A Reflection on the Hierarchy

Bruce_Gregory8 · September 3, 1999, 7:33pm

[From Bruce Gregory (990902.1532 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990903.1300EDT)

Would you save me the time of obtaining and reading their report?
What was
the highest level perceptual variable they found a chimp learned?
What level
in the proposed 11 levels was it at?

As I recall it was a spiritual perceptual variable. They weren't sure, but
suggested that it might constitute a twelfth level of the hierarchy. You
should really read some of the literature. You'd find it fascinating.

Bruce Gregory

Bruce_Gregory8 · September 6, 1999, 3:22pm

[From Bruce Gregory (990906.1122 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990905.2040)

Yes. I like it. Maybe "self concept" is the level above system
concepts; I do perceive myself in terms of a particular set of
system concepts (and the lower level perceptions required by
those concepts). A different set and I just would not see myself
as me. I like that proposal.

Conflict seems to be increasingly likely once the level of perception
associated with plans or programs appears in the hierarchy. It seems to me
that higher levels may be the result of organization implemented to reduce
such conflicts. This in turn suggests that "self" emerges as a way to reduce
conflicts at the level of principles. It is not difficult to imagine
individuals who have no such perceptual level because they have not
experienced conflicts of the sort requiring perceptions at the level of
self. This in turn suggests a model for certain types of psychopathic or
sociopathic behaviors.

Bruce Gregory

Bruce_Gregory · September 8, 1999, 2:31pm

[From Bruce Gregory (990908.1030 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990907.1240)

I think intrapersonal conflicts
are equally likely to occur at all levels of the control
hierarchy.

Oh? That doesn't seem to be my experience. That is, I don't experience
conflict at lower levels of the hierarchy. My control while riding a
bike, walking, or driving a car is normally excellent and provides
little evidence for conflict at lower levels, at least that I am aware
of. What am I missing?

Bruce Gregory

bnhpct · September 6, 1999, 7:04am

[From Bruce Nevin (990905.2333 EDT)]

Bill Powers (990903.0618 MDT) --

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?

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.

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.

Chomsky's innate ideas hypothesis rests on three legs: complexity of
grammar, paucity of data, and the intellectual limitations of infants.
Generative grammar is very complex, but the structure of language
demonstratedly is not (one leg down); Chomsky ignores Bruner's LASS and
similar data, and misinterprets the Genie tragedy (two legs down); and the
cognitive and intellectual capacities of infants apparently are much much
greater than had been imagined when Chomsky and Piaget famously talked past
one another (the third leg and the tripod is down). 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.

Bruce Nevin

···

At 06:24 AM 09/03/1999 -0600, Bill Powers wrote:

bnhpct · September 6, 1999, 9:28pm

[From Bruce Nevin (990906.1428 EDT)]

Bill Powers (990906.0257 MDT) --

Thanks for the clarification. That answers my concerns.

···

At 03:49 AM 09/06/1999 -0600, Bill Powers wrote:

As I see it, linguists focus too much on language-specific abilities, and
pay little attention to more fundamental abilities.

I can only agree. Not all linguists, but the Generativist party line anyway.

Bruce Nevin

Chris_Cherpas · September 7, 1999, 7:18am

[From Chris Cherpas (990906.0000 PT)]

Bruce Nevin (990905.2333 EDT)--

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.

Bill Powers (990906.0257 MDT)--

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.

When I was a student in the 70s, Chomsky spoke at my school
and I got into an argument with him at the after-talk party
on this very point. It seemed pretty clear to me that apes could
elaborate sequences systematically in behavior having nothing
to do with communicating, but Chomsky insisted that there was
something fundamentally different. It turned out what was so
different had nothing to do with what I thought was the main
focus of the discussion, syntax, and instead had to do with
a lot of pragmatic issues that my reading of Chomsky's writings
would have led me to believe were subordinate at best, more
likely irrelevant, or even impossible to form a theory about.
Finally, a political argument emerged that ran so far afield
from a scientific discussion that I withdrew, sensing I had
met someone whose contribution was to compiler theory, but
intensely wanted to believe it to be to psychology.

Best regards,
cc

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 2, 1999, 1:31am

[From Kenny Kitzke (990901.1900EDT)]

Thank you very much for taking the time to write serious answers to my
questions and concerns about your proposed reorganization system, what it
really is, what it might do and how it might do what it might do. It was
very helpful to me. I suspect it would take me years of research to catch up
to the understandings you have reached concerning your HPCT model for
explaining human behavior. I am most grateful and, as always, sense your
sincerity in trying to find answers that can be verified.

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. 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.

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

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 2, 1999, 8:38pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990902.1600 EDT)]

What in the world you doing up at 4:40 AM?

I do believe the original written transcripts of the Bible were the inerrant
word of the Creator to his prize creation. But, I do not have an original
transcript. I could not read it if I did since I only can read English.

So, I study and question everything written in the English Bible(s) I have,
just like I question what you write about human nature in your books. For
example, I have verified that the King James Version of the Bible which
mentions Peter being imprisoned by Herod until after "Easter" is a false
statement. Easter was unknown, not just to Herod and Peter, but to all
apostles and disciples who actually met the man Jesus, the Messiah in the
flesh. They never celebrated Easter. Easter Sunday is an invention of the
men heading the church at Rome hundreds of years after the time of Jesus.
And, just as you question what the S-R psychology scientists have written, I
question what Bible translators and Bill Powers has written.

Then I, and I assume you, draw the best conclusions we as unique and most
likely biased control systems can reach.

All I have to go on is whether what the Bible predicts has been true
concerning observations about actions I have personally taken in my own life.
I have found no discrepancies or unexplainable anomalies so far. Sorry. My
perception is my reality whether it works for you or not. That is PCT, just
as you have described it, no?

I did not. It never occurred to me to do that. It sounds foolish to me to
dare that God if he is there. It is hard for me to believe you (I assume)
did that or think everyone did that. I can only conceive of doing that if
you don't think there is God.

BTW, I would not expect the God I believe in to punish me on the spot for any
sin. My mom did though. She washed my mouth out for cursing in Polish like
my uncles on the farm did when things went wrong. I just mouthed the word
they used; not even knowing what it meant. When mom told me what it meant, I
stopped using it because it was vain and it got me in trouble with my mom who
I loved and did not want to offend.

Sure you can. You are a man just like them theologians. And, just like
those Easter theologians, you can reason right or reason wrong. I have never
met a man who never reasoned wrong. I doubt if you think you are the first.

Umpa. You may have decided right and you may have decided wrong. Should I
be impressed?

I test my perceptions of the world every day. Just like you do. You have
done more tests on PCT than I have. I suspect I have tested the Bible more
than you have. And, we may have reached different conclusions about
both�autonomous fallible creatures that we are.

Peace. And be assured that when I construct a test for the Twelfth Level of
the human perceptual hierarchy, I will have you do the exercise live for the
conference.

Kenny

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 3, 1999, 6:42pm

[From 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.

Kenny

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 3, 1999, 6:42pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990903.1300EDT)]

Thanks for sharing them.

I can accept that.

The "or so" is interesting. Do you think the existence of the 11th Level is
testable? Do you think the possibility of an even higher level is testable?
Has there been any such tests attempted? Is anyone you know of interested in
such tests?

Would you save me the time of obtaining and reading their report? What was
the highest level perceptual variable they found a chimp learned? What level
in the proposed 11 levels was it at?

Isn't this "evolutionary" word itself a hypothesis and extraneous to the
existence of any verifiable difference in levels? Do you think there is any
thing other than the nature of the brain in an ape and the one in a man that
can account for the difference in perceptual level cognition?

Well, Bill certainly does not rule out a higher level. I postulate a higher
level, but I guess that does not count.

I make no pretense that it has been proven, but then again, I don't think
Bill claims that a system level has been proven either or that it is the
highest level of perception a human can conceive.

Is this a universal requirement cast in stone? For instance, can't a higher
level perceptual variable be developed based on say one item from each of two
lower levels being perceived? Could a combination of a window lamp being lit
and it being a red bulb develop a perception that a prostitute is inside and
available for business?

It seems reasonable to me that your perception of "Rick" as a unique
autonomous living control system is exactly such a higher level perception.
No?

<Anyway, if such a perceptual type actually exists, it would be the twelfth
level of the hierarchy.>

I agree. Now, I'll propose another even higher level perceptual variable.
As you look down on yourself, as you perceive the sum total of your system
variable perceptions (which are unlike any of the other 6 billion living
humans), could you compare what you perceive with what you want to perceive
about yourself?

Could such a comparison give you a signal of your own perceived "goodness"
variable of yourself? Would this be a discreet variable as Bill Powers
suggests the highest levels are, or could it be a continuous variable?

I have more, but let's see what you think so far.

Kenny

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 3, 1999, 6:42pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990901.0346 MDT)]

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.>

What am I missing? Aren't order and consistency and beauty already part of
your proposed hierarchy of perceptions?

You
mean like a woman who commits suicide because she no longer perceives
herself as beautiful? If so, don't we have an infinite number of "intrinsic"
variables that can cause reorganization? I thought you claimed that
reorganization was a rather rare and slow and random process that only sets
system level references?

I will try to find time to study your speculative propositions about the top
levels and reorganization more to understand them better. But, if you can
clear up my confusion this far, I will appreciate this.

Kenny

P.S. BTW, the rest of your post was excellent and I have no problem
accepting that our minds somehow control intrinsic bodily variables trying to
prevent us from dying. We are an amazing organism. That does not equate to
an existence of some special reorganization system which establishes
reference variable levels for systems level perceptions only by random trial
and error for me�at least not so far.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 5, 1999, 1:26pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (990905.1000 EDT)]

Would you save me the time of obtaining and reading their report?
What was
the highest level perceptual variable they found a chimp learned?
What level
in the proposed 11 levels was it at?

Mock, mock, mock. Whatever it does for you, keep it up and feel better
Bruce. It adds nothing to the discussion topic and wastes everyone's time.

I asked some simple questions about what this scientific study of infant
chimps revealed about what the highest level of the HPCT hierarchy was that
the chimps learned after two years. Do you know? If the study gives an
answer, could you say so? I'll go read it myself if it does. Lo, why would
you just give a simple answer as to something you learned about HPCT from
this study? Is mocking more your style of communication and scientific
education?

And, if it did not answer my question, could you just say so? I am not
inclined to read the study to see if there might be something of interest to
me there. I am more interested in the hierarchy in people, their behavior
and nature than in those of apes. Bill does claim that HPCT is about *human*
nature. So, the questions seem fair and scientific to me.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 6, 1999, 10:42pm

[From Kenny Kitzke 99090905.1100EDT]

It stands for Making Sense of Behavior, Bill's newest book on PCT for the
novice. It is excellent.

<Powers' explanation of behavior is a scientific explanation; it is testable
and falsifiable. Whatever the Bible has to say about human behavior may be
interesting, but it is not scientific.>

Both provide speculations of how things are. Both should be tested against
scientific understanding and life's evidence to see if they are as claimed.

The Bible goes well beyond how things are; it explains how things got the way
they are. And, science tries this too. Heard of evolution? Heard of the
big bang? New scientific discoveries conflict with both speculations called
science by some.

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.

Then you ought to scratch PCT off as of no interest scientifically. For the
perceptions people control are not observable by experimenters. In fact, a
major psychology tenet is you *can't* tell what people are doing (intending)
by observing their behavior.

And, you will find Bill Powers admitting that no one has observed his
proposed reorganization system in humans. Go check out his post of
990901.0346MDT. Bill says concerning the rather mysterious reorganization
system that it is "a mechanism on which essentially no research has been
done." Does this sound like the scientific rhelm you try to defend as pure?

Bill has proposed the existence of something based on other observable
things. This can be called science because he welcomes people to challenge
his proposal. I am doing that as well and expect to do scientific
experiments. And, you can challenge my proposals of a spirit nature in man
too just like I challenge Power's speculations about reorganization systems,
the levels in the control hierarchy and his characterizations of human
nature. But, you cannot dismiss my speculation simply because of my source.
That's not scientific or logical.

I intend to demonstrate this spirit nature next year. I suspect it will be
easier than demonstrating the existence of a systems level of perception or
that a reorganization system exists in man that alone establishes reference
perceptions for the system level. But, we shall see. We shall never know,
however, if we accept your myopic view of science and the nature of human
beings.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 6, 1999, 10:42pm

from Kenny Kitzke (990906.1800)]

<Rick Marken (990905.2040)

Kenny:

It seems reasonable to me that your perception of "Rick" as a
unique autonomous living control system is exactly such a
higher level perception. No?

<Yes. I like it. Maybe "self concept" is the level above system
concepts; I do perceive myself in terms of a particular set of
system concepts (and the lower level perceptions required by
those concepts). A different set and I just would not see myself
as me. I like that proposal.>

I must be dreaming! Or, do you think it is April Fools' Day? You're not
just mocking me too, are you in some cruel kind of joke?

Allow me to be perfectly clear. You like my proposal of a HPCT level higher
than the 11th Level proposed by Bill Powers and called the Systems level: a
Twelfth Level? You can conceive of a "self-concept" level which I identified
as a clearly higher level?

May what I wrote to you possibly be considered an advancement to the
scientific theory of human behavior called PCT; the best one around IMHO? I
am overwhelmed. People have been saying that I am stupid, unscientific and
in conflict based on my speculations about a Twelfth (or even higher levels).
Well, us scientists must blaze new trails and develop new theories and
expand on the foundations which others have built. I love doing science with
you Rick. I would give you a hug from the heart if I could.

Now, I'll propose another even higher level perceptual variable.
As you look down on yourself, as you perceive the sum total of
your system variable perceptions (which are unlike any of the
other 6 billion living humans), could you compare what you
perceive with what you want to perceive about yourself?

<Yes. Absolutely!>

This is incredible! An even higher level than self-concept? Just a few days
ago you wrote:

Now, after my proposal, higher levels are making sense to you too! Just
consider what has happened:
� in June, I read MSOB for the first time
� I am troubled by the concept of PCT revealing human nature
� I do some checking against my own understanding which is consistent with
the Bible's proclamations and write a few ideas down in a paper on Human
Nature
� I come to the MOL workshop where Bill and Tim blow my mind away with the
simple elegance of the impact of moving up a level
� I attend the conference and begin seeing that there may well be a
perceptual level higher than the systems concepts level: a somewhat vague
Twelfth Level which I call the Spirit Level where matters of the heart reside
which I sense is unique among the nature of human beings
� I start a paper at the conference about this Twelfth Level, share a few
ideas on the CSGNet and may have struck some scientific paydirt!

I guess this is reorganization; or is it? I am not too sure. Perhaps I am a
bigger fan of this mysterious human system than I could comprehend at first?

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 7, 1999, 1:06pm

from [Kenny Kitzke (990907.0900)]

Rick Marken (990905.2040)

I postulate a higher level, but I guess that does not count.

Thanks, Rick. I do and I did. For it, 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.

It seems reasonable to me that your perception of "Rick" as a
unique autonomous living control system is exactly such a
higher level perception. No?

<Yes. I like it. Maybe "self concept" is the level above system
concepts; I do perceive myself in terms of a particular set of
system concepts (and the lower level perceptions required by
those concepts). A different set and I just would not see myself
as me. I like that proposal.>

Wow! Just a few days ago in [990901.0840] you opined, "If there is a type of
perceptual variable that is higher than these system concept types then it
would be a perception that is a function of two or more system concept
perceptions. I don't know what such a perceptual type could be; I can't seem
to find anything in my own experience that seems to correspond to a
perceptual function of system concepts"

Now, being a leading PCT expert for decades, you suddenly see the world and
the HPCT model differently by my asking you one question! That is scientific
advancement. Now that there are two of us catching on, we have a lot of work
to do to convince the doubting Thomases out there of a Twelfth Level and how
it works. It won't be easy, some PCTers are as rigid in their thinking as
the Stimulus-Response psychologists.

And, it's time to give some credit where it is due. First, to Bill Powers
for writing a book about human nature that triggered some new thoughts and
concerns in my mind. To Tim Carey for conducting the MOL workshop and
helping me see that my systems concepts can be changed intentionally by
moving up a level rather than by a random reorganization. And, to the 1999
CSGNet Conference (and many of the attendees who in private helped me
understand how human behavior and human nature differ in real experiential
and testable terms) which helped me find an area of specific PCT science that
I could explore and expand to better understand what people do and why during
their lifetimes.

Now, I'll propose another even higher level perceptual variable.
As you look down on yourself, as you perceive the sum total of
your system variable perceptions (which are unlike any of the
other 6 billion living humans), could you compare what you
perceive with what you want to perceive about yourself?

<Yes. Absolutely!>

Not only can you, it strikes me as a very natural part of being a human
being. I have done it many times. It so common, it is almost like basic
human nature. Perhaps part of our uniquely human spirit? Of course, pigeons
may reflect on themselves too. We just haven't observed any evidence of that
yet.

Could such a comparison give you a signal of your own perceived
"goodness" variable of yourself?

But, if at some point in your life (when you are out on a very dark night
looking at the billions of galaxies or pondering your own unused potential of
your mind and life or reflecting on what it feels like to be ridiculed or
unappreciated) there is an error signal, what does PCT suggest you could do
to reduce or eliminate it?

Would this be a discreet variable as Bill Powers suggests the
highest levels are, or could it be a continuous variable?

Yep. Me too. Science is fascinating, isn't it? Let's keep exploring new
ground about what humans are like, how they do what they do and why. Who
knows what wonderful insights we may discover working together!

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · September 7, 1999, 4:25pm

from [Kenny Kitzke (990907.1200)]

Thanks. And, just your answering my questions about reorganization is
behavior that seems consistent with your position. I was not referring to
you. In fact, you as much as anyone would be entitled to do so, since it was
your proposals I was exploring as incomplete.

And, well you should. The Twelfth Level I have proposed *is not* dependent
on either the existence of God or the inerrant truth of the Bible. I have
said so many times and do so again.

This Twelfth Level I have proposed is either part of our control makeup
(perhaps a different name than the Human Spirit Level would be less
disturbing to people who associate spirit with divine or religious things)
where I use it to describe matters of the heart which affect my perceptions
about myself daily. If it can't be demonstrated, or can be shown to be
false, then it has no place in HPCT.

It is also true, that if it exists, it is consistent with the way I have
found control to operate in my life, including what the Bible taught me and
my personal belief in the God of that Bible. Naturally, it would not
constitute proof to any one else of either belief.

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.

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?

I want to try to be reasonably sure you or I or PCT aren't like them. Is
that a shared goal we can have as we try to add scientific knowledge to
understanding human behavior and the nature of human beings? But, I will
always retain the right to believe that what science accepts as true, might
just be wrong. It has been time and time again. I have faith it will not be
the last time. I have faith there are factual answers, even if we have not
yet discovered what they are. Humans do seem to have natural limitations,
sometimes on what they can conceive, much less prove.

Marc_Abrams3 · September 3, 1999, 4:39pm

from [ Marc Abrams (990903.1235)]

Thanks Ken. I no longer have any doubt about what you want and what you are
controlling for. It all makes perfect sense.

Marc

:
[From Kenny Kitzke (990902.1600 EDT)]

So, I study and question everything written in the English Bible(s) I have,
just like I question what you write about human nature in your books. For
example, I have verified that the King James Version of the Bible which
mentions Peter being imprisoned by Herod until after "Easter" is a false
statement. Easter was unknown, not just to Herod and Peter, but to all
apostles and disciples who actually met the man Jesus, the Messiah in the
flesh. They never celebrated Easter. Easter Sunday is an invention of the
men heading the church at Rome hundreds of years after the time of Jesus.
And, just as you question what the S-R psychology scientists have written, I
question what Bible translators and Bill Powers has written.

Matthew_Heaney · September 3, 1999, 6:40pm

[Matthew Heaney 19990903]

[From Kenny Kitzke (990901.1900EDT)]
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.

Can you state to which reading material the acronym "MSOB" refers?

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.

Powers' explanation of behavior is a scientific explanation; it is testable
and falsifiable. Whatever the Bible has to say about human behavior may be
interesting, but it is not scientific.

So of course you would expect differences between what Powers has to say and
the Bible has to say. You are comparing apples (scientific explanations) to
oranges (unscientific explanations).

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.

Is the entity in question observable? If not, then it is not interesting
scientifically. All science can do acquire positive support for observable
phenomena.

Is the "spirit nature" of a man observable? What tests can we perform to
confirm or refute this "theory"?

Since I believe I, and all humans have a spirit nature, ...

Just because you believe it doesn't make it so. Is the "spirit nature"
theory testable? Falsifiable? What tests can we perform to confirm or
refute whether the spirit nature theory explains human behavior?

... HPCT does not adequately explain behavior related to this nature.

It's a more parsimonious model; therefore it's a better model.

Between competing models that are descriptive, predictive, testable, and
falsifiable, the simpler models wins. (That's called Occam's Razor.)

So, it has a gaping hole for me.

What gaping hole? Does the theory explain human behavior, or doesn't it?

Remember, we are talking about *observable* phenomena. If "spirit nature"
isn't observable, then the model has nothing to say about it.

And, it is my error that I have to deal with.

Yes, you certainly do. You seem to be having a conflict about whether to
use a scientific explanation for human behavior, versus using an
unscientific model.

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.

But remember Occam's Razor. Between these competing versions of the theory,
if the 11-level model describes and predicts human behavior just as well as
the 12-level model, then the 11-level model wins.

And of course you must remember that Powers' model only has something to say
about observable phenomena. If man's "spirit nature" isn't observable, then
Powers model has nothing to say about it, and adding more levels won't
change that -- it'll only make the model worse.

Issues far more life changing and complex than whether we control behavior or
perceptions.

Are the "issues" to which you refer observable, or not? Does the model
describe them, or not?

If you suspect that there are observable phenomena not explainable by the
theory, then run a test and refute the theory.

···

--
Matt

It is impossible to feel great confidence in a negative theory which has
always rested its main support on the weak points of its opponent.

Joseph Needham, "A Mechanistic Criticism of Vitalism"

Peter_J_Burke1 · September 7, 1999, 4:49pm

[From Peter Burke (990907.0930 PDT)]

[From Bruce Gregory (990906.1122 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990905.2040)

> Yes. I like it. Maybe "self concept" is the level above system
> concepts; I do perceive myself in terms of a particular set of
> system concepts (and the lower level perceptions required by
> those concepts). A different set and I just would not see myself
> as me. I like that proposal.

Conflict seems to be increasingly likely once the level of perception
associated with plans or programs appears in the hierarchy. It seems to me
that higher levels may be the result of organization implemented to reduce
such conflicts. This in turn suggests that "self" emerges as a way to

reduce

conflicts at the level of principles. It is not difficult to imagine
individuals who have no such perceptual level because they have not
experienced conflicts of the sort requiring perceptions at the level of
self. This in turn suggests a model for certain types of psychopathic or
sociopathic behaviors.

People may be interested in a paper Tsushima and I
published in Social Psychology Quarterly a little while
ago (Identity levels, Agency, and Control). This is available
as a pdf file at (http://burkep.libarts.wsu.edu/online.htm),
which deals with some of these issues
Peter

R_Marken · September 1, 1999, 3:42pm

[From Rick Marken (990901.0840)]

Here are some of my reflections on the hierarchy.

The hierarchy of control is a testable hypothesis. The hypotheses
is that the human brain is designed to control 11 (or so)
different, hierarchically related _types_ of perceptual variables.
The lowest type of perceptual variable is intensity; a variable
that represents how much excitement exists at a sensor (regardless
of the type of sensor); a visual intensity is experienced in the
same way as an auditory intensity; it's a magnitude.

The next higher type of perceptual variable is a sensation; a
variable whose value represents the state of some vector
combination of intensity perceptions; a color is a sensation
that represents a vector combination of intensities of light
of different wavelengths.

The next higher type of perceptual variable is a configuration;
a variable whose value represents the degree to which some
arrangement of intensities or sensations represents a particular
form (like a square or a fist). The next higher types of
perceptual variable are (if I can recall) transitions (temporal
changes in lower level perceptual types), relationships,
sequences, categories, programs, principles and system concepts.

Note that each higher level type of perception (like a sensation)
depends on the presence of some of the lower level type
perceptions for it's existence; there can be no color sensation
without light intensity; there can be no configuration without
intensities or sensations to define elements of the form,
and so on. Indeed, this property of different perceptual
types is what defines the hierarchical relationship between
the different types; we know that configurations are a higher
level type than sensations and intensities because we cannot
perceive a configuration that does not contain sensations or
intensities. Similarly, we know that configurations are a lower
level _type_ of perception than a relationship because we _can_
perceive a configuration all by itself, without it standing in
relationship to some other configuration.

The hierarchy hypothesis suggests that we can only control
higher level types of perceptions by varying the references
for lower level types of perceptions.

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.

The hierarchy hypothesis doesn't explicitly discuss the development
(ontogeny) of our ability to perceive (and control) different
types of perceptual variables. But it seems likely that lower
level perceptual and control capabilities develop before higher
level ones. We learn to control intensities before we learn
to control sensations; we learn to control sensations before we
learn to perceive and control configurations, etc. This makes
sense because we have to know how to control lower level
perceptions (relative to what are probably randomly set
references) before higher level systems can use control of
those perceptions (by varying the references for them) to
control their perceptions. This is basically what the Plooijs
found with chimps; chimp infants seem to learn to control
perceptual variables in order, over a two year period, from
lowest type to highest.

It also seems likely that species differ in the level of
perceptual type they can control. The difference between
ape and man, for example, seems to be in the level of
perceptual type that can be controlled. Apes can probably
control no higher perceptual type than program (if they can
control programs they can control language grammar; and it looks
like chimps can control grammar to some extent); people can
control (and be conscious of) perceptual types that are at
least two levels higher (principles and system concepts) than
the program type (according to the PCT hierarchy hypothesis).

So the evolutionary difference between man and ape in terms of
mental capabilities (from a PCT perspective) is in the highest
perceptual type of variable that the brain is capable of
learning to perceive and (hence) control; apes can apparently
learn to perceive (and control and presumably become conscious
of) perceptual types no more complex than programs; people can
apparently learn to perceive (and control and become conscious
of) perceptual types at least as complex as what we call
"system concepts".

So far, the highest level perceptual type that is postulated
by the PCT hierarchy hypothesis is "systems concepts". We are
perceiving system concepts when we are able to see activities
as example of things like "being a Christian" or "being a
Dodger fan". If there is a type of perceptual variable that
is higher than these system concept types then it would be
a perception that is a function of two or more system concept
perceptions. I don't know what such a perceptual type could
be; I can't seem to find anything in my own experience that
seems to correspond to a perceptual function of system
concepts; maybe the fact that I can perceive things like "Christianity",
"Dodger fan", "Judaism" etc as _all_ being
system concepts is my higher level perception; a perception of
"system conceptness". Anyway, if such a perceptual type
actually exists, it would be the twelfth level of the hierarchy.

There have been a few tests of the hierarchy hypothesis: Bill's
"portable demonstrator" demonstration of the "hitch" in arm
movement when signaled to move by a push on the hand; my
"Levels of Control" and "Hierarchy of perception and control"
experiments at:

"http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html

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.

Best

Rick

···

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