Are you hungry?

Richard_Marken2 · October 27, 2004, 3:39pm

[From Rick Marken (2004.10.27.0840)]

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 would still find a diagram helpful.

I don't think you need a diagram. I think you just need a better
understanding of the concepts of controlled perception and reference level.

What is the reference level to which the perception
of the face is compared?

This implies that "face" is the controlled perception. But I don't think you
really control for the face you're seeing in this situation. You see who you
see. I was assuming that the controlled perception is more like a
relationship between face and name. The reference level is, then, a
specification for the desired level of this relationship variable.

Is it "name that goes with face"?

Something like that. The controlled perception could be a relationship
(between face and imagined name) that can range from "no match" to "some
match" to "match". So the reference level for this variable -- the desired
state of the perceptual variable -- is "match".

How is that a reference level?

Because it is a specification of the desired state of the perceptual
variable.

How is it constructed?

From higher level reference outputs.

What is it compared with?

I bet you can answer that yourself now.

Bruce Gregory (2004.1026.1740) to Bill Powers

Excellent. So perception is not itself a control process

Of course not.

(same goes for thinking I would imagine)

Not necessarily. Thinking is not a technical term in PCT, perception is.
Perception (PCT definition) is definitely not a control process in PCT;; it
is an essential component of the control process. Thinking refers to all
kinds of different things, some of which (like solving a math problem,
writing a poem or recalling a person's name) are definitely control
processes.

In this sense, everything is not control.

Of course, everything is not control, demonstrating that slogans are not
knowledge.

My only goal may be to recognize who is coming toward me, and that,
in itself, is not an example of control.

If you have the goal of recognizing someone and you act to achieve that goal
then you are controlling.

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 · October 27, 2004, 5:11pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1027.1311)]

Rick Marken (2004.10.27.0840)

If you have the goal of recognizing someone and you act to achieve
that goal
then you are controlling.

What is my action? What systems are involved in carrying out this
action?

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_

Bruce_Gregory6 · October 27, 2004, 5:19pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1027.1320)]

Rick Marken (2004.10.27.0840)

This implies that "face" is the controlled perception. But I don't
think you
really control for the face you're seeing in this situation. You see
who you
see. I was assuming that the controlled perception is more like a
relationship between face and name. The reference level is, then, a
specification for the desired level of this relationship variable.

Great. How do we test for this controlled variable? By disturbing the
face? How might I counter such a disturbance?

Bruce

Richard_Marken2 · October 28, 2004, 4:02am

[From Rick Marken (2004.10.27.2100)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.1027.1311)--

Rick Marken (2004.10.27.0840)

If you have the goal of recognizing someone and you act to achieve
that goal then you are controlling.

What is my action?

I think it would depend on what you mean by "recognizing". One
situation I'm in fairly often is one where I see someone who looks
familiar but I can't "place" them. So I adopt the goal of recognizing
the person in the sense of figuring out where I know them from: work,
high school, social event, etc. The actions I take to achieve this
goal is imagining the person in these different possible contexts.

What systems are involved in carrying out this action?

The answer to that question would seem to require quite a bit of
research.

Bruce Gregory (2004.1027.1320)

Rick Marken (2004.10.27.0840)

I was assuming that the controlled perception is more like a
relationship between face and name. The reference level is, then, a
specification for the desired level of this relationship variable.

Great. How do we test for this controlled variable?

By disturbing the hypothetical controlled variable and watching to see
if it is protected from disturbance.

By disturbing the face?

If that's the hypothetical controlled variable. But I thought you were
asking how you would test to see if the relationship between face and
name was controlled. To test that hypothesis you would disturb the
relationship between face and name.

How might I counter such a disturbance?

It would depend on what means are available to you. If faces and names
are on cards you could counter a disturbance, such as changing the name
card under a picture card, by putting the changed name card back under
the picture.

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

Bruce_Gregory6 · October 28, 2004, 1:22pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1028.0922)]

Rick Marken (2004.10.27.2100)

I think it would depend on what you mean by "recognizing". One
situation I'm in fairly often is one where I see someone who looks
familiar but I can't "place" them. So I adopt the goal of recognizing
the person in the sense of figuring out where I know them from: work,
high school, social event, etc. The actions I take to achieve this
goal is imagining the person in these different possible contexts.

Wow. If I had to work that hard to recognize familiar objects and
people, I'd probably be convinced it was a control process, too. In
fact, I'm not aware of working at all. Familiar people simply show up
as familiar with no cognitive effort at all. When you imagine people in
different contexts, how do you know what the contexts are? In other
words, how do you recognize a context such as "the office" or "home."
Do you use the same process? How do you avoid an infinite regress?

If that's the hypothetical controlled variable. But I thought you were
asking how you would test to see if the relationship between face and
name was controlled. To test that hypothesis you would disturb the
relationship between face and name.

I never doubted there was a connection between a face and a name. I was
trying to understand how _making_ the connection could be a controlled
variable. (Recalling the name when you see the face.) I guess that's
another area that will require more research.

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 · October 28, 2004, 1:29pm

[From Bill Powers (2004.10.28.0710 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.1027.1311)--

Bruce, it's a nice exercise to field questions about how this or that
aspect of behavior might be explained by PCT, but as I'm sure you're aware,
this is only conjecture without some kind of organized approach to getting
an answer. One way to do this, where it can be done, is to propose an
explanation based on an alternative theory to put up against a PCT
explanation, and then try to think of an experiment that could tip the
balance one way or the other. Of course this takes a lot of time and
effort, not to mention resources, and they won't be forthcoming unless one
is very interested in getting an answer. I can think of lots of questions
I'd like to have answered, but evidently I don't want that badly enough to
drop everything else. So I've just got used to knowing that there are
things I don't know and am not likely to find out unless someone else gets
enthusiastic about them.

Best,

Bill P.

Richard_Marken2 · October 28, 2004, 3:34pm

[From Rick Marken (2004.10.28.0835)]

Bill Powers (2004.10.28.0710 MDT) to Bruce Gregory (2004.1027.1311)--

Bruce, it's a nice exercise to field questions about how this or that
aspect of behavior might be explained by PCT, but as I'm sure you're aware,
this is only conjecture without some kind of organized approach to getting
an answer...

Thanks, Bill. Nicely put.

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.

Bruce_Gregory6 · October 28, 2004, 5:30pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2004.1028.1330)]

Bill Powers (2004.10.28.0710 MDT)

Bruce, it's a nice exercise to field questions about how this or that
aspect of behavior might be explained by PCT, but as I'm sure you're
aware,
this is only conjecture without some kind of organized approach to
getting
an answer. One way to do this, where it can be done, is to propose an
explanation based on an alternative theory to put up against a PCT
explanation, and then try to think of an experiment that could tip the
balance one way or the other.

This is what I have been endeavoring to do. If you claim that
identifying an object is an example of control, I don't think it is
unreasonable to ask how such a control process might work. If, on the
other hand you say that you do not have a model for identifying an
object then I can suggest that such models exist. If you do not have
the time or inclination to study such models, I can understand that
perfectly well. What I do object to is just-so stories masquerading as
PCT "explanations" of memory. Some people think that saying "I am
controlling for a perception of the full moon" means something. I am
not one of these people.

Bruce Gregory

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 30, 2004, 2:32am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.29)]

Don’t you agree that that brain IS NOT the origin of the sense or desire of our bodies wanting more glucose? Is there a chemical control system working in our brains that measure glucose concentration?

I conceive our brain as a specialized part of our human body. What makes it unique is what it does and how it does that. Understanding how a brain allows us to think, imagine or remember is quite different from how a heart pumps blood or a liver cleans it. While brains of monkeys and humans are quite similar in a physical or biological sense, they are miles apart in function. Often these unique human brain functions and capabilities are referred to as the human mind which is my preferred use.

Is that distinction helpful or not for you in understanding how or why people behave? Brain is an anatomical term. You can cut it out of your skull and put it on a tray. Mind is a functional term. In my concept, one of its functions is to satisfy a human’s seemingly innate desire for knowledge, a curiosity that we see in toddlers.

We have almost found semblance on this “Observer” idea before, I think first in Boston. I do not like inventing a term that makes sense only to the inventor. I do think there are other words found in the dictionary which people have tried to use to describe this phenomenon or function or ability you name an “Observer.”

What can possibly look down at and comprehend the mind and its hierarchy of reference perceptions? What can tell it needs to be reorganized and initiates that proposed process? What in us can create or change this hierarchy?

I make no claim to have a perfect answer. I believe something about our brain has this capability. I think you do too. Something in our brain (I guess I call it our human spirit nature for it deals with functions not evident in other living things and is somewhat mysterious) is able to deal with or influence what our minds do.

I definitely do not believe humans have a “soul.” I am not sure I understand what an Atman actually is. I think vernacularly, most people would call it our “heart” as in finding our heart’s desire. So, whether we call this function an Observer or a Human Spirit or Human Heart does not matter too much. Whether it is there in all of us and how it affects or facilitates behavior is of mutual interest, I presume.

Well, I don’t know for sure either, Bill. But, I sure can work with your concept of a higher level and how, as in MOL, you can’t solve things at the level where the conflicts or opportunities for behavior occur.

I find it more plausible to deal with three distinct aspects of being a human to try to understand the nature of humans and what they do. I am certain I have a unique body. I am certain I have a unique mind. I am certain I have a unique spirit of purpose for myself. I think you have the same essentials of humanity, but they develop differently and end up making us unique among the billions of humans that live. We are similar yet obviously different. That is both somewhat mysterious and marvelous. And, despite vast differences on how we got that way, it seems evident that we are that way. And the way we are must be included in the explanation of our nature and why we behave as we do.

Others find this easy to do, even some of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Something in you makes different choices about your principles and beliefs than what others make. I think that is totally human and am personally comfortable with either choice.

Do you agree that if the truth made you uncomfortable, you might want to not deal with it or accept it? Isn’t that perfectly PCT and human?

<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.>

As long as you recognize that others may have a different and possibly superior system of thought, I can understand and appreciate you for what you are as controlled by your system references.

As I think Bruce Nevin has already illuminated, your belief that knowledge that we can demonstrate is above beliefs, is itself a belief. Given the shoddy history of scientific belief, I have a hard time placing it above the similar shoddy history of religious beliefs. But, it is mistake to classify beliefs as unsupportable wishes. I think one builds up their beliefs based on some plausible evidence. It is not hard to imagine why most people once believed the earth was flat, is it?

We change when new plausible evidence overwhelms our old belief references. It surely has happened to me over my life. And, I am not afraid or unwilling to change again. It seems to be part of living and growing old, or perhaps just growing up.

Best to you Bill Powers for all you do for us and thanks for your comments.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 30, 2004, 2:32am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.29)]

Thanks for replying Bjorn. I did not intend, and can’t even conceive, of describing the kind of hunger our body senses/signals as an emotion. I do think there are important aspects about human emotions and our behavior that HPCT does not include directly in the model or explain very well, even conceptually. IMHO, treating emotions as sort of a side-effect of controlling neural perceptions seems to minimize their role in human behavior as I experience it. But, this was not my attempt to revisit that thread.

My point here was primarily that our body has a chemical control system that provides a sensation/signal as input to our mind for action. HPCT does not describe that input control aspect of human behavior. You seem to agree? What a human does with that signal may well be described by HPCT than by any other theory of behavior. But, stating that our body “controls a perception of glucose” does not seem to fit using the PCT definitions of control or perception.

I guess I was objecting to any perception of HPCT that describes “control of perception(s)” as the only, or even the primary, nature of human beings. It seems a number of PCTers have acknowledged that HPCT does not describe/explain a bunch of things our bodies do based on chemistry.

It seems that even claiming HPCT describes how all human behavior occurs would not be very accurate since non-neural signals are involved in this comparison. Is HPCT an important aspect of human behavior? Certainly.

But, does it describe another obvious human behavioral phenomena we call thinking or wondering or seeking knowledge or understanding which I described metaphorically as a hunger of the mind? Again, HPCT seems to describe what humans do when their mind “behaves” or functions and produces certain neural input signals. Is thinking or imagining even a closed loop phenomena? Or does it on its own provide a signal to be processed by a PCT loop also in the mind?

No, not directly, do you?

I wish you would clarify this. You seem to be saying learned and hard wired at the same time? What is hard-wired does not have to be learned in my vernacular.

And, what is the highest level of references one is born with do you suppose? What way is a desire or reference to learn (gain knowledge) hard wired? At what level would that desire reside in the hierarchy?

I don’t totally agree. I think there is a hard-wired, high level reference for self-contentment or peace. It may be above the 11th level? In the hierarchy many other “somethings” at lower levels would establish this contentment, including perhaps some 11th level system references such as being free from terrorist activity.

<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.>

Sounds easy, conceptually if not literally. So, why is it so hard to do? Do you think, like Dag, that unless and until they read and understand B:CP they will not be able to go up a level? Or, that once they see living and behaving with PCT glasses the problem will melt away? Or, is there more to human nature and behavior than PCT can currently address?

Right you are, my friend. I would not claim there is a hard-wired, innate desire for peace in a competitive Win-Lose sport or game—or in politics. What perceive you?

BJORN_SIMONSEN · October 30, 2004, 8:32am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.29)]

>But, stating that our body "controls a perception of glucose" does not
seem to
>fit using the PCT definitions of control or perception.

I think it does. If you go to B:CP page 108 You find a sentence saying "The
division of sensations into "five senses" is therefore rather arbitrary,
.........
I am not a physiologist, but I know that the liver "senses" the
concentration of glucose in the blood drops. And it releases more to the
blood by converting glycogen to glucose (glycogenolysis). I can imagine a
loop with perceptual signal, a reference and an error and output where the
"actions" are converting glycogen to glucose.

I guess I was objecting to any perception of HPCT that describes "control

of

perception(s)" as the only, or even the primary, nature of human beings.

It seems

a number of PCTers have acknowledged that HPCT does not describe/explain a
bunch of things our bodies do based on chemistry.

Well, I disagree. I think the liver and the Pituitary are examples where the
PCT model function. (Pituitary - Hypothalamus).

Is thinking or imagining even a closed loop phenomena?

The way I see it, Yes. When I describe an eclipse of the moon I articulate
(actions) my thoughts. And my thoughts are a set of control loops at the
program level and lower levels.

<<Do you think different aspects of the external environment develop
emotions?>
<No, not directly, do you?
No.

I wish you would clarify this. You seem to be saying learned and hard
wired at the same time? What is hard-wired does not have to be learned in

my vernacular.
I don't use the concept hard wired nervous system. I guess you think upon
the peripheral nervous systems where the reference looks to be more constant
than in the central nervous systems. I think they both function as PCT.

And, what is the highest level of references one is born with do you

suppose?

What way is a desire or reference to learn (gain knowledge) hard wired?
At what level would that desire reside in the hierarchy?

I don't know what the highest level of reference one is born with and I
don't mind. I am enthusiastic about the HPCT idea and I hope I will
understand more about it and be able to make simulation as time goes.

Do you think, like Dag, that unless and until they read and understand B:CP

they will not be able to go up a level?

I don't think Dag said that. I think we both experience parents, and
superiors go up a level without knowing HPCT. But I think many of them would
profit by reading about HPCT. They would get a better explanation of what
they sometimes do.

Or, is there more to human nature and behavior than PCT can currently

address?

Oh, yes. But I think PCT/HPCT is a good compass to understand more about the
human nature.

bjorn

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 30, 2004, 1:35pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.30)]

Bjorn replies to my assertion saying:

But, stating that our body “controls a perception of glucose” does not
seem to
fit using the PCT definitions of control or perception.

Well, you have given me something to consider. Truth is I have not studied Chapter 8 of B:CP very much. I had the perception that all signals relevant to PCT are first order and deal with neural current activity in the central nervous system. For example, look at the definition of Signal on Page 287: “A train of neural impulses having a magnitude measured in units of neural current, or impulses per second.”

Using this definition for signals in the PCT loop, then the hunger signals sensed by chemical intensities in our non-nervous systems of our body would not fit PCT.

It certainly could be true that such chemical control systems in our body (not part of the CNS, brain or mind) also function like a closed negative feedback loop with an output signal that is input to the CNS. But, I would have not called the chemical feedback loop a PCT loop.

Reviewing B:CP, it appears that Bill Powers may define other physical signals as second order signals where the “environment” is outside the CNS not outside the living organism; the human being in this case. There is no doubt in my mind that my mind/CNS is connected to my organs like my diseased liver. So the organs and the CNS can exert force on one another by input and output signals, even if not all neural.

So, by asking a question, I may have gained a different (even better)understanding, at least as to what Bill Powers is theorizing in PCT. That is not the same as agreeing his theories are correct. Thanks, Bjorn.

Is thinking or imagining even a closed loop phenomena?

Wow. So thoughts or imaginations are actions and the outputs of a PCT system loop or loops themselves? If so, I wonder why you think that they are restricted to the program or lower levels of the hierarchy? Or was this related to the description of the eclipse? I would think that beliefs or systems themselves would operate similarly in your construct? Perhaps you could take some time to expand on this thought!

Do you think, like Dag, that unless and until they read and understand B:CP
they will not be able to go up a level?

No problem there. How could a more detailed understanding hurt? But, my point with Dag is that one can use/apply a theory quite effectively whether or not one has a detailed grasp of its details or jargon.

Or, is there more to human nature and behavior than PCT can currently
address?

<Oh, yes. But I think PCT/HPCT is a good compass to understand more about the
human nature.>

Again, my friend, we agree. My Are you Hungry? post was a feeble attempt to get some discussion going about better understandings than what current PCT provides about the behavior and nature of human beings. There was a nice response. And, it was way more interesting at least to me than the political barbs being shot. I was pleased when Rick’s political posts seemed to die on the vine. And, though your political joke did get a vile response, I thought it was intended as humor; not serious philosophy. BTW, I had been telling that joke about “Quality” gurus (like myself) for decades.

Peace and shalom. May our knowledge increase; and our wisdom.

Bozo_the_Clown · October 30, 2004, 1:49pm

From Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.29)]

Don’t you agree that that brain IS NOT the origin of the sense or desire of our bodies wanting more glucose? Is there a chemical control system working in our brains that measure glucose concentration?
From [Marc Abrams (2004.10.30.0942)]

Ken, I don’t know if your much of a reader, but i of the vortex by Rodolpho Llinas, the chair of the Neuroscience Department at NYU’s Medical school and a Physiologist provides a wonderful view of how control systems might help provide for our ‘consciousness’ , chemical control, and behavior. It’s fully compatible with PCT, as it needs to be, but its not an easy read.

Marc

Bozo_the_Clown · October 30, 2004, 2:37pm

From Kenny Kitzke (2004.10.29)]

…

I am not a physiologist, but I know that the liver “senses” the

concentration of glucose in the blood drops. And it releases more to the
From [Marc Abrams (2004.10.30.1005)]

Sorry Ken, this is not accurate. In fact this is the disease we call ‘diabetes’.

Our cells, that is all of our cells metabolize glucose to generate the energy needed for all cellular functions. Insulin is the catalyst that gets that process going. When people either do not produce insulin in sufficient quantities or the cells for a variety of reason become ‘resistant’ to insulin the liver gets ‘signals’ saying there is not enough glucose in the system (blood) and it produces more, even though there is plenty already there. It is either the lack of insulin or our inability of the cells to use it that ‘causes’ high sugar levels in the blood for diabetics. So without insulin metabolic action in the cell does not take place.

Insulin resistance is not necessarily limited to single reason so there can be any number of reasons for it and at this time those reasons are not well understood. Diabetes is actually an auto immune disease and high blood sugar is a symptom of diabetes not a cause.

Is diabetes the result of a ‘broken’ control system or systems? But how? The cell ‘thinks’ there is not enough sugar because it cannot sense it properly and it dutifully reports this to the nervous system, which then gets the pancreas going. So is the control systems actually broken? It seems to be working fine. It just has erroneous info and the illusion that sugar is needed

This of course is a very general view and statement. We all produce some insulin, otherwise we would be dead in short order, but it seems that the degree of efficency we each have with regard to these control systems seems to vary wildly.

I believe this can be analogized to overt behavior as well. Our imaginations play a huge role in what we perceive. What effect does that have on our ability to control well?

Marc