perception that is being controlled by o(t), we are very likely  
to conclude that our own behavior (o(t)) is a response to  
input (d(t)). No wonder people believe that inputs (information,  
perception, "feedback", etc) guide behavior; it not only looks  
that way when we look at other people -- it also looks that way  
when we look at our OWN behavior -- from the wrong level.

Best

Rick