Collective control of Perceptions

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2003.03.15:10:00EST)]

I wrote a mail to Rick about the CSG annual dues and in his answer he asked:
PS. What do they think of the Iraq war thing in Norway?

I have followed the discussion about "the Iraq war thing" under the subjects
"PC study of culture", "HPCT conflict", "How culture colors the way the mind
works" and more.

First I'll say that I really don't know what _they_ think. I am not quite
sure if I really know what I am reading and listening to in newspapers and
radio/TV because those variables are only one part of my perceptual signals.
But reading and listening to newspapers and radio/TV takes part in the
result I am presenting below. This is the result of what _I_ think.

I have sympathy with you Americans after the experience of "the 11. of
September". After this experience the Americans started a war against
terrorism. The US government did it alone.

In Norway as in the USA and in Europe and in the Near East there are many
individuals and groups of individuals that take part in "the Iraq thing_
with vicarious arguments for what they really control. Their vicarious
arguments are "the Results of _their_ "muscle tensions" when they control
what they really control.

I don't know what _they_ really control, but I think somebody control "the
power of Europe" after the vacuum that aroused after the fall of (the other
superpower) the Soviet republic.

Other control "their re-election" or "getting money from the government"
(Red cross and other corresponding organizations which have a job to
somewhere) and I think I have met many people control being a pacifist.
I am sure that organizations (the Norwegian government) control "the Iraq
thing" when the Norwegian ambassador in UN said "UN must give the inspectors
more time and there must be a limit for that time". The ambassador said what
the foreign and the prime minister has told him to say. I do think that the
foreign minister and the prime minister were capable to control a common
variable when they shaped the statement the ambassador expressed. Kent
McClelland showed me that two persons can Collective control perceptions. I
assume he is correct and I also assume that each individual control their
perceptions. I don't assume an organization composed of 10, 100 or 1000
members can collective control perceptions. When a representative for an
organization express a public opinion I assume s/he control his own
perceptions.

I myself control _my respect for other people_ when I read/listen to their
arguments. If I am not able to control these arguments because an
interpersonal conflict I often put the newspaper away or turn off the radio.
If I control the arguments the error turns to zero and I continue to control
other "things".

There are so many "Proximal Physical Stimulus representing "the Iraq thing""
arriving my Input functions nowadays. And they make me confused.
Nevertheless I can present a meaning for myself.

1. The US government has decided to squeeze Sadam Hussein by locating a
great part of their army around Iraq. The basis of this locating is not to
attack Iraq, but to squeeze Sadam Hussein.

2. The conflict between USA and France/Germany/Russia/.. are the price of
this squeezing.

3. There will be no offensive against Iraq. There will be a political
solution of one kind.

4. The rest of the world will not believe the US government when they
publish that they basically wouldn't attack Iraq.

5. The UN will locate a UN police-group in Iraq to help the new Iraq
government shaping a kind of democracy. This UN police-group will be in Iraq
in 20 years.

6. There will be a new start for peace negotiations between Israel and
Palestine.

7. The UN will survive but NATO will not. There will be a new European
Common Army and Norway will join the EU. The UN will enhance its position in
the world three years after USA has got a new administration (democratic).

Time will show. (whitin 10 days)

PS. I feel myself social unwell when I don't join the damnation of Bush when
we talk politics on the place of my employment. I can live with that.

bjorn

From [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.03.15.0804) ]

First, an excellent post Bjorn. Thanks for sharing your views.

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2003.03.15:10:00EST)]

I wrote a mail to Rick about the CSG annual dues and in his answer he asked:
PS. What do they think of the Iraq war thing in Norway?

Rick, Are you trying to start a little anti-war movement on CSGnet?. LOL, LOL

Post after post on CSGnet seems to confirm to the HPCT view ( as it should
:slight_smile: ) that people have as much or as little anxiety ( stress, error ) about
their lower level reference conditions ( with regard to Saddam and Iraq,
the Middle east, or anything else for that matter. :-)),as their
perceptions and reference conditions will allow.

I would not think that Bjorn, Rick or anyone else would or could have the
same perceptions about 9/11. Not the _same_ exact ones anyway. Both of you
experienced it indirectly by seeing it on TV later in the day, perhaps, or
even as it was actually happening. After being in Vietnam I can tell you
the experiences are _NOT_ the same.

I think we may all share a common higher level ( "Systems", perhaps, or
maybe "Principles" ) goal for peace. We differ on how to make that happen.

I hope Bjorn is right,

I disagree with him on the efficacy of the UN. All you need to do is look
at southern Lebanon and Hezballoh to see the ineffectiveness of the UN
"peacekeepers".

1. The US government has decided to squeeze Sadam Hussein by locating a
great part of their army around Iraq. The basis of this locating is not to
attack Iraq, but to squeeze Sadam Hussein.

Interesting perception.

2. The conflict between USA and France/Germany/Russia/.. are the price of
this squeezing.

Are you suggesting there is a power play under way between the US and those
European countries? What are the differing reference conditions and
perceptions for both sides that is causing this anxiety? Economic,
Political, both or niether?

3. There will be no offensive against Iraq. There will be a political
solution of one kind.

I hope so. But I'm not real optimistic about this.

4. The rest of the world will not believe the US government when they
publish that they basically wouldn't attack Iraq.

Then why do you think #3 above?

5. The UN will locate a UN police-group in Iraq to help the new Iraq
government shaping a kind of democracy. This UN police-group will be in Iraq
in 20 years.

I just don't see this as a "solution". There is a reason that 22 of 23
Islamic and Arab countries ( the exception being Turkey ) do not currently
have democratic governments. Iraq, Although not an Afghanistan, has 3 main
factions. The Kurds in the north, which both Iraq and Turkey are fearful of
( witness Saddam's bombing and gassing of them ) The Shi'as in the South,
and the Sunni's in the middle. Maybe you need 3 separate countries?, or a
dictator to suppress all three. Unfortunately there are no easy answers.

Although noble, I don't see anyone in the middle east ( Palestinians
included, jumping on the democratic bandwagon.). Their religion actually
forbids it. Islam ( at least at the fundamentalist level ) _requires_ no
law superior to the Koran, and for just about 2,000 years Islamic countries
have struggled with the notion of government. That's why most Islamic
countries are really ruled by a religious committee, with Iran being a
prime example of an Islamic "Republic".

Now after saying all that. I would welcome that outcome. :slight_smile: Provided, the
_entire_ UN participated in th cost and upkeep. We ( the US, provides more
then a third of all money for the current UN budget )..

6. There will be a new start for peace negotiations between Israel and
Palestine.

Please, I hope your right. The situation is insane and out of control.

7. The UN will survive but NATO will not.

I agree. The entire reason for NATO's existence is gone. ( a Russian
adversary )

There will be a new European Common Army

Why?, Who would you possibly need to, or want to defend yourselves against.
( the big bad US of A :wink: ) Being a pacifist I am sure this is upsetting to
you.

and Norway will join the EU. The UN will enhance its position in
the world three years after USA has got a new administration (democratic).

The UN is Useless. It has proven time and time again to be highly
ineffective in stopping wars and ruthless regimes. They have had some very
successful programs over the years, but I do not believe that the
organization is either an efficient, or reliable one. It has turned into a
US bashing club. I would like to see the UN move out of NY and out of the
US. Bjorn, do you have a place for them in Norway LOL.

Are you referring to the US Democratic "Party"? or to the form of
government? The only way to get the former is to have the latter. Being in
Norway, I'm not sure you are either interested in, nor care about internal
US politics. If you are, who might you like to see as US President? ( I'm
just curious :slight_smile: ).

Time will show. (whitin 10 days)

Yes indeed.

PS. I feel myself social unwell when I don't join the damnation of Bush when
we talk politics on the place of my employment. I can live with that.

Bjorn, why is there no talk about the sins of Saddam? Or is Saddam
considered the good guy in all of this. I am perplexed that I do not see
demonstrations about Saddam's genocide, or his ruthlessness, why? Are you (
not you personally, but the "peace" protester's) actually condoning his
actions? But then again maybe some people are. ( I don't belive you are.
Not for a second ) But during the Second World War there were the Nazi
sympathizers in both France ( Vishy? sic? French government) and Norway You
also, thankfully had the underground in both countries.

Again, thanks for a thoughtful post.

Marc

···

At 09:58 AM 3/15/2003 +0100, you wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.03.15.1528)]

Marc Abrams ( 2003.03.15.0804)

Bjorn, why is there no talk about the sins of Saddam? Or is Saddam
considered the good guy in all of this. I am perplexed that I do not see
demonstrations about Saddam's genocide, or his ruthlessness, why? Are you (
not you personally, but the "peace" protester's) actually condoning his
actions?

Is it possible that the "peace" protesters believe that their actions
might affect the actions of the leader of a "democracy," but have no
such illusions about a dictator?

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.15.1550)]

Marc Abrams ( 2003.03.15.0804)

Post after post on CSGnet seems to confirm to the HPCT view
( as it should :slight_smile: ) that people have as much or as little anxiety
( stress, error ) about their lower level reference conditions ( with
regard to Saddam and Iraq, the Middle east, or anything else for
that matter. :-)),as their perceptions and reference conditions will allow.

Why do you think this is the HPCT view? I don't recall HPCT saying anything
about how much " anxiety ( stress, error )... lower level reference
conditions... will allow". Lower level reference conditions are specifications
for the state of lower level perceptions. The amount of error in these control
systems depends on their gain, output capabilities and the amplitude of
disturbances to the variables they control. Posts on CSGNet do confirm the HPCT
view of behavior, I believe, but
for reasons that have to do with how the model explains human controlling, not
with imagined characteristics of the model, such the regulation of the level of
anxiety by lower level reference conditions.

I would not think that Bjorn, Rick or anyone else would or could have
the same perceptions about 9/11.

Perceptions of some state of affairs in the external environment occur at
several levels simultaneously. I agree that we may have had somewhat different
lower level perceptions of the event; we saw it on different media, for example.
But I bet we all had pretty much the same higher level perception of the
situation in terms of programs and principles . We all saw pre-meditated
(program) mass murder (principle) of the most nightmarish kind. I think we all
have similar reference levels for these perceptions: zero. So when we perceived
that premeditated mass murder was happening I think we all had a similarly
massive amount of error in many high level control systems: systems controlling
for not perceiving pre-meditated mass murder and for the principle of "do unto
others". Because we could do nothing about what we were perceiving -- to get it
back to our reference -- we probably all felt intense emotion as well; I
certainly did.

I think we may all share a common higher level ( "Systems", perhaps,
or maybe "Principles" ) goal for peace. We differ on how to make that
happen.

Exactly.

The UN is Useless. It has proven time and time again to be highly
ineffective in stopping wars and ruthless regimes.

I think the UN has proven itself to be a very useful forum for "waging peace".
The peace effort has probably failed but I though it was a nice try: it's hard
to stop a war when the most powerful country on the planet has decided to have
one not matter what the rest of the world thinks.

Bjorn, why is there no talk about the sins of Saddam? Or is Saddam
considered the good guy in all of this. I am perplexed that I do not
see demonstrations about Saddam's genocide, or his ruthlessness, why?

I don't think anyone who opposes this war thinks that Saddam is a good guy. I
believe that Saddam is a vicious tyrant. What people like me are wondering is
"Why this tyrant at this time"? North Korea only has a terrible tyrant, he
_really_ has nuclear capabilities. Why not go after him? Or how about the
government of Saudi Arabia; not exactly a model of liberal democracy. Or Syria?
Or Pakistan? Or Belorussia (my native land)? Both of the latter countries have
nukes. Or most of the countries in Africa? Or... The focus on Iraq makes some
people very suspicious about US motives for the war. I personally don't care
what the motives actually are. I just think that, like Bush's tax cut, the
result of this war may not be nearly as good as hoped. And a lot of innocent
children are probably going to be killed in the process.

Given that Saddam is only one of many tyrants, and since the results of
overthrowing him are very unpredictable and could make things so much worse in
so many way (increase Muslim hatred of the US, put the Kurds at risk from
Turkey, cost the US a ton in money and prestige, etc.) I am wondering whether
the potential costs to the US (and the world) of removing Saddam don't
overwhelmingly outweigh the potential benefits. Those in favor of war see
the benefits far outweighing the costs; those opposed to war see the costs far
outweighing the benefits. It looks like we will find out what the actual
benefits (and costs) of a war will be in a few days.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.15.1550)]

Given that Saddam is only one of many tyrants, and since the results of
overthrowing him are very unpredictable and could make things so much worse in
so many way (increase Muslim hatred of the US, put the Kurds at risk from
Turkey, cost the US a ton in money and prestige, etc.) I am wondering whether
the potential costs to the US (and the world) of removing Saddam don't
overwhelmingly outweigh the potential benefits. Those in favor of war see
the benefits far outweighing the costs; those opposed to war see the costs far
outweighing the benefits. It looks like we will find out what the actual
benefits (and costs) of a war will be in a few days.

I agree. I think that much of the search for Bush's "true" motives ,
e.g. controlling Iraqi oil, stem from the fact that so many people find
it difficult to believe that his expressed motives lead him to conclude
that the benefits outweigh the costs. I happen to believe that what you
see is what you get as far as Bush is concerned. The fact that the
outcome is unlikely to match his expectations never seems to bother him
at all.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.15.1911) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.15.1550)]

Why do you think this is the HPCT view? I don't recall HPCT saying

anything

about how much " anxiety ( stress, error )...

No it doesn't, that's _my_ idea. :slight_smile: HPCT simply tells us

Posts on CSGNet do confirm the HPCT
view of behavior, I believe, but
for reasons that have to do with how the model explains human controlling,

not

with imagined characteristics of the model, such the regulation of the

level of

anxiety by lower level reference conditions.

For the time being you and I will disagree on this point. I will say, that
up to this point there has been nor is there any data to support my
position. But then again, there is no data to support yours either. Not as
far as the upper levels ( 7 & up ) are concerned. Your extrapolation from
the basic PCT to HPCT model I believe is flawed. You do not believe that
memory/Imagination plays a _significant_part in control. I do. I am
confident in my understanding of the Basic PCT model. I am not quite as
clear as you are with regard to the hierarchy however. _Especially_ the
Program level ( or something like it )

In B:CP Bill recommended reading Miller, Galanter, Pribram; _Plans and The
Structure of Behavior_. Bill specifically said "This is the starting point
for investigating the Program Level". Have you read the book? Do you know
about the TOTE concept? Are you familiar with Millers work in memory and his
classic paper on the number 7, plus or minus 2. Do you really even care?
Some interesting reading. On this one point alone you and I percieve the
model differently. HPCT without memory/Imagination is an _incomplete_ model
at best. I hope to add to our understanding of this. I believe you and I
share a common goal of wanting to understand HPCT and hopeing others do as
well. But you and I perceive differently on how to go about attaining these
goals. This is not a contest. At least I hope it's not. Show me your work
( DATA) on the Program level that justifies your beliefs and I will pack my
bags and go home.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2003.02.15.1920)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.15.1911) -

> [From Rick Marken (2003.03.15.1550)]

> Why do you think this is the HPCT view? I don't recall HPCT saying
> anything about how much " anxiety ( stress, error )...

No it doesn't, that's _my_ idea. :slight_smile: HPCT simply tells us

The idea you expressed in your post was: "that people have as much or as little
anxiety ( stress, error ) about their lower level reference conditions...as
their perceptions and reference conditions will allow". That is something that
HPCT simply does not tell us (well, me anyway). It's the phrases "about their
lower level reference conditions" and "will allow" that are disturbing my
perception of what HPCT says. I would agree with your comment if you had said:
"people have as much or as little anxiety ( stress, error ) as there is a
difference between what they perceive (perception) and what they want to
perceive (reference conditions)". Does that seem better to you, too?

>Posts on CSGNet do confirm the HPCT view of behavior, I believe, but
> for reasons that have to do with how the model explains human controlling,
>not with imagined characteristics of the model, such the regulation of the
> level of anxiety by lower level reference conditions.

For the time being you and I will disagree on this point. I will say, that
up to this point there has been nor is there any data to support my
position.

It seems to me less a problem of missing data than of misunderstanding the
model. But, perhaps, you are just saying things in a way that sounds wrong to
me. Does my rewording above make sense to you?

Your extrapolation from
the basic PCT to HPCT model I believe is flawed. You do not believe that
memory/Imagination plays a _significant_part in control. I do.

I don't see what this has to do with what you said above, about people having
as much anxiety about their lower level reference conditions as their
perceptions and reference conditions will allow. What you said was simply (from
my point of view) a description of something that is not part of the HPCT
model: the ability of perceptions and reference conditions to "allow" only a
certain level of anxiety (stress, error). Let's sort this out before we start
talking about where imagination fits into behavior. And I do think
memory/imagination plays a significant role in control. I think the role is
mainly the one Bruce Gregory suggested: planning. I think that when one
evaluates the costs and benefits of a war, for example, that evaluation is
being done by controlling imaginary perceptions derived from memory.

I am confident in my understanding of the Basic PCT model.

I'm fairly confident too. But take my word for it; it's always good to be open
to criticism. Many of my understandings of the basic model -- such as my idea
that the behavior of a hierarchy of control systems was uncontrollable-- turned
out to be wrong on closer inspection (and test).

In B:CP Bill recommended reading Miller, Galanter, Pribram; _Plans and The
Structure of Behavior_. Bill specifically said "This is the starting point
for investigating the Program Level". Have you read the book?

Yes. I even had dinner with Pribram when I was in grad school.

Do you know about the TOTE concept?

Yes. Miller, Galanter and Pribram didn't understand it as a control model. They
looked at the TOTE as a sequential process so they never go the idea of a
controlled variable. But I think the book showed that people (like Miller,
Galanter and Pribram) can perceive the world in terms of TOTE-like programs. I
think this is what Bill meant by the comment you quote. And I have done studies
testing for control of TOTE program type perceptions. One such study is
described in my "Hierarchical behavior of perception" paper in _More Mind
Readings_.

Are you familiar with Millers work in memory and his
classic paper on the number 7, plus or minus 2. Do you really even care?

Of course. It's a classic. I even have a published paper on a ROC (Receiver
Operating Characteristic) analysis of recognition memory that was done well
before I discovered PCT. If you want to see what little Ricky was doing while
he was still a conventional psychologist check out Marken, R. S. and Sandusky,
A. (1974) Stimulus probability and sequential effects in recognition memory.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 49-51

On this one point alone you and I percieve the
model differently. HPCT without memory/Imagination is an _incomplete_ model
at best.

But we agree on that: without memory and imagination the model would be quite
incomplete. I know because I have seen people (including myself) remember and I
spend a large part of the day imagining what a wonderful world this would be
with fewer Bushes in the White Hours and more Dixie Chicks on the radio!

I hope to add to our understanding of this. I believe you and I
share a common goal of wanting to understand HPCT and hopeing others do as
well. But you and I perceive differently on how to go about attaining these
goals. This is not a contest. At least I hope it's not. Show me your work
( DATA) on the Program level that justifies your beliefs and I will pack my
bags and go home.

No fair. You already are home;-) But, again, a description of by work (data)
on the program level is described in the "Hierarchical behavior of perception"
paper in _More Mind Readings_. It would be great if someone would extent that
work. Go for it!

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.15.1930)]

Bruce Gregory wrote:

I agree. I think that much of the search for Bush's "true" motives ,
e.g. controlling Iraqi oil, stem from the fact that so many people find
it difficult to believe that his expressed motives lead him to conclude
that the benefits outweigh the costs. I happen to believe that what you
see is what you get as far as Bush is concerned. The fact that the
outcome is unlikely to match his expectations never seems to bother him
at all.

And I agree right back. I think Bush believes that tax cuts create jobs, that
environmental resources are there for us to use to our hearts content and that
creating a democracy in Iraq will make everyone love the US. He sounds like someone
who has a completely unskeptical approach to what he is told and it seems that most
of what he has been told has come from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Pat
Robertson.

Thank god for the Dixie Chicks! :wink:

Best

Rick

···

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

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.16.0217) ]

[From Rick Marken (2003.02.15.1920)]

I would agree with your comment if you had said:
"people have as much or as little anxiety ( stress, error ) as there is a
difference between what they perceive (perception) and what they want to
perceive (reference conditions)". Does that seem better to you, too?

Absolutely. Agreed.

It seems to me less a problem of missing data than of misunderstanding the
model. But, perhaps, you are just saying things in a way that sounds wrong

to

me. Does my rewording above make sense to you?

Absolutely. Rick, I have a habit of shortening things. Names, processes,
etc. To me when I say error, I fully intend to mean the difference between
perception and reference condition. I intend no other meaning.

I don't see what this has to do with what you said above, about people

having

as much anxiety about their lower level reference conditions as their
perceptions and reference conditions will allow.

In Marcspeak :slight_smile: I beleive that a correlate to error is anxiety or arousal
( I plan on testing for this, or at least try to ) Error as you have said
and as I agreed with, at the top of the post is the difference between
perception and Reference condition. When I say "allow" I mean that the error
signal _will_ be nothing more, nothing less then the difference between
Perception and the Reference condition will "allow" for.

What you said was simply (from
my point of view) a description of something that is not part of the HPCT
model: the ability of perceptions and reference conditions to "allow" only

a

certain level of anxiety (stress, error). Let's sort this out before we

start

talking about where imagination fits into behavior.

Have I sorted this out satisfactorily?

And I do think

memory/imagination plays a significant role in control. I think the role

is

mainly the one Bruce Gregory suggested: planning.

I don't disagree. "Planning" incompases an awful lot of behavior. I think
it's a major component of the Program level.
Where deduction, modeling, etc. Any evaluation process, If -then branching,
language processing and more. The Program level is not this nice neat single
layer of variables ( as is presented in your spreadsheet program ). I
understand the reason for the simplicity and I am not disparaging it, I am
simply saying that we have a long way to go before we even begin to get a
handle on this stuff.

I would even say that at this point I am doing "pre-science". I am trying to
find some methods of experimentation that will possibly begin to reveal this
complexity. I have no illusions. This is fun and hopefully meaningful. It's
the _only_ reason I am doing it.

I think that when one
evaluates the costs and benefits of a war, for example, that evaluation is
being done by controlling imaginary perceptions derived from memory.

And what "imaginary" perceptions are the "protesters" using to evaluate the
US position?

> I am confident in my understanding of the Basic PCT model.

I'm fairly confident too. But take my word for it; it's always good to be

open

to criticism.

If I wasn't open to critisism. I would never post on this net. That's
_precisely_ the reason I post.

But we agree on that: without memory and imagination the model would be

quite

incomplete. I know because I have seen people (including myself) remember

and I

spend a large part of the day imagining what a wonderful world this would

be

with fewer Bushes in the White Hours and more Dixie Chicks on the radio!

Ramsey Clark for President, Al Sharpton as Secretary of State, with Barbara
Boxer as Secretary of Defense, and Tom Daschle as Secretary of Treasury.
With Jesse Jackson as the Secretary of Education. Ed Asner could be our
delegate to the UN and Mike Farrell our VP.

No fair. You already are home;-) But, again, a description of by work

(data)

on the program level is described in the "Hierarchical behavior of

perception"

paper in _More Mind Readings_. It would be great if someone would extent

that

work. Go for it!

I'm going to give it a shot :slight_smile:

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.03.16.0823)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.16.0217)

And what "imaginary" perceptions are the "protesters" using to evaluate the
US position?

I have every confidence that if you gave it any thought you could answer
this question yourself.

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.16.0850)]

Marc Abrams (2003.03.16.0217)

When I say "allow" I mean that the error
signal _will_ be nothing more, nothing less then the difference between
Perception and the Reference condition will "allow" for.

Have I sorted this out satisfactorily?

Yes. Very good.

I believe that a correlate to error is anxiety or arousal ( I plan on
testing for this, or at least try to )

That's a nice, clear statement of what I thought you were doing. I, too, think
anxiety (stress) is a correlate of error and I'm glad you're doing the
research.

The Program level is not this nice neat single layer of variables ( as is
presented in your spreadsheet program ). I understand the reason for the
simplicity and I am not disparaging it, I am simply saying that we have a
long way to go before we even begin to get a
handle on this stuff.

I wasn't referring to the spreadsheet program. I have done experimental studies
on the control of program perception. That is, while the program was happening
the subject needed to do nothing but when the program changed the subject had
to act to return the program to the reference. The reference program might be
something like:

if x>5 then left else right

When the program was changed (to something like: if x>5 then right else left)
then the subject could act to change it back by pushing the mouse button.
Subjects can control programs like this rather easily (as long as the programs
occur at a slow enough speed). Since people can control programs they can
obviously perceive them. There is no need to speculate about imagination in
order to explain the ability to control programs.

And what "imaginary" perceptions are the "protesters" using to evaluate the
US position?

I already mentioned them: increased resentment of the US worldwide (who will
want to travel when everyone hates you?), chaos in Iraq, many innocents
killed. None of that (except, perhaps for the first) has happened yet so it
is happening in imagination.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.16.0930)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.03.16.0850)]

> Marc Abrams (2003.03.16.0217)
>
> When I say "allow" I mean that the error
> signal _will_ be nothing more, nothing less then the difference between
> Perception and the Reference condition will "allow" for.
>
> Have I sorted this out satisfactorily?

Yes. Very good.

On re-reading this I see that I was a bit overly enthusiastic in my agreement. I
guess I didn't really read that last little "will allow for". It just doesn't make
sense. Error = Reference - Perception. If the reference is 10 and the perception
is 7 then the error is 3. It seems strange (to me) to say that that result (3) is
what the equation "allows for". So why don't we just not say it.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

from David Wolsk (2003.03.16.0928 PST)

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.16.0217) ]

I would even say that at this point I am doing "pre-science". I am trying

to

find some methods of experimentation that will possibly begin to reveal

this

complexity. I have no illusions. This is fun and hopefully meaningful.

It's

the _only_ reason I am doing it.

Trying to be scientific while exploring the complexities of human behaviour
can lead to lots of frustration. I'm reminded of the National Academy of
Sciences volume, "How People Learn" ....... about 1000 good science research
reports ...... which come to the same conclusions as any good teacher knows
and tries to put into practice ...... if allowed. So, enjoy your
pre-science. Don't get too stressed pursuing stress.
cheers, David

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.16.1335) ]

> [From Rick Marken (2003.03.16.0850)]

It seems strange (to me) to say that that result (3) is
what the equation "allows for". So why don't we just not say it.

Yes, "allow" was a bad choice. I agree.

Marc

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2003,03.16,20:25EST)]

From [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.03.15.0804) ]

2. The conflict between USA and France/Germany/Russia/.. are the price of
this squeezing.

Are you suggesting there is a power play under way between the US and those
European countries? What are the differing reference conditions and
perceptions for both sides that is causing this anxiety? Economic,
Political, both or niether?

Yes.
The US reference: USA is a superpower
The US perception: 1441 is not granted

"The world" has experienced the positive effect of the existence of two
superpowers. Today we have an emptiness here.
France/Germany/Russia reference: Behave as an other superpower.
The F/G/R perception: 1441 is not granted.

Two different perceptions and the same CV. We know what it is.

3. There will be no offensive against Iraq. There will be a political
solution of one kind.

I hope so. But I'm not real optimistic about this.

4. The rest of the world will not believe the US government when they
publish that they basically wouldn't attack Iraq.

Then why do you think #3 above?

Saddam Hussein will leave Iraq (Gaia ?) within 9 days. "Iraq" will ask for a
UN police-group
to secure domestic security. Remember how psychopaths react when they feel
too high strain relative to own security.

There will be a new European Common Army

Why?, Who would you possibly need to, or want to defend yourselves against.
( the big bad US of A :wink: ) Being a pacifist I am sure this is upsetting to
you.

I can't imagine a superpower without an army.

bjorn

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.03.16.1451) ]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2003,03.16,20:25EST)]

I can't imagine a superpower without an army.

Good point :-), excellent post.

Marc

[From Fred Nickols (2003.03.16.1518 ET)] --

Rick Marken (2003.03.16.0850)]

> Marc Abrams (2003.03.16.0217)
<snip>
> And what "imaginary" perceptions are the "protesters" using to evaluate the
> US position?

I already mentioned them: increased resentment of the US worldwide (who will
want to travel when everyone hates you?), chaos in Iraq, many innocents
killed. None of that (except, perhaps for the first) has happened yet so it
is happening in imagination.

Not that anyone asked but I am convinced that George Bush's benighted
foreign policy will result in far more damage to the United States than was
inflicted by Al Qaeda. We can already see tattered alliances, former
friends becoming hostile and suspicious, a struggling domestic economy, an
increasingly fragile global economy (both being ignored while attention is
riveted on sweating, squeezing and replacing Saddam Hussein), and an even
greater threat in the form of North Korea also being ignored (perhaps
because our president has already labeled and pigeon-holed the leader of
that country as a "pygmy" he "loathes").

I served 20 years in the United States Navy and saw action in what we
called the "Matsu-Quemoy 'fracas' " (anyone else remember that?) and three
tours in Viet Nam. I thought that war was wrong-headed, too, but a good
enough case could be made for it that I buttoned my lip and obeyed
orders. I see no good case for a war with Iraq and I don't believe the
U.S. has any business going about the globe changing regimes -- unless
attacked. So far as I know, we've been attacked by a loose network of
Islamic radical militant fundamentalists -- and we seem to be doing a
pretty good job of breaking up that network. Good for us in
Afghanistan. But, no matter how despicable a tyrant Saddam might be, he's
the Iraqi's problem, not ours -- at least not until he proves himself to be
our problem -- and I've seen no convincing case for that yet.

Sadly, one of the greatest casualties of the Bush bungling of the United
States' foreign relations will probably turn out to be Colin Powell. I
have had the utmost respect for that man until just recently.

Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net
www.nickols.us