[From Rick Marken (940403.1000)]
Bill Leach (940403.07:39 EST)--
Gotcha. Conflict is by definition "self-generated".
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. But I think I can give an
example of conflict that is not "self-generated" in any sense I can imagine:
Two people coincidentally walk up to a revolving door from opposite directions.
Both want to open the door and they end up pushing against each other (unknow-
ingly) to achieve this result. The pushes of each magnify (due to disturbance
resistance) the pushes of the other. This is conflict and (as Bill P. put it)
will result in limbs being torn from their attachments if something (a higher
level system in one or both people) doesn't stop it by changing the reference
for the position of the door.
This conflict is not generated by anything other than happenstance; the
resistance to door opening for both people happens to come from another
control system. There was no way for either party to know this. Conflict
resulted from a perfectly innocent goal -- to open the door. Only a smart
higher order system could tell that the opposing disturbance was a control
system (it would have to run a version of the test to find out); otherwise,
there is no reason to suspect that the opposing disturbance is anything
other than an inanimate obstruction (a stuck door).
I am not arguing that 'disturbance causes output'.
I know; but that IS what causes output; NOT disturbance caused change
in perception. That's what's interesting; the cause of outputs that
counter the disturbance is the disturbance itself -- which CANNOT be
perceived by the control system. This is ONE reason why conventional
psychologists don't even want to HEAR about PCT.
As I view it; Any idea that we think of is a perception:
Thoughts are replayed references (in the model) -- they are self-
generated perceptions but they are not "true", sense based perceptions. What
you see when you open your eyes -- THAT'S PERCEPTION. What you are seeing is
the current state of MANY perceptual variables. To understand this, just
imagine how what you are seeing NOW could be DIFFERENT. The colors
of things could be different; the shapes, sizes, distances, movements
(most of what I am seeing is stationary but I can imagine the lamp
falling, the table rising -- neither difficult to imagine on a section
of the Pacific Plate covered with psychics and New Age-ers)
I think the idea of perceptual variables should really be developed and
discussed on this net A LOT. Control systems are important because they
stabilize aspects of our experience at intended values; control is
necessary because our experience CAN VARY in ways that we often don't want.
Control systems solve this problem by moving PERCEPTUAL VARIABLES to their
wanted values -- and KEEPING THEM THERE. In order to get the "feel" for
control (being a control system oneself) I think it's a good idea to learn
to see the world in terms of perceptual VARIABLES. Powers' hierarchy classifies
perceptual variables into 10 (11?) TYPES. This classification only
makes sense if you can experience these types of variables yourself --
and see that they are, indeed, VARIABLES.
Try this exercise; look around you and try to pick out perceptual variables.
Describe the current state of each variable and describe how it varies. For
example, the lamp next to my computer is a certain level of brightness. It
could be brighter or dimmer. Brightness is the variable; I am experiencing
a certain level of it; I can imagine more or less. The mouse is sitting about
1 ft from my arm; it could be closer or farther. Distance from me to mouse is
the variable. It varies from "close" to "far" . The window containing this
post is in front of all other windows; It could be behind or between windows.
Sequence is the variable. The different orders of the elements of the sequence
(windows in this case) are the values of the variable. Etc. Etc.
Martin Taylor (940402 13:50) --
OK, they are not independent. But the correlation between disturbance
and output (and between their derivatives) is typically on the order
of .99. So how does the significant correlation between derivatives of
disturbance and perception account for that fact? Another problem is that
the significant derivative of disturbance - derivative of perception corr-
elation will DECREASE as control improves. And when control improves
the correlation between disturbance and output GOES UP. This makes no
sense if the derivative of the perception is used by the control system
to generate outputs. It means that the less the derivative of the distrubance
is reflected in perception, the better the system generates outputs that
mirror the distrubance. That is,the less the information about the disturbance
in the perception, the BETTER the system controls. If there is information
about the disturbance in perception, it looks like it just gets in the
way of control.
In fact, nothing about the perceptual variable causes, informs or tells the
control system what to do; perception is controlled in a control loop;
it does not inform, guide or control.
Best
Rick