An study essay on PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2016
1

Dear list
I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT.
Comments and corrections are welcome.
I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version.
(and the English is what it is)

Eetu Pikkarainen

PCT_EP.pdf (660 KB)

2

bob hintz 11-11-16

I enjoyed reading your document. As this seems to be part of a larger and more philosophical effort. My comments are directed toward what I am imagining that larger work is directed toward.

  1. I have been thinking about the difference between the energy value of an output and the information value of that same output. I am not clear about the distinction between action and doing, but I am guessing that if I pull a chair out from a table and sit down, that would be a doing. If you are already sitting at that same table and recognize me, then my doing might signal the action of joining you for a meal. On the other hand, if you don’t recognize me, my doing might signal an inappropriate intrusion in your physical space. The meaning of my doing for the other person will depend on their interpretation and their output will provide information about that interpretation which will be related to my doing but might be quite different from my intended action.

  2. An external environment that includes other human beings or even just other life forms is different from an environment that includes only objects. Objects do not initiate doing and can only react on the basis of energy transfer and mechanical laws. Subjects can initiate doing utilizing internally available energy organized in terms of their own references.

  3. An internal environment involves physiological, psychological and sociological levels of control that require interaction with subjects other than oneself. Some of these others, I eat. Some I avoid because they will try to eat me. Some I join with to reproduce. In the case of humans, some I join with to create the world that we live in. Social interaction always involves at least two subjects and is different from subject/object interaction. Teachers who treat students as objects are seldom competent even though some students might succeed in learning something from such teachers.

  4. Some external perceptions elicit immediate physiological responses (fight/flight/freeze) without conscious interpretation even though they might be judged inaccurate a moment later, ie., the snake that turns out to be stick. Some internal perceptions enter consciousness but don’t result in any doing, ie., I really want a drink or a cigarette but am trying to quit. This is an action that only the actor might perceive.

I have two papers published 20 years ago that I have permission to share, if anyone is interested. One deals with conflict and the other written with Dan Miller deals with joined action. I know I can send them to individuals. I tried to post one here, but it bounced.

bob

···

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

Dear list

I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT.

Comments and corrections are welcome.

I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version.

(and the English is what it is)

Eetu Pikkarainen

3

[eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-14]

Thank you Bob for comments!

  1. Really, the difference between energy and information values of both input and output is an important question. Principally the distinction
    between action and doing is that of whole and part, but there is more, just as you thought.

  2. Yes, PCT offers this helpful new distinction between objects and subjects in the environment. (I would add that especially human beings can
    initiate doings with relatively low internal energy which may have huge external consequences…)

<

  1. This question has been traditionally discussed in educational theories, especially those called dialogical. But this has happened from quite
    idealistic premises.

  2. I have thought on the basis of Greimassian semiotics that grasping or recognizing the meaning of any external experience is always immediate
    and not-deliberated. This does not necessarily lead to external doings, but something happens inside, as you said. Only afterwards we can start to interpret and “make meanings� (as s saying goes). We can deliberate alternatives of doing as you well described

  • probably there is always an internal conflict when we resist temptations? All this I have called internal action in my model.

I would love to read your papers you mentioned. Could you try to send them straight to my email:
eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi ?

Best wishes,

Eetu Pikkarainen

···

From: Bob Hintz [mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com]
Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2016 0:28
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: An study essay on PCT

bob hintz 11-11-16

I enjoyed reading your document. As this seems to be part of a larger and more philosophical effort. My comments are directed toward what I am imagining that larger work is directed toward.

  1. I have been thinking about the difference between the energy value of an output and the information value of that same output. I am not clear about the distinction between action and doing, but I am guessing that if I pull a chair
    out from a table and sit down, that would be a doing. If you are already sitting at that same table and recognize me, then my doing might signal the action of joining you for a meal. On the other hand, if you don’t recognize me, my doing might signal an
    inappropriate intrusion in your physical space. The meaning of my doing for the other person will depend on their interpretation and their output will provide information about that interpretation which will be related to my doing but might be quite different
    from my intended action.

  2. An external environment that includes other human beings or even just other life forms is different from an environment that includes only objects. Objects do not initiate doing and can only react on the basis of energy transfer and
    mechanical laws. Subjects can initiate doing utilizing internally available energy organized in terms of their own references.

  3. An internal environment involves physiological, psychological and sociological levels of control that require interaction with subjects other than oneself. Some of these others, I eat. Some I avoid because they will try to eat me.
    Some I join with to reproduce. In the case of humans, some I join with to create the world that we live in. Social interaction always involves at least two subjects and is different from subject/object interaction. Teachers who treat students as objects
    are seldom competent even though some students might succeed in learning something from such teachers.

  4. Some external perceptions elicit immediate physiological responses (fight/flight/freeze) without conscious interpretation even though they might be judged inaccurate a moment later, ie., the snake that turns out to be stick. Some internal
    perceptions enter consciousness but don’t result in any doing, ie., I really want a drink or a cigarette but am trying to quit. This is an action that only the actor might perceive.

I have two papers published 20 years ago that I have permission to share, if anyone is interested. One deals with conflict and the other written with Dan Miller deals with joined action. I know I can send them to individuals. I tried
to post one here, but it bounced.

bob

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

Dear list
I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT.
Comments and corrections are welcome.
I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version.
(and the English is what it is)

Eetu Pikkarainen

4

Hi everyone, I am not sure if my responses are getting through when I write a new email, so I am trying via a reply. Here is a new video on PCT and Darwin, you might like:Â

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ3lY1U60MM

···

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

[eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-14]

Â

Thank you Bob for comments!

Â

  1. Really, the difference between energy and information values of both input and output is an important question. Principally the distinction
    between  action and doing is that of whole and part, but there is more, just as you thought.

Â

  1. Yes, PCT offers this helpful new distinction between objects and subjects in the environment. (I would add that especially human beings can
    initiate doings with relatively low internal energy which may have huge external consequences…)

Â

  1. This question has been traditionally discussed in educational theories, especially those called dialogical. But this has happened from quite
    idealistic premises.

Â

  1. I have thought on the basis of Greimassian semiotics that grasping or recognizing the meaning of any external experience is always immediate
    and not-deliberated. This does not necessarily lead to external doings, but something happens inside, as you said. Only afterwards we can start to interpret and “make meanings� (as s saying goes). We can deliberate alternatives of doing as you well described
  • probably there is always an internal conflict when we resist temptations? All this I have called internal action in my model.

Â

I would love to read your papers you mentioned. Could you try to send them straight to my email:
eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi ?

Â

Â

Best wishes,

Eetu Pikkarainen

Â

From: Bob Hintz [mailto:bob.hintz@gmail.com]
Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2016 0:28
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: An study essay on PCT

Â

bob hintz 11-11-16

Â

I enjoyed reading your document. As this seems to be part of a larger and more philosophical effort. My comments are directed toward what I am imagining that larger work is directed toward.

Â

1. I have been thinking about the difference between the energy value of an output and the information value of that same output. I am not clear about the distinction between action and doing, but I am guessing that if I pull a chair
out from a table and sit down, that would be a doing. If you are already sitting at that same table and recognize me, then my doing might signal the action of joining you for a meal. On the other hand, if you don’t recognize me, my doing might signal an
inappropriate intrusion in your physical space. The meaning of my doing for the other person will depend on their interpretation and their output will provide information about that interpretation which will be related to my doing but might be quite different
from my intended action.

Â

2. An external environment that includes other human beings or even just other life forms is different from an environment that includes only objects. Objects do not initiate doing and can only react on the basis of energy transfer and
mechanical laws. Subjects can initiate doing utilizing internally available energy organized in terms of their own references.

Â

3. An internal environment involves physiological, psychological and sociological levels of control that require interaction with subjects other than oneself. Some of these others, I eat. Some I avoid because they will try to eat me.Â
Some I join with to reproduce. In the case of humans, some I join with to create the world that we live in. Social interaction always involves at least two subjects and is different from subject/object interaction. Teachers who treat students as objects
are seldom competent even though some students might succeed in learning something from such teachers.

Â

  1. Some external perceptions elicit immediate physiological responses (fight/flight/freeze) without conscious interpretation even though they might be judged inaccurate a moment later, ie., the snake that turns out to be stick. Some internal
    perceptions enter consciousness but don’t result in any doing, ie., I really want a drink or a cigarette but am trying to quit. This is an action that only the actor might perceive. Â

Â

I have two papers published 20 years ago that I have permission to share, if anyone is interested. One deals with conflict and the other written with Dan Miller deals with joined action. I know I can send them to individuals. I tried
to post one here, but it bounced.

Â

bob

Â

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Eetu Pikkarainen eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi wrote:

Dear list
I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT.
Comments and corrections are welcome.
I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version.
(and the English is what it is)

Eetu Pikkarainen

Â

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology

School of Health Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

5

Dear Eetu,

I think it's very good job done. Speccially when you talked about PCT I
think that you got the point.

EP :
It is important to stress that the control system is strictly speaking not
controlling its environment or any
object in its environment, but only its own perceptual state.

HB : I hope Rick will understand what you wrote. Incredible. You got it in
couple months and Rick couldn't grasp it in 40 years. I needed about 3
years. So you don't need any opinion from Rick, because his interpretation
of Powers' work is just quackery which has no PCT and physiological
evidences. It's just Ricks' confusion and manipulation, because he knows
that people can be handled if they don't understand well. But your way is
perfectly right and I would advise you to go exactly after Powers steps ?
You don't need anything else specially not Ricks' tricky advices and his
manipulations.

EP :
Any living being is more complex and especially a human being consists of
probably at least millions of this kind of small units.

HB : How did you come to this conclussion ?

EP :
The whole human being is a control system which consists of control systems
and which uses its uncountable small control systems to
control some bigger lines and affairs.

HB : This statement is a little diverging from previous. Whether is
uncountable or milion ?

EP :
This idea can be continued and social organizations can be similarly seen as
control systems consisting of either smaller organizations or human beings.

HB : I would rethink this idea with Maturana. He doesn't see the "social
organism" the same as "biological organism"... His arguments are strong.

All in all your essay is very good. Specialy your very precise understanding
of PCT. Rick could learn something from you but he didn't according to his
latest writings.

Good luck,

Boris

EP : As we saw in the Figure 2 there was drawn a reference signal as an
arrow coming to the comparator from above. Where does it come from? It is an
output of another control unit which is hierarchically above it. The lower
system is a part of the environment of the higher and that higher uses the
lower to control its own perception by defining the reference level of the
lower.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 6:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: An study essay on PCT

Dear list
I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT.
Comments and corrections are welcome.
I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version.
(and the English is what it is)

Eetu Pikkarainen

6

Dear Eetu,

In the text bellow

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 1:05 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: VS: An study essay on PCT

[eetu pikkarainen 2016-11-24]

EP : Thank you Boris for kind feedback!

HB : I didin't only want to give you just kind feed-back but to honour a
great thinker. Your essay is one of the best PCT representations I saw in
last years.

EP : As for your comments, I was using "at least millions" and "uncountable"
synonymously meaning "much more than I can understand at the moment". That
use was based on my defective knowledge about anatomy and physiology - which
I have now started to study at the elementary level at least.

HB : I think that you'll grasp the point of physiological logic as fast a
you did PCT. I'm beggining to understand why Finnish School system is the
best. If there are people like you working in School system then it has to
be the best.

EP : And yes, one must be more cautious when comparing social and biological
systems. There are very remarkable differences - as there are also between
one control system inside a biological organism and the whole biological
organism as a living control system.

HB : :slight_smile:

Boris

Eetu Pikkarainen

________________________________________
L�hett�j�: Boris Hartman <boris.hartman@masicom.net>
L�hetetty: 22. marraskuuta 2016 16:46
Vastaanottaja: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Aihe: RE: An study essay on PCT

Dear Eetu,

I think it's very good job done. Speccially when you talked about PCT I
think that you got the point.

EP :
It is important to stress that the control system is strictly speaking not
controlling its environment or any object in its environment, but only its
own perceptual state.

HB : I hope Rick will understand what you wrote. Incredible. You got it in
couple months and Rick couldn't grasp it in 40 years. I needed about 3
years. So you don't need any opinion from Rick, because his interpretation
of Powers' work is just quackery which has no PCT and physiological
evidences. It's just Ricks' confusion and manipulation, because he knows
that people can be handled if they don't understand well. But your way is
perfectly right and I would advise you to go exactly after Powers steps ?
You don't need anything else specially not Ricks' tricky advices and his
manipulations.

EP :
Any living being is more complex and especially a human being consists of
probably at least millions of this kind of small units.

HB : How did you come to this conclussion ?

EP :
The whole human being is a control system which consists of control systems
and which uses its uncountable small control systems to control some bigger
lines and affairs.

HB : This statement is a little diverging from previous. Whether is
uncountable or milion ?

EP :
This idea can be continued and social organizations can be similarly seen as
control systems consisting of either smaller organizations or human beings.

HB : I would rethink this idea with Maturana. He doesn't see the "social
organism" the same as "biological organism"... His arguments are strong.

All in all your essay is very good. Specialy your very precise understanding
of PCT. Rick could learn something from you but he didn't according to his
latest writings.

Good luck,

Boris

EP : As we saw in the Figure 2 there was drawn a reference signal as an
arrow coming to the comparator from above. Where does it come from? It is an
output of another control unit which is hierarchically above it. The lower
system is a part of the environment of the higher and that higher uses the
lower to control its own perception by defining the reference level of the
lower.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 6:00 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: An study essay on PCT

Dear list
I want to share the first draft of a writing I had to do to digest PCT.
Comments and corrections are welcome.
I am sorry that here are no proper citations in this version.
(and the English is what it is)

Eetu Pikkarainen