Charity

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 3, 1998, 8:57am

Melding
From [Bjorn Simonsen(2003,11.03;10:00 EST)]

Wednesday, November the 5. I will watch MATRIX - REVOLUTIONS. I am not a moviegoer and I remember there was a light story in the former MATRIX - RELOADED. Bust some distinctive characteristics do we have many of us. I have chosen to study the MATRIX story.

If you tolerate I will quote a character in MATRIX - RELOADED named Merovingian. I connect his name with the French Merovingian’s and the nominal Merovingian superiors have been called the do-nothing kings. He tells us there is one constant and only one universal constant and that is causality, cause and effect.

An other central characteristic is Neo. He contradicts Mr. Merovingian and says No, Everything starts with a choice. I have interpreted this in my way. Neo says that people has an intention, a purpose. And the earlier pictures has demonstrated the actions exercised by Neo. And those actions maintain his intentions.

Of course all the other demonstrate actions which maintain their intentions. Often intentions without charity.

Maybe I can help you Kenny Kitzke. You have postulated a twelfth Level (of self) or a Control System that controls the PCT system of the mind for a number of years. (From [Kenny Kitzke (12.18.2002)]). Maybe that level is the Charity Level.

This is a letter which is meant playful with a touch of gravity. And I think you will become enthusiastic over the MATRIX pictures Bill.

bjorn

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 3, 1998, 8:30pm

Melding
[From Bjorn Simonsen(2003,11.03;21:30 EuST)]

From Kenny Kitzke (2003.11.03.0900 EST)

You are correct, for me EST is European Standard Time. In future I’ll change it to Eu.

If you can share more about the Matrix and its underlying themes, and how you think it might fit into

HPCT, or my proposed extensions, I would enjoy that very much. And, I would surely respond and engage.

I hope Bill can add something as well.

MATRIX is a story. And there is an architect. I remember the architect mentioned that 99 % of the humans accepted the program (their brain?) he had made as long as they could choose and as long as their choices were at an unconscious level. Although this functioned well, the architect had done one fundamental error. It made a contradictory system - divagation which uncontrolled just annihilated the whole system.

Neo (a leading role) was one who didn’t accept the program.In the end of the MATRIX - RELOADED Neo was in a room with two doors. One lead to Zion where he could try to learn (?) people to not choose as they had done. The other door led to the MATRIX program where his girlfriend was dying.

The architect was unsure what would happen because Neo had the Charity quality. A quality no other before him had.

Neo saved his girlfriend and I guess many of the people in Zion will raise objections against the program in the coming MATRIX - REVOLUTIONS.

This was Charity how it was expressed in MATRIX - RELOADED.

I myself mean about Charity as we can read in St. John 13.34. "A new commandment I give unto you, That we love each other; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

I think “Be honest”, “Stand upright”, “Work hard” are different programs we can control in our way at the Program level (HPCT). “Exercise Charity” could be another program, but I think "Exercise Charity is a “program” which is common for many System Concepts. Therefore I proposed that the Charity level could be the twlfth level. What do you say?

I am not lost in the current thread “fairness and meaning”. Bruce, Rick and Bill exercise an uncommon discipline in their argumentation. I enjoy myself very much reading the whole thread again and again. It is a kind of control which take longer time in my brain then in their. I think I have a slowing factor which is far less then their slowing factor in the actual systems.

I think I will word myself later this week about the thread “fairness and meaning”, if it is tolerated.

bjorn

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 4, 1998, 9:27pm

Melding
[Bjorn Simonsen(2003,11.04;22:30 EuST)]

From Kenny Kitzke (2003.11.04.0920 EST)

The idea that one can make choices at an unconscious level needs some clarification. I do sense that we

can have reference perceptions at a high level of which we are not aware in control at the time we are

controlling conscious lower level perceptions. Does this make sense to you? to anyone?

I think I always control the highest level. The other level get their references and the lowest level lead the qo to muscles and glands. The actions which is exercised are perceived at the lowest level input function and continued to different higher level input functions in different loops, but as I mentioned; I think I control the highest level perception.

As an example; I think I am unconscious my control not driving at red light when I discuss any theme with the person sitting next to me.

is the architect in the Matrix a living being or a concept/philosophy, so as to be called an “it?” I do not quite

get the error or its consequences. I do comprehend that a contradictory system could not survive. I am not

sure what the “system” is that would be annihilated?

It will be many words to write and maybe I still don’t get it all myself. Have a look at http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com
.

Of course, I am familiar with this conception of charity as “love for one another” probably taking priority

over one’s own self(ish) interest. Now, as I would conceive it, a person may have this charity as a Twelfth

Level Reference Perception about themselves. Naturally, they would use perceptions from the environment

(what other people believe about them) as the comparison and perhaps alter their lower level references and

action to bring this charity reference into a state of control.

I would say, definitely. That if one’s self-interest is being perceived as a person having charity, one

would adopt a whole series of Program, Belief and System references which when controlled, achieves

the charity variable for one’s self interest.

Yes, I think Self-Interest Level is better name than the Charity Level. Exercising Charity may be one of the possible Self-Interests.

I suppose we could use Mother Theresa as an example

Spirit/Self-Interest Level: Reference is being a Charitable Person

System Level: Love for others a priority over love of self, a self denial

Belief Level: What her Lord commanded she should do

Program Level: Aid to the least of her brethren, etc.,

down to feeding and sheltering the poorest and terminally ill in Calcutta, or something like that.

Is this what you could conceive as a possible nature or structural design of a human being?

I don’t know Mother Theresa personal of course, but but the way I know her she is a good example.

In such scenarios, the mind is a subordinate servant to one’s self-interest, one’s spirit or purpose or desire; what the Bible might call one’s heart, their innermost longings for purpose and meaning in life. But, I would contend these matters of the heart are choices, neither innate nor randomly generated, nor metaphysically induced references in all human beings.

Was the words from Jesus (Charity) a disturbance to people 2000 years ago so some of them didn’t control their perceptions. Is it possible that there was a reorganization in Paul the apostle and other.

bjorn

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 3, 2003, 2:47pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.11.03.0900 EST)]

Hello Bjorn. Is the “EST” a designation for European Standard Time. Of course, for me it means “Eastern Standard Time.” But, if that is what you meant, I am somehow responding to your post before you sent it. Oh well, perhaps this more properly belongs in the “word” and “meaning” thread?

This is a letter which is meant playful with a touch of gravity. And I think you will become enthusiastic over the MATRIX pictures Bill.>

Help in understanding the nature of humans, Bjorn, is always appreciated. Indeed, the biggest deficiency I perceive in HPCT is not that what it teaches about behavior is incorrect, but that it leaves out, or inadequately addresses, a major part of human nature, a part that seems to me is essential to have a complete grasp of who we are and why we do what we do as humans. I have referred to this with the words or concept of “our unique human spirit.”

Unfortunately, the use of that “spirit” word drives some up a tree as they seem to interpret that to be some meta reference by me to the supernatural. It is not. Nor are the first two meanings in Webster’s. It is in those senses that I use the word so as to differentiate observable and testable differences between the nature and behavior of human beings to that of animals.

Others have jumped to a conclusion that my intent (perhaps a hidden agenda even) is to support a theological expression of a duality of an eternal soul and spirit of a human being, which I do not personally believe is accurate.

Now, you are right when you suggest that I propose there is a level of perception higher than what Bill calls a system level. This would be a perception of self which we control (obviously I call it a Twelfth Level assuming the Eleven Level hierarchy Bill constructed in B:CP is correct).

Further, I have proposed that the control system for this level is not the same physiological system as the hierarchal control system for our mind and body that seems to fit quite well with Bill’s Eleven Levels.

Now, you have raised an interesting possibility: that the “charity” (I take it this is your construct and not that expressed in the Matrix itself?)contemplated in the Matrix is a representation of this higher level of human perception or purpose. I just don’t know as I do not have a clear perception of “charity’s” meaning in your mind or in the minds of the creators of the Matrix.

I saw only the first movie. I was fascinated by it and sensed it was dealing with deep concepts about humans and life, but I could not grasp all its inferences. I had also read some article about how the Matrix was indeed quite philosophical and possibly theological. But, that is where my familiarity ended.

If you can share more about the Matrix and its underlying themes, and how you think it might fit into HPCT, or my proposed extensions, I would enjoy that very much. And, I would surely respond and engage. I hope Bill can add something as well.

I may go to a matinee to see the latest, or buy the DVDs and watch them all and perhaps read up on what has been revealed about their writers’ “purpose.” And, if it delves into theology, I would be happy to discuss that privately with you. I feel lost in the current thread on “fairness and meaning.” Being Polish may be an inhibitor.

<Maybe I can help you Kenny Kitzke. You have postulated a twelfth Level (of self) or a Control System that controls the PCT system of the mind for a number of years. (From [Kenny Kitzke (12.18.2002)]). Maybe that level is the Charity Level.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 4, 2003, 3:12pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.11.04.0920 EST)]

The idea that one can make choices at an unconscious level needs some clarification. I do sense that we can have reference perceptions at a high level of which we are not aware in control at the time we are controlling conscious lower level perceptions. Does this make sense to you? to anyone?

Is the architect in the Matrix a living being or a concept/philosophy, so as to be called an “it?” I do not quite get the error or its consequences. I do comprehend that a contradictory system could not survive. I am not sure what the “system” is that would be annihilated?

I guess I need to see the MATRIX-RELOADED. But this sounds like the kind of choices people make in their spirit concerning their own self interest references say at the Twelfth Level. It has similarities to the Reorganization System of Powers, but is not a random chance process.

<The architect was unsure what would happen because Neo had the Charity quality. A quality no other before him had.

Neo saved his girlfriend and I guess many of the people in Zion will raise objections against the program in the coming MATRIX - REVOLUTIONS.

This was Charity how it was expressed in MATRIX - RELOADED.>

So, you seem to imply that this “Charity quality” is actually a verbatim concept expressed in the Matrix but it is not explained as to what it really means to Neo? But, in the story, charity is a new and unheard of quality that Neo somehow has that no one else ever had? So, the Architect is unsure of what Neo will do [no cause and effect history?]; what choice he will make regarding the doors. Is there a suggestion about how Neo obtained this unusual “self” quality?

Of course, I am familiar with this conception of charity as “love for one another” probably taking priority over one’s own self(ish) interest. Now, as I would conceive it, a person may have this charity as a Twelfth Level Reference Perception about themselves. Naturally, they would use perceptions from the environment (what other people believe about them) as the comparison and perhaps alter their lower level references and action to bring this charity reference into a state of control.

If this is the way that can happen, it is also clear to me that not every human chooses charity as a self reference. And, I am not sure there is a common or universal reason or process why those who would choose like Neo do?

I would say, definitely. That if one’s self-interest is being perceived as a person having charity, one would adopt a whole series of Program, Belief and System references which when controlled, achieves the charity variable for one’s self interest.

I suppose we could use Mother Theresa as an example

Spirit/Self-Interest Level: Reference is being a Charitable Person

System Level: Love for others a priority over love of self, a self denial

Belief Level: What her Lord commanded she should do

Program Level: Aid to the least of her brethren, etc.,

down to feeding and sheltering the poorest and terminally ill in Calcutta, or something like that. Is this what you could conceive as a possible nature or structural design of a human being?

In such scenarios, the mind is a subordinate servant to one’s self-interest, one’s spirit or purpose or desire; what the Bible might call one’s heart, their innermost longings for purpose and meaning in life. But, I would contend these matters of the heart are choices, neither innate nor randomly generated, nor metaphysically induced references in all human beings.

Bill_Powers · November 4, 2003, 4:51pm

[From Bill Powers (2003.11.04.0928 MST)]

Kenny Kitzke (2003.11.04.0920 EST)--

...this sounds like the kind of choices people make in their spirit
concerning their own self interest references say at the Twelfth
Level. It has similarities to the Reorganization System of Powers, but is
not a random chance process.

Interesting problem here: what is a "choice" (or as some people call it, a
"decision.")? Suppose you are a lifeguard and are put in a position where
you have to rescue two people. The two people are so far apart that you can
reach only one in time, so you don't have the option of rescuing both of
them. How, exactly, do you make a conscious choice as to which one to save?

You might have some rule (good or bad) to fall back on; save the
younger-looking one, or the one with the lightest skin, or the one that
looks weakest. But in that case, is there anything to choose or decide?
When you accepted or invented the rule, you predetermined how you would
behave in any future situation where the rule would apply. When the
situation does arise, the action is automatic and requires no choice. A
computer would have made the same "choice."

Or you might try to reason out which one to save. "I can just see that the
person to the left is wearing a crucifix and so is probably a devout
Christian, assured of a happy afterlife. The other looks like some sort of
heathen and has probably not been redeemed yet. So I will rescue the
unredeemed one to give him a chance of earning a happy afterlife. The other
person will be happy to awake in Heaven." Whatever we may think of these
perceptions and this logic, if you have learned to think this way the
conclusion is predetermined as soon as you encounter the relevant
situation. There is no choice to be made.

The only time you have to make a choice is when there is no predetermined
basis of any kind for deciding which alternative to take (and of course,
when you can't pick both and must pick one). If there is any basis at all
for picking one alternative, no choice is necessary.

So, how do we make a choice when there is no basis of any kind for reaching
a decision? All that is left is a random selection -- in other words,
random reorganization. True choices are conflicts, and their solution must
be a random selection .

Best,

Bill P.

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 5, 2003, 3:29pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2003.11.05.0928 EST)]

You compare the situation to your hierarchal references and consciously select an action that would seem to best reduce the error you have experienced. The comparison all the way up the levels may not be conscious but I believe HPCT suggests takes place?

Don’t agree you can conceive rules that automatically apply to every possible input situation. I pretty much carry the belief that rules are guides and can always be modified depending on the exact conditions.

I don’t follow this logic. I doubt there is ever just one basis when no choice would be necessary. Can you provide such a scenario?

<So, how do we make a choice when there is no basis of any kind for reaching a decision? All that is left is a random selection – in other words, random reorganization. True choices are conflicts, and their solution must be a random selection.>

This is a premise that I do not accept and therefore I also am not driven to your conclusion. I think there is always a basis for a human reaching a decision on what action to take even if you have never experienced that same environmental input perception before.

In your lifeguard example, you postulated any number of possible bases for deciding the action regarding which swimmer do you try to help first (a sequence or program perception level). I don’t suspect the lifeguard ever experienced the exact same envirnoment input perception before. Do you? Yet, he acts, quickly and seemingly effortlessly or without any agony. Are you contending this is a random selection/decision; one where all possibilites are equally likely and selected purely by chance?

I would agree that some choices can feel automatic in that you do not cognitively compare all the possibilities in detail, and then make a carefully reasoned choice. This would especially be true when time demands a quick decision (like the drowning swimmers the lifeguard observes). I facilitate strategic planning with clients and they pretty much take all the time they need to consider every conceivable scenario before making a choice. There usually is no fixed time limit on establishing new strategy.

Out of our experience, or our desires, or our imagination, or our human spirit comes some basis to act (do something) in order to try to control our input perceptions. At all times, we have a self-will and through our spirit, mind and body, we have various possible means to carry our will out for any conceivable environment. That does not mean we will in fact select an action that will achieve our reference perception at the self-interest level. So, we might select a new action to see if that works better. Only in this sense does the process take on a flavor of appearing to be random. But, I feel certain this is not the actual case. It is just another choice of action to try to achieve our purpose when we find our first choice did not produce the intended perceived result.

I think we decide what means to use at each level of perception where conscious choice is made. And, I think as Bjorn may have said, those choices would generally be consistent with reference perceptions up the hierarchy all the way to the self-interest level. And, that process may not be conscious and congitive, but never the less, in my understanding of HPCT does occur continually.

Well, as usual, you raise a good issue about human behavior. Perhaps your conceived Reorganization System solves it for you, but it does not for me. It is not my conclusion that one of us has it correct and the other has it wrong.

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 6, 2003, 11:35am

Re: Charity
[From Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.06:12:40 EuST)]

From Bill Powers (2003.11.04.0928 MST)

Interesting problem here: what is a “choice” (or as some people call it, a “decision.”)?

As the majority of your letters, Bill, the rest of your letter mentioned above is businesslike and I agree so far and I enjoyed myself very much reading it.

But the popular concept “choice” or “decision” is so often used that I don’t think it is practical to say what I read between the lines; “The concept choice or decision does not exist in PCT”.

In the mentioned letter you used the concept about a lifeguard who was put in a position to rescue two people. It is a problem description like Rick’s http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/ThreeTrack.html . It is also like the situation where Neo in MATRIX - RELOADED only can leave a room through one of two doors. And he is told where the doors lead.

People use the word “choice” or “decision” in other situations. I think about a situation where a person has a reference for doing x and not a reference for doing y. But the same person is able to imagine y (I love your imagination model where neither switch is vertical, but I don’t know how to model it).

Let us say we have a situation where the person is able to control x and imagine y. He is controlling x at Level n, but at the same time he is imagining y at level n+1. You describe this in B:CP page 223 and you call the imagination mode for planning.

In this situation he is controlling x and other people who test what he controls are able to witness that.

I don’t think it is possible to test what he is imagining/planning.

When the person has imagined a program which is able to manipulate imagined perceptions the memory switches to a reference position and the perceptual switch to the present time position.

In this situation the person don’t experience any conflict. This is because the references controlling x and y are not coming from the same level.

Let me mention some practical examples where this happens and where people use the word choice or decision.

A prisoner controls his life in prison at a relationship level at the same time he is imagining how to escape at a program level.
A woman living as a suppressed part in a matrimony at the same time she is imagining how to break out and live as a single parent.
A person controls his life as a smoker at the same time he is imagining how to be a non-smoker.

I will mention an other last example. But first I’ll refer to your (Re: fairness and meaning):

[From Bill Powers (2003.10.08.0839 MDT)]

Perhaps you find it equally hard to believe what I believe: that people have

long complex conversations that are actually not governed by anything but

empty customs about manipulating verbal symbols, and in my view have close

to zero meaning. This happens in politics, science, religion, sports, and

any other field you care to name. Oh, there is always some “meaning” in a

vague kind of sense: the sense of "I’m here, I’m listening, good to see you,

stay with me," and so on – more like implications of the fact that we are

trading words, than any experiences the words themselves indicate.

And I agree, many people live like that, -I agree very much, but some people choose and some have made their decision.

Let me come with my fourth example, an example I think Kenny Kitzke will like to read.

Among the people you mentioned in [From Bill Powers (2003.10.08.0839 MDT)] there are some people imagining an other life and at a moment when the person has imagined a program which is able to manipulate imagined perceptions the memory switches to a reference position and the perceptual switch to the present time position.

Kenny Kitzke mentioned Mother Theresa and maybe the apostle Paul is examples from history. (I started the Charity thread because Neo may be an example).

We find such persons controlling their perceptions in a family, in a government, in the United Stats Army at the System Concept Level. They imagine at a level not existing in PCT. May this level be the twelfth level.

I ask myself and I ask you.

I think PCT has to account for the word choice or decision. We can’t answer people who ask us; that choice is just a word. It describes nothing.

I think I have described a choice process above.

bjorn

PS. MATRIX -REVOLUTIONS was a great experience. I was so engaged that I could not talk the first three quarters after THE END. Beethoven’s 9.th symphony have to give up after I heard the chorus before THE END.

Bill_Powers · November 6, 2003, 8:32pm

People use the word
“choice” or “decision” in other situations. I think
about a situation where a person has a reference for doing x and not a
reference for doing y. But the same person is able to imagine y (I love
your imagination model where neither switch is vertical, but I don’t know
how to model it).
[From Bill Powers (2003.11.06.1315 MST)]

Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.06:12:40
EuST)–

But the popular concept
“choice” or “decision” is so often used that I don’t
think it is practical to say what I read between the lines; “The
concept choice or decision does not exist in PCT”.

But it does. It is a conflict. A conflict is a situation in which there
are two reference signals for two control systems active at the same
time, and it is impossible to satisfy one of them without causing error
in the other one. I think that if you examine any specific example of a
“choice” or a “decision,” you’ll find that this
situation exists.

To make a choice requires resolving a conflict. If there are no
ready-made solutions at hand, the only way to do this is to
reorganize.

Are x and y mutually exclusive? I assume so, so you can’t do both at
once. In that case your solution is probably used quite often; imagine
that you’ve a achieved the incompatible goal at the same time you’re
actually achieving the other one. This prevents sending opposing
reference signals to lower systems.

A prisoner controls his life in prison at a relationship level at the
same time he is imagining how to escape at a program level.

A woman living as a
suppressed part in a matrimony at the same time she is imagining how to
break out and live as a single parent.

A person controls his life as
a smoker at the same time he is imagining how to be a non-smoker.

Good examples. I trust that you recognize why all these ways of resolving
conflict are less desirable than reorganizing. As long as there is no
error, no reorganization will happen. The prisoner will go on imagining
his escape; the woman will not actually break out of her marriage; the
smoker will never actually quit. When we imagine things, we do away with
the need for changing our effects on the real world, and we’re satisfied
when in fact no real errors have been corrected. As soon as we stop
imagining, the error will reappear.

I
think PCT has to account for the word choice or decision. We can’t answer
people who ask us; that choice is just a word. It describes
nothing.

See above. I submit that choosing requires resolving a conflict, and
unless you have some ready-made procedure for resolving conflicts, it
requires reorganization.

Best,

Bill P.

PS: re your mention of Mother Teresa, I heard that she is NOT being
considered for sainthood on the basis of helping people out of poverty.
Her goal, I read, was only to get poor people to pray for salvation and
for God to make them content with their condition.That doesn’t sound very
admirable to me.

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 7, 2003, 1:02pm

Re: Charity
[Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.7;14:05 EuST)]

[From Bill Powers (2003.11.06.1315 MST)]

    <To make a choice requires resolving a conflict. If there are no ready-made solutions at        hand, the only way to do this is to reorganize.>

And as you said: If there are ready-made solutions at hand, there is no conflict and no choice.

But the ready-made solutions must have come. You say that the only way is to reorganize. Of course, I agree. I am talking about how a ready-made solution may come. And I use the method of imagining. I think that is a possible method.

<<People use the word “choice” or “decision” in other situations. I think about a situation where a person has a reference for doing x and not a reference for doing y. But the same person is able to imagine y.>>

I am not sure if your third sentence is actual the way I think.

Are they mutually exclusive?? Is it impossible for a woman to imagine a how to be economical independent with the purpose to break out of marriage at the same time as she control living in the marriage?

            Reference: Live single                  Reference: Live in a marriage          

            Perception: living in a marriage                Perception: Living in a marriage

            Output: Collapse                        Output: Such as living in a marriage

The 1. level Output will collapse Output and Intensity outputs as “living in a marriage”

When a system can’t control the perceptions it will wreck or reorganization will happen. It goes automatically. The last lines are your presentation in the first sentence in this mail.

Till now we haven’t talked about imagining.

I think a lady living in a marriage can imagine how to be economical independent and live single.

Let us go to Rick’s model hier.exl. It is educational an easy to understand.

Put an * in E2. Imagine one cell. And

E7 = F5 and F7=F5. Two systems with different reference

Copy E8 to F8. The two systems have the same perception…

If you click F9 the system is running. And what do you see?

You see that both systems establish approximately the same p and both systems control their perceptions. Are the systems mutually exclusive?

<……… I submit that choosing requires resolving a conflict, and unless you have some ready-made procedure for resolving conflicts, it requires reorganization.>

This is OK for me, but I will express myself in this way: A way to choose is to start imagining how you will perceive the world. When you can imagine how you will live, plug in the present time perceptions and the negative feedback will help you to control your perceptions.

<PS: re your mention of Mother Teresa, I heard that she is NOT being considered for sainthood on the basis of helping people out of poverty. Her goal, I read, was only to get poor people to pray for salvation and for God to make them content with their condition. That doesn’t sound very admirable to me.>

I don’t know Mother Theresa more than what I have read about her in the news papers. If we can’t agree that she is one who has imagined how to live and afterwards lived as she imagined, we will find another. Why not Rick. He was a professor in conventional psychology. Today he is an advocate for PCT. Maybe he has a special way to start reorganizing.

bjorn

Bill_Powers · November 7, 2003, 5:07pm

[From Bill Powers (2003.11.07.0934 MST)]

[Bjorn
Simonsen(2003.11.7;14:05 EuST)]

[From Bill Powers
(2003.11.06.1315 MST)]

<To make a choice requires
resolving a conflict. If there are no ready-made solutions
at hand, the only way to do
this is to reorganize.>

And as you said: If there are
ready-made solutions at hand, there is no conflict and no
choice.
But the ready-made
solutions must have come. You say that the only way is to reorganize. Of
course, I agree. I am talking about how a ready-made solution may come.
And I use the method of imagining. I think that is a possible
method.

Yes, but how do you know what to imagine? If you have a solution stored
away somewhere, you can imagine using it. But if you don’t – you still
have to reorganize. A more familiar term (in English, anyway) is
“trial and error” – try something, anything, and see if
there’s still an error. If there is, try something else. That’s the
reorganization kind of learning.

I
am not sure if your third sentence is actual the way I think.
Are they mutually exclusive?? Is it
impossible for a woman to imagine a how to be economical independent with
the purpose to break out of marriage at the same time as she control
living in the marriage?

No, but in that case no choice has to be made: she can do both. A choice
has to be made ONLY when the alternatives are mutually exclusive:
“mutually exclusive” means that if you selecting one
alternative you can’t select the other, too. If you can do both
things, you simple control for two goals at the same time. No conflict,
no choice

Till
now we haven’t talked about imagining. I think a lady living in a
marriage can imagine how to be economical independent and live
single. Let us go to Rick’s
model hier.exl. It is educational an easy to understand.

Put an * in E2. Imagine one
cell. And

E7 = F5 and F7=F5. Two systems with
different reference

Copy E8 to F8. The two systems have
the same perception…

If you click F9 the system is
running. And what do you see?

You see that both systems establish
approximately the same p and both systems control their perceptions. Are
the systems mutually exclusive?

But in that case, neither system can correct its error, can it? You
can’t have the same perception in two different states at the same time.
One possible outcome in this sort of conflict is for the controlled
variable to be brought to a value between the two reference levels.
Neither system is able to control; neither can correct its error. If one
system has greater gain than the other, it will experience less error
than the other, but the remaining error will still be very large compared
to normal operation.

If you keep increasing the gain in both systems, or if they both have
integrators in their output functions, you will see the outputs of the
two systems continually increasing. In real systems, a limit will be
reached where no greater output can be produced. The system that reaches
its limit first can no longer alter its output even to try to counteract
disturbances. You should read Kent McClelland’s elegant paper on control
and conflict – he went through a number of possibilities, showing in
simulation what happens in each case. He showed how a pair of control
systems in conflict can appear to control the shared variable, in that it
will resist disturbances, even though both systems are experiencing large
errors and are producing large outputs. But he also showed that
when an output reaches a limit, the other system begins to be able
to control, although at the expense of generating a lot of output
effort.

<…
I submit that choosing requires resolving a conflict, and unless you have
some ready-made procedure for resolving conflicts, it requires
reorganization.>

This is OK for me, but I will express
myself in this way: A way to choose is to start imagining how you will
perceive the world. When you can imagine how you will live, plug in the
present time perceptions and the negative feedback will help you to
control your perceptions.

Provided you know what action to produce that will have the
necessary effect on the real perception. The trouble with imagining is
that you can imagine solving the problem by doing something that is
actually impossible, so when you try out your solution, it fails. Good
imagining takes the properties of the world into account, so you don’t
imagine things like lifting your car up with one hand while you change a
tire with the other. Dling that would certainly solve the problem of a
flat tire, but you can’t actually perform the required actions.

There’s always a little bit of reorganization involved when there’s
really a conflict, or even just a problem (not all problems involve
conflict). How do you get from NOT HAVING an idea about what to do to
HAVING it? Sometimes you just remember what you did in the past that
worked. But if it’s a new problem, you have to create a possible solution
out of nothing. I don’t know of any process but random reorganization
that can do this.

<PS:
re your mention of Mother Teresa, I heard that she is NOT being
considered for sainthood on the basis of helping people out of poverty.
Her goal, I read, was only to get poor people to pray for salvation and
for God to make them content with their condition. That doesn’t
sound very admirable to me.>

I don’t know Mother Theresa more than what I
have read about her in the news papers. If we can’t agree that she is one
who has imagined how to live and afterwards lived as she imagined, we
will find another. Why not Rick. He was a professor in conventional
psychology. Today he is an advocate for PCT. Maybe he has a special way
to start reorganizing.

Rick’s special way of reorganizing is to say things that bring criticisms
crashing down on his head from friends and enemies alike. This makes him
feel awful, and that awful feeling turns on his reorganizing system. So
when we criticize Rick and scold him for saying bad things, we’re really
helping him get new ideas. Everybody should criticize Rick as much as
possible, because this will greatly increase his contributions to
PCT.

Best,

Bill P.

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 7, 2003, 10:25pm

Re: Charity
[Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.7;23:30 EuST)]

[From Bill Powers (2003.11.07.0934 MST)]

Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.7;14:05 EuST)]

<<And as you said: If there are ready-made solutions at hand, there is no conflict and no choice. But the ready-made solutions must have come. You say that the only way is to reorganize. Of course, I agree. I am talking about how a ready-made solution may come. And I use the method of imagining. I think that is a possible method.>>

<Yes, but how do you know what to imagine? If you have a solution stored away somewhere, you can imagine using it. But if you don’t – you still have to reorganize. A more familiar term (in English, anyway) is “trial and error” – try something, anything, and see if there’s still an error. If there is, try something else. That’s the reorganization kind of learning.>

Yes I follow. But I don’t think I reorganize (rewire) before …

<>

My point is: When a person is imagining, he is choosing. This is not specific control process. The control process starts when perception switch to present time position and the memory switch to reference position.

<No, but in that case no choice has to be made: she can do both. A choice has to be made ONLY when the alternatives are mutually exclusive: “mutually exclusive” means that if you selecting one alternative you can’t select the other, too. If you can do both things, you simple control for two goals at the same time. No conflict, no choice>

My basis was a person who could control x an not y. But he could imagine things about y.

<<Till now we haven’t talked about imagining. I think a lady living in a marriage can imagine how to be economical independent and live single. Let us go to Rick’s model hier.exl. It is educational an easy to understand.

Put an * in E2. Imagine one cell. And

E7 = F5 and F7=F5. Two systems with different reference

Copy E8 to F8. The two systems have the same perception…

If you click F9 the system is running. And what do you see?

You see that both systems establish approximately the same p and both systems control their perceptions. Are the systems mutually exclusive? >>

Did you try hier.exl? I think I’ll write Rick tomorrow for an explanation. For in hier.exl both systems were able to correct the error. We’ll se. I guess I am wrong.

Thank you. I stop here.

bjorn

Richard_Marken2 · November 8, 2003, 6:13pm

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.8.1010)]

Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.7;23:30 EuST)

Did you try hier.exl? I think I'll write Rick tomorrow for an explanation. For in hier.exl both systems were able to correct the error. We'll se. I guess I am wrong.

The way to create a conflict in my hierarchical spreadsheet is to have two systems at the same level control the same perception. You can create this situation easily by going to the part of the spreadsheet that defines the perceptual weights for the level 2 systems. This is the part of the spreadsheet which is to the right of the main spreadsheet where you'll find a column with PWi1, PWi2... in the cells and numbers to the right of those labels. The numbers are the indexes of the perceptual weights in the perceptual weight matrix (of 1s and -1s) to the left. PWi1 is the index of the perceptual weights of the 6 level 1 perceptual inputs to level 2 system 1. PWi2 is the index of the perceptual weights of the 6 level 1 perceptual inputs to level 2 system 2. And so on.

Right now these indexes are all different numbers meaning that all the level two systems are controlling different perceptions -- ie. different functions of the level 1 inputs. So there is no conflict in the hierarchy as it is. To create a conflict, just make two of the PWij index numbers the _same_. For example, in my version of the spreadsheet PWi1 is 7 and PWi2 is 3. If you set both PWi1 and PWi2 to 7 and run the model you will see that the first two systems (on the left) at level two are in conflict; they can't get their perceptual signals to equal their different references (sent from the level 3 systems). This is because it is impossible to have the same variable (level 2 perception, in this case) be in two different states (a two different values) at the same time. The two states of the perceptual variable (which is now the same variable for both level 2 systems 1 and 2) are mutually exclusive.

If you now put an "*" above one of the two conflicted systems, putting that system into "imagination mode" you will see that the conflict appears to be eliminated. And it has, because the imagination connection functionally _removes_ one of the systems that is creating the conflict from the conflict. The system in imagination mode is getting the perception it wants only in imagination (without having to vary its output -- watch and see) and, since there is no error in the system, it's actions don't affect the operation of the rest of the hierarchy.

I think people actually do (all to often) use this "imagination" approach to conflict resolution (maybe it should be call the "hallucination" approach because you are imagining that you are getting what you want when you are actually not getting it) . For example, suppose a person has a conflict between cheating on his wife and not cheating. The person can solve the conflict using the imagination approach by not cheating and imagining that he has -- or vice versa. This approach works as long as the real world consequences of having controlled only in imagination don't come come back to bite you. For example, if you cheat and imagine that you haven't there could be problems if your wife finds out that the "not cheating" was controlled only in imagination. Problems could also arise if you don't cheat and imagine that you have. Imagination, like drugs, is seductive but, in the long run, not a very good approach to conflict resolution.

Bill Powers (2003.11.07.0934 MST)

Rick's special way of reorganizing is to say things that bring
criticisms crashing down on his head from friends and enemies
alike. This makes him feel awful, and that awful feeling turns
on his reorganizing system. So when we criticize Rick and scold
him for saying bad things, we're really helping him get new ideas.
Everybody should criticize Rick as much as possible, because
this will greatly increase his contributions to PCT.

You are so right. I haven't gotten any good criticisms crashing down on my head in some time. And, indeed, it's been weeks since I've made any great contributions to PCT. I know that people have stopped criticizing me just to quell my creativity. But you've got to get up pretty early in the morning to stop the PCT creativity of Fred C. Dobbs...er, Rick Marken (Note: the allusion is to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", a movie favorite of us paranoids).

Best

Rick

···

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

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 9, 2003, 8:47am

Re: Charity
[Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.9;09:50 EuST)]

from Rick Marken (2003.11.8.1010)

I understand that now, and for me your hier.exl is a convincing model controlling perceptions. In your “Spreadsheet analysis……” in Behavior research methods … . It was more difficult to understand how to illustrate a conflict. There you refer to a macro that starts with ALT R. This Macro doesn’t exist in the model I have downloaded. But now I can make it myself…

    <If you now put an "*" above one of the two conflicted systems, putting that system into "imagination mode" you will    see that the conflict appears to be eliminated. And it has, because the imagination connection functionally _removes_   one of the systems that is creating the conflict from the conflict. The system in imagination mode is getting the perception    it wants only in imagination (without having to vary its output -- watch and see) and, since there is no error in the   system, it's actions don't affect the operation of the rest of the hierarchy.>

This is a good explanation for what happened when I put one system in imagination mode.

    <I think people actually do (all to often) use this "imagination" approach to conflict resolution (maybe it should be call      the "hallucination" approach because you are imagining that you are getting what you want when you are actually not     getting it) .

It is also my point. This is a central point in my earlier RE. Charity.

    <For example, suppose a person has a conflict between cheating on his wife and not cheating. The person can solve       the conflict using the imagination approach by not cheating and imagining that he has -- or vice versa. This    approach works as long as the real world consequences of having controlled only in imagination don't come back  to bite you. For example, if you cheat and imagine that you haven't there could be problems if your wife finds out that         the "not cheating" was controlled only in imagination. Problems could also arise if you don't cheat and imagine that you        have. Imagination, like drugs, is seductive but, in the long run, not a very good approach to conflict resolution.>

It isn’t recommendable to explain the world based on generalization from one example. But this imagination process is my central point. Therefore I continue the thread.

If I change the imagination theme to :

For example, suppose a person has a conflict between smoking not smoking. The person can solve the conflict using the imagination approach by smoking and imagining that he is a no smoker. If he does this well enough, there exist a no smoke reference. I know there is a problem when you go back to real time perception. I think there is a chance for reorganization that lead the person to be a no smoker.

<Imagination, like drugs, is seductive but, in the long run, not a very good approach to conflict resolution.>

Why is my example _not: a very good approach to conflict resolution? I think there is a substantial difference between Imagination and drugs. When you imagine you create a new reference. When you use drugs you contribute to a certain perception which is different from your reference. Then you get the error. Refer to the ADHD discussion and “a quick-fix pill”.

I know there is not a guarantee for the new imagined reference to be real time reference. But…

bjorn

Richard_Marken2 · November 10, 2003, 1:43am

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.09.1740)]

Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.9;09:50 EuST)--

If I change the imagination theme to :
For example, suppose a person has a conflict between _smoking not smoking_. The person can solve the conflict using the imagination approach by _smoking_ and imagining that he _is a no smoker_. If he does this well enough, there exist a _no smoke_ reference.

The reference for not smoking already existed because it was the basis of the conflict. The person wanted to smoke (had a reference to perceive himself "smoking") and to not smoke (had a reference to perceive himself "not smoking"). In the model, imagination simply provides one of the perceptions in a conflict. The smoking conflict can be "solved" by having the person imagine that he is not smoking when he actually is or by having the person imagine he is smoking when he is actually not. Imagination doesn't provide a reference; it provides a _perception_.

I know there is a problem when you go back to real time perception. I think there is a chance for reorganization that lead the person to be a _no smoker_.

The chance for reorganization exists as long as the conflict exists because the conflict creates error -- there is error in the system that wants to smoke (if the person satisfies the "no smoke" reference) or in the system that doesn't want to smoke (if the person satisfies the "smoke" reference). If the person "solves" this conflict by "imagining" the perception that cannot be attained in reality (while the person is attaining the other perception) then reorganization won't start at all. This is exactly the problem with drugs; drugs artificially remove the error created by conflict. The person feels better while the drug has it's effect because there is no error from the conflict. But there is also no reorganization either, so the conflict remains.

<Imagination, like drugs, is seductive but, in the long run, not a very good approach to conflict resolution.>
Why is my example _not: a very good approach to conflict resolution? I think there is a substantial difference between Imagination and drugs. When you imagine you create a new reference.

Your example is not a good approach to conflict resolution because imagination does not create new references. Imagination is a great approach to problem solving. I think it's the basis of science and innovation. But it's not a way to solve conflict; it's a way to "avoid" conflict and, thus, avoid having to solve the conflict. The only solution to conflict is to go up a level and change the way you set the goals that are creating the conflict.

When you use drugs you contribute to a certain perception which is different from your reference. Then you get the error. Refer to the ADHD discussion and "a quick-fix pill".

I don't quite follow this. I think imagination is exactly analogous to drug use when it comes to conflict resolution because it reduces the error that drives reorganization. That doesn't mean that imagination is a poor approach to dealing with conflict. I know people (myself included) who have used imagination (or drugs) successfully for years to avoid having to actually _solve_ a conflict. If you're rich and/or powerful enough, imagination (or drugs) can probably carry you though a whole lifetime of conflict, intra- and interpersonal.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 10, 2003, 8:57am

RE: Charity

[Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.9;10;10:00 EuST)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.09.1740)]

Thank you for an intelligible exposition. May I ask a last question (maybe).

    <The reference for not smoking already existed because it was the basis of the conflict. The person wanted to smoke     (had a reference to perceive himself "smoking") and to not smoke (had a reference to perceive himself "not smoking").   In the model, imagination simply provides one of the perceptions in a conflict. The smoking conflict can be "solved" by         having the person imagine that he is not smoking when he actually is or by having the person imagine he is smoking      when he is actually not. Imagination doesn't provide a reference; it provides a _perception_.>

Do I represent your last sentence correct when I say: A reference signal (not smoking) is through something we don’t know reversed to a feedback signal. This signal enters the input function and this result in a perception signal (provided by imagination). This perrceptual sinal has the same negative value as the reference signal. The error becomes zero.

bjorn

Richard_Marken2 · November 10, 2003, 8:01pm

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.10.1200)]

Me:

In the model, imagination
simply provides one of the perceptions in a conflict. The smoking conflict
can be “solved” by having
the person imagine that he is not smoking when he actually is or by having
the person imagine he is smoking when he
is actually not. Imagination doesn’t provide a reference; it provides a
perception.>
Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.9;10;10:00 EuST)–
Do I represent your
last sentence correct when I say: A reference signal (not smoking) is through
something we don’t know reversed to a feedback signal. This signal enters
the input function and this result in a perception signal (provided by
imagination). This perrceptual sinal has the same negative value as the
reference signal. The error becomes zero.
I think that’s about right. I’d say it this way: The system controlling
for “not smoking” (the one trying to keep the perception of “smoking” matching
the reference “not smoking”) produces an output which would ordinarily
go to lower level systems, resulting in actions that have effects on the
real world – effects like walking away from the cigarette dispenser. But
when this system goes into imagination mode (and what “throws the imagination
mode switch” is, indeed, unspecified in the model) the output that ordinarily
goes to lower level systems is routed right back into the input. So the
system that system “short circuit’s” the feedback path that ordinarily
goes through the environment so that the outputs of the system result in
a perception that is exactly what the reference specifies that the system
is to perceive: “not smoking” in this case.
I think I could make it clearer with a diagram. But I would just draw
the “imagination connection” diagram that is found in the “Memory” chapter
of B:CP so I recommend that you take a look at that and see if you can
see how it relates to what happens in my spreadsheet when you put a system
into “imagination mode” by entering an “*”.

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

BJORN_SIMONSEN · November 11, 2003, 1:03pm

RE: Charity
[Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.9;10;10:00 EuST)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.11.10.1200)]

    <I think I could make it clearer with a diagram. But I would just draw the "imagination connection" diagram that is found       in the "Memory" chapter of B:CP so I recommend that you take a look at that and see if you can see how it relates to    what happens in my spreadsheet when you put a system into "imagination mode" by entering an "*". >

I have. Your spreadsheet is educational.

I draw near a point where I (maybe) will stop participating this Charity thread. I will do it by presenting some central statements.

PCT is a dynamic model. All systems are working continuous and some actions are exercised because there are systems with a variable output to muscles and glands.
At a moment time the embryo actuate its first negative control loop.
Gradually the embryo develop more neurons by cell division and different dendrites connects different axons and the nervous system generates.
The nervous system develops. In PCT terms there is a reorganization. Reorganization is a result of “trial and error” and the effect of conflicts. Imagination is a method in use to achieve conflict resolution. It then provides a dominating perception.
Grown up people function at different System Concept levels or/and at lower levels at different time. It is difficult to tell why a person exercise different actions beyond the argument that his perceptions cause such actions.
Actual our perceptions and actions are more random than a result of planning.
People can reorganize by moving up a level.

bjorn

Bruce_Gregory4 · November 11, 2003, 3:25pm

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.11.111024)]

[Bjorn Simonsen(2003.11.9;10;10:00 EuST)]

1. PCT is a dynamic model. All systems are working continuous and some actions are exercised because there are systems with a variable output to muscles and glands.

2. At a moment time the embryo actuate its first negative control loop.
3. Gradually the embryo develop more neurons by cell division and different dendrites connects different axons and the nervous system generates.

4. The nervous system develops. In PCT terms there is a reorganization. Reorganization is a result of "trial and error" and the effect of conflicts. Imagination is a method in use to achieve conflict resolution. It then provides a dominating perception.

The notion that one resolves conflicts by use of the imagination mode may be orthodox PCT, but it seems extremely unlikely to me. Unless, of course, one is psychotic.

5. Grown up people function at different System Concept levels or/and at lower levels at different time. It is difficult to tell why a person exercise different actions beyond the argument that his perceptions cause such actions.

I feel the same way. Why we pick one goal and not another is answered in PCT by the deus ex machina of a higher level of control.

6. Actual our perceptions and actions are more random than a result of planning.

Pretty silly, don't you think? What percentage of your day is spent carrying out random actions?

7. People can reorganize by moving up a level.

I don't think reorganization involves "going up a level." It is the result of conflict and failure to achieve goals. Going up a level seems like hand waving to me. It certainly isn't modeled by PCT.

Bruce Gregory

Bill_Powers · November 11, 2003, 6:22pm

From Bill Powers (2003.11.11.1054 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.11.1054 MST)--

I don't think reorganization involves "going up a level." It is the result
of conflict and failure to achieve goals. Going up a level seems like hand
waving to me. It certainly isn't modeled by PCT.

Going up a level is a phenomenon related to awareness and consciousness,
neither of which is modeled in PCT. I first noticed this phenomenon many
years ago when I realize the foreground/background nature of thinking. For
example, while you were writing "Going up a level seems like hand waving to
me" were you having any thought in the background _about_ writing that? For
example. someone might be thinking (in effect, in some form) "Hand-waving
is something we shouldn't do in a serious discussion." I'm not try to guess
what your thought was, if any, just to illustrate the sort of thing a
person might notice going on in the background. The foreground thought is
about whatever is of immediate concern; the background thought, I have
proposed, is related to whatever the next higher level is concerned with.

There's no attempt here to relate these "levels" to those I have formally
proposed. The levels here are relative.

I have tried to relate awareness and consciousness to PCT by proposing that
reorganization follows awareness. This would at least provide some function
for these phenomena, helping reorganization to focus where a problem is
instead of changing subsystems which are working perfectly well. PCT models
work perfectly well without any awareness, so it would be nice to find at
least one advantage of having it.

Best,

Bill P.