Awareness

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1900)]

For some time I've been wondering what a model of awareness would
actually look like. I've come to the conclusion that as far as HPCT is
concerned, awareness must _already_ be incorporated into the model, we
just haven't recognized it yet. (Awareness is after all purposeful.)
Bill has suggested that reorganization follows awareness. Perhaps this
is true. I want to suggest that awareness follows potential error. What
do I mean by "potential"? If I didn't pay attention to the cursor in a
tracking task, I would experience error. As long as I pay attention, I
keep error to a minimum.

The most obvious objection to this notion is that we seem to be aware
of things when there is no obvious source of potential error. Looking
at a sunset, for example. But notice that if you distracted me while I
was enjoying the sunset, I would experience error.

Is this a model? Hell no! It's more of a musing. I share it because it
might have some value.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

2

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.0002)]

Gentlemen (Bill, Rick & Bruce G)

I just got back from school, kicked off my shoes and saw a flurry of
activity on 'memory' this evening. It turned out to be a bit of tongue and
cheek from BG, except for this post on awareness which I would like to throw
my two cents on the table before I move back to the memory thread next.

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1900)]

For some time I've been wondering what a model of awareness would
actually look like. I've come to the conclusion that as far as HPCT is
concerned, awareness must _already_ be incorporated into the model, we
just haven't recognized it yet.

I agree with Bruce here. It resides in _every_ model of human behavior. It
must, because it is only through awareness, or consciousness, that we can in
fact, have purposeful behavior. I will use the words consciousness,
awareness, and self interchangeably here to mean the same thing. But I do
not believe that self, or awareness is a 'thing'. I believe it's an
emergent property of the sum total of any number of different processes that
are concurrently going on in our body. Awareness is a _process_. Anytime you
model anything doing with human behavior you must have included awareness
implicitly in your model. The same has been done with memory and emotions in
HPCT. We all know these things exist, but you don't need them to explain
control in the model. That is until you want to look into the _reasons_
_for_ control and purposefulness.

Bill has suggested that reorganization follows awareness. Perhaps this
is true. I want to suggest that awareness follows potential error. What
do I mean by "potential"? If I didn't pay attention to the cursor in a
tracking task, I would experience error. As long as I pay attention, I
keep error to a minimum.

Awareness exists with or without error. With or without control.

I don't think that HPCT currently represents enough of the processes
involved in consciousness to explain the reasons for awareness. That is, all
the processes involved in generating it. Although I believe it could.

Is this a model? Hell no! It's more of a musing. I share it because it
might have some value.

Nice post.

Marc

3

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.13.0046 EST]

From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.0002)]
> [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1900)]

For some time I've been wondering what a model of awareness would
actually look like. I've come to the conclusion that as far as HPCT is
concerned, awareness must _already_ be incorporated into the model, we
just haven't recognized it yet.

I agree with Bruce here. It resides in _every_ model of human behavior. It
must, because it is only through awareness, or consciousness, that we can in
fact, have purposeful behavior.

No, no, and again no!!!

Purposeful behaviour, which means controlling perceptions so that
they match reference levels, is THE sign of life. More than
reproduction, it is control that distinguishes living from non-living
things. The humble e-coli purposefully swims from a bad enviroment to
a better. A tree controls for getting appropriate sunlight on its
foliage (or some moral equivalent of that).

Awareness and purpose are not synonymous. Indeed, there's a growing
body of evidence that in humans owareness often follows perposeful
action, rather than preceding it or being necessary for it. By
training, we may be able to become aware of most of the controlled
perceptions in our bodies, but it takes an awful lot of training for
some of them, if indeed it is possible for all!

It has always seemed to me that conscious awareness happens under two
circumstances, which might resolve to just one after due
consideration. The two are: (1) some control system encounters
persistent error and is unable to bring the controlled perception
near its reference value, and (2) there is a possibility of shifting
from controlling one perception to controlling another, where there
would be conflict (in the sense recently accepted) if one were to try
to control both at once.

It may be a bit of a stretch to include the pleasurable observation
of a sunset under case 2, but I believe it does fit there. I could be
persuaded that there's a case 3 that better fits the sunset
observation, or that case 2 needs some expansion. But for now, that's
my intuition about awareness.

Martin

4

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.0128)]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.13.0046 EST]
>From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.0002)]
> > [From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1900)]
>>
>>
>> For some time I've been wondering what a model of awareness would
>> actually look like. I've come to the conclusion that as far as HPCT is
>> concerned, awareness must _already_ be incorporated into the model, we
>> just haven't recognized it yet.
>
>I agree with Bruce here. It resides in _every_ model of human behavior.

It

>must, because it is only through awareness, or consciousness, that we can

in

>fact, have purposeful behavior.

No, no, and again no!!!

Purposeful behaviour, which means controlling perceptions so that
they match reference levels, is THE sign of life. More than
reproduction, it is control that distinguishes living from non-living
things. The humble e-coli purposefully swims from a bad enviroment to
a better. A tree controls for getting appropriate sunlight on its
foliage (or some moral equivalent of that).

Awareness and purpose are not synonymous.

I never said they were. I originally said purpose followed awareness. I can
see where I misspoke. You certainly do not need to be aware or conscious to
control or to be 'purposeful'. My thinking revolved around conscious
cognitive behavior.

Indeed, there's a growing body of evidence that in humans owareness often

follows perposeful

action, rather than preceding it or being necessary for it. By
training, we may be able to become aware of most of the controlled
perceptions in our bodies, but it takes an awful lot of training for
some of them, if indeed it is possible for all!

Why either or? I can see where 'awareness' both precedes and follows
purposeful behavior. I think 'awareness' might be tied very tightly to
emotions.

It has always seemed to me that conscious awareness happens under two
circumstances, which might resolve to just one after due
consideration. The two are: (1) some control system encounters
persistent error and is unable to bring the controlled perception
near its reference value, and (2) there is a possibility of shifting
from controlling one perception to controlling another, where there
would be conflict (in the sense recently accepted) if one were to try
to control both at once.

Not to nit, but I think we need to differentiate between awareness and
attention. You can be aware of many things that you are not controlling for.
What you pay attention to I agree is more closely aligned with your 2
defintions above and the thrust of your post.

Marc

5

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.03.0621)]

Martin Taylor 2003.12.13.0046 EST

It has always seemed to me that conscious awareness happens under two
circumstances, which might resolve to just one after due
consideration. The two are: (1) some control system encounters
persistent error and is unable to bring the controlled perception
near its reference value, and (2) there is a possibility of shifting
from controlling one perception to controlling another, where there
would be conflict (in the sense recently accepted) if one were to try
to control both at once.

It may be a bit of a stretch to include the pleasurable observation
of a sunset under case 2, but I believe it does fit there. I could be
persuaded that there's a case 3 that better fits the sunset
observation, or that case 2 needs some expansion. But for now, that's
my intuition about awareness.

Mine, too. Thanks.

Bruce Gregory.

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

6

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.03.1035)]

Martin Taylor (2003.12.13.0046 EST) --

> Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.0002)-

> > Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1900)--

>> For some time I've been wondering what a model of awareness would
>> actually look like. I've come to the conclusion that as far as HPCT is
>> concerned, awareness must _already_ be incorporated into the model, we
>> just haven't recognized it yet.
>
>I agree with Bruce here. It resides in _every_ model of human behavior.

No, no, and again no!!!

I'm afraid I agree with you again, Martin. But Bruce was probably just making
another joke.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

7

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.1846)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.03.1035)]

I'm afraid I agree with you again, Martin.

Great, But with regard to what? Have you read Bill's response?

But Bruce was probably just making another joke.

I don't think so. Why do you think otherwise?

Marc

8

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.03.2013)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.03.1035)

I'm afraid I agree with you again, Martin. But Bruce was probably
just making
another joke.

I confine my irony to politics. If you read what I said, you might even
agree with it. Marc's interpretation, of course, is his own.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

9

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.2323)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.03.2013)]

... Marc's interpretation, of course, is his own.

Did I misinterpret you?

Marc

10

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.03.2130)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.1846)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.03.1035)--

I'm afraid I agree with you again, Martin.

Great, But with regard to what? Have you read Bill's response?

I agree with Martin's negative response to Bruce's post, in particular with regards to the following:

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1900)

I've come to the conclusion that as far as HPCT is
concerned, awareness must _already_ be incorporated into the model, we
just haven't recognized it yet. (Awareness is after all purposeful.)

As Bill pointed out in his post (and in B:CP) and as I have pointed out in various writings, control can occur with or without awareness. This simple fact rules out the possibility that awareness is already part of HPCT. HPCT alone can explain the control processes involves in driving to but it can't explain why the driver is sometimes aware of driving and sometimes not. Bill went to some effort in B:CP (and in many CSGNet discussions) to show how a model of consciousness (including awareness and volition) might be incorporated into the basic perceptual control model. I think we should deal with Bill's ideas first (this is, after all, a forum for discussing PCT) before proposing own own schemes.

Bill has suggested that reorganization follows awareness. Perhaps this
is true. I want to suggest that awareness follows potential error. What
do I mean by "potential"? If I didn't pay attention to the cursor in a
tracking task, I would experience error. As long as I pay attention, I
keep error to a minimum.

I also agreed with Martin because I found this to be a very confusing paragraph. The notion of a potential error signal makes no sense at all. All error signals have the "potential" to become larger than they are. What Bruce seems to be proposing here is that attention is required for control. But there is currently no attention in our models of basic control processes and these model control well and they controls just like real living control systems. Moreover, we know that people can control quite well without attending to what they are controlling. I have not been attending to my control of posture, air intake or center of gravity (until just this second) and all have been kept under control just fine. Attention (in terms of changing the focus of awareness) is a real phenomenon and it may have effects on control (probably negative effects; try attending to how you swing a racquetball racquet and see how well you control then) but attention is unquestionably not needed to deal with "potential error".

But Bruce was probably just making another joke.

I don't think so. Why do you think otherwise?

My default assumption now is that Bruce is joking. I apparently can't tell whether he's joking or not but I've too often ended up being embarrassed by giving a serious consideration to what turned out to have been non-serious proposals. This just happened in the discussion of behavior that does not involve control.

Bruce had said:

I would say that the assumption behind HPCT is that human behavior is
explainable by a control model. It would be great to have data that
allows this assumption to be further tested and its limits discovered.

And Bill replied:

Right. An easy way to start would be to propose some aspect of human
behavior that does not involve control.

To which Bruce replied:

I assume you are looking for something other than the Administration's
policy in Iraq...

I can see that Bruce's comment here can be considered an attempt at humor, but Bill took it (as I did) as a serious proposal regarding a behavior that does not involve control. So Bill replied:

Not at all. What do you think the Administration is trying to control with
its current policy?

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1621) responded to Bill's comment in what seems like a non-joking way, saying:

I thought that persist failures to exercise control led to
reorganization.

At least Bruce didn't say anything about anyone not being able to take a joke at this point. Bill Powers (2003.12.02.1525 MST) treated Bruce's comment as a serious reply and explained why the Administration's policy does not necessarily involve reorganization:

First you have to experience error, intrinsic error -- isn't that the
theory? If you can somehow avoid experiencing intrinsic error, there is
little drive to reorganize.

If you're very rich, and have achieved all your ambitions for power, and
people keep telling you how successful your policies are, why should you
reorganize?

That's when I chimed in and added:

But even if there _were_ reorganization, reorganization is itself a control
process. So Bruce's suggestion that the failure of current Administration's policy
is an example of behavior that does not involve control is wrong even if the
agents carrying out this policy are reorganizing.

At which point Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1933) chides me (not Bill, for some reason) for not being able to take a joke, as follows:

O.K. O.K. I got it. Never assume anyone can get a joke. In the future
I will clearly label statements intended to be ironic. Jeeez...

I'm still not clear what the big joke was and, if there was one, why Bill was not chided, too, for not getting it. But I find it a little dismaying to have my ideas dismissed as "not getting a joke". So I'll just assume that everything Bruce says is a joke and try not to reply to it, seriously or otherwise.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

11

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.04.0209)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.03.2130)]

OK I can see now why you thought Bruce might have been joking.

The reason I asked if you read Bill's response and what you agreed to is
because Bill and Bruce (Martin has not responded yet) both agreed with me
that we were probably talking about initially was attention not awareness.

No one has responded to my reply to Bill so I really don't know if or when
this thread will continue.

Rick, can I just assume that whatever Bill says is what you will ultimately
agree to? In this post and in most posts you talk about what Bill has said
and your total agreement with him. What does Rick have to say about
attention, consciousness, awareness and PCT?

Marc

12

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.04.0527)]

[Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.2323)

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.03.2013)]

... Marc's interpretation, of course, is his own.

Did I misinterpret you?

You extended what I said far beyond what I said or intended to say.
That doesn't mean that you were wrong, just that you went where I am
not yet prepared to go.

Bruce Gregory

Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

13

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.04.0543)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.03.2130)

Marc Abrams (2003.12.03.1846)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.03.1035)--

I'm afraid I agree with you again, Martin.

Great, But with regard to what? Have you read Bill's response?

I agree with Martin's negative response to Bruce's post, in particular with regards to the following:

Just to keep the record straight, Martin was not referring to my post but to Marc's. In fact, Martin and I (and Bill as far as I can tell) are pretty much in agreement.

I can see that Bruce's comment here can be considered an attempt at humor,

Really, you are too generous. WARNING: The previous statement was ironic.

but Bill took it (as I did) as a serious proposal regarding a behavior that does not involve control. So Bill replied:

Not at all. What do you think the Administration is trying to control with
its current policy?

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1621) responded to Bill's comment in what seems like a non-joking way, saying:

I thought that persist failures to exercise control led to
reorganization.

The point was that despite the failure of the Administration's "policy" it showed no indication of changing it. Sorry this was too subtle for some to grasp. I'll try to be less subtle in the future.

At which point Bruce Gregory (2003.12.02.1933) chides me (not Bill, for some reason) for not being able to take a joke, as follows:

I mentioned no names. Those of you who lack humor can include yourself in my comment. Those of you who lack humor and don't know you lack humor can be offended.

I'm still not clear what the big joke was and, if there was one, why Bill was not chided, too, for not getting it. But I find it a little dismaying to have my ideas dismissed as "not getting a joke". So I'll just assume that everything Bruce says is a joke and try not to reply to it, seriously or otherwise.

Much appreciated. No irony intended. I'll do my best to return the courtesy.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

14

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.04.0547)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.03.2130)

I think we should deal with Bill's ideas first (this is, after all, a
forum for discussing PCT) before proposing own own schemes.

What a charming approach to science. WARNING: the previous statement is
intended as irony.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

15

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.04.0857)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.04.0527)]

You extended what I said far beyond what I said or intended to say.
That doesn't mean that you were wrong, just that you went where I am
not yet prepared to go.

Can you please point me to the specifics. I certainly wasn't attempting to
speak for you so I would like to know where my presumptions failed me.

Marc

16

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.04.1131)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.03.2130)]

Bill went to some effort in B:CP (and in many CSGNet
discussions) to show how a model of consciousness (including awareness
and volition) might be incorporated into the basic perceptual control
model.

Actually this is not dealt with very well until you get to chap 26, in LCS
II on emotions, which is not unfortunately in B:CP. In that chapter Bill
goes on to tie a lot of loose ends together. I think the decison to
eliminate that chapter was a bad mistake but understandable given the
scientific climate at the time with regard to emotions, consciousness, et.
al. , and since Bill has not responded tp my request asking if his current
thinking is aligned with what he said there I need to assume it is.

I think we should deal with Bill's ideas first (this is, after
all, a forum for discussing PCT) before proposing own own schemes.

Ah, an unspoken law of CSGnet is finally revealed. This certainly makes
perfect sense for why I get the responses I did from him. So let me see if I
understand this correctly. When Bill proposes an concept, we need to focus
our attention and efforts on his idea and only when we can prove his idea is
not valid can we bring up alternative ones. So any attempt to discuss a
concept that Bill has already addressed, has to be proven to be an invalid
one before alternatives may be discussed. Anyone who does bring up an
alternative view is viewed as challenging Bill by the virtue of not
disproving Bill's idea first. What a wonderful forum for exchanging ideas.
(dripping with sarcasism)

I thought CSGnet was for the exchange of ideas with regard to PCT but it's
not. It's all about proselytizing a specific point of view and I think a
major reason for this lies in the theory. Both Bill and Rick honestly
believe that two or more people can hold the same or similar perceptions.
This view has led to the belief that others might come to understand PCT as
they do and that simply is not true. It's easy for Rick because he doesn't
even believe what his own models tell him, witness the 'conflict' thread
were he let out a sigh of relief in 'finding out' his model was right all
along _after_ hearing Bill define PCT conflict. So it seems Rick believes
whatever Bill ultimately does. At some level with regard to some aspects, we
all will see and view PCT from different perspectives. Rick, I'm not on
CSGnet to 'learn' what _you_ think I should or shouldn't know about PCT.
Like everyone else I'm here to see and understand how PCT fits into my
understanding of the world and since we really don't have a great deal of
data supporting large parts of the theory, we all need to bring our own
'data' to fill in the holes. I know you and Bill find this very frustrating
and maybe this is what Bill Williams was aiming at yesterday when he said
Bill was 'exasperated.

It's very difficult when you believe in your heart & soul that you are right
and can't prove it. I can understand, but have no empathy for Bill's
frustration. It's hardly a reason to treat people like he does _sometimes_
in piques of frustration.

Marc

17

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.04.0920)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.04.0209)--

> Rick Marken (2003.12.03.2130)

OK I can see now why you thought Bruce might have been joking.

I don't really think Bruce was joking at all. I think he was dodging the issue
(of whether a particular behavior involved control or not) while trying to bait
me. I think Bruce is in massive conflict about PCT, wanting to see it as great
and terrible at the same time. If Bruce is ever able to solve his conflict it
will be obvious because I know that he can be a very pleasant person. But until
then I'll just assume he is joking so that I don't say something that gets me hit
by the other side of his conflict.

Rick, can I just assume that whatever Bill says is what you will ultimately
agree to?

No.

In this post and in most posts you talk about what Bill has said
and your total agreement with him.

Yes. I usually agree with Bill about things PCT because we both understand PCT
pretty well.

What does Rick have to say about
attention, consciousness, awareness and PCT?

Not much because I have not done much research on it or modeling of it. I think
consciousness is a phenomenon that is functionally separate from the control
hierarchy. I think this for reasons mentioned in my earlier post, the main reason
being that I know that my own controlling happens both consciously and
unconsciously. I have successfully controlled a car for seconds at a time without
any awareness of the wheel or the road. I also mentioned my observation that
attention (bringing awareness to a particular location in the control hierarchy)
seems to start reorganization, so that a task you can do quite skillfully
deteriorates when you attend to how you are doing it. I think this can be tested
experimentally be having someone skilled at doing a tracking task regularly switch
their attention to and away from the movements they make while they are tracking.
What you should see is regular variations -- corresponding to the variations in
attention -- in the overall quality of control throughout the tracking run. This
would be a very simple experiment to do. I think I'll try it.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

18

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.04.1326)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.04.0920)

I don't really think Bruce was joking at all. I think he was dodging
the issue
(of whether a particular behavior involved control or not) while
trying to bait
me. I think Bruce is in massive conflict about PCT, wanting to see it
as great
and terrible at the same time. If Bruce is ever able to solve his
conflict it
will be obvious because I know that he can be a very pleasant person.
But until
then I'll just assume he is joking so that I don't say something that
gets me hit
by the other side of his conflict.

My ambivalence with regard to PCT is based on an unresolved Oepidal
complex. Needless to say Bill is a father figure. I'll let you work out
Rick's role and leave the rest to your imagination. WARNING: The
preceding is to be taken as tongue in cheek.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

19

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.04.1100)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.04.1131)--

> Rick Marken (2003.12.03.2130)]

>I think we should deal with Bill's ideas first (this is, after
> all, a forum for discussing PCT) before proposing own own schemes.

Ah, an unspoken law of CSGnet is finally revealed.

It's not unspoken. This is what we've always said CSGNet is about: PCT. Bill
Powers invented PCT and made a great start a presenting evidence to support it in
B:CP and in his other publications (now collected in the LCS volumes).

This certainly makes
perfect sense for why I get the responses I did from him.

To some extent you are right. In order to deal with Bill's ideas first you have to
understand those ideas. You have gotten the responses you have from Bill because
much of what you have said about PCT (such as saying that perception involves
"interpretation") betrayed an almost complete lack of understanding of Bill's
ideas (PCT). You seem to be earnestly trying to improve or go beyond ideas you
don't yet understand. That's what I meant by dealing with Bill's ideas first
before proposing one's own schemes. I don't think anyone on CSGNet is against
people proposing their own schemes for improving or going beyond PCT. But those
schemes are of interest only if they are clearly based on an understanding of what
they improve upon or go beyond.

Both Bill and Rick honestly
believe that two or more people can hold the same or similar perceptions.

No. We believe that people can try to control what is functionally the same or
similar perceptual variable. Conflict occurs because they can't control this
variable (1 degree of freedom) relative to two references (2 degrees of freedom)
simultaneously.

So let me see if I
understand this correctly. When Bill proposes an concept, we need to focus
our attention and efforts on his idea and only when we can prove his idea is
not valid can we bring up alternative ones.

Bill has already proposed a concept: PCT and all that that involves. CSGNet is a
forum for learning, discussing, testing and extending those ideas. If testing
reveals the need for changing or extending PCT then changes or extensions to the
theory will be made. Bill made such an extension early in the life of CSGNet when
I reported a surprising _improvement_ in control when one is in conflict with a
weak "opponent" in a tracking task. This "extension" was just the explicit
addition of a transport lag to the control loop, which is a part of most human
control models but hadn't been included in Bill's discussion of PCT in B:CP.

Rick, I'm not on
CSGnet to 'learn' what _you_ think I should or shouldn't know about PCT.

Like everyone else I'm here to see and understand how PCT fits into my
understanding of the world

How can you do this without understanding PCT itself? I suppose you're gonna do
what your gonna do. But I think your participation on CSGNet would be much more
rewarding for everyone if you would be willing to abandon your assumption that you
know PCT well enough already. I think there's still a few things you need to work
out. Like how conflict works, for example. Conflict does not result from people
perceiving things differently. Conflict actually results from people _wanting_ to
perceive things differently.

It's very difficult when you believe in your heart & soul that you are right
and can't prove it.

Not really. It's true that I can't prove PCT is right but I can test it. That's
really the fun of it for me, especially since, _so far_, the tests always come
out in support of the predictions of PCT, often with great accuracy.

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

20

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.04.1730)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.04.1100)

Conflict does not result from people
perceiving things differently. Conflict actually results from people
_wanting_ to
perceive things differently.

The following is to be taken LITERALLY.

What exactly is "wanting" in PCT? Can I want something without
controlling for it? Could that lead to conflict? Can the U.S. perceive
itself as liberating Iraq while Iraqis perceive the U.S. as occupying
Iraq? The Iraqis want the occupiers out, but U.S. sees no occupiers.
Now an outside observer can say they are both controlling the same
perception, the presence of the U.S. in Iraq, but from the Iraqi and
U.S. point of view it that obvious? Or even true?

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide