Are you hungry?

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.25)]

Hunger of the Body

I suspect that you (and all living things) have experienced and perceived the sensation of hunger. I am referring here of the hunger of your body for nourishment; for energy needed to live and behave.

Does HPCT explain our behavior to control that sensational variable? I feel it does so quite well. We will act on the environment to reduce and alleviate that disturbing sensation which creates internal error in our minds. We will find some food and eat it.

Of some note here is that the hunger sensation is derived from within, not from aspects of the external environment which many of our senses enable us to do. Our body has an internal, hard-wired control, or self-regulation, chemical-based system that interacts with our mind. So, the standard PCT model of behavior featuring an environmental input variable which we control by our behavior may appear a bit fuzzy or inapplicable when describing our dealing with body hunger.

Hunger of the Mind

I suspect that you (and every human being) has also experienced and perceives a hunger sensation of their mind which I will describe as a desire for knowledge. How do things work? How does one thing cause or lead to another thing or event?

This forum’s thirst for knowledge and understanding of how behavior works is a good example of this kind of hunger. Does HPCT explain our behavior to control that sensational variable? I feel it does so quite well. We will act on the environment to reduce and alleviate that disturbing sensation which creates internal error in our minds. We act to learn what we want to know. We may read or listen to knowledge held by others on the subject where we sense our understanding is inadequate, where there is error produced when we do not know what we desire to know.

From where does this sensation or desire for knowlege originate? Where and when did it come into existance? Is it something learned over time? Is it also hard-wired into human beings like a body control system that measures a need for energy and serves as input into our minds?

It seems like this human knowledge hunger phenomena is a bit more complicated part of our human nature than mere energy. Is this merely the perceptual hierarchy at work? Do we alone among all living things wonder how and when the moon came into being? What do us humans have within us that our wonderful family dogs do not seem to have?

At what level in the human hierarchy does this seemingly innate desire for knowledge and understanding reside? And, how did it get there? Did our “reorganization system” put it there?

Hunger of the Spirit

I suspect that you (and every human being) has also experienced and perceives a hunger sensation for peace, or contentment. This hunger is something we can not settle by gaining knowledge. We can not satisfy by eating food. It seems to be a sensation of self residing not really in our body or our thinking and remembering brain.

Instead is seems different. Something we sense in our innermost being. Something we might also refer to as our heart, or spirit. Something quite intangible, something that can not be removed with a forcepts. Mysterious? Beyond man’s current comprehension? Perhaps.

And, how well does HPCT explain the workings and control of this inner contentment which some call emotions or feelings and others call self-purpose and self-satisfaction?

This subject has been broached many times and in many ways on this CSG Net. I wish I understoood it better. I wish I could say I am always content with myself. It is still too fuzzy.

Do we have reference perceptions for peace, happiness, joy, respect, being the smartest or best? How about for companionship or compassion for others? How do these references come into being? Are they learned? Are they innate? Why do they vary so much among humans and even within ourselves during various stages or times in our lives?

Do we have reference perceptions for fear, sadness, anger, etc., and act when there is error from what we sense/perceive? These “unwanted emotions” or feelings seem to be more readily explained by HPCT than the positive or desired ones. Or, do you see them as equally verified and dealt with by our favorite model of behavior?

It seems to me that we hunger for things that our body, mind and human spirit wants that it does not have. At least we can describe these experiences this way. And, it all fits pretty well with HPCT, at least in a big picture sense. But, the details seem fuzzy and incomplete. And, often quality is in the details.

The mechanisms and systems which control those three types of hungers seem quite different and yet connected in human beings.

An internal chemical system for body hunger is unconnected with the current external environment but surely affects and interplays with our internal mind and spirit.

An internal electrical system in our brain thinks and plans without being connected to the current environment but surely affects and interacts with our body and spirit.

A complicated neurological and physiological system senses and affects our human spirit, our mood and countenance and inner self without any direct link to an external environoment. Yet, this hunger seems to be able to overwhelm our body and conscious mind at times where control in PCT terms is lost.

We seem to be able to act/behave to affect our body, mind and spirit for the better or worse without even rippling shared environmental variables. How does this fit with HPCT or PCT and a claimed breakthrough in the understanding of human nature?

I have trouble claiming that HPCT, as currently defined, gives a satisfying understanding of the nature of even something as common as human “hunger.” But, that is probably just me and my human limitations. As Dag claimed after my presentation and questions asked at the Chicago conference, there are answers. I guess I just don’t get them after all these years?

So, I think it would be helpful to start hearing the answers, Dag. Surely, I can’t be the only one here who still has unanswered questions about human nature and our behavior. Even Bill Powers commented to the effect that my questions were reasonable. I assume he admits the answers remain a bit fuzzy even to him and there is much left to do to make PCT the science of the century. But, if you have clear understanding, I am asking you respectfully to spend some time on the Net sharing them. Perahps they will lead to further experiments and more precise answers?

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

[From
Bjorn Simonsen(2004.10.25,22:30EST)]

[From
Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.25)]

>Hunger
of the Body

Does
HPCT explain our behavior to control that sensational variable? I feel it
does so quite well.

We will act on the environment to reduce and alleviate that disturbing
sensation which creates

internal error in our minds. We will find some food and eat it.

We
are back to the thread about Emotion last spring (?). I don’t think HPCT
explains our behavior to control sensational variables. I think what we call bodily
hunger is an experiences we can trace to bodily states, e.g. default of glucose
and other. We don’t control the emotion bodily hunger. Our body controls a perception
of glucose content in the blood.

Of
some note here is that the hunger sensation is derived from within, not from
aspects

of
the external environment which many of our senses enable us to do

Do
you think different aspects of the external environment develop emotions?

>Hunger
of the Mind

From
where does this sensation or desire for knowledge originate? Where
and when

did it come into existence? Is it something learned over time? Is
it also hard-wired

into human beings like a body control system that measures a need for
energy and

serves as input into our minds?

I
think we are born with some references (a lot). A reference for glucose is one
of them. I think as you. Our desire for knowledge is learned/reorganized. I
think our desire for knowledge is hard-wired into human beings in many
different ways.

>Hunger
of the Spirit

I
suspect that you (and every human being) has also experienced and perceives a

hunger
sensation for peace, or contentment. This hunger is something we can not

settle by gaining knowledge. We can not satisfy by eating food.
It seems to be a

sensation of self residing not really in our body or our thinking and
remembering brain.

I
don’t think we perceive a hunger sensation for peace. This is something we say,
when we really control something else. Don’t understand me literally, but an
Israelite wish a safe country and a Palestinian wish a country where Israel
doesn’t exist. Controlling these perceptions their actions must result in discord.
If they shall experience for peace, they have to move up a Level and both
control the same perception.

We
can word a similar perception for peace in the family or on the job. But not on
the football Stadium.

bjorn

···

[DagArchive]

[From Dag Forssell (2004.10.25 16.50 PST)]

Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.25)]

Hunger …

I have trouble claiming that HPCT, as currently defined, gives a satisfying understanding of the nature of even something as common as human “hunger.” But, that is probably just me and my human limitations. As Dag claimed after my presentation and questions asked at the Chicago conference, there are answers. I guess I just don’t get them after all these years?

Kenny, in your presentation as I vaguely recall it, you listed a number of things that PCT does not answer the way you see it. What I suggested when I spoke up is that answers to many or most of these puzzlements emerge when you read B:CP with care and consider its implications.

Consider the epicycles of the Earth-centered Ptolemayan astronomy. A Sun-centered astronomy does not explain all these apparent phenomena. You realize they never existed in the first place. Some of the items you fuss about do not exist, are mere illusions and do not deserve an explanation.

When you asked me to come to Pittsburgh in 1994 to review your presentation on PCT, you met afterwards with your close friends. I remember vividly how you rejected my suggestion that you and anyone else must read B:CP before you start teaching PCT. You said that this should not be necessary. As I recall, you fealt (as many have) that B:CP is a difficult read. But you had also explained to me that your original degree was in Nuclear Engineering, so this puzzled me. To me, B:CP is very clear and an easy read.

Perhaps two years ago, Bruce Nevin asked you on the net about reading B:CP. I took your answer (or was it evasion - I don’t quite remember which) to say quite clearly that you had not read B:CP as of that time.

Lots of people have appeared on CSGnet down through the years who have not read the basics and studied the tutorials. They have been treated with great courtesy anyway.

In my mind, this contrasts with the approach of Jim Soldani who learned of Bill Powers existence in the 80s and read B:CP five times from cover to cover before he felt that he had done due diligence, then dialed Bill’s phone number to ask some clarifying questions.

So, I think it would be helpful to start hearing the answers, Dag. Surely, I can’t be the only one here who still has unanswered questions about human nature and our behavior.

You want to hear elaborate answers from me. I would like to see a clear statement from you about your personal reading of B:CP and what you learned from it. If my impression is correct and in fact you have not yet read B:CP, and not run the tutorials and demos, now would be a good time. Read B:CP with care and keep your questions in mind.

Even Bill Powers commented to the effect that my questions were reasonable.

Of course, the questions you ask are questions people have wrestled with since time began, and Bill P. is a very accommodating fellow. It does not follow that whatever Bill P. said was meant as a comment on your presentation.

… there is much left to do to make PCT the science of the century.

This is very true, and more so if a person does not take the trouble of reading B:CP in detail from cover to cover and also runs all the tutorials and demos.

But, if you have clear understanding, I am asking you respectfully to spend some time on the Net sharing them. Perhaps they will lead to further experiments and more precise answers?

Are you asking me to rewrite B:CP by Powers and People As by Runkel and post my version on CSGnet?

I have my hands full just collecting and exposing what we already have.

Kenny, you have been on CSGnet long enough to have seen that most everyone who gets exposed to PCT struggles mightily to incorporate PCT into what they already think they know and or believe in. You certainly have. You have left no doubt that PCT must be subordinated to your religious convictions. Extremely few study PCT in-depth, accept it based on the clear evidence and proceed to reject most of what they already think they know and believe (for which there never was much or any evidence). In my view, the latter is your challenge. If you accept that challenge, this is something you must do by and for yourself.

At this point, there is no way for me to explain my understanding of PCT much different or better than it has already been spelled out by Bill Powers, Phil Runkel, several others and in my own writings. I presented my website www.livingcontrolsystems.com at the conference we both attended in July. At this time, you will find even more support materials there, including the full text of the “Twin Pack”, which some people have found helpful.

Best, Dag

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1025.2050)]

Dag Forssell (2004.10.25 16.50 PST)

At the risk of being burned at the stake for heresy, I think it is well
to keep in mind what PCT is, and what it is not. _Behavior: The Control
of Perception_ is an apt title. Unless one believes that behavior is
all there is to being human, one should not expect PCT to be a "theory
of everything." Efforts that claim that PCT can explain anything I
personally find less than compelling.

Bruce Gregory

"Prediction is so persuasive that what we "perceive"--that is, how the
world appears to us--does not come solely from our senses. What we
perceive is a combination of what we sense and of our brains'
memory-driven predictions."

                                                                                Jeff Hawkins
                                                                                _On Intelligence_

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2004.10.26.0130 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.25)–

I think what you are talking about is not PCT but consciousness. The
various hungers of which you speak are perfectly understandable as
differences between what you want to perceive, at some level, and what
you are perceiving. I don’t see any problem in identifying such things as
brain activities. You seem to doubt that the brain is the origin of
the sense of wanting, or that the body is part of the brain’s
environment, but I think that misses the real mystery, which is the
nature of the observing entity in us, which some have called the Soul, or
elsewhere the Atman. Perhaps that, too, is simply a higher brain function
which, operating higher than the level of reason, is hard for reason to
grasp or describe. I don’t know. People have been offering theories about
the experience of being human for a long time, some better than others
but none coming close to being believable by me. You seem to have been
satisfied by one of them, but I detect a residue of skepticism, of which
I approve.

I have every reason to wish for the continuation of consciousness,
particularly if it is in a better more enlightened place. But the very
fact that I wish it tempts me to violate my dearest principles of honesty
and clarity and reason, and I know the temptation is there and why it is
there, so I reluctantly put it aside. Whether I am right in doing so I
have no way of knowing. All I know is that my life so far would make no
sense if I suddenly stopped wishing to know the truth more than I wish to
be right, or to be comforted.

Belief, to me, always takes second place to knowledge that we can
demonstrate to each other. And what you or I want to believe carries
little weight in that system of thought.

Best,

Bill P.

]

···

Hunger of the BodyI suspect that you (and all living things) have experienced and
perceived the sensation of hunger. I am referring here of the
hunger of your body for nourishment; for energy needed to live and
behave.

Does HPCT explain our behavior to control that sensational
variable? I feel it does so quite well. We will act on the
environment to reduce and alleviate that disturbing sensation which
creates internal error in our minds. We will find some food and eat
it.

Of some note here is that the hunger sensation is derived from within,
not from aspects of the external environment which many of our senses
enable us to do. Our body has an internal, hard-wired control, or
self-regulation, chemical-based system that interacts with our
mind. So, the standard PCT model of behavior featuring an
environmental input variable which we control by our behavior may appear
a bit fuzzy or inapplicable when describing our dealing with body
hunger.

Hunger of the MindI suspect that you (and every human being) has also experienced
and perceives a hunger sensation of their mind which I will describe as a
desire for knowledge. How do things work? How does one thing
cause or lead to another thing or event?

This forum’s thirst for knowledge and understanding of how behavior works
is a good example of this kind of hunger. Does HPCT explain our
behavior to control that sensational variable? I feel it does so
quite well. We will act on the environment to reduce and alleviate
that disturbing sensation which creates internal error in our
minds. We act to learn what we want to know. We may read or
listen to knowledge held by others on the subject where we sense our
understanding is inadequate, where there is error produced when we do not
know what we desire to know.

From where does this sensation or desire for knowlege originate?
Where and when did it come into existance? Is it something learned
over time? Is it also hard-wired into human beings like a body
control system that measures a need for energy and serves as input into
our minds?

It seems like this human knowledge hunger phenomena is a bit more
complicated part of our human nature than mere energy. Is this
merely the perceptual hierarchy at work? Do we alone among all
living things wonder how and when the moon came into being? What do
us humans have within us that our wonderful family dogs do not seem to
have?

At what level in the human hierarchy does this seemingly innate desire
for knowledge and understanding reside? And, how did it get
there? Did our “reorganization system” put it
there?

Hunger of the SpiritI suspect that you (and every human being) has also experienced
and perceives a hunger sensation for peace, or contentment. This
hunger is something we can not settle by gaining knowledge. We can
not satisfy by eating food. It seems to be a sensation of self
residing not really in our body or our thinking and remembering
brain.

Instead is seems different. Something we sense in our innermost
being. Something we might also refer to as our heart, or
spirit. Something quite intangible, something that can not be
removed with a forcepts. Mysterious? Beyond man’s current
comprehension? Perhaps.

And, how well does HPCT explain the workings and control of this inner
contentment which some call emotions or feelings and others call
self-purpose and self-satisfaction?

This subject has been broached many times and in many ways on this CSG
Net. I wish I understoood it better. I wish I could say I am
always content with myself. It is still too fuzzy.

Do we have reference perceptions for peace, happiness, joy, respect,
being the smartest or best? How about for companionship or
compassion for others? How do these references come into
being? Are they learned? Are they innate? Why do they
vary so much among humans and even within ourselves during various stages
or times in our lives?

Do we have reference perceptions for fear, sadness, anger, etc., and act
when there is error from what we sense/perceive? These
“unwanted emotions” or feelings seem to be more readily
explained by HPCT than the positive or desired ones. Or, do you see
them as equally verified and dealt with by our favorite model of
behavior?

It seems to me that we hunger for things that our body, mind and human
spirit wants that it does not have. At least we can describe these
experiences this way. And, it all fits pretty well with HPCT, at
least in a big picture sense. But, the details seem fuzzy and
incomplete. And, often quality is in the details.

The mechanisms and systems which control those three types of hungers
seem quite different and yet connected in human beings.

An internal chemical system for body hunger is unconnected with the
current external environment but surely affects and interplays with our
internal mind and spirit.

An internal electrical system in our brain thinks and plans without being
connected to the current environment but surely affects and interacts
with our body and spirit.

A complicated neurological and physiological system senses and affects
our human spirit, our mood and countenance and inner self without any
direct link to an external environoment. Yet, this hunger seems to
be able to overwhelm our body and conscious mind at times where control
in PCT terms is lost.

We seem to be able to act/behave to affect our body, mind and spirit for
the better or worse without even rippling shared environmental
variables. How does this fit with HPCT or PCT and a claimed
breakthrough in the understanding of human nature?

I have trouble claiming that HPCT, as currently defined, gives a
satisfying understanding of the nature of even something as common as
human “hunger.” But, that is probably just me and my
human limitations. As Dag claimed after my presentation and
questions asked at the Chicago conference, there are answers. I
guess I just don’t get them after all these years?

So, I think it would be helpful to start hearing the answers, Dag.
Surely, I can’t be the only one here who still has unanswered questions
about human nature and our behavior. Even Bill Powers commented to
the effect that my questions were reasonable. I assume he admits
the answers remain a bit fuzzy even to him and there is much left to do
to make PCT the science of the century. But, if you have clear
understanding, I am asking you respectfully to spend some time on the Net
sharing them. Perahps they will lead to further experiments and
more precise answers?

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.10.26.0940)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.1025.2050)

Efforts that claim that PCT can explain anything I
personally find less than compelling.

I'd go even farther and say that claims that PCT can explain anything other
than the phenomenon of control are less than compelling. Indeed, they are
wrong. But the phenomenon of control covers a lot of interesting territory
-- certainly the territory we call "life". And it surely includes the
various hungers described by Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.25), which, as Bill
Powers (2004.10.26.0130 MDT) noted, are all "perfectly understandable as
differences between what you want to perceive, at some level, and what you
are perceiving".

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Jim_Beardsley]

[From Jim Beardsley 2004.10.26.1245 EDT -0500]

[Bill Powers (2004.10.26.0130 MDT)]

...

But the very fact that I wish it tempts me to violate my
dearest principles of honesty and clarity and reason, and
I know the temptation is there and why it is there, so I
reluctantly put it aside.

Bill, this interests me for two if not more reasons, of which (in case the question emerges) NONE involve any intent to persuade you nor anyone else that whatever cannot be seen or demonstrated (empirically?) is worthy to believe. After all, as you say..

Whether I am right in doing so I have no way of knowing.

If I understand your meaning, I similarly know or believe that I (if not we) can only "know" such things based on some perceived coherency throughout my other beliefs which I am acquiring or which I already acquired, and especially from such beliefs of which I yet remain UNaware consciously.

You and others have described or alluded to your epistemological stances before, here and in other writings, and I could answer most of my other questions if I gathered and reviewed such comments, but here I'm specifically interested in what you (and others who would agree or disagree) mean by..

the very fact that I wish it tempts me to violate my
dearest principles of honesty and clarity and reason

I'm interested partly to "know" something more about you (and others) personally, to the extent I can withOUT getting overly personal, but mostly because I want to understand better how additional more-or-less disciplined individuals (other than best-selling or classical writers) have reconciled their journeys of beliefs and perceptions, both through your private conscious explorations as well as through direct social influences.

I suspect I already understand what you mean and intend by your "dearest principles of honesty and clarity and reason", so I'm focusing on what you (AND, again, others might) mean by the verbs "wish" and "tempt" and how they can combine into a net effect of violating esteemed principals. Unless I remain more confused than I can yet imagine, it must be that this effect itself is a perception like any other which must be based on preexisting beliefs or notions, and it is these beliefs or notions that I'm interested in, for myself and my own explorations. I presume such beliefs or notions are already available to you consicously, but if not, then I suppose I'm asking what you see as and after you go "up a level" -- but again, only for my innocent curiosity (which you or anyone can reply privately if you prefer).

All I know is that my life so far would make no sense if I
suddenly stopped wishing to know the truth more than I
wish to be right, or to be comforted.

If this suggests that an answer would require me to know more about you and your life than I ever can or should hope, then as you intended, you already provided the answer I want:

Belief, to me, always takes second place to knowledge that we can
demonstrate to each other. And what you or I _want_ to believe carries
little weight in that system of thought.

Thanks for considering,
Jim

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2004.10.26.1255 MDT)]

Jim Beardsley 2004.10.26.1245 EDT --

Unless I remain more confused than I can yet imagine, it must be that this
effect itself is a perception like any other which must be based on
preexisting beliefs or notions, and it is these beliefs or notions that
I'm interested in, for myself and my own explorations. I presume such
beliefs or notions are already available to you consicously, but if not,
then I suppose I'm asking what you see as and after you go "up a level" --
but again, only for my innocent curiosity (which you or anyone can reply
privately if you prefer).

I define a belief as a proposition I accept without having what I consider
to be reasons to think it is true. I believe, for example, that cashiers
give the the right change, and I don't make a big fuss about counting my
change down to the penny. To say I believe it doesn't mean I think it's
true; it just means that I operate on the basis that it's true, to avoid
unnecessary effort. If you want to argue that cashiers are not honest, I
won't argue against you. I might even count my change more carefully for a
while if you persist in your doubts. A belief is only a working hypothesis,
adopted for a purpose. It has no value of its own. Its only value is in
what it accomplishes, or seems to accomplish, for you.

The preexisting belief or notion behind this is that when beliefs are given
the status of truth, true knowledge goes out the window. Belief leads us to
ignore counterexamples, to accept data without checking it just because it
leads to the answer we want. It leads us to imagine supporting evidence
where there is none and to avoid looking for evidence that the belief is
wrong. In short, it leads to the exact opposite of scientific knowledge.

What I call true knowledge is not, of course, true in any ultimately
provable sense. It is simply the best we can do in creating good models of
the real world. Honest observation, searching for contrary evidence, and
open means of testing and reasoning are our best guarantees of arriving at
good models. Belief is almost sure to lead to false knowledge,
superstition, and self-deception. That is why I try to avoid it in
important matters -- more important than getting the right change at the
cash register.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1530)]

Rick Marken (2004.10.26.0940)

I'd go even farther and say that claims that PCT can explain anything
other
than the phenomenon of control are less than compelling. Indeed, they
are
wrong. ."

  Is it fair to say, that in your view, it is all control? For example,
Is thinking an example of control? Is identifying someone you know an
example of control? Is feeling anxious an example of control? I claim
that none of the above constitute behavior of the sort described by
PCT.

Bruce Gregory

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2004.10.26.1349 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1530)--

Is it fair to say, that in your view, it is all control? For example,
Is thinking an example of control? Is identifying someone you know an
example of control? Is feeling anxious an example of control? I claim
that none of the above constitute behavior of the sort described by
PCT.

I truly can't understand how you can say that. Are not all these phenomena
things that happen as part of various processes of control? Identifying
someone you know is surely part of a control process, being a phenomenon of
perception. Thinking -- that is, manipulating symbols or images in
imagination -- is surely a well-discussed aspect of the control hierarchy.
Feelings of anxiety surely indicate some control process experiencing error.

Can you clarify what you mean? As I hear it now, it just sounds
self-contradictory. Are you saying something like, "Control theory does not
explain biochemical reactions?" or "The theory of internal combustion
engines does not explain fuel pumps?"

Best,

Bill P.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.10.26.1315)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1530)

Is it fair to say, that in your view, it is all control?

No. In my view, only control is control.

For example, Is thinking an example of control?

In most cases I can think of, yes, inasmuch as it is aimed at producing a
pre-selected end result: a solution, a poem, an image, etc.

Is identifying someone you know an example of control?

I think so, yes. Identifying someone achieves the goal of producing an
answer to the question "Who is that"?

Is feeling anxious an example of control?

I don't think so. Anxiety is probably a side effect of unsuccessful control
(or from imagining the results of unsuccessful control).

I claim that none of the above constitute behavior of the sort
described by PCT.

Claim away. But what is your evidence that identifying someone you know,
say, is not a control process?

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1616)]

Bill Powers (2004.10.26.1349 MDT)

I truly can't understand how you can say that. Are not all these
phenomena
things that happen as part of various processes of control? Identifying
someone you know is surely part of a control process, being a
phenomenon of
perception.

Perhaps I simply don't understand the process. Say I see someone coming
toward me. Am I controlling my perception of the figure to determine
that they are some particular person? Babe Ruth, for example. How do I
decide who I want the unknown figure to be and how do I effect the
perception so that it is indeed Babe Ruth that I am perceiving?

Outside the world of control, the process involves pattern recognition.
In the control model, what exactly are the reference level, the
perceptual input, and mechanism by which the perceptual input is
altered? I understand these elements in the process of picking up a
pencil. I do not understand them in the process of recognizing someone.

Bruce Gregory

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce gregory (2004.1026.1632)]

Rick Marken (2004.10.26.1315)

For example, Is thinking an example of control?

In most cases I can think of, yes, inasmuch as it is aimed at
producing a
pre-selected end result: a solution, a poem, an image, etc.

Good. Help me out. What is the perception? Is the pre-selected end
solution sufficiently well-defined to be a reference level? If so,
where did this reference level come from (besides "a higher level in
the system)? In other words, did Walt Whitman already have "Leaves of
Grass" somewhere in his memory as a reference level? Was he simply
moving his pen in some way to match this Platonic Form? Does thinking
require that we already know the outcome of the process?

Bruce Gregory

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1641)]

Rick Marken (2004.10.26.1315)

Claim away. But what is your evidence that identifying someone you
know,
say, is not a control process?

What evidence do you have that it is? Perhaps a diagram would help here.

Bruce Gregory

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.10.26.1350)]

Bill Powers (2004.10.26.1255 MDT)

What a splendid post, Bill. I particularly like:

when beliefs are given
the status of truth, true knowledge goes out the window. Belief leads us to
ignore counterexamples, to accept data without checking it just because it
leads to the answer we want. It leads us to imagine supporting evidence
where there is none and to avoid looking for evidence that the belief is
wrong. In short, it leads to the exact opposite of scientific knowledge.

Sounds like the kind of thing we should all be voting against

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2004.10.26.1452 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1616)--

I truly can't understand how you can say that. Are not all these
phenomena things that happen as part of various processes of control?

Perhaps I simply don't understand the process. Say I see someone coming
toward me. Am I controlling my perception of the figure to determine
that they are some particular person?

Control is a process that emerges when perception, comparison, and action
form a closed loop with a feedback link outside the control system. Neither
perception, comparison, nor action are (necessarily) control processes in
themselves; that is, we can understand each part of the system without
having to analyze it further into lower-level systems, and the parts do not
have to be treated as control systems in themselves.

If you see someone coming toward you, I assume there are several perceptual
input functions acting which convert lower-level image information into
signals indicating a person, perhaps a particular person, an approaching
velocity, a distance, and whatever other perceptions are involved. You're
describing perceptual phenomena, not a whole control system. You'd have to
give a fuller description before I could guess what aspects of these
perceptions are being controlled, if any. Do you want to see the person, or
have the person see you? Are you avoiding a collision? Are you just
watching with no particular desire about the person one way or another?

Babe Ruth, for example. How do I
decide who I want the unknown figure to be and how do I effect the
perception so that it is indeed Babe Ruth that I am perceiving?

I supposed that if you had the goal of seeing Babe Ruth you could imagine
enough lower-level perceptions to give yourself the impression of seeing
him. As to why you want to be perceiving him, I couldn't guess; you'd have
to tell me more about your hierarchy of goals. Have you just learned that
an autograph from him would be worth $10,000,000?

Outside the world of control, the process involves pattern recognition.

Well, yes, but everything is a pattern so that doesn't tell us much. I
would include pattern recognition under the heading of perceptual input
functions.

In the control model, what exactly are the reference level, the
perceptual input, and mechanism by which the perceptual input is
altered?

You don't have to alter the input to alter the perception; you can
substitute imagined information that is internally generated. But why are
you talking about control when you're just describing perceptions?

I understand these elements in the process of picking up a
pencil. I do not understand them in the process of recognizing someone.

How about in recognizing a pencil before you try to pick it up? Same thing
-- you'rescribing a perceptual process, which may or may not be part of a
control process.

Rereading your post, it strikes me that you're giving a different
interpretation from mine to "control of perception." Are you interpreting
it to mean that we act so as to change the kind of perception we're having?
Your question about Babe Ruth implies the idea that a control system acts
to make its input into different things: Babe Ruth, a banana, a bird, and
so on. I've tried a number of times to explain that this is NOT what I mean.

What I think happens is this. First, we learn to identify certain
perceptions: we develop (and indeed, create) perceptual input functions
specialized to report the presence of particular things at each level. Each
of these things can exist to varying degrees, so we can choose particular
states of each of them as reference levels. Then we acquire the ability to
affect them and finally to control them.

This does not involve making Babe Ruth out of Aunt Ruth. If you're learned
to recogize Babe Ruth, then you may want this perception to be near or far,
approaching or receding, present or absent. All perceptions have variable
states, and controlling them means not changing their identity, but
changing their states. Perceptions can also reorganize, so what we formerly
perceived as one thing is now perceived as another, but that is not a
present-time control process. It's more like a slow adaptation.

There is undoubtedly some degree of top-down control of the identity of a
perception, but I know too little about that to conjecture about it. PCT,
so far, is just about acting on the world to change the states of
perceptions that have fixed identities.

Best,

Bill P.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1740)]

Bill Powers (2004.10.26.1452 MDT)

How about in recognizing a pencil before you try to pick it up? Same
thing
-- you'rescribing a perceptual process, which may or may not be part
of a
control process.

Excellent. So perception is not itself a control process (same goes for
thinking I would imagine) but can become part of a control process. In
this sense, everything is not control. In fact, control is a subset of
the processes that take place in an organism. This was my only point.
My only goal may be to recognize who is coming toward me, and that, in
itself, is not an example of control.

I may want John Kerry to win the election, but other than voting for
him (which is an example of control) I will do nothing to bring about
this desired outcome.

Bruce Gregory

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2004.10.26.1440)]

Bruce gregory (2004.1026.1632)]

Good. Help me out. What is the perception? Is the pre-selected end
solution sufficiently well-defined to be a reference level?...

See Bill Powers (2004.10.26.1452 MDT).

Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1641)

Rick Marken (2004.10.26.1315)

Claim away. But what is your evidence that identifying someone you
know, say, is not a control process?

What evidence do you have that it is?

When I try to identify someone I have the goal of producing, in imagination,
the name that goes with the face. So this seems to me to be a purposeful
(ie. control) process. I have a reference for a result (name that goes with
face) and I act, usually successfully, to produce that result in the face of
disturbances (such as my lousy memory, the similarity of the person to other
people, etc).

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1755)]

Rick Marken (2004.10.26.1440)

When I try to identify someone I have the goal of producing, in
imagination,
the name that goes with the face. So this seems to me to be a
purposeful
(ie. control) process. I have a reference for a result (name that goes
with
face) and I act, usually successfully, to produce that result in the
face of
disturbances (such as my lousy memory, the similarity of the person to
other
people, etc).

I would still find a diagram helpful. What is the reference level to
which the perception of the face is compared? Is it "name that goes
with face"? How is that a reference level? How is it constructed? What
is it compared with?

Bruce Gregory

[bnhpct]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.10.26 19:25 EDT)]

Bill Powers (2004.10.26.1255 MDT)

What I call true knowledge is not, of course, true in any ultimately
provable sense. It is simply the best we can do in creating good models of
the real world. Honest observation, searching for contrary evidence, and
open means of testing and reasoning are our best guarantees of arriving at
good models.

From this and subsequent replies in this thread a key phrase from Bill
Powers (2004.10.26.0130 MDT) has been omitted:

···

At 01:21 PM 10/26/2004 -0600, Bill Powers wrote:

At 01:37 AM 10/26/2004 -0600, Bill Powers wrote:

Belief, to me, always takes second place to knowledge that we can
demonstrate to each other. And what you or I _want_ to believe carries
little weight in that system of thought.

The key phrase is "that we can demonstrate to each other."

         /Bruce Nevin