A Reflection on the Hierarchy

[From Bruce Gregory (990828.1609 EDT)]

Every organism starts out with a set on intrinsic reference levels. Many of
these levels are associated with variables of importance for maintaining the
physiology of the system (internal temperature, for example). The
reorganizing system is responsible for "seeing" that the appropriate
perception matches each intrinsic reference level. The reorganizing system
accomplishes this by building a learning-based control hierarchy. Whenever
the existing hierarchy is unable to eliminate a continuing error associated
with an intrinsic variable, the reorganizing system attempts to construct a
new perception (out of existing perceptions) the control of which will
eliminate the persisting error. The reorganizing system continues to try new
perceptions-reference level-output function combinations until the error
vanishes. If this process is not successful, the organism "gives up" and
takes the consequence of the persisting error, including death.

Building hierarchies is the simplest way for the reorganization system to
insure that established control loops are not unestablished when new systems
are built. For example, it would be a major pain if you learned to ride a
bicycle but in the process lost your ability to walk.

Ken argues for a "spiritual level" in the hierarchy. If this were a natural
component of the hierarchy it would arise as a result of reorganization and
involve a new combination of perceptual inputs from systems lower in the
hierarchy. Ken wants this level to be constructed by divine intervention. In
order to make such an option "attractive", it would be necessary to rule out
reorganization as a mechanism. This will not be easy because reorganization
cannot yet be observed. Many stories of religious conversions at least sound
as if reorganization might be at work. Of course we cannot rule out the
possibility that reorganization is not a "real" mechanism. Perhaps all
learning requires divine intervention. We don't lose sleep over this
possibility because science is constrained to seek naturalistic rather than
supernaturalistic mechanisms.

Bruce Gregory

[From Kenny Kitzke (990829.2200 EDT)]

<Bruce Gregory (990828.1609 EDT)>

<Every organism starts out with a set on intrinsic reference levels.>

Speculative reflection. Possible, but not science. Does anyone know what
this set is for any organism? What is the set for human organisms?

<Many of these levels are associated with variables of importance for
maintaining the physiology of the system (internal temperature, for example).>

What would be an example of an intrinsic reference level that was not
associated with a variable important to the physiology of the organism? Has
any scientist or physiologist identified precisely what physical entity in
humans maintains internal temperature? Where in the body is this temperature
variable measured?

<The reorganizing system is responsible for "seeing" that the appropriate
perception matches each intrinsic reference level.>

Do physiologists agree? Is there any scientific evidence of how this
mysterious reorganizing system "sees" internal temperature? Have
physiologists proven such a system exists in all living things or even any
living thing, like a one-celled organism?

Do physiologists have a name they use for this "seeing" system other than the
"reorganizing" system chosen by Bill Powers? Is this system an actual
physical specimen we can dissect out of a living organism? Would a living
organism be able to continue to live if its reorganization system was
surgically removed or somehow become disabled?

<The reorganizing system accomplishes this by building a learning-based
control hierarchy.>

Now, this is truly an amazing system. It not only somehow "sees" what is
happening to a set of undetermined intrinsic internal variables, it now
"builds" a learning-based control hierarchy. Does it build new synapses?
Does it build new memory cells for new intrinsic variables? New neural
circuits? Does the mysterious reorganization system do this itself? How?
Does it tell other human organs what to do? How?

<Whenever the existing hierarchy is unable to eliminate a continuing error
associated with an intrinsic variable, the reorganizing system attempts to
construct a new perception (out of existing perceptions) the control of which
will
eliminate the persisting error. The reorganizing system continues to try new
perceptions-reference level-output function combinations until the error
vanishes.>

Now, this amazing reorganization system attempts to construct a new
perception for the hierarchy, have the hierarchy try to control it for a
while, and then determine whether the controlling the hierarchy does
eliminates what the reorganization system saw as error in an intrinsic
variable? And, if the reorganization system is not content with the error
reduction it sees, it abandons that new perception and constructs more new
perceptions for the hierarchy to try? It would appear to be quite an
intelligent system to mastermind all this construction with repeated trial
and error and the building and abandoning of totally new perceptions. What
could this "system" possibly be? And, it really exists in all organisms?
Are we sure?

<If this process is not successful, the organism "gives up" and
takes the consequence of the persisting error, including death.>

Is it the organism that "gives up," or the reorganization system? And, what
might be the consequences of persisting intrinsic error, that the
reorganization cannot deal with, excluding death? Would it include feeling
hungry? Would it include feeling pain? Would it include feeling sad?
Would it include feeling afraid? Would it include feeling lonely? Can we
tell by observing a person when their reorganization system is failing to
control their internal intrinsic variables? Can we hook up meters to tell?

Is there any way a person's inadequate reorganization system itself could be
improved or stimulated to try harder using external methods or inputs to the
organism? Electric fields, chemicals, soothing words, meditation? Or, can
such things only change the perceived states of intrinsic variables to make
the reorganization system seem to work after all?

<Building hierarchies is the simplest way for the reorganization system to
insure that established control loops are not unestablished when new systems
are built. For example, it would be a major pain if you learned to ride a
bicycle but in the process lost your ability to walk.>

Now we have the amazing reorganization system not only establishing new
perceptions for the hierarchy to control intrinsic error, but insuring that
the new hierarchal control loops it finally builds to do this are the
simplest way to keep these loops resistant to demolition by yet to be
developed systems. Gasp!

<Ken argues for a "spiritual level" in the hierarchy.>

The spirit nature of man that Ken argues for is there at the start; just like
the intrinsic variables and imagined reorganization system for which Bruce
argues are there. Take your pick. There is no science -yet- in either
speculation.

<If this were a natural component of the hierarchy it would arise as a result
of reorganization and involve a new combination of perceptual inputs from
systems lower in the hierarchy.>

I have heard about bizzaro PCT. Now I have experienced it. The spirit level
of reference perceptions would be built by the spirit nature of man, not by
man's physical body and brain natures from which your hypothesized
reorganization system builds the rest of Bill Power's imagined hierarchy of
control loops and reference perceptions.

<Ken wants this level to be constructed by divine intervention.>

Bruce wants to put intentions in Kenny's words. Sorry, Bruce. I can and
would rather speak for myself, thank you. I would think any PCTer would be
wiser than to say what you said.

Let me try to say what I suspect. My hypothesis is that the spirit level
loops exist and are built up by the spirit nature in man in a manner similar
to how the body and mind build up the first 11 levels of perceptual control.
I contend all humans have this spirit nature and a Twelfth Level without the
need to determine whether it got there by evolution or by divine
intervention. Its just there. Just like the reorganization system you
propose is just there.

<In order to make such an option "attractive", it would be necessary to rule
out
reorganization as a mechanism.>

This does not follow. It is not necessary to rule out the totally
speculative and amazingly mysterious reorganization system to believe there
is a Twelfth Level which is not built up or controlled by the reorganization
system (even if the Eleven are) but by the spirit nature of man.

<This will not be easy because reorganization cannot yet be observed.>

You believe in what you cannot observe and further some system you also
cannot observe which accounts for what is unobservable? This is science?
This is the subject of scientific texts like B: CP and this forum? Is this
psuedo-science why Isaac's reorganization system gave up and his organism
left this forum? I think I'll ask him to find out.

<Many stories of religious conversions at least sound as if reorganization
might be at work.>

The "stories" you cite are experiences of real human beings. They are every
bit as real to them as your cognition of a reorganization system story
apparently is to you. And, I doubt theirs come from the reorganization
system you describe.

<Of course we cannot rule out the possibility that reorganization is not a
"real" mechanism.>

Finally, we agree on something. It could all be hooey like the sun rising
and setting in the sky, depending on your perception.

<Perhaps all learning requires divine intervention.>

Not my speculation at all.

<We don't lose sleep over this possibility because science is constrained to
seek naturalistic rather than supernaturalistic mechanisms.>

If you mean pure scientists like you who are unaware of and reject
out-of-hand any spiritual nature within them, I am happy you don't lose sleep
over supernaturalistic mechanisms. Are you bragging about that?

I would be complaining about living in a world where only what I can
physically sense in my body and brain matters. That would make me just a
little more evolved, or perhaps about the same, as the apes swinging from the
trees. They sure don't lose any sleep about how the world they experience
got there or whether there was any purpose to their existence or if it was
just an accident of the environment they live in.

Many of the world's greatest pure scientists accepted a spirit nature in
themselves. They all recognized what science can do and what science can't
do. They are multifaceted beings who own up to their inherent differences
and are much the better for it, in my experience. For you, I guess it will
take a "reorganization" to find a spiritual nature. It is not my concern
whether you ever experience one or not. Sleep sound.

Kenny

[From Bruce Gregory (990830.2108 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990829.2200 EDT)

<Bruce Gregory (990828.1609 EDT)>

<Every organism starts out with a set on intrinsic reference levels.>

Speculative reflection.

No, God told me directly. He spoke to me out of a whirlwind. He also told me
he is getting tired of your pontifications. A word to the wise...

Bruce Gregory

[From Kenny Kitzke (990831.1130 EDT)]

<Bruce Gregory (990830.2108 EDT)>

<No, God told me directly. He spoke to me out of a whirlwind. He also told me
he is getting tired of your pontifications. A word to the wise...>

I doubt it. I asked you serious questions about the evidence for your
speculative reflections about the "reorganization" system and the hierarchy
proposed by Bill Powers which were written as though they had substance. I
guess when you have no answers, you might as well poke fun...or go back to
sleep.

Kenny

[From Bruce Gregory (990831.1200 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990831.1130 EDT)

<Bruce Gregory (990830.2108 EDT)>

<No, God told me directly. He spoke to me out of a whirlwind.
He also told me
he is getting tired of your pontifications. A word to the wise...>

I doubt it.

I'm sorry you feel that way. What would it take to convince you?

I asked you serious questions about the evidence for your
speculative reflections about the "reorganization" system and
the hierarchy
proposed by Bill Powers which were written as though they had
substance. I
guess when you have no answers, you might as well poke
fun...or go back to
sleep.

I use B:CP in exactly the same way you use the Bible. Why does it bother
you? Why is one appeal to authority better than another?

Bruce Gregory

[From Norman Hovda (990831.0925 MST)]

[From Bruce Gregory (990831.1200 EDT)]

I use B:CP in exactly the same way you use the Bible. Why does it bother
you? Why is one appeal to authority better than another?

Bruce Gregory

The claims of the superior one are falsifiable.

nth

[From Bruce Gregory (990831.1236 EDT)]

Norman Hovda (990831.0925 MST)

The claims of the superior one are falsifiable.

I'll buy that.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (990831.1210)]

Norman Hovda (990831.0925 MST)

The claims of the superior one are falsifiable.

Yes. Bill Powers' claims are, indeed, falsifiable. Better
still, they can be implemented as working models that
explain one's observations.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Kenny Kitzke (990831.1500 EDT)]

<Bruce Gregory (990831.1200 EDT)>

<What would it take to convince you?>

If Bill Powers said it he perceived that God talks to you, it would be a done
deal. :sunglasses:

<I use B:CP in exactly the same way you use the Bible. Why does it bother
you? Why is one appeal to authority better than another?>

It doesn't bother me. I think me using the Bible bothers you. Rick don't
mind, he even enjoys the diversion at time. I certainly read and study and
consider both books and their authors and I have some perception of their
differences. Bill Powers has too. Have you? Is it OK with you to talk
about both based on their recognized authority?

Kenny

[From Bruce Gregory (990831.1556 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990831.1500 EDT)

I certainly read and study and
consider both books and their authors and I have some
perception of their
differences. Bill Powers has too. Have you? Is it OK with
you to talk
about both based on their recognized authority?

My only wish is that you ask the same searching questions of the Bible
that you ask of B:CP.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bill Powers (990901.0346 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990829.2200 EDT)--

What would be an example of an intrinsic reference level that was not
associated with a variable important to the physiology of the organism?

Speculatively, a sense of order or consistency, or a sense of beauty. But I
assume that whatever these perceptions relate to is as important to
continued life as are the strictly physiological variables. All I really
have to say is that we have no basis for restricting "intrinsic variables"
to the strictly physiological states of the body.

Has
any scientist or physiologist identified precisely what physical entity in
humans maintains internal temperature? Where in the body is this temperature
variable measured?

The control system itself is located in the hypothalumus, and the sensors
are in the carotid arch of the arteries carrying blood to the brain. The
output functions, multiple, are driven by autonomic nervous system signals
that dilate and contract peripheral blood vessels, that produce sweating
(for cooling) and shivering (for heating), and in some animals, that
produce panting (for cooling).

There are dozens of such known control systems concerned with maintaining
the body in a specific state both physically and chemically. For some
reason, mainstream biologists and biochemists have energetically resisted
thinking of these systems as control systems, but many scientists have
recognized them as such and have written books and published papers about
them.

<The reorganizing system is responsible for "seeing" that the appropriate
perception matches each intrinsic reference level.>

Do physiologists agree? Is there any scientific evidence of how this
mysterious reorganizing system "sees" internal temperature? Have
physiologists proven such a system exists in all living things or even any
living thing, like a one-celled organism?

The simple answer is yes; these intrinsic control systems are well known
(although see later -- their role in reorganization has not been widely
recognized). In the last century, Claude Bernard showed that these systems
maintain the "milieu interieur" -- the internal state of the body -- in a
constant state despite disturbances, and in the 20th Century, Walter Cannon
wrote "The wisdom of the body" in which he carried this understanding even
further. A great deal of modern cell research is involved with tracing out
biochemical control loops at many levels, all the way down to the
functioning of genes. Of course they don't call them control systems,
although there is a little loosening up in that regard -- you will see
"regulation" talked about.

Bruce Gregory:

<The reorganizing system accomplishes this by building a learning-based
control hierarchy.>

Kenny:

Now, this is truly an amazing system. It not only somehow "sees" what is
happening to a set of undetermined intrinsic internal variables, it now
"builds" a learning-based control hierarchy. Does it build new synapses?

Yes. During initial growth of the brain, new synapses are formed as nerve
cells send axons out, seeking sources of chemicals given off by other
nerve cells. Even in the adult human brain, which was once thought to be
unchangeable, old synapses are lost and new ones are formed, and the
"strength" of existing ones changes continually.

Does it build new memory cells for new intrinsic variables?

No, not as far as I know. We are born with the systems for maintaining body
temperature, and as long as we live those neural systems go on maintaining
body temperature. The same is true for all the basic biochemical control
systems. We share these systems with some other organisms, but not all --
lizards, for example, cannot regulate their internal temperature n the way
we do, but must move around, in and out of sunshine for example, to stay at
the optimum temperature. Dogs pant to cool off, but cannot sweat.

New neural circuits?

Yes, definitely.

Does the mysterious reorganization system do this itself? How?

This part we know little about. What we do know is that any basic kind of
learning _must_ involve changes in the synaptic organization of the brain;
if the brain did not change, it would operate in the same way once it
matured until it died. Only in recent decades has it been proven that there
are massive synaptic changes in the adult human brain.

Does it tell other human organs what to do? How?

Yes, it is well-known that the brain sends neural signals to _every_ organ
in the body, which increase or decrease the activities of all the organs.
Through the hypothalamus, it sets what we can now see as reference levels
for hormone systems with comparators residing in the pituitary gland. One
of the longest-known examples is the loop that controls circulating
thyroxin in the bloodestream. Signals from the hypothalamus enter the
pituitary, where they cause the release of thyroid-stimulating hormone,
TSH, which stimulates the thyroid gland to produce thyroxin. The
concentration of thyroxin feeds back to the pituitary to strongly _inhibit_
the production of TSH (this makes the signals from the brain into reference
signals). The result is a control system that so strongly controls the
level of circulating thyroxin that direct infusion of thyroxin into the
bloodstream (in an attempt to raise its concentration) simply shuts down
the thyroid gland ( which, to the surprise of doctors and the detriment of
patients, eventually results in atrophy of the thyroid gland).

Now, this amazing reorganization system attempts to construct a new
perception for the hierarchy, have the hierarchy try to control it for a
while, and then determine whether the controlling the hierarchy does
eliminates what the reorganization system saw as error in an intrinsic
variable?

Again, you are asking about a mechanism on which essentially no research
has been done. My proposal that error signals in these intrinsic control
systems are linked to changes in brain organization has not been accepted
by the scientific community. It hasn't been rejected, either -- hardly
anybody even knows about it. There is, or course, some evidence that this
link exists. It seems to be demonstrated by the fact that both animals and
people are "motivated" to learn under conditions where we would expect
large error signals to exist in these basic physiological and biochemical
control systems: hunger, thirst, pain, poisoning, excess cold or heat,
illness, electric shock, and so on. All higher animals including human
beings will acquire new control abilities when deprived of things they
need, including basic physical needs.

And, if the reorganization system is not content with the error
reduction it sees, it abandons that new perception and constructs more new
perceptions for the hierarchy to try? It would appear to be quite an
intelligent system to mastermind all this construction with repeated trial
and error and the building and abandoning of totally new perceptions.

No, it's a very dumb system, possessing a powerful kind of output function:
one capable of making _random_ changes in synapses. Remember that this
speculative control system is meant to operate from birth or before, prior
to the appearance of organization in the brain that could be described as
"intelligent." The logic is somewhat hard to grasp, since learning or
change in organization follows not from occurrance of positive events, but
from cessation of processes that cause changes.

If you search a cathedral at random, you will eventually find the hidden
penny. It may take thousands of years, but you, or a descendant carrying on
your work, will eventually find it. However, if there is something to tell
you whether you're closer to or farther from the penny, you will find it
very quickly: even just "hot" and "cold" will (relatively) quickly take you
to it, even if you just change directions at random when you hear "cold."

This is the basic principle of reorganization that I propose. When error
exists in intrinsic control systems (fairly large and long-lasting error,
perhaps), I propose that a process of random change begins in the brain,
which ceases only when the intrinsic errors driving the changes are
removed. The point of this process is not to create any particular
organization in the brain, but only to correct the intrinsic error -- to
correct, say, a prolonged depression of body temperature below its
inherited reference level. The existence of a sufficiently large error,
which the inherited control system cannot correct, is proposed to cause
reorganization to commence. Any change in the brain that results, however
indirectly, in a decrease in intrinsic error (an increase in body
temperature) will slow the rate of reorganization of the brain, meaning
that the existing organization that produced the decrease in error will
persist longer before the next reorganization. In the end, _anything_ that
the brain ends up doing that corrects intrinsic error -- that brings body
temperature back to its inherited reference level -- will be retained,
simply because the disappearance of intrinsic error will stop the changes
in organization.

What
could this "system" possibly be? And, it really exists in all organisms?
Are we sure?

That, pardon me, is a silly question to ask a scientist. You are asking the
same questions the scientist would ask himself; if an answer were known,
don't you think he (or I) would have told you what it is? Or do you think
you're the only person to whom such questions have ever occurred? Science
is a process of posing questions and then trying to figure out ways of
answering them -- and then, of course, rigorously testing the proposed
answers. At the boundaries of science there are always unanswered
questions. As old questions are answered, new questions are asked and
become possible to answer, otherwise science would cease. The whole trick
in science is to think up questions stated so there is some hope of
answering them, and not to waste time on unanswerable ones until they
become answerable. There is always plenty to do with the answerable questions.

There are lots of unanswered, and for the moment unanswerable, questions
relating to my proposals concerning reorganization. We don't know where the
system responsible for it resides in the body or brain, or even whether it
is distributed over all the cells. We don't know what confines
reorganization to relevant parts of the brain, or what directs
reorganization to those parts (although there have been almost-untestable
speculations). While we have proven that random reorganization can be used
to achieve some highly-organized results (like solving a system of 50
linear equations in 50 unknowns without using algebra), we don't know
whether some other inheritable process might not work better.

The idea of reorganization is an attempt to explain observed changes in
human organization, and observed links between certain bodily states and
such changes. It provides a new kind of answer: not the strengthening of
successful behaviors, but cessation of changes that do away with
unsuccessful behaviors. With time and work, this idea will evolve into
something more sophisticated and more directly testable.

Is there any way a person's inadequate reorganization system itself could be
improved or stimulated to try harder using external methods or inputs to the
organism?

How do you "try harder" to reorganize randomly? All you can do is
reorganize slower or faster, and that already happens. I am suspicious of
all interventions that are not based on a thorough understanding of the
system you're trying to "improve" -- how do you know what constitutes an
actual improvement, if you don't even understand how the system works? I
have no sympathy with the "try it and see what happens" school of
"scientific" research. That may have been good enough once, but it's not
any more.

···

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

Now we have the amazing reorganization system not only establishing new
perceptions for the hierarchy to control intrinsic error, but insuring that
the new hierarchal control loops it finally builds to do this are the
simplest way to keep these loops resistant to demolition by yet to be
developed systems. Gasp!

I guess your surprise comes from not understanding how such a conclusion
could be reached. I can't help you with that any more than I've been trying
to do.

The spirit nature of man that Ken argues for is there at the start; just like
the intrinsic variables and imagined reorganization system for which Bruce
argues are there. Take your pick. There is no science -yet- in either
speculation.

Fine. Having made these proposals, we would like to know which, if either,
we should retain. The way we find out is to test them. The way we test them
is first to assume they're true, and then to deduce on that basis what we
ought to observe. Since not all possible predictions can be tested by
passive observation, we must devise actions which, according to the
proposed concept, should have certain consequences. We then take those
actions, and see whether the predicted consequences occur. If the predicted
consequences don't occur, we drop the concept, or modify it if the failure
is only partial (for example, the right kind of consequence occurs, but too
much or too little of it relative to the prediction).

You seem to want to stop with the first step: assuming your proposal is
true. What happened to the rest of the process? That seems to be where you
bring "faith" in. You just believe the proposal, without all the fuss and
expense of testing it. Heck, I can do that, too. The reorganizing system
exists because I _believe_ it exists. What's wrong with that, Kenny?

Best,

Bill P.

<If this were a natural component of the hierarchy it would arise as a result
of reorganization and involve a new combination of perceptual inputs from
systems lower in the hierarchy.>

I have heard about bizzaro PCT. Now I have experienced it. The spirit level
of reference perceptions would be built by the spirit nature of man, not by
man's physical body and brain natures from which your hypothesized
reorganization system builds the rest of Bill Power's imagined hierarchy of
control loops and reference perceptions.

<Ken wants this level to be constructed by divine intervention.>

Bruce wants to put intentions in Kenny's words. Sorry, Bruce. I can and
would rather speak for myself, thank you. I would think any PCTer would be
wiser than to say what you said.

Let me try to say what I suspect. My hypothesis is that the spirit level
loops exist and are built up by the spirit nature in man in a manner similar
to how the body and mind build up the first 11 levels of perceptual control.
I contend all humans have this spirit nature and a Twelfth Level without the
need to determine whether it got there by evolution or by divine
intervention. Its just there. Just like the reorganization system you
propose is just there.

<In order to make such an option "attractive", it would be necessary to rule
out
reorganization as a mechanism.>

This does not follow. It is not necessary to rule out the totally
speculative and amazingly mysterious reorganization system to believe there
is a Twelfth Level which is not built up or controlled by the reorganization
system (even if the Eleven are) but by the spirit nature of man.

<This will not be easy because reorganization cannot yet be observed.>

You believe in what you cannot observe and further some system you also
cannot observe which accounts for what is unobservable? This is science?
This is the subject of scientific texts like B: CP and this forum? Is this
psuedo-science why Isaac's reorganization system gave up and his organism
left this forum? I think I'll ask him to find out.

<Many stories of religious conversions at least sound as if reorganization
might be at work.>

The "stories" you cite are experiences of real human beings. They are every
bit as real to them as your cognition of a reorganization system story
apparently is to you. And, I doubt theirs come from the reorganization
system you describe.

<Of course we cannot rule out the possibility that reorganization is not a
"real" mechanism.>

Finally, we agree on something. It could all be hooey like the sun rising
and setting in the sky, depending on your perception.

<Perhaps all learning requires divine intervention.>

Not my speculation at all.

<We don't lose sleep over this possibility because science is constrained to
seek naturalistic rather than supernaturalistic mechanisms.>

If you mean pure scientists like you who are unaware of and reject
out-of-hand any spiritual nature within them, I am happy you don't lose sleep
over supernaturalistic mechanisms. Are you bragging about that?

I would be complaining about living in a world where only what I can
physically sense in my body and brain matters. That would make me just a
little more evolved, or perhaps about the same, as the apes swinging from the
trees. They sure don't lose any sleep about how the world they experience
got there or whether there was any purpose to their existence or if it was
just an accident of the environment they live in.

Many of the world's greatest pure scientists accepted a spirit nature in
themselves. They all recognized what science can do and what science can't
do. They are multifaceted beings who own up to their inherent differences
and are much the better for it, in my experience. For you, I guess it will
take a "reorganization" to find a spiritual nature. It is not my concern
whether you ever experience one or not. Sleep sound.

Kenny

[From Bill Powers (990902.0438 MDT)]

Rick Marken (990901.0840)--

Very nice post on the hierarchy.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (990902.0440 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990901.1900EDT)--

<You seem to want to stop with the first step: assuming your proposal is
true. What happened to the rest of the process?>

Not so. Please be aware that I only began to explore HPCT, the levels, and
the reorganization system this summer when I first read MSOB.

I didn't make myself clear. I meant that you stop with the first step of
this process in your proposals concerning a possible spiritual level. The
Bible makes certain statements, which you accept as true (as any scientist
would do as the first step in considering a proposal). But what happened to
using these statements to make predictions for comparison with
observations, and what happened to working out what the Biblical theory
says should follow from certain actions, and then carrying out the actions
to see if the prediction works? For example, when you were a child, didn't
you ever hear that taking the Lord's name in vain would produce punishment
from God? And didn't you then say, OK, God, if you exist, then punish me
for this: God is a jerk, and I dare you to strike me down for that. And
what happened as a result, and what did you conclude?

I know what theologians have said about that "God test," but I drew my own
conclusions and I think I can reason as clearly as any theologian. I
decided that the test failed. Have you done any testing?

Best,

Bill P.

The first line

···

of your Preface captured my attention because, while I am very enthusiastic
about your discoveries about human behavior, it was a surprise to me that you
had written a book about human nature. For, I have been studying human
nature for about ten years. And, dealing with it is highly relevant to my
consulting work.

It was not long into reading MSOB, and then rereading parts of B:CP, before I
realized that you had a very *different* reference concept about what human
nature is about than I do. It is not a case of who is more right or wrong
about the issues surrounding human nature, it is just an acknowledgment of
differences for us and others to consider.

So, over a couple of weekends, I wrote the paper on those differences (as
best as I could understand them) concerning human behavior and human nature
which I passed out at the Conference. The paper specifically explained which
of your notions seem to be consistent with the Bible's teachings and which
seem inconsistent or certainly incomplete.

The Bible teaches that man is composed of a body, mind and spirit nature.
HPCT does a fantastic job of discovering man's behavior regarding the first
two natures. It either rejects, or at least ignores, the latter. Since I
believe I, and all humans have a spirit nature, HPCT does not adequately
explain behavior related to this nature. So, it has a gaping hole for me.
And, it is my error that I have to deal with.

That lead to the possibility of a higher level of perceptions, a possible
Twelfth Level, which we control for and which I perceive include some of the
most challenging issues in living that humans face. Issues far more life
changing and complex than whether we control behavior or perceptions. At the
conference I decided to try to write a paper about this possible missing
level or category of human perception and present it at Conference 2000. I
wrote about five pages on my lap top of questions and considerations about
such a category of perception. I have not looked at it since, and this major
new business project will probably keep me from getting to it no matter how
much I would like to. I wish I was retired or financially independent so I
did not have to work. I guess my reorganization system has failed to find a
random control loop that allows me to pay my bills while also allowing me to
study and experiment with the Twelfth Level which is of HPCT interest to me.

<That seems to be where you bring "faith" in. You just believe the proposal,
without all the fuss and expense of testing it.>

No. I just propose its possibility for now, while I work on problems I can
solve; like helping a client reduce defective work. Just like you suggested.
I don't expect anyone to accept the Twelfth Level because I believe it by
faith or by a lack of a better explanation for what I control for and how my
own system references change. I will study, experiment and present what I
have found next year. There were some people in Vancouver who were
interested in my proposition and wanted to hear more. So, the effort, even
if unsuccessful, seems worth trying.

<Heck, I can do that, too. The reorganizing system exists because I _believe_
it exists. What's wrong with that, Kenny?>

Nothing, except your beliefs don't make it true. I think it is your best
understanding of what might be. Just like the Twelfth Level is mine. And,
until we see some human experiments, or phenomena that are clearly
inconsistent with the theory, I think reorganization systems and Twelfth
Levels raise some opportunities for learning for anyone moved to pursue them.

If I pursue the Twelfth Level, I'll share with you what I have discovered or
conceptualized and you can challenge it to your heart's content. That is
very similar to what is happening with your speculations (which you justly
acknowledge are primarily just that) with some good observations as support
for their possibility.

Many comments and questions went through my mind as I read your logic behind
theorizing that a reorganization system exists that sets reference levels for
systems concepts by random experiment. I have saved your post for future
reference. I intend to return to it after some higher priority perceptions
in my life are satisfied.

Until then, good luck with your new modeling project. And, again, thanks.

Kenny

[From Bill Powers (990903.0618 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (990902.1102 EDT)--

It's not obvious that the brain needs to pre-wired for any of the higher
levels. These many simply arise out of efforts to control perceptions
lower in the hierarchy. It may be that reorganization obviates the need
for prewiring at the highest levels.

Reorganization needs some prewiring, I think, to make it feasible. Each
level requires types of computation unique to it, or so I would guess, and
this means that specific structures might well be needed to do the
computations. What reorganization does is to form _specific examples_ of
the computations typical of a level. For example, at the "sensations" level
the typical perceptual computation would be a weighted sum. I don't think
anyone yet has a clue about higher levels; if weighted sums were adequate
for configuration perception (for example) wouldn't we already have
artificial vision systems that could recognize objects such as a particular
book on a shelf of books?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (990906.0257 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (990905.2333 EDT)--

Reorganization needs some prewiring, I think, to make it feasible.

I know this is a guess, clearly labelled as such (in context that I haven't
quoted) -- but is enough known about reorganization (in particular what
kinds and extents of change it is capable of and how it manages seemingly
to focus on what needs to change) for it to be any less plausible a guess
to suppose that the emergence of levels of perception and of perceptual
control by way of reorganization does not have to be "seeded" by
genetically innate structures at each level?

My modeling experiments with reorganization show that efficiency depends on
(a) reorganization making small changes in parameters in any one
reorganizing episode, and (b) small changes in parameters having small
effects on organization and hence on behavior. These criteria were not met
in, for example, attempts at "self-organizing programs" that were tried in
the 1960s. The smallest possible reorganization in a program -- one bit --
could change an addition into a subtraction, or even into a multiplication
(depending on the computer and which bit was changed). A 1-bit change could
lead to slightly or radically different behavior. So there was no way to
measure whether the result was "better" or "worse," and even if some such
measurement were devised, there was no way to make changes smaller as the
difference between actual and ideal results got close to zero.

The supposition of innate genetic endowments is an extremely powerful deus
ex machina and must be introduced with great caution, it seems to me, only
after simpler accounts have been found absolutely unworkable.

We know that at different locations in the brain, there are typical neural
connection schemes not found at other locations. The types of neurons and
the ways their axons and dendrites are arranged vary; this makes me suppose
that different types of computations are favored in these different
locations. Since these differences exist in all human beings we know about,
they are most probably inherited.

When we ask what such differences might affect, one answer is "the type of
computation that can be performed in a given location in the brain." Of
course given a type of computation, there is still a large range of
specific examples of that type of computation that might come into being
through reorganization. Think of a subsystem capable of computing
polynomial functions. Reorganization could alter the synaptic weights --
the coefficients -- and thus change a computation from one polynomial to
another, but that subsystem would still be genetically predisposed to the
computation of polynomials. As a contrast, another location might be
predisposed to compute time integrals; details such as summations of
signals and gain parameters might be reorganized, but the basic character
of the computations would always involve integrations over time -- and not
the computation of polynomials.

It is this specialization that I think may lead to the formation of levels
of perception and control. Each new level is introduced as an evolutionary
development, defining a new type of perception ("configurations") but
leaving the specific examples of that type up to reorganization to produce
("squares", "automobiles", "blobs").

This doesn't address the question of confining reorganization to the
systems where it is needed. That's a different kind of question.

A cautionary tale: Chomsky proposes that the essentials of language are
genetically inherited, with language-specific choice points in a universal
matrix switched one way or another according to experience. The hypothesis
is too powerful, like that of which LaPlace said he had had no need. Given
an "answer" like this, research for alternative answers ceases. The girl
Genie who grew up isolated was exposed to language on a TV set but never
learned it. She had, presumably, Chomsky's language acquisition device
(LAD) as much as any child has; What she lacked was what Brunner in
_Child's Talk_ called a social language acquisition support system (LASS),
in the form of patterned interactions, language games, and so on, with
speakers of the language.

As I see it, linguists focus too much on language-specific abilities, and
pay little attention to more fundamental abilities. For example, I think
all linguists recognize that word-order conveys linguistic information, but
they don't seem interested in the _general_ ability to distinguish one
sequence of perceptions from another. Naturally, if that general ability
were missing, a person could not distinguish "John hit Joe" from "Joe hit
John," but neither could that person distinguish opening a door and walking
through it from trying to do the same acts in the other order. I'm saying
that I think language is simply one way in which more basic underlying
abilities are used. When the same
abilities are used in non-verbal contexts, we call them different things,
but the same underlying skills are being used.

What is universal about
language may turn out to have other explanations, social, physical (as in
"quantal" vowels), in the nature of information and its transmission, and
in the nature of the perceptual control hierarchy, however that comes into
being. This last stands the best chance of having a genetic basis; but we
shouldn't presume so too fast.

If all people turn out to possess the same levels of perception, I think
that would be strong presumptive evidence that the levels (as types of
perceptions) are inherited. But to say that we all have the ability to
perceive configurations is not to say that we all perceive the _same_
configurations. For purposes of understanding human nature, specific
examples of perceptions are of much less interest than _types_ of
perceptions, within any one of which we might find a huge variety of
different specific perceptions, perhaps unique to each individual.
Evolution creates different types of perceptions common to the species;
reorganization only selects the examples of the types which exist within
individuals.

I don't think that genetic prerganization as a precursor to hierarchies of
control is a deus ex machina. Is the evolutionary development of legs a
deus ex machina relative to locomotion?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (990907.-916 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990907.0900)--

... I have been mocked, labeled as not
understanding PCT, not taking a constructive approach in exploring the
propositions of others, not reading every tidbit of research material that
may provide some answers to my questions before daring to ask them, and have
even been accused of being an enemy of science for postulating a Twelfth
Level which I call the Human Spirit Level. It is nice to know that a PCT
scientist like you finds what I have been doing is okay, as far as it has
gone, acknowledging there is still much work to do in testing my hypotheses.
:sunglasses:

You haven't been mocked and labeled as not understanding PCT by everyone --
only by those who leap to conclusions. I have accepted your proposal of a
spirit level as a legitimate proposal, since any scientist can propose
anything as a starting point for research. What I object to is accepting
the existence of the God connection on faith, which is a short-circuit of
the scientific approach. You should be trying to devise experimental tests
which will challenge the proposal that God operates through a spirit level
-- not trying to prove that you are right. If your faith seems to make such
tests unnecessary, then you have no business claiming that you are doing
science.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (990907.1608 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990907.1200)--

<You should be trying to devise experimental tests
which will challenge the proposal that God operates through a spirit level
-- not trying to prove that you are right.>

This is very helpful and constructive criticism. I do tend to think in terms
of verifying rather than challenging. Perhaps that is not the best
scientific approach. I am not sure. I thought people proposing theories,
offering evidence for them (even subjective or inferential or reasoned) and
allowing others to challenge the theory or evidence or method, etc., was
quite normal for scientific advancement? I could be wrong again. Nothing
much new there. Seems totally consistent with human nature to me. :sunglasses:

It's certainly consistent with human nature to want to prove that you're
right. But the scientific approach can't work that way. If you only look
for positive evidence -- things that are consistent with your proposal --
you will surely find it, because what counts as positive evidence is often
highly subjective. Your desires can have strong effects on your
perceptions. If you find a ten-dollar bill just when you need it, does that
prove that God is helping you out? You could certainly interpret it that
way if you want to, but that means you could just as easily interpret it
another way, since it only depends on what you want. It's at least as
plausible to say simply that someone lost the bill and your travels brought
you to the place where you found it. God certainly wasn't helping the
person who lost it, if that person went back to the place where the bill
was lost, but you got there a couple of hours earlier.

To challenge a theory you must show that there is no _other_ equally
plausible or more plausible explanation for the same observations, and you
must show that there are no _negative_ examples that remain unexplained.
Since it's so easy to interpret any observation as a positive example,
scientists tend to focus on looking for possible negative examples and
showing either that they never actually occur, or that they can be
explained without making any outlandish assumptions (if they can). And most
of all, they say "If this proposition is true, what does it imply that I
should be able to observe? And what does it say that I can _do_ that ought
to have certain consequences if the proposition is true?" This is the most
direct challenge to any theory: to use the theory to predict the outcome of
doing some experiment. That is the real challenge, because if the predicted
outcome does NOT occur, there is clearly something wrong with the theory.

<If your faith seems to make such
tests unnecessary, then you have no business claiming that you are doing
science.>

You are absolutely right. We are not at odds on this. Nothing I have
proposed should be perceived as science by you, me or anyone until there is
some evidence we can work on and evaluate against other theories. Yet, much
of what is perceived as science in psychology you suggest is errant. What is
wrong with these scientists?

Absolutely nothing. Do you have the idea that science must always arrive at
right answers? The main fact about science that eventually induces an
appropriate degree of humility in scientists is that scientists are OFTEN
wrong. The methods of science have been developed exactly because of this
fact: they amount to the best strategies we know of for keeping the number
of wrong understandings and predictions to a minimum. Of course you can
follow scientific procedures with dogged faithfulness, and _still_ turn out
to be wrong. But if you continue to work that way, you'll find that you're
wrong much less often than when you try to reach the truth by some other
method -- for example, following your hunches or just "knowing" you're
right. Scientists who have been around long enough cease to be embarrassed
by being wrong. They know it's bound to happen even to the best of them.
It's like Sammy Sosa striking out. He doesn't like doing it, but he knows
it's going to happen and he shrugs it off. He doesn't try to pretend that
he never strikes out. That would be highly unprofessional.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (990902.1102 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990901.0840)

Nice post. Just a few comments.

The hierarchy hypothesis suggests that the brain comes "pre-wired"
to experience the world _only_ in terms of the 11 _types_ of
perceptual variable in the hierarchy. The brain is not necessarily
pre-wired to perceive any _particular_ intensity, sensation,
configuration, etc. For example, the brain is not necessarily
pre-wired to perceive circles. Rather, the brain is able to
_learn_ to perceive circular configurations because it has
the _type_ of perceptual processing capabilities that makes
this learning possible.

It's not obvious that the brain needs to pre-wired for any of the higher
levels. These many simply arise out of efforts to control perceptions
lower in the hierarchy. It may be that reorganization obviates the need
for prewiring at the highest levels.

the Plooij's observations of chimp infant development; the
MOL sessions showing a "going up a level" type change one's
perceptual point of view; and subjective observation of the
dependence of one type of perception on another. There may be
more but, of course, far more tests of the hierarchy hypothesis
are needed. But I think it's clear that the notion that the
brain controls a hierarchy of different _types_ of perceptual
variables is not cut completely from whole cloth.

A common, and to my mind, convincing evidence is our ability to make and
carry out a plan. In order to go to the grocery, I have to walk to the
garage. Choose between a car and bicycle. Carry out control activities
that depend on the vehicle. Follow a route that arrives at the grocery,
etc. Clearly the plan is able to control the myriad lower level
perceptions needed to make everything work and to fit together.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (990902.1709 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990902.1600 EDT)

I do believe the original written transcripts of the Bible
were the inerrant
word of the Creator to his prize creation.

What evidence led you this remarkable conclusion?

Bruce Gregory

p.s. My spell checker didn't recognize "inerrant" it suggested "inert"
or "ignorant". Do you think it might be editorializing?

[From Bruce Gregory (990903.1520 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990903.1200 EDT)

It appears you should study HPCT more. Beliefs and principles do
not require
evidence. Evidence is much lower in the hierarchy. Ask Bill, if
you don't
believe me. :sunglasses:

Thanks for setting me straight.

Bruce Gregory