Cognitive Control Model

From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.04.2345)]

Hi Csgnet and dear friends of mine. (not necessarily the same people )

I’m sure most on CSGnet are very happy to see me post again and to those who aren’t, I would suggest you cut and run now, because what I am about to say may not appeal to you.

Bill Powers, I hope you are reading this, if not, I hope someone gets this to him. Bill, you said a year ago you ‘expected’ ‘big’ things from me in PCT, maybe I am about to deliver on that expectation.

With the main thrust being a control model and the very good work of yourself, Jay Forrester, Karl Weick, Chris Argyris, Adam Smith, and Rodolfo Llinas, I believe I have something to add to the discussion.

Let me begin with an analogy I think important. Most know of it and heard of it as the three blind men and the elephant. I am going to provide a revised enhanced version.

There were once three very wise, but blind old men who were experts in their respective fields of study. One was an expert in ivory, one an expert in animal skins, and the third was an expert in cloth making.

One day all three were introduced to a new entity. The first blind man was given an elephant tusk and as he marveled at the fine grain a broad smile crossed his face and thought to himself; “Ah, so this is the essence of what an elephant is all about, what a fine set of utensils and tools can be made from this wonderful material”. The second expert went through a similar experience in feeling the skin of the animal and thinking what fine armor and protection this skin could afford. The third then felt the fine hair of the tail and felt it similar to silk with all it’s fine properties.

This analogy is important because I believe it point out the problem we have experienced in the study of human behavior and cognition.

Each blind expert felt he understood the essence of the animal by understanding the importance the animal played in his area of expertise.

What all three lacked however was an understanding of the whole elephant and the relationship each part had on the whole and what the whole had on the environment. Each was concerned with their own areas of expertise.

If I ‘transform’ the three blind men into a sociologist, a psychologist, and an economist, and all the various sub specialties, I believe that you have the same problem of each discipline thinking they understand the ‘essence’ of human behavior and that the others don’t. Or, that the others have nothing to ‘add’ to your knowledge since their area’s of expertise are ‘different’ then yours.

I think this is wrong headed. I believe EVERYONE, has had some very valuable and important input into our understanding of human behavior and this will continue long after we are all gone. I also believe that everyone has missed the big picture because of this specialization.

To begin, I’d like to use another analogy, one that is used a great deal with control systems and that is the ubiquitous thermostat.

A thermostat is just PART of a control process. In order for a thermostat to provide any control it must be able to ‘sense’ the environment and have a plant to ‘correct’ for temperature variations it senses and needs to maintain and change according to a ‘set point’, or ‘reference condition’, that is set by a human inhabitant.

I don’t think I will get any objections to this from anyone here, will I?

I also believe that control processes in humans are an evolutionary response for our needs for adaptability in a variable environment, and I believe this is accomplished by ‘controlling’ our ‘perceptions’.

‘Environmental’ in this case being inside as well as outside the human body, and ‘perceptions’ being of the 21 different kinds rather than the 5 most notable ones, but we’ll get to all that a bit later

So, our ‘behavior’, or actions are used to maintain or reach certain perceptions about certain ‘goal’ states we have inside our heads and maintain them or reach them in lieu of ‘environmental’ disturbances.

Quite simply, we have intent in our heads, and a variable and ‘disturbing’ environment that continually interferes with our ability to reach and maintain 'that ‘intent’. Our behavior and actions are used to ‘counter’ the environment and allows us to reach and hopefully maintain our intent.

Again, I don’t believe I will get many objections to what I have just said. If so, I’d like to hear about them.

If not, then what comes next might surprise a few folks.

Returning to our old friend the thermostat.

In order for a thermostat to effectively, and efficiently maintain temperatures in a reasonable range several things must be present.

The temperature INPUT must be _anticipated_to within a reasonable range. If the temperature input could range anywhere from one million degrees Fahrenheit to absolute zero, I don’t think any thermostat could deal with that range.

So fortunately for us, evolution came to the rescue and provided us with a way for us to reduce the variability of input into our control systems.

It’s called consciousness, and it provides us with the ability to ANTICIPATE, or ‘predict’. what we might expect from the future, in various environments

Bruce Gregory and I tried talking about this awhile ago, but got rebuffed in our attempt. Llinas and Jeff Hawkins focuses on this aspect, and a key point it is. Without it, I don’t believe our control systems would have a chance of working as efficiently as they do. (Or at least for some of us, )

In empirical terms this means that although I can’t look out the window and ‘predict’ what the exact temperature might be, if I hear the weather forecast I might have some idea of what kind of clothing to wear in order to ‘counter’ the weather ‘disturbances’ I might encounter.

This notion and concept of ‘prediction’ and ‘anticipation’ is ubiquitous throughout science. In fact, ‘prediction’ is at the heart of scientific discovery. It is one of the main reasons we do science, and the reason we want to understand how and why things work the way they do. It is very simple, the better we can ‘predict’ and/or anticipate’ the future, the better the chance we have of controlling successfully and efficiently

So to review and summarize Part A; ‘Anticipation’ and ‘prediction’ is an important component of a control PROCESS that is used in order to reduce the variability of input. Our ‘perceptions’ provide useful inputs so our control processes can react accordingly, and our consciousness provides us with the ability to ‘frame’ or ‘filter’ what we perceive.

Now, we all know that we are very poor predictors of the future for of any number of reasons, and because of that, and for many other reasons as well, we can anticipate encountering many ‘errors’ in our attempts at reaching our goals and interacting with the environment.

Again, fortunately, we have consciousness to thank for our ability to deal with ‘error’ and that is the high degrees of freedom a control system needs and has in order to counter the high variability of input with our ability to make choices and learn from experience

Alan Ashby, with his law of ‘Requisite Variety’ understood this a long time ago. He maintained that any system needs to have an equal number of choices in it’s output as it has in its input in order for a system to maintain its stability.

So to summarize Part B; A control process needs a high df’s in order to ‘correct’ for error. That is, high degrees of freedom for the Output function provides the requisite variety to match the variability of the input.

Please do not take me literally here. I am not suggesting there needs to be an exact equal amount. I am suggesting large enough to cover.

Empirical research will have to determine the details involved, as it will for all of my ideas.

Now things are starting to get a bit interesting. Given these ‘Parts’, what ‘drives’ the system?

I believe it is ‘error’. I believe ‘Error’ has TWO manifestations. One, is with ‘feelings’ and when consciously felt, emotions, and second is the concept and notion of ‘anxiety’. ‘Error’ is partly a chemically based phenomenon and varies from person to person.

That is, each of us has different thresholds for pain, the levels of anxiety we can tolerate, and our sensitivity to it. We also produce different amounts of peptides and we each react differently to the various peptides.

‘Error’, can be ‘generated’ from our consciousness and from anyone of the 21 senses I mentioned above. For a look at the 21 senses I suggest you look at the Jan 29th issue of the ‘New Scientist’ magazine for a pop look.

So Part C is ‘error’ and the level of ‘anxiety’ we have ‘drives’ the system. That is, we try to reduce anxiety and keep it at a ‘manageable’ level. For each of us that will be different.

These three things I believe provide the basis for understanding why people do what they do. That is, the sensitivity people have, or desirability people have for ‘consistent’ or ‘predictable’ levels of Input, or perceptions, the sensitivity people have for sustainable levels of ‘anxiety’, and the sensitively and desire people have for flexibility and consistency of output or high df’s, and here is how I think it all works.

I also talked about anxiety being the result of chemical and neuronal actions to error in our bodies and is the ‘driving’ force behind control, and all of these things provide us with the IMPLICATIONS of the control model.

I am going to use the colors Blue, Red and Purple to signify a spectrum. It is NOT intended to represent political divisions of any type. Liberals and conservatives could both be ‘Blue’, or ‘Red’. Purple of course being in the middle

I use ‘Blue’ to represent people who desire ‘predictable’ or ‘consistent’ INPUTS, or perceptions and ‘Red’ for those who really are much less concerned with the consistency and predictability of their inputs or perceptions. Of course most of us are ‘Purple’ in that we ‘prefer’ various levels depending on the ‘importance’ of the perceptions and goals involved.

‘Blue’ and ‘Red’ signify the same thing for the OUTPUT function, or our actions. That is, ‘Blue’ folks like ‘consistent’ results and ‘Red’ folks like ‘choice’. Again, most of us I believe are ‘Purple’, depending on importance.

ALL of this of course must be shown empirically.

To summarize; People need to control their perceptions. In order to do this both effectively and efficiently I say they need consciousness in order to reduce the variability of our input and allowing us the flexibility in choosing our output in order to correct for the error we experience in our control processes.

Each of us has a different chemical make-up and different tolerance levels for ‘error’ or anxiety. We learn from birth what we ‘like’ and what we ‘dislike’. We learn what causes us ‘pain’, and we try to avoid those things and we know what provides us with relief and we attempt to do those things.

For example, laughter is nothing more than the release of anxiety, and ‘excitement’ is sometimes artificially induced so we can ‘experience’ the ‘release’ of that ‘anxiety’; or as we might like to think about the ‘release’ of anxiety’ in another way, as pleasure for instance.

Sex is a great example of this.

Now, at this point, I too must say that I too am one of the ‘blind men’. I only 'know human behavior from a perspective I have spent 25 years investigating. But I certainly don’t know everything and what I do know is limited. Others might have important information I am not currently aware of or haven’t even thought of.

There are of course many ‘holes’ to fill and much work to be done.

So this is NOT an attempt by me to sell or push a specific theory. I hope this post will get some folks thinking about what I posted and hopefully respond in some thoughtful and constructive ways. I don’t really expect this to happen on CSGnet but one never knows.

As I hope you can see I am not in ‘competition’ with anyone. I have developed my own tapestry based on the work of others and from my love of history, economics, and human behavior

But I do believe I have reached a milestone. I believe I am finally on a path that I can start to generate some reasonable questions, have some productive and meaningful discussions, and generally have one helluva great time diving into this stuff, and the most wonderful thing about all this is that

frankly I can’t possibly lose. I am interested in working toward a better understanding of why we do what we do, and working with people who have a similar interest.

I can’t possibly lose because if someone can show me why my thinking is wrong-headed I might be able to correct it and ‘corrections’ provide me with the ability to stay on course, and toward a better understanding of why we do what we do then I am doing exactly what I want to do. Which is gain as good an understanding of why we do what we do.

Marc

from David Wolsk (2005.02.06.0930PST)

from [Marc Abrams (2005.02.04.2345)]

Hi Csgnet and dear friends of mine. (not necessarily the same people <big laugh>)

I'm sure most on CSGnet are very happy to see me post again and to those who aren't, I would suggest you cut and run _now_, because what I am about to say may not appeal to you.

Bill Powers, I hope you are reading this, if not, I hope someone gets this to him. Bill, you said a year ago you 'expected' 'big' things from me in PCT, maybe I am about to deliver on that expectation.

With the main thrust being a control model and the very good work of yourself, Jay Forrester, Karl Weick, Chris Argyris, Adam Smith, and Rodolfo Llinas, I believe I have something to _add_ to the discussion.

big delete

But I _do_ believe I have reached a milestone. I believe I am finally on a path that I can start to generate some reasonable _questions_, have some productive and meaningful discussions, and generally have one helluva great time diving into this stuff, and the most wonderful thing about all this is that
frankly I can't possibly lose. I am interested in working toward a better understanding of why we do what we do, and working with people who have a similar interest.

I can't possibly lose because if someone can show me why my thinking is wrong-headed I might be able to correct it and 'corrections' provide me with the ability to stay on course, and toward a better understanding of why we do what we do then I am doing _exactly_ what I want to do. Which is gain as good an understanding of why we do what we do.

Marc

Marc, I am in pretty complete agreement with your analysis of the way human beings function and I hope your analysis gets the discussion it deserves. For many years, I've been operating with a similar set of assumptions about the critical role anxiety plays in our behaviour and described anxiety as an outcome of decisions needing to be made when there is uncertainty or insufficient information.

I recommend a book by Temple Grandin, "Thinking in Pictures and Other Reports from My Life with Autism" (1996 paper ) It illustrates, very compellingly, the huge variety of developmental processes and people which get labelled autistic and the role of anxiety in all of it. Grandin is described as a gifted animal scientist who has designed one-third of all the livestock handling facilities in the USA. She's good at getting inside the head of both animals and people ...... and herself. She would, I believe, be in complete agreement with your analysis.

Nows, if we could only get educators and teachers to understand all this. And, I hope many CSGers, including lurkers, put their thoughts and experiences in.

best wishes,
David

Dr. David Wolsk
Associate, Centre for Global Studies
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Education
University of Victoria, Canada

[From Bill Powers (2005.02.06.1111 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2005.02.04.2345)–

So fortunately for us, evolution
came to the rescue and provided us with a way for us to reduce the
variability of input into our control systems.

It’s called consciousness, and it provides us with the ability to
ANTICIPATE, or ‘predict’. what we might expect from the future, in
various environments

I part company from you here. I think that prediction or anticipation is
simply one way we can use the systems that deal with rule-driven symbol
manipulation, coupled with imagination. We can anticipate unconsciously
as well as consciously, so consciousness is not required to make
predictions.
However, I think we are engaged in very different pursuits, so I should
not be comparing apples with oranges. You’re describing things you think
the brain does using its basic abilities. I’m trying to describe the
basic abilities regardless of what is done with them. If you want to
identify consciousness with calculation, reasoning, and prediction,
that’s your privilege, but in that case you and I aren’t talking about
the same phenomenon when we use words like consciousness or awareness.
You’re talking about experiences we are conscious of, while I’m
talking about the capacity to be conscious. You’re talking about the
music, news, and commentary coming out of the radio; I’m talking about
the radio.
If you can turn your general ideas into programmable models, I will be
very interested, for then you will have to supply the means by
which all these things are done. God is in the details.

Bill P.

From Marc Abrams (2005.02.05.1307)

In a message dated 2/6/2005 12:54:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, davidwolsk@SHAW.CA writes:

From David Wolsk (2005.02.06.0930PST)
I am in pretty complete agreement with your analysis of the way
human beings function and I hope your analysis gets the discussion it
deserves.

Thanks for the encouraging words and I have accomplished what I set out to do, and that was to try and get at least one person to think about my post. . I have found at least one other person on CSGnet I can have a productive dialogue with so my post was well worth it.

For many years, I’ve been operating with a similar set of
assumptions about the critical role anxiety plays in our behaviour and
described anxiety as an outcome of decisions needing to be made when
there is uncertainty or insufficient information.

David, one of the things I tried to stress in my post is that many people like yourself have done some wonderful work that needs to be looked at with a particular set of glasses on, and that is a set of ‘control’ glasses. But it is awfully difficult to tell what a TV picture looks like from looking at each individual pixel. PCT currently is simply to fine in detail to be of any use in looking at the consequences of control on the entire organism. It’s wonderful for looking at individual control processes, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of these processes going on in our bodies at any one time.

I recommend a book by Temple Grandin, “Thinking in Pictures and Other
Reports from My Life with Autism” (1996 paper )

I have ordered the book you recommended from Amazon, used, hardcover, $15.00, Thinking in Pictures and Other Reports from My Life with Autism.

She would, I believe, be in complete agreement with your
analysis.

David, I can’t see Bill Powers arguing against anything I said, nor would I expect to see any disagreement from any of the other authors I mentioned.

Now, if we could only get educators and teachers to understand all
this. And, I hope many CSGers, including lurkers, put their thoughts
and experiences in.

David, I don’t know about ‘educators’, but I’m going after ‘economists’ myself, and as I said in a prior post, I am dedicating my work, to one William Williams

I am hoping to be able to open up some dialogue here on CSGnet or on a Yahoo site I opened awhile ago. I hope you are open and willing to explore the possibilities, and I believe you are.

I would like the discussion to encompass all the social sciences, since most are based on the functioning of a single individual, and all have something to contribute to the whole, so I am hoping to get an eclectic and diverse group of thinkers together to try and move forward with this problem with the use of argumentation techniques.

I am in the process of developing an SD model of all of this and I have, what I believe to be a very effective scaling tool to allow for the measurement of ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’. Although these numbers that are derived from the ANP process are ratio scale in nature we must understand that these numbers and those in a simulation do not represent the values present in an individual. They are simply representations and probabilities. But useful ones none the less in trying to understand the relationships involved in the various aspects of control

Are you familiar with the concepts and process of ‘argumentation’?

Finally, I would like to add a few points to my previous post.

  1. I don’t care about any such thing as ‘levels’. Let the microbiologists and physiologists determine how this stuff actually works and why it works the way it does. It’s the consequences (to use an ‘economic’ term) of control that interest me. I’ll leave the biological details to the experts in that area.

  2. My ‘model’ does not conflict with PCT. It complements it. If you want to look at the details of control, go right ahead, I want to work with the effects.

  3. I would hope the people on CSGnet are willing to think about familiar processes in different ways. This is NOT an easy thing to do.

  4. If PCT is ever going to fly, it must present itself in a way that is both useful and important to others. Useful and important as defined by others NOT me. I believe I have found a way of communicating control to others. I would hope it might even be PCT.

Looking forward to some great dialogue David, and like you I hope it’s on CSGnet, but if not, so be it. I will not be deterred.

Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.05.1401)]

In a message dated 2/6/2005 1:24:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

[From Bill Powers (2005.02.06.1111 MST)]
Hallelujah, pay dirt

It's called _consciousness_, and it provides us with the ability to _ANTICIPATE_, or 'predict'. what we might expect from the future, in various environments

I part company from you here. I think that prediction or anticipation is simply one way we can use the systems that deal with rule-driven symbol manipulation, coupled with imagination. We can anticipate unconsciously as well as consciously, so consciousness is not required to make predictions.
I’m not sure why you think what you just said here is in some way different then my intent, or what I said. You simply broke down the process into a series of processes you believe to be responsible.

You treat my statement as if I am postulating a fact, or attempting to convince you that my ideas are in some way superior to yours or others. I’m not. As I said in my last post, I’ll leave the biological and physiological details to the experts in that area, But Bill, in order for us to get those folks to want to look at it from a control perspective we must convince them that there are good and valid reasons to do so.

Bill, there are many different ways to look at a TV program. You can look at from an entertainment stand point, an artistic one. You could try to understand how the picture and sound actually wind up in the little box, or you might concern yourself with how this stuff is recorded and transmitted.

All of these are VALID ways of ‘appraising’ the worthiness of TV programming. What matters is what particular area of interest best fits your needs. You are an engineer Bill, and that is a wonderful perspective to have, and if I need to either record, transmit a signal, or design something to do so, I know who to call, but I will NOT ask you to either produce or direct a show for me. I might ask you to critique a show on it’s technical merits.

I am interested in ‘critiquing’ human behavior using a control perspective.

But we need to be very clear about your area of expertise. it is in control engineering, not biology, nor physiology.

To date there has been a great deal of advancement at the microbiological level in control. That is, a bottom up approach. This work is advancing at a nice pace, but they have miles to go for any real advancement to reach the level of the organism. I am attempting a functional, NOT biological, top-down approach.

Maybe we can meet sometime with a golden spike ceremony somewhere in the middle.

Your work is important and vital, but it is not the only way to approach the control process

However, I think we are engaged in very different pursuits, so I should not be comparing apples with oranges.
THANK GOD you finally understand this. WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM. In fact Bill, probably to your dismay, You, me, Argyris, Weick, Forrester, and untold others, are also on the same page but dealing with different parts of the puzzle.

I believe each of us has important contributions to make to the overall ‘cause’.

You’re describing things you think the brain does using its basic abilities.
What are ‘basic’ abilities, and what might some ‘advanced’ functions be?

I believe I am simply describing some of the things the brain does. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not attempting to outline the entire function of the brain, nor it’s entire set of capabilities, responsibilities, or functions.

I’m trying to describe the basic abilities regardless of what is done with them.
OK.

If you want to identify consciousness with calculation, reasoning, and prediction, that’s your privilege, but in that case you and I aren’t talking about the same phenomenon when we use words like consciousness or awareness.
OK.

You’re talking about experiences we are conscious of , while I’m talking about the capacity to be conscious. You’re talking about the music, news, and commentary coming out of the radio; I’m talking about the radio.
Bill, I’m talking about why people do what they do, and the functional mechanism’s involved in those CONSCIOUS processes.

Yes, I understand this very important difference, and so unfortunately do many psychologists and other social scientists who might otherwise be interested in ‘PCT’

If you can turn your general ideas into programmable models, I will be very interested, for then you will have to supply the means by which all these things are done. God is in the details.
God might be in the details, but lets make sure we have some valid data first, and although I have some ideas I think are worth exploring, I’m not sure I’m asking all the right questions right now. Much work must be done in order to build a model. Building a model is both my intent and my ultimate goal.

I would very much like your support in this effort.

But first, I believe constructive and productive dialogue is necessary to get this done.

It will be interesting to see what kind of response there is on CSGnet to this.

Thanks for your response Bill.

Marc

From [Mark Lazare (2005.02.07.15:09)]

Three blind men and the elephant response

MARC: The temperature INPUT must be _anticipated_to within a reasonable range. If the temperature input could range anywhere from one million degrees Fahrenheit to absolute zero, I don’t think any thermostat could deal with that range

MARK: “INPUT” does not have anticipated reasonable range it is just input… there is not +/- rang ge in a reference signal, but there is acceptable error in the output signal between the perceived input and the anticipated input, the signal post comparison is where the +/- range or integration factor is in the model.

MARC: So fortunately for us, evolution came to the rescue and provided us with a way for us to reduce the variability of input into our control systems.

It’s called consciousness, and it provides us with the ability to ANTICIPATE, or ‘predict’. what we might expect from the future, in various environments

MARK: Consciousness or being self-aware is not innate or necessary to all levels of control or all living control systems. Consciousness or being self-aware in my opinion is a higher level processes in highly evolved life forms, those with a face. I do not consider shellfish, worms or any lesser life form to be self aware, but I do consider them to be living control system. This of course is an arbitrary delineation, but a useful start to have a guilt free experience at an oyster bar.

MARC: This notion and concept of ‘prediction’ and ‘anticipation’ is ubiquitous throughout science. In fact, ‘prediction’ is at the heart of scientific discovery. It is one of the main reasons we do science, and the reason we want to understand how and why things work the way they do. It is very simple, the better we can ‘predict’ and/or anticipate’ the future, the better the chance we have of controlling successfully and efficiently

MARK: I am not predicting the future or controlling the future; I am controlling the present in order to create the future I want to live in.

MARC: In empirical terms this means that although I can’t look out the window and ‘predict’ what the exact temperature might be, if I hear the weather forecast I might have some idea of what kind of clothing to wear in order to ‘counter’ the weather ‘disturbances’ I might encounter.

MARK: Again, I am not predicting the future; I am controlling the present in order to create the future, of not freezing to death when going outside in the winter. (not that would ever happen to me, living in Phoenix Arizona and all.)

MARC: So to review and summarize Part A; ‘Anticipation’ and ‘prediction’ is an important component of a control PROCESS that is used in order to reduce the variability of input. Our ‘perceptions’ provide useful inputs so our control processes can react accordingly, and our consciousness provides us with the ability to ‘frame’ or ‘filter’ what we perceive. – MARK: I Agree.

MARC: We have consciousness to thank for our ability to deal with ‘error’ – < MARK: I disagree. Needs a phone call to explain, or re-read the above regarding “a guilt free experience at an oyster bar”.

MARC: I use ‘Blue’ to represent people who desire ‘predictable’ or ‘consistent’ INPUTS, or perceptions and ‘Red’ for those who really are much less concerned with the consistency and predictability of their inputs or perceptions. Of course most of us are ‘Purple’ in that we ‘prefer’ various levels depending on the ‘importance’ of the perceptions and goals involved.

MARC: ‘Blue’ and ‘Red’ signify the same thing for the OUTPUT function, or our actions. That is, ‘Blue’ folks like ‘consistent’ results and ‘Red’ folks like ‘choice’. Again, most of us I believe are ‘Purple’, depending on importance.

MARK: Rethink the above 2 points…

  1. with any OUTPUT function – a choice has already been made based on input(s) compared d to reference(s).

  2. Being Consistent – is more related to how much error are you willing to ac ccept, or how close do you have to be to your ideal state in order for you to stop acting out or creating an output.

  3. It seem in this analogy you are describing apples blueberries and purple plums, all wonderful things to eat but in no way are a continuum.

  4. In you own example “Blue� is closely related to a signal after the Comparator>> integration factor/gain >> output. But “Red� is like “Choice,� so what are you choosing? Are you choosing the way you see things, what purpose(s) you will serve, or what output/ behavior you will engage in?

MARC: To summarize; People need to control their perceptions. In order to do this both effectively and efficiently I say they need consciousness in order to reduce the variability of our input and allowing us the flexibility in choosing our output in order to correct for the error we experience in our control processes.

MARK: Have you ever “zoned out� while driving car and missed your turn off. Stared at TV or a movie and missed the show. To the observer you may be conscious, but you are not consciously aware of what the observer would say you are doing. Therefore conscious“ness� in not always in play in a controlled process. There are many more controlled processes in our body that consciousness has no role in what so ever.

MARC: Each of us has a different chemical make-up and different tolerance levels for ‘error’ or anxiety. We learn from birth what we ‘like’ and what we ‘dislike’. We learn what causes us ‘pain’, and we try to avoid those things and we know what provides us with relief and we attempt to do those things. – >MARK: I AGREE

MARC: For example, laughter is nothing more than the release of anxiety, ERROR
and ‘excitement’ (ERROR)
is sometimes artificially induced so we can ‘experience’ the ‘release’ of that anxiety **
ERROR**; or as we might like to think about the ‘release’ of ‘ERROR’
in another way, as pleasure for instance.

image00214.jpg

Sincerely,

Mark A. Lazare, Managing Partner

Compass Mental Health, LLC

4500 N. 32nd Street, Suite 104

Phoenix, AZ 85018

602 224-7050

877 224-7050

http://www.CompassMentalHealth.com/

Mark,

In a message dated 2/7/2005 5:22:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, DTSDTO@AOL.COM writes:

From [Mark Lazare (2005.02.07.15:09)]

Three blind men and the elephant response

MARC: The temperature INPUT must be _anticipated_to within a reasonable range. If the temperature input could range anywhere from one million degrees Fahrenheit to absolute zero, I don’t think any thermostat could deal with that range

MARK: “INPUT” does not have anticipated reasonable range it is just input… there is not +/- ra ange in a reference signal, but there is acceptable error in the output signal between the perceived input and the anticipated input, the signal post comparison is where the +/- range or integration factor is in the model.

I am NOT dealing with the PCT model. GET OVER IT. :slight_smile:

If the input to any control system is TOO variable, it simply will not work effectively or efficiently. Anticipation helps reduce, but obviously does not eliminate, the variability of input.

I suggest you read Llinas, and Hawkins for some insight into why and how this works.

MARC: So fortunately for us, evolution came to the rescue and provided us with a way for us to reduce the variability of input into our control systems.

It’s called consciousness, and it provides us with the ability to ANTICIPATE, or ‘predict’. what we might expect from the future, in various environments

MARK: Consciousness or being self-aware is not innate or necessary to all levels of control or all living control systems.

Who said it was? I see you also like the “strawman” approach of Bill Powers. My focus and interest is on CONSCIOUS human activity. :slight_smile:

Consciousness or being self-aware in my opinion is a higher level processes in highly evolved life forms, those with a face. I do not consider shellfish, worms or any lesser life form to be self aware, but I do consider them to be living control system.

OK, so do you see a difference in how we approach this? My post Mark was not intended as a full treatise on my understanding of control, behavior or cognition.

The purpose of the post was to get some folks to start thinking about some of this stuff

This of course is an arbitrary delineation , but a useful start to have a guilt free experience at an oyster bar.

:slight_smile:

MARC: This notion and concept of ‘prediction’ and ‘anticipation’ is ubiquitous throughout science. In fact, ‘prediction’ is at the heart of scientific discovery. It is one of the main reasons we do science, and the reason we want to understand how and why things work the way they do. It is very simple, the better we can ‘predict’ and/or anticipate’ the future, the better the chance we have of controlling successfully and efficiently

MARK: I am not predicting the future or controlling the future; I am controlling the present in order to create the future I want to live in.

We are not talking about the same thing. You do anticipate the future, or at least you attempt too. You control only in the here and now.

MARC: In empirical terms this means that although I can’t look out the window and ‘predict’ what the exact temperature might be, if I hear the weather forecast I might have some idea of what kind of clothing to wear in order to ‘counter’ the weather ‘disturbances’ I might encounter.

MARK: Again, I am not predicting the future; I am controlling the present in order to create the future,

‘Creating the future’ my friend is a back-handed way of saying PREDICTION or ANTICIPATION.

of not freezing to death when going outside in the winter. (not that would ever happen to me, living in Phoenix Arizona and all.)

Call it what you want because labels are arbitrary, but if you are going to join the Yahoo Cog list I would strongly suggest you communicate this concept by talking about ‘anticipation’ and ‘prediction’. On CSGnet or in your private practice and publications you are free to talk about it any way you like of course. Your use of ‘controlling’ here is a very instance of the ‘equivocation’ fallacy. That is, the use of ‘control’ for two distinct meanings.

You don’t, or can’t ‘CREATE’ control. You DO control. It is a PROCESS, NOT a concept.

MARC: So to review and summarize Part A; ‘Anticipation’ and ‘prediction’ is an important component of a control PROCESS that is used in order to reduce the variability of input. Our ‘perceptions’ provide useful inputs so our control processes can react accordingly, and our consciousness provides us with the ability to ‘frame’ or ‘filter’ what we perceive. – MARK: I Agree.

I am confused, or rather I think you might be. :wink: So are we straight on the notion that ‘creating the future’, IS anticipation and prediction?

MARC: We have consciousness to thank for our ability to deal with ‘error’ – MARK: I disagree. Needs a phone call to explain, or re-read the above regarding “a guilt free experience at an oyster bar”.

OK, But exactly what are you disagreeing with here?

I have NOT explained HOW control takes place in my system yet, so you have absolutely no idea about how I believe consciousness and our control processes interact.

MARC: I use ‘Blue’ to represent people who desire ‘predictable’ or ‘consistent’ INPUTS, or perceptions and ‘Red’ for those who really are much less concerned with the consistency and predictability of their inputs or perceptions. Of course most of us are ‘Purple’ in that we ‘prefer’ various levels depending on the ‘importance’ of the perceptions and goals involved.

MARC: ‘Blue’ and ‘Red’ signify the same thing for the OUTPUT function, or our actions. That is, ‘Blue’ folks like ‘consistent’ results and ‘Red’ folks like ‘choice’. Again, most of us I believe are ‘Purple’, depending on importance.

MARK: Rethink the above 2 points…

  1. with any OUTPUT function – a choice has already been made based on input(s) compar red to reference(s).

I don’t believe this is the case.

  1. Being Consistent – is more related to how much error are you willing to accept, or how close do you have to be to your ideal state in order for you to stop acting out or creating an output.

Maybe. It certainly plays a very big part. How big? We need to explore the relationships involved. BTW, we will not be using the term or woord ‘error’ on the Yahoo site. ‘Detected difference’ will replace it for some obvious reasons. First is the ‘error’ has ‘negative’ connotations and ‘error’ as you and I know it in a control system is about _ detected differences_ that may or may not be negative in nature

  1. It seem in this analogy you are describing apples blueberries and purple plums, all wonderful things to eat but in no way are a continuum.

Yes, because you don’t fully understand my model yet

  1. In you own example “Blue� is closely related to a signal after the Comparator>> integration factor/gain >> output. But “Red� is like “Choice,� so what are you choosing? Are you choosing the way you see things, what purpose(s) you will serve, or what output/ behavior you will engage in?

You are thinking way to micro, and PCTish. I am NOT talking about any ‘signals’ as such, and I am not describing ANY particular process or processes with the colors. I am talking about the CONSEQUENCES of the control action at a level you have never dreamed of.

MARC: To summarize; People need to control their perceptions. In order to do this both effectively and efficiently I say they need consciousness in order to reduce the variability of our input and allowing us the flexibility in choosing our output in order to correct for the error we experience in our control processes.

MARK: Have you ever “zoned out� while driving car and missed your turn off. Stared at TV or a movie and missed the show. To the observer you may be conscious, but you are not consciously aware of what the observer would say you are doing. Therefore conscious“ness� in not always in play in a controlled process. There are many more controlled processes in our body that consciousness has no role in what so ever.

Again, I am interested in why we do ALL conscious activities. Whether or not any one activity might be ‘controlled’ is still VERY much in question.

MARC: Each of us has a different chemical make-up and different tolerance levels for ‘error’ or anxiety. We learn from birth what we ‘like’ and what we ‘dislike’. We learn what causes us ‘pain’, and we try to avoid those things and we know what provides us with relief and we attempt to do those things. – MARK: I AGREE

MARC: For example, laughter is nothing more than the release of anxiety , ERROR
and ‘excitement’ (ERROR)
is sometimes artificially induced so we can ‘experience’ the ‘release’ of that anxiety **
ERROR** ; or as we might like to think about the ‘release’ of ‘ERROR’
in another way, as pleasure for instance.

Sorry kiddo. On CSGnet this will fly. NOT on the Yahoo group. The word ‘ERROR’ is the one that is crossed off, and replaced by ‘detected difference’, Sorry, this has been decide already by the folks on the list.

Mark, I see but have not read the other two posts you sent but judging from this post I think I need to say a few words.

If you have something to sell I think it best you not join the Yahoo group. Am afraid you are going to find folks there that run counter to your way of thinking and have other ideas about how things work.

If you are not open to evidence and feel pretty much that you think you have everything down pat the group may not be a good idea.

I say this because unlike CSGnet you will be challenged to produce evidence that is convincing to scientists that have been exposed to a wide variety of experiences. Referring to B:CP will get you NO WHERE in this group. It is an old useless reference, of historical note only.

I can back every claim I make with current research, can you?

To an outsider Bill Powers falls into the 'Appeal to Questionable Authority" fallacy. Bill Powers is a control engineer. His understanding of human behavior is extremely poor and CSGnet is an excellent example of that lack of understanding. He knows nothing of human physiology and more importantly refuses to keep up to date in the literature.

Bill Powers has very little creditability in this area. It’s best he venture not far from CSGnet. He would be devoured whole.

If you make a claim on the Yahoo list be prepared to back it up with evidence and be prepared to change YOUR mind. If you feel you might have trouble with either of these things I suggest you stay away.

I hope you come on board. Your experience will be invaluable, but only if you are open to the ideas of others as well. Mind you, I am NOT saying you must change your mind. I am only saying that if you are not open to change, you will be very disappointed.

Marc

image00214.jpg

···

Sincerely,

Mark A. Lazare, Managing Partner

Compass Mental Health, LLC

4500 N. 32nd Street, Suite 104

Phoenix, AZ 85018

602 224-7050

877 224-7050

http://www.CompassMentalHealth.com/