A Reflection on the Hierarchy

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
41

[From Rick Marken (990907.0910)]

Kenny Kitzke (990907.0900)

Now, being a leading PCT expert for decades,

Thanks.

you suddenly see the world and the HPCT model differently
by my asking you one question!

Yes. I suddenly see a new _possibility_ (a possible perceptual
type higher than a system concept) thanks to your question.

That is scientific advancement.

Not really. Just a new guess about a possible type of controlled
variable. The scientific advancement will come when the guess
is subjected to a considerable amount of testing.

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.

I agree. But I am also one of the doubting Thomases. All you
have proposed is a hypothesis. To convince doubting Thomases
like me you ae going to have to let us poke the stigmata, so to
speak. We have to have _data_ -- and quite a bit of it -- to
convince us that people actually do control for the type of
perceptual variable you are proposing.

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?

PCT doesn't suggest what a control system could do to eliminate
error; it shows what it _must_ do to eliminate error. In order
to so this, PCT must know the quantitative relations between
the variables in the environment of the control loop. That
is, it must know how actions affect the controlled variable
and how disturbance variables affect the controlled variable.
I don't know if it will ever be possible to determine the exact
effect of actions and disturbances on the kind of controlled
variable you seem to be talking about here; so all PCT can
say is that, if the variable is, indeed, a controlled variable
then the person controlling it will take whatever action is
necessary to keep that variable under control.

Best

Rick

···

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

42

[From Rick Marken (990907.1240)]

Bruce Gregory (990906.1122 EDT)--

Conflict seems to be increasingly likely once the level of
perception associated with plans or programs appears in the
hierarchy.

Are you talking about intrapersonal (within person) or
interpersonal (between persons) conflict or both?

My own sense is that interpersonal conflict is most likely
to occur (or most likely to be noticed) at the program,
principle or system concept level. People seem to fight most
over how to do things (what program to carry out), what
principles to follow (community vs individual liberty, say) or
what system concepts to defend (which team to root for, which
religion to root for, etc). I think intrapersonal conflicts
are equally likely to occur at all levels of the control
hierarchy.

I think you bring up some interesting and testable points.
To answer the question about interpersonal conflicts we
would have to sample a large number of such conflicts and
determine what type of perceptual variable (sequence,
program, principle, system concept, etc) is being contested.
It might be possible to answer the question about intrapersonal
conflicts using modeling. This could involve building a
multi-level hierarchy (such as my spreadsheet model),
introducing a fixed number of random changes to the perceptual
functions at each level of the hierarchy and determining how
many of these changes result in conflict (measured, perhaps,
as greater than a threshold amount of sustained error in
a control system).

Best

Rick

···

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

43

[From Rick Marken (990908.0900)]

Me:

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

Bruce Gregory (990908.1030 EDT)

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?

Nothing. Maybe you have never experienced conflict in lower
level systems. But maybe you have and never noticed. These
lower level conflicts are usually very quickly resolved so
they don't create much emotional distress, making them hard
to notice. But I have noticed these conflicts. I have found
myself, for example, riding a bike where I briefly froze
because I wanted to turn in two directions at once. I have
been caught in conflicts at home where I wanted to pick
up the last dirty dish and not pick it up because my hands
were already to full; etc. These little conflicts are usually
resolved so quickly that they become just amusing events.
This is quite different than the higher level conflicts
like wanting to continue work at place X (for the money) and
not wanting to continue work at place X (for the long commute).
These higher level conflicts are harder to solve, last longer,
create more emotional distress and, thus, are the intra
personal conflicts we notice. But I suspect (data, of course,
is the only way to solve this) that low level conflicts
(like my brief fight with myself over the direction of the
bike) are just as likely (just as frequent) as high level
ones (like my son's fight with himself about his current
job).

Best

Rick

···

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

44

[From Rick Marken (990905.1930)]

Kenny Kitzke (990901.1900EDT)

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.

Matthew Heaney (990903) --

Is the entity in question [spirit nature] observable?

I think it is. I have had what I would call "spiritual experiences".
These experiences correspond to perceptions (obsrvations) I have
had. My guess is that these percpetion correspond to emotional
states (ecstasy, tranquility) of singular quality. Emotions are (at
least in part) perceptions, so they are observable (in the same sense
that I can observe the position of a cursor on a screen) and, thus,
open to scientific investigation. The fact that people are able to
talk about "spiritual experiences" and (apparently) understand each
other when they use these words suggests that the words are pointing
to some relatively common set of perceptual experiences. I think
PCT does explain these perceptual experience as a variety of emotional
experience. The PCT explanation may not be correct (that would have
to be tested by scientific test); but I don't think it's correct
to say (as Kenny does) that PCT either rejects _or _ignores_
spiritual experiences. Quite the contrary, spiritual experience
fits rather nicely into the PCT model of emotion.

Best

Rick

···

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

45

[From Rick Marken (990905.2040)]

Kenny Kitzke (990903.1300EDT)--

Do you think the existence of the 11th Level is testable?

All aspects of the HPCT hierarchy hypothesis _must be_ (and
are) testable. If they weren't, they would be of no scientific
interest.

Do you think the possibility of an even higher level is testable?

Yes.

Has there been any such tests attempted?

No.

Is anyone you know of interested in such tests?

Every PCTer I know would be interested in such tests.

Would you save me the time of obtaining and reading their
report?

No.

Me:

So the evolutionary difference between man and ape in terms of
mental capabilities (from a PCT perspective)>

Kenny:

Isn't this "evolutionary" word itself a hypothesis and extraneous
to the existence of any verifiable difference in levels?

In this context, "evolutionary" refers to an observed fact. We know
from the fossil record and anatomical observations that apes
and man descended from a common ancestor. How this happened
(by natural selection, purposeful selection, divine guidance,
etc) is not directly relevant to the problem at hand; how ape
mentality differs from hmuan mentality.

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?

No.

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

Sure it does. I was just explaining how the existing levels came
about. If you want to add a level (using the methods used to guess
at the existing levels, which you seem to accept) that would be
great.

can't a higher level perceptual variable be developed based on
say one item from each of two lower levels being perceived?

Sure. We can have configurations made of combinations of
intensities and sensations, for example. A charcol drawing
with color sections might be an example.

Me:

I can't seem to find anything in my own experience that
seems to correspond to a perceptual function of system
concepts

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.

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!

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

The comparison would result in an error signal indicating the
degree to which my "self" perception matches my "self" reference
(for the me I want to be) At the moment, the error signal is
virtually zero so apparently my percpetion of "me" is what I want
to to be; I'm doing "Rick" just the way I want.

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

My guess is that this "self" perception is a continuous variable;
over time (depending on what I do) I perceive myself as more or
less like the person I want to be.

Best

Rick

···

--

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