Arguments

[From Bill Powers (960218.0300 MST)]

I seem to have begun sleeping like a cat -- naps.

First light in the new observatory yesterday evening, although the side-
walls and roof aren't up yet. The dead-reckoning polar alignment was
within 2 degrees; Polaris was in the finder field. Ten minutes of
adjustment of the universe relative to the telescope brought Polaris to
center. People who steer by the North Star should now find their
navigation much more accurate.

···

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Leach 960217.20:37 U.S. Eastern Time Zone --

This post was full of insight and wisdom. There is nothing depressed
about your ability to use PCT to convey an understanding of human
experience. Perhaps the problem is that your grasp of PCT has rendered
all other occupations irrelevant. I suggest that you set yourself up as
a PCT consultant and start applying it to people's problems. Why not?
Your answers would make at least as much sense as what other consultants
say.

The odd thing about your post is that I woke up thinking almost exactly
the same things you were saying to Remi Cote, but nothing as well-
organized.
---------------------------------
Once in a while I'm able to stand back from the detailed arguments on
the net and see something obvious about them. The basic problem that I
see now is that people always -- ALWAYS -- want to argue with me about
some implication of PCT when they should be arguing with themselves.
They are using me (and others who argue like me) as an external
representative of a problem inside themselves.

I address here a generic "you" -- to whom it may concern.

When you understand the idea that behavior is the process by which all
organisms -- even you, whoever you are -- control their experiences of
the world and themselves, you immediately find that this idea conflicts
with much of what you have learned and believed. Since you HAVE learned
and DO believe these other ideas, you begin to defend them against your
own understanding of PCT. If this understanding of PCT had not come from
outside, however, you would have nobody to argue with but yourself. You
would be faced with two (at least two) contradictory conceptions of
human nature and human behavior, and you would have to work out a
resolution alone.

However, since there are people like me around who use the PCT concept
rather than any other, this internal conflict can be turned outward and
made into an argument with someone else. Doing this makes the resolution
of the conflict impossible, since in effect you are turning the
responsibility for the PCT argument over to someone else, which allows
you to devote your energies to defending your old beliefs and knowledge.
"But what about this?" you say, and "what about that?" In asking such
questions, you're really expressing the nature of your own conflict, but
making it seem to yourself that you have an argument with someone else.

There IS a conflict between the PCT answers to this and that and the
answers you have learned and believe. The more clearly you grasp the
basic principle of PCT, the sharper the conflict becomes. The only way
out of this conflict is to take responsibility for both sides of it, and
make a decision as to which side you're going to take. Nobody else can
help with this, except perhaps by making sure the PCT concept is clearly
expressed. Nobody else can make up your mind for you.

Every now and then during the past six years, individuals on the net
have described their PCT "epiphany," a moment when they suddenly
understood some crucial aspect of the PCT concept. This was clearly a
moment when some major conflict with an old idea was resolved. Such
ephiphanies don't happen as a result of being convinced by someone else.
They happen when you're by yourself, wrestling with yourself, pitting
some old understanding, and maybe many of them, against this new one. An
internal crisis occurs and then it is suddenly plain which way you have
to go. The dam breaks and a flood of new understandings appears, with
many familiar ideas suddenly taking on a new appearance. All of this
happens in solitude, in a closed room where there is nobody to confront
but yourself.

Most of you writing on this net have participated in arguments against
some aspect of PCT. But more important, most of you have witnessed
_others_ engaging in such arguments, others who are not defending the
truths you are defending, but some other truth that you most likely
don't accept for yourself. After seeing so many others arguing against
some PCT idea on grounds that are, to you, irrelevant or even mistaken,
it must surely have occurred to you that you might be doing something
similar. Surely it must have struck you as odd that PCT can be
considered wrong in so many different ways, but only in one particular
way that bears on your own ideas. Haven't you ever wondered how it can
be that your own particular concerns are the only ones where PCT fails
to take precedence, while it is clear that the concerns of others who
believe in other things are all misguided and should give way to PCT?

Most of you on this List have been here for years, many for five years
or more. Why? What is it that keeps you tuned in? I ask particularly
those people who are still dithering, who haven't really decided that
the PCT view is correct, who are waiting for some magical event that
will make everything clear. Even more to the point, I ask this of people
who are well-entrenched in other points of view, who still think there
are other approaches to human nature that have merit, that are worth
continued effort, that contain some germ of truth that is an exception
to PCT. What are you waiting for, looking for? Some ultimate vindication
of your old beliefs? Some external resolution of the conflict? Is PCT
just a threat that you have to keep track of? Or is this just another
soap opera, in which you are involved only out of habit? Are the
arguments interesting just for the sake of seeing who is scoring the
most points, like a sporting event?

I don't know what I'm leading up to here. Perhaps I'm just explaining to
myself that arguments are futile, and that the only useful way to
communicate PCT is to focus on the basic principle and tell people to
work out the conflicts with older ideas for themselves. At least for the
moment, in the middle of this night, that seems like an excellent idea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.25.2026 MDT)]

I do have to agree with Rick on one subject: there is more heat than light
going on here. I'd like to see less sniping from behind rocks and more
thinking.

While it's obviously true that ordinary experience encompasses more than
the PCT model does, and that when we talk about goals, most commonly we're
talking about bundles of reference signals and perceptions, but that's no
reason to throw up our hands and say that it's all too complicated to think
about. In fact, the world of perception and reference signal is no more
complex than the world you see when you look around you.

It is certainly not beyond reason to think that there might be one
perceptual signal for each perceptual variable; there are tens of billions
of neural connections and signals, but not even a tiny fraction of that
number of different things that we can notice around us. Do you distinguish
10,000,000 colors? Ten million neurons, one for each color, would occupy
one tenth of one percent of the brain's volume. That's nothing. And maybe a
given person only distinguishes 1 million colors, or 100,000, or 1000.
Let's not blow the problem up to a terrifying size just by imagining the worst.

There are two basic ways to model perception. One is the "coding" way; the
other has been called "pandemonium." In the "coding" approach, perceptual
input functions receive incoming information as in PCT, but what they
output is a code saying what kind of perception it is that is present at
the input. So one perceptual channel could represent perceptions of many
different kinds, distinguished from each other by the coding of the neural
impulses -- but only a few at one time.

The pandemonium model says that there are many perceptual input functions,
each emitting only a single signal indicating how much of one specific
perception is present among the input signals. With any collection of
inputs, many different perceptual input functions would respond to the
inputs, some more than others. So for colors, there would be multiple
perceptual input functions that response to the three basic color signals
according to their proportions, and some one or some small group of those
input functions would respond the most, as if they were "tuned" to spedific
colors. An in-between color would result in more than one perceptual
signal, so we might perceive blue, or green, or both: blue-green (The
coding model can't do that: it has to decide which color it is, and emit a
coded signal indicating that color). In the world of sound we have exactly
the pandemonium situation: a frequency analyzer in the cochlea, attached to
a large number of sensors tuned to different pitches of sound, all active
at the same time. with more than one responding to any given pitch, but the
others not responding to it.

I opted for the pandemonium model, which leads to a control model with one
control system per controlled perception, and large numbers of control
systems active at the same time. In fact, there is one perception for each
degree of freedom of the perceived world, meaning for each aspect of that
world that can change independently of other aspects. That is a very, very
large number of perceptual signals. And since many of them are at least in
principle controllable by actions, it leads to a smaller but still very
large number of control systems: one control system for each tiny aspect of
the world that you can affect and control independently of other aspects.

But we must remember that while this model supposes a very large number of
perceptual signals that can change independently of each other, it does not
suppose any more of them than we can find in direct experience. The problem
is no bigger than we are. What this model can teach us is to pay more
attention to the world of experience, to notice consciously more of its
details when we speak about it, so we don't use sloppy words that encompass
more different things than they should, and don't use words in ways that
slop around from one meaning to another while we're in the act of using
them. Language is crude enough as a means of telling one experience from
another; why make it even cruder?

We can explore and refine the PCT model until it takes care of all the
phenomena of experience we can notice and describe. There will always be
more P to describe than C, and more C to describe than will occur, or will
be noticed, at any one time. But it's a finite problem and there is no
reason we can't go as far with it as we want to. The most important thing
is to start going somewhere, which is not going to happen if we get hung up
in silly unimportant squabbles.

Best,

Bill P.

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.26.0110) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.25.2026 MDT)]

I do have to agree with Rick on one subject: there is more heat than light
going on here. I'd like to see less sniping from behind rocks and more
thinking.

It always seems to generate into that doesn't it? I will try to be more
vigilant with myself in my attempts to communicate my ideas.

Bill, I think we have a more fundamental question that needs to be answered
as honestly as possible, and that is do you and Rick want to go there. There
being, emotion, memory, cognition, and imagination. I'm not convinced that
either of you are that interested in those things. Bill you have stated any
number of times that you have felt most comfortable working up the
hierarchy. The Program level and above is a ways off. Rick, you seem to have
a strange dislike for imagination, and cognition as a whole. As I I've said
any number of times, I'm up the clouds. I live in the upper three levels of
the hierarchy. I know some others on the list are equally as interested. We
can never have any meaningful discussions about these things if Rick
believes he's fightin off a boogie-man and you have no real interest in
going there.

That's not to say that we couldn't explore these area's without you and
Rick, but you seem to drive the list. I agree with this post entirely, I
like the "pandemonium" method. I still don't know if it's a place you want
to go. If it is. Lets be honest about what we know, what we don't and what
we will attempt or may attempt to find out. Defining a lexicon might be a
good way to reflect on what we really do know and what we think we know, and
what we are cluless about. Having to come up with definitions might be a
pain in the ass, but it should prove to be useful.

I think we have come up with some good starting points over the last several
weeks. Some words I have in mind are;

Perception
Perceptual Signal
Memory
Imagination
Remebering
Goal
Inference
Belief
Reference Condition
Error
Mistake
Awareness

Now, some of these words already have good model meanings. Reference
condition being one. But in lieu of your post, we may want to talk about the
meanings as far as the model goes.

While it's obviously true that ordinary experience encompasses more than
the PCT model does,

Ok, so again let me ask. Are you interested in going to a place the model
doesn't currently address?

and that when we talk about goals, most commonly we're
talking about bundles of reference signals and perceptions, but that's no
reason to throw up our hands and say that it's all too complicated to

think

about. In fact, the world of perception and reference signal is no more
complex than the world you see when you look around you.

I agree. In fact as much as you and Rick might cringe, Argyris might give us
a running start in trying to explore some of these things. I wouldn't be to
excited if I had to think about doing all of this from the ground floor up.
I just don't think we have to. It doesn't diminish the importance of HPCT.
In fact it enhances it. If we are truly interested in looking into those
four area's ( I don't think we can get much on emotion from Argyris ) then
we should really see what the man has.

We can explore and refine the PCT model until it takes care of all the
phenomena of experience we can notice and describe. There will always be
more P to describe than C, and more C to describe than will occur, or will
be noticed, at any one time. But it's a finite problem and there is no
reason we can't go as far with it as we want to. The most important thing
is to start going somewhere, which is not going to happen if we get hung

up

in silly unimportant squabbles.

I agree. Where do you propose we begin?

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.2355)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.26.0110) --

Bill, I think we have a more fundamental question that needs to be answered
as honestly as possible, and that is do you and Rick want to go there. There
being, emotion, memory, cognition, and imagination.

I certainly do. And I've gone there, to some extent, with cognition.

I'm not convinced that either of you are that interested in those things.

I think we're just not interested in what you are interested in, no matter what
you want to call it. I've told you about my work on program control (which is
about as cognitive as you can get) and it seemed to make zero impression. I've
included imagination in my hierarchical modeling. I'm very interested in what
anyone might do on emotion or memory. Bill and I can't do everything. If you're
interested in memory and emotion then study it. Or get someone to help you do
it. I'd be thrilled if you did it. But I'm spending my time on the stuff I'm
most interested in.

Rick, you seem to have
a strange dislike for imagination, and cognition as a whole.

There is apparently nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. So I won't try.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.26.1102) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.25.2355)]

> Bill, I think we have a more fundamental question that needs to be

answered

> as honestly as possible, and that is do you and Rick want to go there.

There

> being, emotion, memory, cognition, and imagination.

I certainly do. And I've gone there, to some extent, with cognition.

Where?

I think we're just not interested in what you are interested in, no matter

what

you want to call it.

Yep, that seems evident. Thanks for sharing.

I've told you about my work on program control (which is
about as cognitive as you can get) and it seemed to make zero impression.

I've

included imagination in my hierarchical modeling. I'm very interested in

what

anyone might do on emotion or memory. Bill and I can't do everything. If

you're

interested in memory and emotion then study it. Or get someone to help you

do

it. I'd be thrilled if you did it. But I'm spending my time on the stuff

I'm

most interested in.

Enjoy yourself.

> Rick, you seem to have
> a strange dislike for imagination, and cognition as a whole.

There is apparently nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. So I won't

try.

Another thing we agree on. That makes two. We are definitely making
progress.

Marc

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.26.0928 MDT)]

Marc Abrams (2003.05.26.0110) --

Bill, I think we have a more fundamental question that needs to be answered

as honestly as possible, and that is do you and Rick want to go there. There
being, emotion, memory, cognition, and imagination. I'm not convinced that
either of you are that interested in those things.

Of course I'm interested in them, but as a theoretician I'm only interested
in explaining what they are and how they work, not in listing examples of
them once the point has been made, or deciding which ones are good and
which are bad under what circumstances, as Argyris does. As a person just
living life, my interests in these subjects are like anyone else's, but the
details don't relate to theory.

I'd like to expand a little on my reply to Bruce G. about emotion. There
is, in fact, no theory of emotion in HPCT. Instead, there is a proposal
that when error signals occur in the hierarchy, they give rise to two
classes of altered reference signals: reference signals having to do with
behavior, and reference signals having to do with bodily states, adjusting
them as appropriate to the behavior being called for. The changes in
reference signals for bodily states result in changes that can be
experienced -- felt -- along with the effects of changes in the behavioral
systems. I think this proposal is pretty well supported by observations
both objective and subjective.

As you can see, this proposal says nothing about emotion. But if you accept
the proposal, you will see immediately that it has strong implications
concerning the phenomena we call emotions and feelings. Out of this
proposal, which is simply a logical extension of the HPCT model, you can
construct an explanation of emotion which is at least somewhat believable.
I'm sure it's not perfect, but I've never seen any other explanation that
seems even interesting to me.

Bill you have stated any
number of times that you have felt most comfortable working up the
hierarchy.

That makes it sound optional, like a preference for eating peas before
potatoes, and no more rational. It's not that I "feel most comfortable"
working up the hierarchy, it's that I can't see how to do anything else. We
can't separate what belongs to what level by jumping into the middle and
making wild guesses. I've already made my wild guesses; now I want to
settle down to the real work of testing them. That has to be done in a
systematic way if we want to end up with anything of use to science, which
is to say of use to anyone more than a couple of years from now.

We can make up plausible stories, but that's a long way from ending up with
stories that we can't think of any way to disbelieve.

The Program level and above is a ways off. Rick, you seem to have
a strange dislike for imagination, and cognition as a whole. As I I've said
any number of times, I'm up the clouds. I live in the upper three levels of
the hierarchy. I know some others on the list are equally as interested. We
can never have any meaningful discussions about these things if Rick
believes he's fightin off a boogie-man and you have no real interest in
going there.

Go ahead and enjoy yourself in those upper levels. I don't mind, and I'm
sure Rick doesn't. But you don't really want Rick and me up there with you
always carping about how you're talking through your hat. We are fussy and
picky and skeptical and always trying to make sure of our footing before we
take the next step, so we would just bore you out of your skull.

I advise you, however, not to forget that everyone, even Rick and I, have
those same upper levels and use them just as regularly and perhaps even as
well as you do, pursuing our own goals.

That's not to say that we couldn't explore these area's without you and
Rick, but you seem to drive the list.

Don't use apostrophes to indicate the plural. Anyway, you seem to be
driving quite well yourself. I'll walk for a change. I'm overstuffed with
projects.

I agree with this post entirely, I
like the "pandemonium" method. I still don't know if it's a place you want
to go.

I didn't ask. It's the way I prefer, for reasons I stated and others as well.

If it is. Lets be honest about what we know, what we don't and what
we will attempt or may attempt to find out.

Certainly. And we'll try to be honest about how we know what we find out is
really true, and all those other good things scientists are supposed to do.

>I think we have come up with some good starting points over the last several

weeks. Some words I have in mind are;

Perception
Perceptual Signal
Memory
Imagination
Remebering
Goal
Inference
Belief
Reference Condition
Error
Mistake
Awareness

Now, some of these words already have good model meanings. Reference
condition being one. But in lieu of your post, we may want to talk about the
meanings as far as the model goes.

What you mean, "we", white man? This is your baby. I've tossed in a few
more terms like desire, intend, hope, wish, and so on, and I'm sure you can
add more along those lines. Why not work up some finished entries for the
lexicon so we can have a look and comment?

>In fact as much as you and Rick might cringe, Argyris might give us
>a running start in trying to explore some of these things. I wouldn't be to
>excited if I had to think about doing all of this from the ground floor up.
>I just don't think we have to. It doesn't diminish the importance of HPCT.
>In fact it enhances it. If we are truly interested in looking into those
four area's
>( I don't think we can get much on emotion from Argyris ) then we should
really see >what the man has.

Pretty please, don't use apostrophes to indicate plurals. Why don't YOU see
what the man has, and report back? My plate's full.

Really, Marc, these are your projects. You wouldn't want me to ask you to
drop them to help me with mine, would you? Of course I'll take all the help
I can get, if you're offering...

Best,

Bill P.