Clearing up some confusion

[From Fred Nickols (2009.02.17.0903 MST)]

I'd like to go back to the "control of perception" to clear up some confusion on my part so that when I'm talking about PCT to other folks (non-PCTers) I don't misinform them.

Let's start with behavior is the control of perception (or, more broadly I suppose, the control of input).

There is in PCT the notion of a controlled variable - that something for which we have established a reference value and which the PCT lexicon asserts we are controlling for.

So, why don't we say "behavior is the control of a particular variable for which we have established a reference value"?

PCT also makes use of a "closed loop" paradigm, in which everything is active at the same time. Why single out perception? Why don't we talk about the control of a particular variable, the control of perception, the control of reference values and the control of errors or gaps between perceived and reference values for the controlled variable?

I'm poking at all this because I can easily imagine not encountering a great deal of opposition to the notion of controlling a particular variable or even of controlling error but I keep running into a brick wall with the control of perception.

My own reaction is to say, "Yeah, I know that all I know of the world out there consists of my perceptions of it, and I understand that when I'm trying to control a variable out there, all I have to go on are my perceptions of it but I'm darned if I can buy into the notion that what I'm trying to control or should be trying to control are my perceptions. All they do is inform me about out there and it's out there that I care about.

So, PCT sages, please straighten out this poor, confused individual.

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

[From Bill Powers (2009.02.17.0946 MST)]

Fred Nickols (2009.02.17.0903 MST) –

So, why don’t we say
“behavior is the control of a particular variable for which we have
established a reference value”?

We often do – we talk about controlling the speed or direction of a car,
for example. But when you’re talking about theory, about the closest
approach to a true understanding that you can manage, you have to explain
that really all we can control is a perception of these things, and that
if the way we perceive something changes, we will think we are still
controlling the same thing while others will see us controlling for a
different state of the world.

PCT also makes use of a
“closed loop” paradigm, in which everything is active at the
same time. Why single out perception? Why don’t we talk about
the control of a particular variable, the control of perception, the
control of reference values and the control of errors or gaps between
perceived and reference values for the controlled
variable?

We don’t have reference values for reference values. Only perceptions, of
all the variables in the loop, are maintained against disturbances in
some particular state, while the actions (and the reference signals sent
to lower systems) change as required by every change in the environment
and every disturbance.

I’m poking at all this because I
can easily imagine not encountering a great deal of opposition to the
notion of controlling a particular variable or even of controlling error
but I keep running into a brick wall with the control of
perception.

One of the problems with that is what people mean by “controlling a
perception”. Many people, maybe most, think you are saying that you
control whether you are perceiving one kind of thing rather than another,
like seeing a glass as half full instead of half empty, or an apple
instead of an orange. You have to explain that we are talking about
controlling how much of a particular perception you are
experiencing. To control a different perception you have to use a
different control system organized to perceive and control that
perception, or you have to go through the slow process of reorganizing
the way you perceive something, like learning how to tell if your car is
really centered in its lane.

As to the relationship between perception and reality, which is the other
problem, that’s a bit harder because some people are really upset by the
idea that what they experience may not be exactly what is out there in
the world for everyone to perceive.

My own reaction is to say,
"Yeah, I know that all I know of the world out there consists of my
perceptions of it, and I understand that when I’m trying to control a
variable out there, all I have to go on are my perceptions of it but I’m
darned if I can buy into the notion that what I’m trying to control or
should be trying to control are my perceptions. All they do is
inform me about out there and it’s out there that I care
about.

I think it’s good to use specific examples here. Have the person hold a
hand up and then change it into a fist. Then ask how they know they have
made a fist. Get them to tell you that they can see it and feel it. Ask
them if seeing and feeling are ways of perceiving. Ask them how they
would check to see if their hand was really configured as a fist, out
there in real reality. Everything they tell you about what they would use
as a check is also a perception. Of course since everything you know
about is a perception, most of the time it doesn’t matter. It matters
mainly when what you think is going on doesn’t jibe with other things
that are going on, or when other people say they’re experiencing
something different.

So, PCT sages, please straighten
out this poor, confused individual.

Aw, come on, Fred, you’re not poor.

Best,

Bill P.