Counter-Control, Moderation and Grand Guignol (was Re: What is CSGfor?)

[From Dick Robertson,2004.03.26.2315CDT]

Peter Small wrote:

[Peter Small 2004.02.26]

Martin wrote:

>The _design_ of this output is supposed to counter
>whatever might be unfortunately influencing the thing to be
>stabilized. And Peter is quite right in saying that this won't work
>under the chaotic conditions that often prevail in the real world.
>

Peter replies by saying that he is referring to chaos within the brain,
not in the
outside world. I repeat this simply by way of background. My comments
apply
to what Peter says next.

As I understand PCT, it is about trying to eliminate any errors that
occur between the perceived world and a reference world in the mind
that represents the world as you would like to perceive it.

It is very hard for me to come to a firm conclusion about how much you
understand
about PCT from this statement. As a way to phrase your understanding of
PCT it is very odd. Yet, with a certain amount of "poetic license" I
could imagine you are paraphrasing the idea that behavior is the control
of perception. But if that is what you are doing, what a strange way to
do it. More likely, I think, is that your wording reveals only the
vaguest notion of what PCT is about.

Control systems do indeed "try" to eliminate errors. That is, by
producing outputs that so affect the controlled variable being perceived
by the system as to minimize the discrepancy between the controlled
perception and the system's reference value for that controlled
perception. But I don't understand why you introduce the word, "trying"
here. Do you mean that the whole brain (as a hierarchy of perceptual
control systems) is trying? You could put it that way, I suppose, but
the term seems superfluous since the minimization of error is part of the
definition of a perceptual control system.

As I see the internal worlds as being created as attractor states,
which are very much influenced by emotional states, I cannot see how
you can eliminate emotions from the theory.

Here I am completely confused about your intention in saying this. Are
you proposing that the promulgator (Bill P) of PCT should incorporate
that statement into his theory? And if, so on what grounds are you
proposing that? Or, are you saying that you don't believe PCT covers all
the things you are interested in and therefore the members of CSGnet
should come over to your theory? If that is your intention, it might be
better to establish your own net and invite anyone interested in your
theory to subscribe to it. CSGnet is a forum for people who generally
believe that PCT provides an accurate way to conceptualize about how
behavior works, as far as it goes, and are interested in developing this
useful approach further.

In my way of looking at things, the error signal takes the form of
emotions. These alert the cognitive system to the presence of an
error. The cognitive side then assesses the situation (guided by the
emotions) to discover the source of the error. This information is
then used to promote corrective activity.

OK. This is pretty much covered by what I have above. "In my way of
looking at things," is perfectly OK. It doesn't add anything to PCT,
not even a useful criticism.
You really should have a forum for people who are interested in your way
of looking at things. It would be great if it made reference to a set of
experiments that test out its fit with various aspects of reality such as
one finds on the CSG home site, Bill Power's home site or Marken's
Mindreadings.com.

As I'm understanding how this works in the brain, different solutions
are tried out in the brain until emotions tell you that you may have
found a way to correct for the error. Emotions then prompt you to
take the actions to try out the solution.

As an alternative, if a solution is not forthcoming, the brain
restructures the internal model to change priorities until the
emotional error signal subsides and is replaced with an emotion of
contentment.

Again, I repeat it would be good to have a forum where people who find
these ideas useful could meet and discuss them. I think you have a hard
sell for them on this net for reasons already pointed out by Powers,
Taylor, Williams and Marken, especially.

Best,

Dick R.

ยทยทยท