Economics & PCT

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.08.01.10.02NZT)

Hi there Rick
and others.

This is about as simple
as I can get it. It includes what I witnessed being part of this industry and what
I have subsequently read on the key issues.

This is my view point as
a starting point to put together a PCT based economic paper.

In the 1980’s
regulations and restrictions (environment) were scrapped so that innovations
(internal standards) would drive economic growth. This coupled with fees, bonuses
(environment) was supposed to incentivize and reward innovators (internal standard).

So the feedback loop with
the internal standard of innovation, was supposed to create long term economic growth.

However what really
happened is this.

The removal of restrictions,
regulations and additions of incentives (fees) (environment) with the internal standards
of greed, avarice, (fear of poverty) reward (fear of loss) instead of linking
with the internal standard of innovation drove reckless behaviour and excessive
risk taking.

So the feedback loop with
the internal standard of fear of poverty, created a meltdown.

I have identified 3 internal
standards

·
Innovations (fear of restrictions and
freedom)

·
Greed and avarice ( fear of poverty)

·
Reward (fear of loss)

Some environmental variables.

·
Fees and bonuses

·
Removal of regulations and restrictions

Some outputs (not sure
about this)

·
Excessive risk taking

·
Reckless behaviour

Here are the environmental
and internal standard couplings.

Environment

** Internal
standard**

Regulations &
restrictions

Innovations( fear of restrictions
and freedom)

Incentives (fees & bonuses)

rewards (gain) (fear of
loss)

Incentives

Innovations (fear of restrictions)

incentives

Greed (fear of poverty)

Regulations &
restrictions

greed (fear of poverty)

So what I suppose I’m
really saying is that the unintended consequences of removal of restrictions
and creation of incentives were supposed to fuel innovation but it fuelled
greed.

Regards

Gavin

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt July 31, 2010 2137 MDT]

Greed is associated with money so is hardly likely to be a basic

part of human nature. But wealth does represent power, and autonomy
and thus a greater ability to weather lean times and crises. What
is denigrated as “greed” may just be a desire for control in as many
circumstances as possible. Those who seek and successfully obtain
control of more resources were probably more evolutionarily fit.

What makes you think something happened in the 1980s that was

deleterious to the environment? Water and air quality are better
now than then. I’m thinking of the US, is there something in
Europe that you are referring to?

regards,

    Martin L

···

On 7/31/2010 4:40 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.01.10.02NZT)

Hi there Rick
and others.

          This is about as simple

as I can get it. It includes what I witnessed being part
of this industry and what
I have subsequently read on the key issues.

          This is my view point as

a starting point to put together a PCT based economic
paper.

          In the 1980’s

regulations and restrictions (environment) were scrapped
so that innovations
(internal standards) would drive economic growth. This
coupled with fees, bonuses
(environment) was supposed to incentivize and reward
innovators (internal standard).

          So the feedback loop with

the internal standard of innovation, was supposed to
create long term economic growth.

          However what really

happened is this.

          The removal of restrictions,

regulations and additions of incentives (fees)
(environment) with the internal standards
of greed, avarice, (fear of poverty) reward (fear of loss)
instead of linking
with the internal standard of innovation drove reckless
behaviour and excessive
risk taking.

          So the feedback loop with

the internal standard of fear of poverty, created a
meltdown.

            I have identified 3 internal

standards

·
Innovations (fear of restrictions and
freedom)

·
Greed and avarice ( fear of poverty)

·
Reward (fear of loss)

Some environmental variables.

·
Fees and bonuses

·
Removal of regulations and restrictions

            Some outputs (not sure

about this)

·
Excessive risk taking

·
Reckless behaviour

          Here are the environmental

and internal standard couplings.

Environment

** Internal
standard**

                  Regulations

& restrictions

                  Innovations(

fear of restrictions and freedom)

                  Incentives (fees

& bonuses)

                  rewards (gain)

(fear of loss)

Incentives

                  Innovations

(fear of restrictions)

incentives

                  Greed (fear of

poverty)

                  Regulations

& restrictions

                  greed (fear of

poverty)

          So what I suppose I’m

really saying is that the unintended consequences of
removal of restrictions
and creation of incentives were supposed to fuel
innovation but it fuelled
greed.

Regards

Gavin

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.17.14NZT)

[ Martin Lewitt
July 31, 2010 2137 MDT]

What we are trying to achieve by this Martin is setting up a PCT
model for economic behavior as per Rick’s suggestion.

Greed is associated with money so is hardly likely to be a basic part of human
nature.

I don’t see greed like that at all.
I see it at as fear of poverty, which is a fear of deprivation which I think is
part of human nature. You can be greedy over anything.

But wealth does
represent power,

Again this is what we will need to agree
on. I again don’t see wealth as power. I see power as grandness and succession.
(It’s juxtaposition the fear of diminishing). It’s very easy to
have huge wealth and no power. But that’s not what we talking about here.
We haven’t even defined power. However when I talk about power I often mean
two different things, one individual and the other organizational.

and autonomy

And I believe that autonomy is related to restriction
and regulation. (I.e. the fear of restriction). Innovation and autonomy I also think
are similar things just opposite side of the same coin. But this is part of the
problem, economists thought that innovation would result if regulations were
removed but this just didn’t happen.

and thus a greater
ability to weather lean times and crises. What is
denigrated as “greed” may just be a desire for control in as many
circumstances as possible. Those who seek and successfully obtain control
of more resources were probably more evolutionarily fit.

As PCT is a control theory this is what we
are trying to fit.

But already we are disagreeing on so
called simple concepts, so we need to clarify this.

I’m at an unfair advantage really as
I have developed a model of internal standards and tested that on a few thousand
people so have some standard to work with.

What makes you think something happened in the 1980s that was deleterious to
the environment?

Sorry I don’t understand what you mean
by this. My environment is the economic environment, nothing to do the natural
environment.

Water and air
quality are better now than then. I’m thinking of the US,
is there something in Europe that you are referring to?

Nothing to do with water or air, but the instruments
and structures of economy and finance.

As I mention below fees, regulations etc.
the Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act)
was repealed is one of the removals of restrictions.

It looks like my descriptions below was wholly
inadequate if you thought the environment I was talking about had anything to
do with the natural environment.

regards,

Martin L

···

On 7/31/2010 4:40 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.01.10.02NZT)

Hi there Rick
and others.

This is about as simple as I can get it. It includes what I
witnessed being part of this industry and what I have subsequently read on the
key issues.

This is my view point as a starting point to put together a PCT
based economic paper.

In the 1980’s regulations and restrictions (environment) were
scrapped so that innovations (internal standards) would drive economic growth.
This coupled with fees, bonuses (environment) was supposed to incentivize and
reward innovators (internal standard).

So the feedback loop with the internal standard of innovation, was
supposed to create long term economic growth.

However what really happened is this.

The removal of restrictions, regulations and additions of
incentives (fees) (environment) with the internal standards of greed, avarice,
(fear of poverty) reward (fear of loss) instead of linking with the internal standard
of innovation drove reckless behaviour and excessive risk taking.

So the feedback loop with the internal standard of fear of poverty,
created a meltdown.

I have identified 3 internal standards

· Innovations
(fear of restrictions and freedom)

· Greed
and avarice ( fear of poverty)

· Reward
(fear of loss)

Some environmental variables.

· Fees
and bonuses

· Removal
of regulations and restrictions

Some outputs (not sure about this)

· Excessive
risk taking

· Reckless
behaviour

Here are the environmental and internal standard couplings.

Environment

** Internal
standard**

Regulations &
restrictions

Innovations( fear of
restrictions and freedom)

Incentives (fees &
bonuses)

rewards (gain) (fear of
loss)

Incentives

Innovations (fear of
restrictions)

incentives

Greed (fear of poverty)

Regulations &
restrictions

greed (fear of poverty)

So what I suppose I’m really saying is that the unintended
consequences of removal of restrictions and creation of incentives were
supposed to fuel innovation but it fuelled greed.

Regards

Gavin

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.01.08.18.09NZT)

Martin

The removal of
restrictions did actually bring innovation (sub-prime mortgages, credit default
swaps, and securitization) only these were greedy and reckless based instruments.
Just not what was intended by removal of regulations.

Regards

Gavin

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martiin Lewitt Aug 1, 2010 0135 MDT]

Sometimes there are unintended consequences.  The Bush

administration attempted to resolve the quasi governmental status of
FANNIE and FREDDIE by either regulating them or making it clear that
the did not have the government imprimatur. However, no-one was
willing to expend much political capital on it while things seemed
to be going swimmingly. Sub-prime mortgages were made possible
because FANNIE and FREDDIE were willing to purchase them and had
access to capital at no risk government rates. The deregulation
merely allowed the banks to take on the risk, but the risk would
have been taken on by other institutions and individuals if the
banks hadn’t, because FANNIE and FREDDIE were not real for profit
institutions but political instruments of social policy.

regards,

     Martin L

···

On 8/1/2010 12:13 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz
2010.01.08.18.09NZT)

Martin

          The removal of

restrictions did actually bring innovation (sub-prime
mortgages, credit default
swaps, and securitization) only these were greedy and
reckless based instruments.
Just not what was intended by removal of regulations.

Regards

Gavin

[Martin_Lewitt]

BTW, How is the deregulation of the 1980s relevant, the banking
deregulation occurred in Clinton’s second term. Did Europe
deregulate their banks earlier? When were they allowed to
participate in these kinds of instruments?

regards,

     Martin L

···

On 8/1/2010 1:36 AM, Martin Lewitt wrote:

[Martiin Lewitt Aug 1, 2010 0135 MDT]

  Sometimes there are unintended consequences.  The Bush

administration attempted to resolve the quasi governmental status
of FANNIE and FREDDIE by either regulating them or making it clear
that the did not have the government imprimatur. However, no-one
was willing to expend much political capital on it while things
seemed to be going swimmingly. Sub-prime mortgages were made
possible because FANNIE and FREDDIE were willing to purchase them
and had access to capital at no risk government rates. The
deregulation merely allowed the banks to take on the risk, but the
risk would have been taken on by other institutions and
individuals if the banks hadn’t, because FANNIE and FREDDIE were
not real for profit institutions but political instruments of
social policy.

  regards,

       Martin L



  On 8/1/2010 12:13 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.01.08.18.09NZT)

Martin

            The removal of restrictions did

actually bring innovation (sub-prime mortgages, credit
default swaps, and securitization) only these were
greedy and reckless based instruments. Just not what was
intended by removal of regulations.

Regards

Gavin

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.08.01.23.05NZT)

Martin

A great read on the historical stuff is
Niall Ferguson’s, Ascent of Money, Stiglitz’s Freefall and if you
want to go back a bit (1918 to 1945) the Lords of Finance is very good and also
The Creature from Jekyll Island. The Creature is an interesting read if you
like an unashamed political stand point with a dollop of conspiracy theory.
Stiglitz is left Creature is right from the political standpoint.

The 1980’s was the start of the
deregulation in both the USA and UK, Thatcher and Reagan both set out on this path.

The basis of the economic system is the relationship
between Debtors and Creditors (lenders and borrowers) it’s an asymmetrical
relationship, damage this and the entire system melts down. That’s what all
these fancy instruments did.

Regards

Gavin

BTW, How is the
deregulation of the 1980s relevant, the banking deregulation occurred in Clinton’s
second term. Did Europe deregulate their banks earlier? When were
they allowed to participate in these kinds of instruments?

regards,
Martin L

···

On 8/1/2010 1:36 AM, Martin Lewitt wrote:

[ Martiin Lewitt
Aug 1, 2010 0135 MDT]
Sometimes there are unintended consequences. The Bush administration
attempted to resolve the quasi governmental status of FANNIE and FREDDIE by
either regulating them or making it clear that the did not have the government
imprimatur. However, no-one was willing to expend much political capital
on it while things seemed to be going swimmingly. Sub-prime
mortgages were made possible because FANNIE and FREDDIE were willing to
purchase them and had access to capital at no risk government rates. The
deregulation merely allowed the banks to take on the risk, but the risk would
have been taken on by other institutions and individuals if the banks hadn’t,
because FANNIE and FREDDIE were not real for profit institutions but political
instruments of social policy.

regards,
Martin L

On 8/1/2010 12:13 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2010.01.08.18.09NZT)

Martin

The removal of restrictions did actually bring innovation
(sub-prime mortgages, credit default swaps, and securitization) only these were
greedy and reckless based instruments. Just not what was intended by removal of
regulations.

Regards

Gavin

[Shannon_Williams]

[Shannon Williams August 1, 2010 7:40 am]

Interesting Gavin.

So you are saying that the econonmic model can be simplifiied to the following variables:

I have identified 3 internal standards

· Innovations (fear of restrictions and freedom)

· Greed and avarice ( fear of poverty)

· Reward (fear of loss)

Some environmental variables.

· Fees and bonuses

· Removal of regulations and restrictions

I definitely agree that it should be as simple as this. I am not sure that the standards/variables in the end will have words such as these that you give. For instance, I do not see the difference in modelling fear of loss, fear of poverty, and fear of restrictions. How are you thinking to model these standards/ environmental variables?

Thanks for sharing.

Shannon

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.01.0950)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.08.17.14NZT)

What we are trying to achieve by this Martin is setting up a PCT model for economic behavior as per Rick�s suggestion.

This isn't quite what I had in mind. I thought the idea was to find
some behavioral data, collected in the context of the conventional
causal model, and then evaluate it from the point of view of PCT. But
I see that CSGNet has moved completely away from its original focus on
the science of behavior to the other "s" word approaches to
undertstanding behavior: sarcasm, sophistry and synecdoche. I look
forward to the time when we get back to science, if ever. What I mean
by "science", by the way, is the approach to understanding behavior
described in:

Powers, William T. (2005). Behavior: The control of perception. 2nd
Edition, New Canaan, Connecticut: Benchmark Publications

Powers, William T. (2008) Living Control Systems III: The Fact of
Control, Bloomfield, New Jersey: Benchmark Publications

Powers, W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some
spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological
Review, 85, 417�435.

Let's get together again after everyone has read, replicated and
understood all the research described in these works.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bruce_Gregory2]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.08.01.1310 EDT)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.01.0950)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.08.17.14NZT)

What we are trying to achieve by this Martin is setting up a PCT model for economic behavior as per Rick’s suggestion.

This isn’t quite what I had in mind. I thought the idea was to find

some behavioral data, collected in the context of the conventional

causal model, and then evaluate it from the point of view of PCT. But

I see that CSGNet has moved completely away from its original focus on

the science of behavior to the other “s” word approaches to

undertstanding behavior: sarcasm, sophistry and synecdoche. I look

forward to the time when we get back to science, if ever. What I mean

by “science”, by the way, is the approach to understanding behavior

described in:

Powers, William T. (2005). Behavior: The control of perception. 2nd

Edition, New Canaan, Connecticut: Benchmark Publications

Powers, William T. (2008) Living Control Systems III: The Fact of

Control, Bloomfield, New Jersey: Benchmark Publications

Powers, W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some

spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychological

Review, 85, 417–435.

Let’s get together again after everyone has read, replicated and

understood all the research described in these works.

“Synecdoche” I am impressed. I’m not sure who is guilty of this unforgivable breach, but I trust they will be suitably punished, if not in this life, then in the next. You do sound a wee bit testy, but no one has ever accused you of committing synecdoche (I hear it can lead to severe acne). I am glad we now have a definitive treatment of science, free of any confusing disagreements. Please let me know when everyone is up to speed.

Bruce

Bruce

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt Aug 1, 2010 1311 MDT]

So the 1980s reference was just a pot shot at Reagan and Thatcher

and had nothing to do with the banking deregulation. Still it
wasn’t just the US and UK banks that were able to load up on risky
assets, the European banks did too, which political figures
deregulated them?

BTW, regulation can have its unintended consequences as well.

Speaking of Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve had its role in the

financial bubble as well, after lowering interest rates in response
to 9/11, it kept them low longer than it should have because it
didn’t want to be accused of influencing the elections. When it
finally did start raising interest rates, it precipitated the
collapse.

More technically basis of the MONEY system is the relationship

between Debtors and Creditors (lenders and borrowers). Trillions of
dollars (and probably Euros as well) disappeared during the collapse
and the federal reserve had no way to replace the money and prevent
the crisis from spreading to main street, because neither bankers
nor borrowers wanted to create more debt in the face of a recession.

I know this is a bit redistributionist and populist (recall the

veterans bonus movement), but under the current system the owners of
the fiat money system are the fractional reserve banks, if instead,
the people owned it and the federal reserve could directly deposit
the newly created money with the people, the spread of the crisis
could have been averted. The key to the analysis is to figure out
who gets the benefit of newly created money. There is no reason to
prefer the banks, bondholders and government over the people.

regards,

      Martin L.

···

On 8/1/2010 5:24 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.01.23.05NZT)

Martin

          A

great read on the historical stuff is
Niall Ferguson’s, Ascent of Money, Stiglitz’s Freefall and
if you
want to go back a bit (1918 to 1945) the Lords of Finance
is very good and also
The Creature from Jekyll Island. The Creature is an
interesting read if you
like an unashamed political stand point with a dollop of
conspiracy theory.
Stiglitz is left Creature is right from the political
standpoint.

          The

1980’s was the start of the
deregulation in both the USA and UK, Thatcher and Reagan both set out on
this path.

          The

basis of the economic system is the relationship
between Debtors and Creditors (lenders and borrowers) it’s
an asymmetrical
relationship, damage this and the entire system melts
down. That’s what all
these fancy instruments did.

Regards

Gavin

          BTW,  How is the

deregulation of the 1980s relevant, the banking
deregulation occurred in Clinton’s
second term. Did Europe deregulate their banks earlier? When
were
they allowed to participate in these kinds of instruments?

      regards,
           Martin L

      On 8/1/2010 1:36 AM, Martin Lewitt wrote:

[ Martiin Lewitt Aug
1, 2010 0135 MDT]
Sometimes there are unintended consequences. The Bush
administration
attempted to resolve the quasi governmental status of FANNIE
and FREDDIE by
either regulating them or making it clear that the did not
have the government
imprimatur. However, no-one was willing to expend much
political capital
on it while things seemed to be going swimmingly. Sub-prime
mortgages were made possible because FANNIE and FREDDIE were
willing to
purchase them and had access to capital at no risk government
rates. The
deregulation merely allowed the banks to take on the risk, but
the risk would
have been taken on by other institutions and individuals if
the banks hadn’t,
because FANNIE and FREDDIE were not real for profit
institutions but political
instruments of social policy.

      regards,
           Martin L

      On 8/1/2010 12:13 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

          (Gavin

Ritz 2010.01.08.18.09NZT)

Martin

          The

removal of restrictions did actually bring innovation
(sub-prime mortgages, credit default swaps, and
securitization) only these were
greedy and reckless based instruments. Just not what was
intended by removal of
regulations.

Regards

Gavin

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.08.15.44NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.01.0950)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.08.17.14NZT)

What we are trying to achieve by this Martin is setting up a PCT model for
economic behavior as per Rick’s
suggestion.

This isn’t quite what I had in mind. I thought the
idea was to find

some behavioral data, collected in the context of the
conventional

causal model, and then evaluate it from the point of
view of PCT. But

I see that CSGNet has moved completely away from its
original focus on

the science of behavior to the other “s” word
approaches to

undertstanding behavior: sarcasm, sophistry and
synecdoche. I look

forward to the time when we get back to science, if
ever. What I mean

by “science”, by the way, is the approach to
understanding behavior

described in:

Rick

Are you telling me that there
is no such thing as a fear (as an inner standard)? Why don’t you
name potential controlled variables as many as you can that could be
potentially associated with a fear any fear.

If you are so fixated on
science can you show me one proof of the term “sensations” in science
its mathematical equivalent and how specifically you can measure this.

I think you are scared
to venture up the HPCT levels because you know that PCT cannot explain anything
there, where you stand now.

Be brave not scared. You
are hugely frightened of so many things. And use attack to cover your fears.

And you’ve been
doing it so long. You really must be tired of it by now.

Regards

Gavin

···

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.02.08.16.06NZT)

[ Shannon Williams
August 1, 2010 7:40 am]

Shannon

My understanding was Rick was going to create the
model, I have supplied potential internal standards he can now provide potential
controlled variables. And how we could potential model this with data.

Then we all could have gone away to find
data, numbers or whatever Qualitative data to see if a PCT model made any sense.

Rick has just had one of his normal responses.

Interesting Gavin.

So you are saying that
the econonmic model can be simplifiied to the following variables:

I’m saying that all of those are potential
reference signals at a very high level in HPCT. How do we actually measure this
I don’t Know?

I have identified 3 internal standards

·
Innovations (fear of restrictions and freedom)

·
Greed and avarice ( fear of poverty)

·
Reward (fear of loss)

Some
environmental variables.

·
Fees and bonuses

·
Removal of regulations and restrictions

I definitely agree that
it should be as simple as this. I am not sure that
the standards/variables in the end will have words such as these that you
give. For instance, I do not see the difference in modelling
fear of loss, fear of poverty, and fear of restrictions.

I do because I think each of these internal
standards do have specific controlled variables associated with them.

How are you
thinking to model these standards/ environmental variables?

Well Rick was suppose to come up with potential
controlled variables any controlled variables, so we can get some numbers and
start points for collection of data.

Thanks for sharing.

Shannon

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.01.2220)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.02.08.15.44NZT)

Rick Marken (2010.08.01.0950)

This isn't quite what I had in mind. I thought the idea was to find
some behavioral data, collected in the context of the conventional
causal model, and then evaluate it from the point of view of PCT.

Are you telling me that there is no such thing as a fear (as an inner
standard)?

No, I'm telling you that you didn't present the kind of behavioral
data that I thought you were going to present.

Why don�t you name potential controlled variables as many as you
can that could be potentially associated with a fear any fear.

I don't know why you want me do do such a strange thing. But I'll name
a few, though not as many as I can; I've got to get my beauty rest:

pain, reference = 0
height, reference = <1 meter above ground
growling dog, reference = safe distance
bear, reference = safe distance
right-winger, reference = safe distance
left winger, reference = meet only at folk music concert

If you are so fixated on science can you show me one proof of
the term �sensations� in science its mathematical equivalent and
how specifically you can measure this.

My understanding is that there is no "proof" in science. Proof is
deductive; science is inductive. "Sensations" are part of a theory --
PCT; they are one theoretical type of perception. We don't prove
theories; we test them against data. At least, that's my understanding
of "science" and that's why PCT appealed to me. It is the epitome of
science; a nice, clear model that can be tested in nice, clear
experiments.

I think you are scared to venture up the HPCT levels because you
know that PCT cannot explain anything there, where you stand now.

I've actually ventured up the HPCT levels experimentally (see
http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/HP.html for one example) and
phenomenologically, using the method of levels. Venturing up the PCT
hierarchy is one of the few things I'm not scared of.

Be brave not scared.

I'll try. With you and Bruce encouraging me I don't see why I
shouldn't become courageous and brave any day now.

And you�ve been doing it so long. You really must be tired of it by
now.

Exhausted.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.02.17.54NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.01.2220)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.02.08.15.44NZT)

Rick Marken
(2010.08.01.0950)

This isn’t quite what I had in mind. I
thought the idea was to find

some behavioral data, collected in the
context of the conventional

causal model, and then evaluate it from the
point of view of PCT.

Are you telling me that there is no such thing as
a fear (as an inner

standard)?

No, I’m telling you that you didn’t present the kind
of behavioral

data that I thought you were going to present.

But Rick you
never told me what type of data you wanted. I’m looking for internal standards.
There is no data that has been collected in the so called conventional sense. What
does that mean in terms of economics? Rick no
one has the foggiest of why humans created the financial mess they are in, it’s
all guesswork.

Why don’t you name potential controlled
variables as many as you

can that could be potentially associated with a
fear any fear.

I don’t know why you want me do do such a strange
thing. But I’ll name

a few, though not as many as I can; I’ve got to get my
beauty rest:

pain, reference = 0

You obviously haven’t
heard of CRIPS. (I’m joking)

height, reference = <1 meter above ground

growling dog, reference = safe distance

bear, reference = safe distance

right-winger, reference = safe distance

left winger, reference = meet only at folk music
concert

This won’t help at all;
you know the controlled variables could be associated with inner standards in relation
to economic concepts. Be innovative. Choose 50 potentially appropriate ones.

If you are so fixated on science can you show me
one proof of

the term “sensations” in
science its mathematical equivalent and

how specifically you can measure this.

My understanding is that there is no “proof”
in science. Proof is

deductive; science is inductive.

Your understanding many
not be correct. Science is both a bottom up and top down discipline. It developed
over 100’s of years in both manners. At many levels of abstraction in science
there are very definitely proofs.

“Sensations” are part of a theory –

PCT; they are one theoretical type of perception. We
don’t prove

theories; we test them against data. At least, that’s
my understanding

of “science” and that’s why PCT appealed to
me. It is the epitome of

science; a nice, clear model that can be tested in
nice, clear

experiments.

Okay, show me the
deductive model of “sensations” no rather “principles” and
the data collected and tested against.

I think you are scared to venture up the HPCT
levels because you

know that PCT cannot explain anything there, where
you stand now.

I’ve actually ventured up the HPCT levels
experimentally (see

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/HP.html for
one example) and

phenomenologically, using the method of levels. Venturing
up the PCT

hierarchy is one of the few things I’m not scared of.

Great, so, how well does
it model the link between man and the economic system?

Regards

Gavin

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers *2010.08.02.0312 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.08.02.17.54NZT)--

I think there's still some confusion about what a reference signal is in PCT. A reference signal is just a signal. Here is an example: 4 impulses per second. That is a reference signal with a magnitude of 4. By itself it means nothing.

The question one wants to ask, of course, is 4 WHATS? So what determines the units in which a reference signal will be measured? The answer is: the perceptual input function that supplies the perceptual signal being compared with the reference signal.

Not the perceptual signal? No, not the perceptual signal, either. The perceptual signal, too, is just a signal, like this: 3.8 impulses per second (with the reference signal magnitude being 4, that means we have an error signal of 0.2 impulses per second).

It's the perceptual input function itself that determines the units in which the perceptual signal and the reference signal and the error signal are measured. If you don't know what the perceptual input function is computing, you can't say what those signals represent. All neural signals are alike.

So to define a reference signal as "fear" simply shows a misunderstanding of the model. Fear, as experienced, is a perception, not a reference signal. It is created by a perceptual input function that receives signals representing physiological sensations and uncontrolled and behaviorally controlled perceptions, imagined and real. When the right pattern of those inputs is present, the output of the perceptual input function becomes nonzero, and we say we are experiencing some degree of fear or some other emotion with similar components.

And how does the reference signal relate to this signal magnitude? That depends on the context. If, for example, the emotion has arisen because of some set of perceptions we wish to avoid, the reference signal might be set to 0 or some very small magnitude. On the other hand, if we're going on a roller coaster for fun, the reference signal might be set to 4, or 40, or 400 impulses per second. We want to experience a lot of this perception, which at higher levels we would probably now call "thrill" or "excitement" instead of "fear." The sensations are the same but the goal is different, so we give the emotional pattern a different name. If we want a lot of it, we give it a good name like "pleasure"; if we want very little or none of it, we give it a bad name like "pain."

This is all patterned after the way an analog computer works. The meanings of the signals in an electronic analog computer, which are all voltages, can be understood only if the computing functions that transform one set of signals into another signal are understood. The user of the analog computer has to keep a list of the terminals where voltages can be measured, with notations saying what each voltage represents: " force," "velocity," "acceleration," or "jerk", or perhaps "price," "cost", or "profit." Without that list, the user would see only the voltmeter reading which shows how much of something is present, but not what it is. The voltmeter can show only volts.

The only way neurologists have of knowing what an afferent (incoming) signal in a particular pathway of the brain means is to ask the person whose brain it is. "Do you see something now?" "No, but my wrist just started itching." All other ways are indirect and unreliable. All neural signals are alike. One can find correlates of neural signals in externally visible variables, but what it is about those variables that the signals represent can't be determined by simple measurement. There's nothing about the signal itself, or the action that follows it, that offers a clue.

This is why it's hard to model the higher systems. The PCT model works at a level close to the "machine language" of the brain, which means we have to guess at the general kind of perceptual computation that goes on in any given control task. At the levels of intensities and sensations, it's relatively easy: weighted sums seem sufficient to explain the perceptual signals at these levels. We can do a few other levels here and there, but with no assurance that the concept of what is being controlled is correct. No research has been done on the levels outside of Marken's few experiments. It certainly hasn't been done anywhere else in the world, or the history, of psychology.

All existing concepts of how behavior works (other than PCT) are concerned with the informational contents of the brain as human beings experience them. The experiences themselves, of both subject and experimenter, are taken as simple reports about reality, with almost no attempt to explore the kinds of organization needed to give rise to such experiences. The common language of theory in the behavioral sciences relies on undefined terms which everybody is supposed to understand; occasionally there are complicated mathematical statements to give appearance of rigor, but what the mathematics is about is simply more undefined concepts.

We are all feeling our way and the task is difficult to the brink of impossibility. PCT takes us onto a different playing field where more progress can be made, but it's still limited and far from the final answer to all questions. All the other approaches I know about, on the other hand, are far more limited, which is why I see no point in continuing them.

Best,

Bill P.

[BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.03.9.40NZT)

[From Bill Powers
*2010.08.02.0312 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz
2010.08.02.17.54NZT)–

I still don’t see
why there cannot be a reference signal (a number) related a very particular
pattern called fear of restriction (freedom). But you say there can’t so
I will have to accept that.

This is why it’s hard to model the higher systems. The
PCT model

works at a level close to the “machine
language” of the brain, which

means we have to guess at the general kind of
perceptual computation

that goes on in any given control task. At the levels
of intensities

and sensations, it’s relatively easy: weighted sums
seem sufficient

to explain the perceptual signals at these levels. We
can do a few

other levels here and there, but with no assurance
that the concept

of what is being controlled is correct. No research
has been done on

the levels outside of Marken’s few experiments. It certainly hasn’t

been done anywhere else in the world, or the history,
of psychology.

That’s because any
such model one is trying to build like PCT is built on numbers. Numbers
according the very basic maxim of mathematics (Peano’s Axiom) cannot have
any quality attached it’s just a sequence created for counting and in a
very particular pattern. If you don’t believe me read Peano’s Axioms
you may well be shocked to see what you find, it’s the very foundation of
our numbering system.

So what one is trying to
do is create a “Picasso”
out of “5 stones”. It just cannot be done, it never will be done. The
human being will have to raise their consciousness to a whole other level.

You created the higher
levels of HPCT because at some level you must know this problem is endemic in
our disciplines. In short the Picasso is
the higher levels of HPCT and the 5 stones are your electrical signals.

All existing concepts of how behavior works (other
than PCT) are

concerned with the informational contents of the brain
as human

beings experience them. The experiences themselves, of
both subject

and experimenter, are taken as simple reports about reality, with

almost no attempt to explore the kinds of organization
needed to give

rise to such experiences.

Yes I’m aware of
this and there’s a very good reason for that, the one I mention above.

The common language of theory in the

behavioral sciences relies on undefined terms which
everybody is

supposed to understand; occasionally there are
complicated

mathematical statements to give appearance of rigor,
but what the

mathematics is about is simply more undefined
concepts.

We are all feeling our way and the task is difficult
to the brink of

impossibility.

My point exactly.

PCT takes us onto a different playing field where more

progress can be made, but it’s still limited and far
from the final

answer to all questions.

We have already hit the
limits of PCT.

I’m trying hard. I
re-read your articles and books many times.

All the other approaches I know about, on

the other hand, are far more limited, which is why I
see no point in

continuing them.

This is not entirely
true, I can synchronise a higher level concept using action research in an organisational
sense, not even coming near PCT. And I do so regularly.

I don’t care for
psychology or input-output type models and I don’t need PCT for this type
of work. What I do is paint pictures of concepts to focus minds on hidden
strategic concepts. So I must be focusing in on shared perceptual inputs and internal
standards. I compare the concept to going into a dark cave with small flashlight
and slowly illuminate and reveal the walls of cave paintings.

However I am very interested
in reconciling PCT with this somehow.

Product “Criteria”
always seem to converge on inner “Values”, so how does this work
then.

Regards

Gavin

···

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.02.2100)]

Gavin Ritz (2010.08.02.17.54NZT)

GR: But Rick you never told me what type of data you wanted.

RM: Sorry. I thought that since Bruce G. was talking about social
psychology and behavioral economics experiments that you would
understand that it was data from those kinds of experiments that was
wanted.

RM:My understanding is that there is no "proof" in science. Proof is
deductive; science is inductive.

GR: Your understanding many not be correct. Science is both a bottom up
and top down discipline. It developed over 100�s of years in both manners.
At many levels of abstraction in science there are very definitely proofs.

RM: I'm sure there are proofs of derivations of the models of science.
But what's important to me about science is that these models are then
tested against observation. It's possible to develop a model that is
deductively correct (like Newton's laws of motion) but that turns out
to be inductively incorrect, because if doesn't account for certain
observations (eg., Michelson-Morley, transit of Mercury).

Okay, show me the deductive model of �sensations� no rather �principles�
and the data collected and tested against.

I gave you a reading list. I suggest starting with B:CP. But the Psych
Review article is what I found most useful.

Great, so, how well does it model the link between man and the economic
system?

I've taken various stabs at linking PCT to the economic system. The
basic idea is that economics is control writ large; it's the
collective (and cooperative) control of input (goods and services) by
groups of individuals. You can take a look at some of my economic
stuff at Economics Research. I was also going
to maintain a blog based on my economic explorations but real life
intervened so I stopped. But you can look at what little there is
there; the URL is http://rsmarken.blogspot.com/. It's not all
explicitly based on PCT; but PCT is sitting there in the background.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Bruce_Gregory2]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.0646 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers *2010.08.02.0312 MDT)]

All existing concepts of how behavior works (other than PCT) are concerned with the informational contents of the brain as human beings experience them. The experiences themselves, of both subject and experimenter, are taken as simple reports about reality, with almost no attempt to explore the kinds of organization needed to give rise to such experiences. The common language of theory in the behavioral sciences relies on undefined terms which everybody is supposed to understand; occasionally there are complicated mathematical statements to give appearance of rigor, but what the mathematics is about is simply more undefined concepts.

BG: I think this should be featured on the CSGnet website. I would provide a fair warning to visitors as to what they were letting themselves in for. I wish I had seen it a decade ago. It might have saved me and you a great deal of aggravation, not to mention wasted time.

Bruce

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.03.0556 MDT)]
Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.0646 EDT) –
BG: I think this should be featured on the CSGnet website. I[t] would
provide a fair warning to visitors as to what they were letting
themselves in for. I wish I had seen it a decade ago. It might have saved
me and you a great deal of aggravation, not to mention wasted time.
BP: How do you manage so consistently to make comments like these so they
completely conceal what your actual opinion is? Do you mean that visitors
might find something that would make everything on CSGnet clearer and
more useful, or that that they would be warned away from some awful
nonsense before wasting time on it? Does what I wrote lead you to find
PCT more acceptable, or less?
An analogy to what I said can be found in the world of computers. You
can’t understand how a computer works just by watching it run programs. A
computer doesn’t work by making pictures move on its screen or
calculating square roots or generating stock market tables or putting
letters on the screen when a user types on the keyboard. Its underlying
organization makes such things possible, as well as an infinity of other
things it might do, but none of those actions or symptoms is anything but
a result of the real activities in the computer, which are exactly
the same in all computers of the same general type no matter what program
is running.

PCT is about the underlying organization of the brain which is the same
no matter what specific behavior we see it carrying out or what specific
stimuli we happen to see it responding to (apparently). The explanations
of behavior PCT offers don’t depend on what behavior is being observed;
they apply to every kind of behavior from simple to complex, concrete to
abstract. Any behavior can be a useful example of a control system in
operation. Specific behaviors are of theoretical interest only to the
extent that they test some part of the underlying model or illustrate
some principle of control.

Applications are a different story. There, the specific programs running
on the computer, the specific anxieties, neuroses, habits good or bad,
and adjustments to past experiences, are the central topic. PCT enters
only by way of suggesting the underlying organization that is functioning
or malfunctioning to create and sustain these ephemeral phenomena. The
specific problem is of no interest to the theoretician; which transistor
has burned out, which resistor has changed its value, which wire is in
the wrong place, is of only passing interest because all problems will
turn out to be caused in some such way, or by bad information, or by an
unlucky reorganization. Whichever one it is, PCT can help us track it
down, and that is where the practitioner finds PCT useful. To the
theoretician, it would be surprising and even illuminating if the theory
failed to guide the practititioner to the real problem, but that is the
only theoretical interest in any specific problem. The theory is expected
to lead to the source of the problem if it’s right. But finding yet
another example in which the theory proved right is not very useful. It’s
much more fruitful to find examples where the theory predicts
incorrectly.

Oh, well. I suppose all that just shows that you were right. And now
you’ll think that I think the brain is a computer. Can’t win.

Best,

Bill P.